Brummie Cabbie wrote:
captain cab wrote:
I think this one needs clarified; point 8
I make the declaration by consent in the terms sought, namely that:
"A private hire vehicle operator is not precluded from using Hackney Carriages for a private hiring."
Agreed, but surely, although not clarified in that statement, it is meant to mean within the LA in which the Hackney is licensed.
Otherwise chaos will reign after 17th September.
Hackney carriages have their own independent legislation as was pointed out in Gladen.
The 1976 act specifically excludes London Cabs and hackney carriages from the relevant section of private hire plying for hire. That being Section 46.
The fact of the matter, is that nothing has changed since 1847 and the 1976 act is meaningless as far as hackney carriage drivers are concerned except for the few specific references contained in the act.
People talk as though hackney carriage drivers are operating a loophole when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. It is the new kids on the block who have never realised that the hackney carriage trade has never changed its spots since 1847 and it is only by virtue of the fact that their incorrect interpretation of the law has brought about this fiasco.
If the court does decide to clarify Gladen then all well and good but I suspect the issue will inevitably have to be decided sooner or later in the House of Lords?
The real issue is
enforcement because it doesn't really matter how many vehicles from Berwick descend on Newcastle the problem of illegal plying for hire will not go away, either in Newcastle or anywhere else.
The focus should be on enforcement because those doing the enforcing have proved year after year that they are not up to the job. The only solution therefore is to rethink the whole concept of enforcing and set up a complete new body that will enforce the problem of illegal plying for hire throughout the country with vigour and determination. The outcome of this court case will be totally irrelevant to those who are determined to carry on flouting the law of illegal plying for hire.
If anyone thinks this case will miracuously cure the illegal activity in Newcastle, London, Manchester. Liverpool, Leeds, Birmingham and every other city and town in the country they are sadly mistaken.
The problem is obvious and it all comes down to enforcement, the cab trade should have addressed this problem years ago but it has been too preoccupied with quantity controls.
If the taxi trade is to exorcise itself from its past failings and move forward into the modern world then it really has to take a deep breath and a step backwards and consider the reality of what needs to be achieved?
Rushing into changes that do nothing to address the real problem of illegal plying for hire is ridiculous and naive.
When you read the minutes of this mindless bunch it is obvious that they are being lead by people who have a single minded agenda and have never had the hackney carriage trade as their number one priority.
To adopt a section of the London private hire act without full consideration of what is actually required by the combined taxi and private hire trade or whether it meets all their requirements and whether or not it should be improved upon and extended, is a dereliction of common sense.
I honestly can't believe that people are trying to adopt something without considering whether or not it can be improved upon?
I'm afraid this court case albeit interesting from a legal standpoint will do absolutely nothing to curb illegal plying for hire, if I thought it would I would be the first to say so but being a realist I can assure you it won't.
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
and don't really want now so we gave you devolution? 
