Displaying PH Licence and Touting

Tulsablue · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:23 pm

Would displaying and handing out cards at the local supermarket for "future" bookings be seen as touting (with permission of the store).

Tulsablue · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:30 pm

Just checked the detail on my PH driver licence conditions.

Identification of Driver

The driver of a private hire vehicle shall at all times whilst in the course of his duty wear his private hire drivers' badge in such a position and manner as to be plainly visible and this badge must be shown, if requested to the hirer of the vehicle and to any "authorised officer" or police officer for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

So if not on duty, no need to wear the badge

Sussex · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:37 pm

Tulsablue wrote:

Would displaying and handing out cards at the local supermarket for "future" bookings be seen as touting (with permission of the store).

No.

Fae Fife · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:35 pm

Tulsablue wrote:

The driver of a private hire vehicle shall at all times whilst in the course of his duty wear his private hire drivers' badge in such a position and manner as to be plainly visible and this badge must be shown, if requested to the hirer of the vehicle and to any "authorised officer" or police officer for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

I've always wondered how wearing the badge can make it 'plainly visible', at least when the driver is at the wheel.

Our rules just say that it should be on display (at least the last time I looked!) so I have mine fixed to the dashboard, where it's a lot easier to see than if I wear it, IMHO.

captain cab · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:38 pm

Fae Fife wrote:

Tulsablue wrote:

The driver of a private hire vehicle shall at all times whilst in the course of his duty wear his private hire drivers' badge in such a position and manner as to be plainly visible and this badge must be shown, if requested to the hirer of the vehicle and to any "authorised officer" or police officer for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

I've always wondered how wearing the badge can make it 'plainly visible', at least when the driver is at the wheel.

Our rules just say that it should be on display (at least the last time I looked!) so I have mine fixed to the dashboard, where it's a lot easier to see than if I wear it, IMHO.

Likewise

CC

cabbyman · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:43 pm

Mine is slotted in between the roof and the [inside] roof light surround. It is permanently on display but you've got to look up to see it. Been like that for nine years even with the LO in the car for meter calibration, etc. :oops:

gusmac · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:46 pm

Fae Fife wrote:

Tulsablue wrote:

The driver of a private hire vehicle shall at all times whilst in the course of his duty wear his private hire drivers' badge in such a position and manner as to be plainly visible and this badge must be shown, if requested to the hirer of the vehicle and to any "authorised officer" or police officer for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

I've always wondered how wearing the badge can make it 'plainly visible', at least when the driver is at the wheel.

Our rules just say that it should be on display (at least the last time I looked!) so I have mine fixed to the dashboard, where it's a lot easier to see than if I wear it, IMHO.

We are issued with 2. One goes on the dash and the other must be worn.

captain cab · **Posted:** Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:07 pm

JD wrote:

captain cab wrote:

I think I disagree with you on the first point JD.

The vehicle is always a licensed vehicle and therefore the answer must surely be that the driver must wear the badge.

And the guy shouldnt have a hire light if he's a PHV?

I do agree with your second point though :shock:

CC

The nearest thing we have in respect of case law is probably the Hussain case. I don't know how many people share your opinion about a private hire or hackney carriage driver having to wear their badge when they are driving for pleasure but I'm sure the Hussain case may solve a few misgivings.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4646

Regards

JD

Good case for an argument JD, seems to be a few holes?

CC

M4rcs · **Posted:** Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:06 pm

[quote="grandad"][quote="captain cab"]Hump ?

and here's me a nice catholic boy, perish the thought :lol:

CC[/quote]

If "nice catholic boys" don't hump, how come "nice catholic girls" have so many kids? :wink:

[/quote]

Protestant Boys!

toots · **Posted:** Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:20 pm

Fae Fife wrote:

Tulsablue wrote:

The driver of a private hire vehicle shall at all times whilst in the course of his duty wear his private hire drivers' badge in such a position and manner as to be plainly visible and this badge must be shown, if requested to the hirer of the vehicle and to any "authorised officer" or police officer for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976.

