Quote:
My only reservation (& I’m pretty sure that others on the forum will have a few more), is that the DfT may not have the legal authority to impose a mandatory clause in bye-laws.
That's the bit.. 
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Berwick Issue; Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut Perhaps? http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9197 |
Page 1 of 11 |
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Berwick Issue; Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut Perhaps? |
The Berwick Issue; A Sledge Hammer to Crack a Nut Perhaps? I have given this issue a great deal of thought over the last few weeks & I am posting my views on a possible ‘cure’ for the Berwick issue with the full & expectant knowledge that I am very likely to be 'shot down in flames' by many of the ‘learned’ members of this forum; but then I do have thick skin. I have always looked at simply remedies to try to resolve problems, whilst the world around me thinks of the more ‘belt & braces’ resolutions to various issues. So, could the remedy to the Berwick problem be as follows; • Conditions of Licence for Hackney Carriages are by way of bye-laws adopted by the Local Authority, unlike for Private Hire Vehicles which are by Conditions of Licence as laid down by the Local Authority, without the need for bye-laws. • All Hackney Carriages licensed under the TPC 1847 are therefore also further governed by Local Authority bye-laws. • All draft Hackney Carriage bye-laws must be initially submitted to the DfT for approval by their lawyers, before being officially adopted by a Local Authority, usually at a full council meeting. • The DfT have draft or model Hackney Carriage bye-laws, which Local Authorities work from. I just wonder if it could be possible for the DfT to take the lead on this issue and draft an appropriate bye-law clause to cover the Berwick issue problem & then instruct or mandate every LA to adopt this further clause in their bye-laws. A bye-law, which would be DfT mandatory on all LAs, with the following or similar wording might suffice; ‘Hackney Carriages shall not be hired or engaged if the hiring or engagement originates from, or is supplied by, any dispatch system whose operations address or base is not in the Licensing Authority area in which the Hackney Carriage is licensed.’ This wording or similar (the wording may need tweaking), would IMO address the cross-border issue as at Berwick/Newcastle, whilst still leaving the status quo for Hackney Carriages to work on dispatch systems in their own LAs. My only reservation (& I’m pretty sure that others on the forum will have a few more), is that the DfT may not have the legal authority to impose a mandatory clause in bye-laws. Those are my thoughts. NOW ….. shoot! But please be gentle & try not to hit me in the middle of the chest or right between the eyes! |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: My only reservation (& I’m pretty sure that others on the forum will have a few more), is that the DfT may not have the legal authority to impose a mandatory clause in bye-laws. That's the bit..
|
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: Quote: My only reservation (& I’m pretty sure that others on the forum will have a few more), is that the DfT may not have the legal authority to impose a mandatory clause in bye-laws. That's the bit.. Yet, I believe that the DfT do insist on a minimum requirement of those clauses that are in their model bye-laws, being in all bye-laws adopted by LAs. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: MR T wrote: Quote: My only reservation (& I’m pretty sure that others on the forum will have a few more), is that the DfT may not have the legal authority to impose a mandatory clause in bye-laws. That's the bit.. Yet, I believe that the DfT do insist on a minimum requirement of those clauses that are in their model bye-laws, being in all bye-laws adopted by LAs. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If my memory serves me well Berwick do have loads of conditions that should stop their hackneys working Newcastle, but their legal advice is/was they can't enforce their conditions/bylaws outside of their district. 
Roll on next month. For what it's worth my money is on Berwick. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: If my memory serves me well Berwick do have loads of conditions that should stop their hackneys working Newcastle, but their legal advice is/was they can't enforce their conditions/bylaws outside of their district.
