regulation of hackney carriage drivers

charles007 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:07 pm

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

Sussex were can a copie or have you got in wirghting.

This year the CRB folks had a meeting with the London PH folks at the Houses of Parliament, organised by the GMB PDB.

Following the meeting two points were further clarified, and these points can be found on this thread by Alex.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... hp?t=11424

The questions asked came from a member of the GMB delegation, and the answers came from one of the CRB's top bods.

if that is the case and i am not saying its not, why would beg the question this a not been taken futher, and why are crb not being rejected by the crb.

Sussex · **Posted:** Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:25 pm

charles007 wrote:

if that is the case and i am not saying its not, why would beg the question this a not been taken futher, and why are crb not being rejected by the crb.

In London they are, but I think the CRB folks are merely fulfilling a request from councils (when processing council checks), the fact that in most cases the CRB folks believe councils don't have powers to ask is a problem for councils not them.

The issue is over how much time taxi/PH drivers spend with vulnerable people i.e. kids on their own, and old dears. If drivers spend most of their time then an Enhanced check request could be viewed as justifiable, but if it's only part of their time it's not.

Councils, quite understandably, cover their bums by requesting enhanced checks for all, but if drivers only spend a small amount of time with vulnerable folks, then the CRB folks think those request could deemed illegal by the courts.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:11 am

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

if that is the case and i am not saying its not, why would beg the question this a not been taken futher, and why are crb not being rejected by the crb.

In London they are, but I think the CRB folks are merely fulfilling a request from councils (when processing council checks), the fact that in most cases the CRB folks believe councils don't have powers to ask is a problem for councils not them.

The issue is over how much time taxi/PH drivers spend with vulnerable people i.e. kids on their own, and old dears. If drivers spend most of their time then an Enhanced check request could be viewed as justifiable, but if it's only part of their time it's not.

Councils, quite understandably, cover their bums by requesting enhanced checks for all, but if drivers only spend a small amount of time with vulnerable folks, then the CRB folks think those request could deemed illegal by the courts.

Hust goes to show how screwed up the system is, even the Home Office think the CRB supply enhanced checks :shock:

CC

charles007 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:55 am

captain cab wrote:

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

if that is the case and i am not saying its not, why would beg the question this a not been taken futher, and why are crb not being rejected by the crb.

In London they are, but I think the CRB folks are merely fulfilling a request from councils (when processing council checks), the fact that in most cases the CRB folks believe councils don't have powers to ask is a problem for councils not them.

The issue is over how much time taxi/PH drivers spend with vulnerable people i.e. kids on their own, and old dears. If drivers spend most of their time then an Enhanced check request could be viewed as justifiable, but if it's only part of their time it's not.

Councils, quite understandably, cover their bums by requesting enhanced checks for all, but if drivers only spend a small amount of time with vulnerable folks, then the CRB folks think those request could deemed illegal by the courts.

Hust goes to show how screwed up the system is, even the Home Office think the CRB supply enhanced checks :shock:

CC

then is it not the case if a council refuces a applaication on the ground of there have done a enhanced Checks would they not be acting ileguly

Sussex · **Posted:** Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:18 pm

charles007 wrote:

then is it not the case if a council refuces a applaication on the ground of there have done a enhanced Checks would they not be acting ileguly

If the refusal was based on evidence gained from the Enhanced CRB, then according to the top bods of the CRB yes.

charles007 · **Posted:** Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:16 pm

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

then is it not the case if a council refuces a applaication on the ground of there have done a enhanced Checks would they not be acting ileguly

If the refusal was based on evidence gained from the Enhanced CRB, then according to the top bods of the CRB yes.

yes i agree.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:19 pm

charles007 wrote:

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

then is it not the case if a council refuces a applaication on the ground of there have done a enhanced Checks would they not be acting ileguly

If the refusal was based on evidence gained from the Enhanced CRB, then according to the top bods of the CRB yes.

yes i agree.

How did you get on Charles, any success.....any byelaws?

CC

charles007 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:46 pm

captain cab wrote:

charles007 wrote:

Sussex wrote:

charles007 wrote:

then is it not the case if a council refuces a applaication on the ground of there have done a enhanced Checks would they not be acting ileguly

If the refusal was based on evidence gained from the Enhanced CRB, then according to the top bods of the CRB yes.

yes i agree.

How did you get on Charles, any success.....any byelaws?

CC

could not find them so put a request in for them.

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:33 pm

charles007 wrote:

could not find them so put a request in for them.

So a council that must regulate its hackney drivers via byelaws doesnt have a copy at hand and doesnt pass them onto licensees.

Charles......I think you have a good case.

CC

charles007 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:53 pm

captain cab wrote:

charles007 wrote:

could not find them so put a request in for them.

So a council that must regulate its hackney drivers via byelaws doesnt have a copy at hand and doesnt pass them onto licensees.

Charles......I think you have a good case.

CC

Its coming on, you know as well as i council will not bother about that.

cabbyman · **Posted:** Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:13 am

Byelaws will be public documents which must be made available on demand. I hope to be able to quote the statute later.

charles007 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:54 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Byelaws will be public documents which must be made available on demand. I hope to be able to quote the statute later.

that would be helpful, i have said not very good at searching for stuff uslualy end up on sites that i should not be on.

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:35 pm

charles007 wrote:

cabbyman wrote:

Byelaws will be public documents which must be made available on demand. I hope to be able to quote the statute later.

that would be helpful, i have said not very good at searching for stuff uslualy end up on sites that i should not be on.

which area charles?

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:01 pm

captain cab wrote:

which area charles?

Carlisle.

cabbyman · **Posted:** Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:05 pm

cabbyman wrote:

Byelaws will be public documents which must be made available on demand. I hope to be able to quote the statute later.

My searches have not produced the answer; I've started a thread on another site that I frequent and will let you know of any response I receive.

Taxi Driver Online

regulation of hackney carriage drivers

Who is online