The time when Sevenoaks realised that they couldn't regulate hackney carriage drivers by way of conditions. Something which they would dearly love to do, as would every other council.
...................................................
1) When this Council first adopted the provisions of Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 on 5th July 1988 the areas subject to the existing taxi licensing provisions covering just Sevenoaks Town were extended to cover the whole of the District. At this time byelaws were in existence to regulate such licensing and it was resolved such byelaws should also be extended to cover the whole of the District.
(2) No such action was taken. Like a number of councils in the Country it was considered by Council Solicitors at the time that regulation of hackney carriage vehicles and drivers could be carried out by attaching conditions to the licences issued.
(3) The case of Wathan –v- Neath & Port Talbot County Borough Council (2002) in the QBD Administrative Court held that hackney carriage drivers could not be regulated by conditions but only by byelaws made by the Licensing Authority. Conditions attached to the other four licences issued for hackney carriage and private hire licensing are not affected.
(4) The need to have bylaws adopted has been part of the standardization programme between the District Council, Tonbridge & Malling and Tunbridge Wells Borough Councils. Officers have reviewed the model byelaws supplied by the Department of Transport and asked the ‘Taxi’ Branch at the Department to consider updating them in relation to such matters as drivers being required to report changes in their medical conditions, driving licence endorsements or whether they have been subject to a police enquiry, arrest or summons. We have been informed by the “Taxi” Branch that this would be ‘ultra vires’.
(5) The Department of Transport are extremely reluctant to allow any change to the model byelaws provided although they have agreed that a byelaw prohibiting smoking by drivers without a passenger’s permission could be allowed. (Byelaw 
. In addition Officers from the Councils reviewing the matter considered that the byelaw relating to a reward given to a driver for the return to the Council of lost property (Byelaw 18(b)) gave inadequate reward figures.
(6) The model byelaws provided five pence in the pound of the estimated value of the lost property or the fare from the place of finding to the Council whichever is the greater, but not more than five pounds. It should be noted that for a driver to return property to the Council from Swanley, would by distance on the vehicle’s meter bring about a fare of £40-£45. Consequently the Department of Transport Taxi Branch have agreed to the values proposed and shown in the byelaws appended, ten pence in the pound and twenty five pounds respectively; stating that the public will determine the acceptability of this as the byelaws have to be subject to public notice.
(7) The cost involved in the implementation, making and confirming the byelaws is contained within the existing taxi budget of £30,620 and the Corporate Budget where yearly provision has been made for the publication of all public notices in the local press.
(8) If approved by Council then the byelaws can be subject to the statutory requirements to have them made and confirmed by Government.
............................................
Login
Register
FAQ