Roll on next month. For what it's worth my money is on Berwick. My money is on Berwick too. So, if a bye-law is in place for Berwick Hackney Carriages that would prevent this, & a good, clean copy of the bye-laws has to be carried & available at all times in a Hackney Carriage (which is one of the clauses in the bye-laws), then what is stopping a police constable in Newcastle asking a Bewrick Hackney Carriage driver operating in Newcastle on a dispatch circuit to produce his good, clean copy of the bye-laws & do him for transgressing them? |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: Sussex wrote: If my memory serves me well Berwick do have loads of conditions that should stop their hackneys working Newcastle, but their legal advice is/was they can't enforce their conditions/bylaws outside of their district. Roll on next month. For what it's worth my money is on Berwick. My money is on Berwick too. So, if a bye-law is in place for Berwick Hackney Carriages that would prevent this, & a good, clean copy of the bye-laws has to be carried & available at all times in a Hackney Carriage (which is one of the clauses in the bye-laws), then what is stopping a police constable in Newcastle asking a Bewrick Hackney Carriage driver operating in Newcastle on a dispatch circuit to produce his good, clean copy of the bye-laws & do him for transgressing them? |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 9:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now tell me what is wrong with my next statement.... Berwick enforcement officers have a van, which they use in other areas to stop and check licensed Berwick Hackney's. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
you can well understand Newcastle being pi**ed off... Berwick Hackney's working on a private hire radio system that is based in another area.... not Newcastle..... but working Newcastle... |
|
| Author: | toots [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Excuse my ignorance but can someboby explain what the problem is here apart from the obvious of HC yet again working PH systems |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: Sussex wrote: If my memory serves me well Berwick do have loads of conditions that should stop their hackneys working Newcastle, but their legal advice is/was they can't enforce their conditions/bylaws outside of their district. Roll on next month. For what it's worth my money is on Berwick. My money is on Berwick too. So, if a bye-law is in place for Berwick Hackney Carriages that would prevent this, & a good, clean copy of the bye-laws has to be carried & available at all times in a Hackney Carriage (which is one of the clauses in the bye-laws), then what is stopping a police constable in Newcastle asking a Bewrick Hackney Carriage driver operating in Newcastle on a dispatch circuit to produce his good, clean copy of the bye-laws & do him for transgressing them? I will ask you a question... who has authority over by-laws.... the council that issues them...... another council... or the police. In our manor the police certainly believe that they can prosecute under bye-laws, & obviously the enforcement officers of our LA. But to answer your question more thoroughly, it is my view that bye-laws are not regional; otherwise they could only be enforced in the LA that they were adopted in & that doesn't make too much sense. Let's not forget that the cab trade is probably one of the few trades that have bye-laws where the trading is of a mobile nature which takes the place of business all over the country. most other bye-laws relate to businesses or places that are staionary or semi-stationary. So, my view is that bye-laws should be enforeceable by any police constable wherever & also by an enforcement officer from the issuing LA witnessing a transgression outside his own LA. |
|
| Author: | Tulsablue [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: ‘Hackney Carriages shall not be hired or engaged if the hiring or engagement originates from, or is supplied by, any dispatch system whose operations address or base is not in the Licensing Authority area in which the Hackney Carriage is licensed.’
What if the cross border pick up or office is only 100yds over the border, or 1 mile or 2 mile etc. In my area I am only 1mile 256 yds from the boundary but 7miles 527yds from the "post office" and council licence office. I regularly work in the adjoining LA and cars from there work in my area as my village is more affiliated with that LA than the one which acutally licences me, the boundary is just some line on a map. If you change the rules in the way you suggest I think you will just give a monopoly to someone else and create a system that the public would find even harder to understand than the "difference???" between PH and HC which to the public there is no difference they are both taxis |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: Now tell me what is wrong with my next statement.... Berwick enforcement officers have a van, which they use in other areas to stop and check licensed Berwick Hackney's.
I am aware that Berwick enforcement officers use a van outside their LA & I believe it has some nice flashing lights too. Stopping & checking Berwick licensed Hackneys outside their own LA sounds a bit 'iffy'. But observing transgressions by Berwick Hackneys & then acting upon corroborated evidence (by a second enforcement officer) on the following working day, would seem OK. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
By-laws are regional.... the police prosecute criminal offences and motoring offences... not civil offences... and the council can only enforce an act if it has adopted it.... or whether something becomes national.... councils apply for by-laws and somehow or other I don't think Berwick will be... |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: MR T wrote: Now tell me what is wrong with my next statement.... Berwick enforcement officers have a van, which they use in other areas to stop and check licensed Berwick Hackney's. I am aware that Berwick enforcement officers use a van outside their LA & I believe it has some nice flashing lights too. Stopping & checking Berwick licensed Hackneys outside their own LA sounds a bit 'iffy'. But observing transgressions by Berwick Hackneys & then acting upon corroborated evidence (by a second enforcement officer) on the following working day, would seem OK. |
|
| Page 1 of 11 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|