Taxi Driver Online

There is no law preventing people from standing outside clubs and wearing clothes marked 'TAXI BOOK HERE', the touting only takes place once that person either hands out literature promoting their service, they verbally approach people or mention that they are a taxi company. If the customers approach the person and questions them to what they are offering there is no breach of the plying / touting of trade rule. They (as mentioned above) must be also be able to demonstrate that all relevent information is recorded & archived. Thats my understanding of the rule.

Strange one this.

Harvey posted at Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:30 pm with a question in relation to the use of the word taxi and also questions regarding booking staff standing at a door with bright vests on bearing the legend; 'taxi book here'.

By Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:38 pm he is completely conversant with touting laws.

From luddite to geek in an amazing amount of time.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

If you have taxis as part of your fleet then you can get away with calling yourself so and so taxis.

If you don't then you are advertising/offering something you can't supply.

The Transport Act 1985 gives the definition of 'taxi' as:

(3) In this section, and in sections 10 to 12 of this Act—

“licensed taxi” means—

(a) in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed under—

(i) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847; or

(ii) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869;

or under any similar enactment; and

(b) in Scotland, a taxi licensed under section 10 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;

In other words, and despite the world classing licensed private hire vehicles as taxis, taxis they ain't.

_________________
IDFIMH

Such as?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

All those other London acts?

Maybe the tpca 1889?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

If this law was so right, why did it not uphold the complaint against delta taxis? I'm sure the legal department would have known about this act when representing ASA ( Advertisings Standards Authority).

I think further clarification would be required.

I'm on Delta taxis side as it suits my business needs more

18 years later, the 2003 Amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, article 2 states...
(b) "taxi driver licence" means a licence granted under -

(i) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847[5];

(ii) section 8 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869[6];

(iii) section 9 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975[7];

(iv) section 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976; or

(v) section 13 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998[8];".

If Harvey's drivers are licensed under the Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, then according to the most up to date legal definition available, they are TAXI DRIVERS.

_________________
Don't knock it, 'til you try it....

If thats the case then can you explain why the court seems to describe the following as PRIVATE HIRE DRIVERS and not Taxi drivers?

Case Reference: 96/5159 Mohamed Jaleel Hanaz Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: Mohamed Jaleel Hanaz
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 96/5157 Michael Joseph Lavelle Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: Michael Joseph lavelle
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 92/5137 James Le Surf Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 08 July 2010
Name: James LeSurf
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £150 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: LCC v Ian Downey Sefton private hire driver
Date: 02 July 2010
Name: Ian Downey
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1)Sefton private hire plying for hire (2) No insurance
Sentence: £290 fine £400 costs 8 penalty points and £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 91/5124 George Woods Sefton private hire driver
Date: 17 June 2010
Name: George Woods
Address: Bootle
Offence: (1) plying for hire (2) no insurance
Sentence: (1) £150 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine 6 penalty points £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guiltyx2

Case Reference: 91/5124 George Woods Sefton private hire driver
Date: 17 June 2010
Name: George Woods
Address: Bootle
Offence: (1) plying for hire (2) no insurance
Sentence: (1) £150 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine 6 penalty points £15 victim surcharge
Details: Guiltyx2

Case Reference: 93/5142 Alexander Moon Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 03/06/2010
Name: Alexander Moon
Address: Liverpool
Offence: Plying for hire
Sentence: Guilty
Details: £150 fine £95 costs and £15 victim surcharge

Case Reference: 93/5143 Colin Gerrard McDonald Sefton private hire driver
Date: 03/06/2010
Name: Colin Gerrard McDonald
Address: Seaforth
Offence: Plying for hire
Sentence: Guilty
Details: £170 fine £95 costs and £15 victim surcharge

Case Reference:90/5116 Paul Francis Tumilty Sefton Private hire driver
Date: 06/05/2010
Name: Paul Francis Tumilty
Address: Liverpool
Offence: (1) Plying for hire (2) No Insurance
Sentence: (1)£400 fine(2)£400 fine £95 costs 6 penalty points and £15 victim support charges
Details: Guilty

Case Reference: 89/5109 Samuel Francis Smith Sefton private hire driver
Date: 8 April 2010
Name: Samuel Francis Smith
Address: Thornton
Offence: (1) Plying for hire (2) No Insurance
Sentence: (1) £50 fine £95 costs (2) £150 fine and 6 penalty points
Details: Guilty x2


Any of those folks yours?



CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

That aside, I think you'll find the most recent definition is the Equality Act 2010......some 7 years later

In this section and sections 166 and 167 “private hire vehicle” means—
(a) a vehicle licensed under section 48 of the Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976;

“taxi”—
(a) means a vehicle which is licensed under section 37 of the Town
Police Clauses Act 1847 or section 6 of the Metropolitan Public
Carriage Act 1869, and

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

You'll also find that each definition applies only for the purpose of the Act itself, and therefore does not define the word 'taxi' BEYOND that Act. We all agree however that current legislation makes it illegal for any vehicle other than a hackney carriage to display the word taxi. Is the Merseyside Ambulance Authority therefore breaking the law when their vehicles display the words 'THIS IS NOT A TAXI'?

_________________
Don't knock it, 'til you try it....

Does Merseyside Ambulance tout passengers or carry passengers for H&R?

Probably not.

PH using the word 'Taxi' is for financial gain. The Ambo trust is trying to stop people abusing the emergency service.

In London it's an attempt to legitimise their dreadful past (and present) and to give some form of credibility to the 90% of their drivers that can't communicate in English properly, nor have a clue where Charing Cross Station is.

Where???

_________________
Grandad,

Delta Taxis receives more telephone calls than any other taxi operation in Europe (over 50% more than Addison Lee). Callers almost always ask for a TAXI, the only other variation being CAB and sometimes CAR, but customers never, ever ask us for a Private Hire Vehicle. So far as advertising is concerned, the ASA aren't particularly interested in what definitions might or might not exist in any of the legislation quoted here, they are more concerned with the PUBLIC'S PERCEPTION OF THE WORD. They quite specifically state that use of the word TAXI does not in itself imply the privilege of plying for hire. So far as the public are concerned, hackney only means one thing, private hire only means one thing, taxi means either. We can all look smart in quoting various conflicting definitions none of that changes the public's perception of the word, which is what the ASA are concerned with.

Some people seem to think that private hire operations might somehow gain benefit from passing themselves off as a hackney carriage operation. GET OVER YOURSELF! It's quite the opposite here. We're always receiving calls from customers who quite specifically state 'DONT SEND A HACKNEY.' In the past Delta has even gone so far as to print on its literature 'GUARANTEED NO BLACK HACKNEY CABS.' Being confused with a hackney carriage service is a disadvantage here on Merseyside, not a plus.

But to return to Mr Harvey's question... We're not talking about vehicle signage (on that we are clear); we're asking whether his staff can wear uniforms with the word TAXI on when taking private hire bookings from outside their licensed premises. I'd say that in order for the local authority to secure a succesful prosecution they would have to prove to the satisfaction of a court that Mr Harvey's company were somehow misleading the public...

Delta Taxis deliver postcards to 358,000 households six times a year, we have billboards throughout the region, A-Frame Trucks, hoardings at Anfield and Goodison, all of which say DELTA TAXIS, and two complaints have both been rejected, because there's no implication of plying for hire. If Mr Harvey's staff were sat outside in a vehicle offering their services then that's illegal, regardless of what their uniforms said, but to stand outside the door and offer to take a private hire booking from a licensed premises? I'd like to see them try...

_________________
Don't knock it, 'til you try it....

How far outside your door can you go with your hi viz jacket and clipboard before you can't accept a booking in this way?

_________________
Grandad,

Providing its neither on the Vehicle or in your Business title then I think its Fair game to use the word Taxi in Private hire advertising providing you use it wisely and not use it blatantly signed on the Vehicle itself in a way designed to mislead or miss-sell your product.

Theres nothing wrong in wording your advert along the lines of “Looking for a Taxi? ” or “For all your Taxi reqirements” this is just ascertaining your clients needs..it would be no different to a Taxi company advertising by placing an advert “Thinking of Getting a Bus, then think again try our Taxi Service instead”

To the General public whether the Taxi trade like it or not the word TAXI is now synonymous with small vehicle transportation be it Taxi, Private Hire, Rickshaw or small Minibus, it has become no more than a generic term in the same way as Hoover, Band-aid, Kleenex, Thermos, Ducktape, Sellotape, Coke etc are…..yet the Customer uses these terms all the time in shops without actually ever wanting or wishing to buy the actual product sporting the actual trademark....and these are registered Trademarks where as the word Taxi Is not.