I've always wondered how wearing the badge can make it 'plainly visible', at least when the driver is at the wheel.

Our rules just say that it should be on display (at least the last time I looked!) so I have mine fixed to the dashboard, where it's a lot easier to see than if I wear it, IMHO.

We have to wear a badge and display a badge so it is clearly visable but I see your point about people not being able to see clearly if worn. Apart from which I think a picture of the back of head maybe more useful to the passengers as that is generally what they see, lol

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

captain cab wrote:

Good case for an argument JD, seems to be a few holes?

I suppose sooner or later a case will crop up where a driver will use the "not working excuse" as a reasonable explanation for not wearing their badge. In the meantime anyone caught not wearing their badge for whatever reason should consider whether or not that particular explanation is reasonable?

Regards

JD

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:05 pm

JD wrote:

captain cab wrote:

Good case for an argument JD, seems to be a few holes?

I suppose sooner or later a case will crop up where a driver will use the "not working excuse" as a reasonable explanation for not wearing their badge. In the meantime anyone caught not wearing their badge for whatever reason should consider whether or not that particular explanation is reasonable?

Regards

JD

Surely Benson and Boyce answered a few too :wink:

CC

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

captain cab wrote:

JD wrote:

captain cab wrote:

Good case for an argument JD, seems to be a few holes?

I suppose sooner or later a case will crop up where a driver will use the "not working excuse" as a reasonable explanation for not wearing their badge. In the meantime anyone caught not wearing their badge for whatever reason should consider whether or not that particular explanation is reasonable?

Regards

JD

Surely Benson and Boyce answered a few too :wink:

In this context the Benson case didn't resolve on whether or not a badge had to be worn at all times a private hire vehicle was being driven.

All it did, was confirm that for the purpose of licensing, the vehicle itself was always a private hire vehicle and that the person driving it had to hold a current private hire license.

The court was never asked to consider whether the driver had to display the badge at times when the vehicle was not being used for the purpose of private hire.

I wish it had, at least then we wouldn't have to seek clarification through the court of yet another legislative abnormality.

Regards

JD

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:29 pm

JD wrote:

captain cab wrote:

JD wrote:

captain cab wrote:

Good case for an argument JD, seems to be a few holes?

I suppose sooner or later a case will crop up where a driver will use the "not working excuse" as a reasonable explanation for not wearing their badge. In the meantime anyone caught not wearing their badge for whatever reason should consider whether or not that particular explanation is reasonable?

Regards

JD

Surely Benson and Boyce answered a few too :wink:

In this context the Benson case didn't resolve on whether or not a badge had to be worn at all times a private hire vehicle was being driven.

All it did, was confirm that for the purpose of licensing the vehicle itself was always a private hire vehicle and that the person driving it had to hold a current private hire license.

The court was never asked to consider whether the driver had to display the badge at times when the vehicle was not being used for the purpose of private hire.

I wish it had, at least then we wouldn't have to seek clarification through the court of yet another legislative abnormality.

Regards

JD

I know where your coming from but the judge wasnt going to say...and not only should the person be a licensed driver ....BUT he or she should be wearing a badge and charging a fare.

regards

CC

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

captain cab wrote:

I know where your coming from but the judge wasnt going to say...and not only should the person be a licensed driver ....BUT he or she should be wearing a badge and charging a fare.

And I know where you are coming from but considering the court were not posed with the question of whether or not a badge should be worn at all times then it is hardly surprising they didn't mention it.

My own opinion is that the question of displaying a badge is catered for in the conditions set by each individual licensing authority and as I have pointed out, the nearest we have come to addressing that situation is by way of the Hussain case.

I don't know the answer to the question and that is why I only offer an opinion. I believe under the circumstances that is all any of us can do until such time it is resolved.

Regards

JD

Taxi Driver Online

Displaying PH Licence and Touting

Who is online