Taxi Driver Online

PH law is simple....all 3 licenses must match and the area where the booking is received must be the authority which licenses all 3.

HC law? In respect of running an HC as a purely HC I think we know the answer, it can only do street hails and rank work within its own area. In respect of PH work.....I think the judges have erred....they should have accepted the DPP vs. Com Cab version of events and we wouldnt be in this situation now.

CC

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

Er, yes, but my point was why can't these licences be restricted regarding what area PHVs can work if it can be done regarding areas in which HCs work, as in the Berwick case.

Or are you saying that the judge in the Berwick case was wrong and that HCs can't be restricted geographically, at least as far as pre-booked work is concerned?

Perhaps they should be geographically restricted to being physically within their area when accepting a booking...I aint sure.

I do think the judge was about right in DPP vs. Com Cab.

CC

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

No.

The flies in the ointment are radios in hackneys, get rid of them and the hackney problem goes.

But as that's never going to happen, it's down to councils to ensure they only license vehicles that work predominately in their area. I can't believe any court would go against a council that did so.

_________________
IDFIMH

So can you explain why there's no conflict then?

If Berwick can say that their licensed HCs must operate primarily in Berwick, why can't Sefton say to Delta that their PH must operate primarily within Sefton?

The way I see it is hackneys are licensed to ply within a certain area, whereas PH are licensed to work via an operator within a certain area.

So the restriction on area, as I see it, is for hackneys and PH operators, not PH vehicles and drivers.

_________________
IDFIMH

So why not?

OK then, forget PH operators.

Imagine there are Berwick-plated and badged HCs working in Brighton and Sefton-plated and badged PHVs working in Brighton (from a call centre in Sefton, clearly).

So if the judge in the Berwick case thinks that the council should say that its plated vehicles should be confined to operating in Berwick rather than the likes of Brighton, then shouldn't a judge be able to say that Sefton should confine its plated vehicles to work in Sefton rather than Brighton?

If it's good for HCs I can't see why it shouldn't apply to PHVs as well.

I agree, it's just that I believe the law currently allows hackneys to be kept in their areas, but not PH vehicles.

_________________
IDFIMH

So what is it about the judicial reasoning in the Berwick case regarding HCs which can't be applied to PH?

Or to put it another way, if Sefton said that Delta had to operate wholly in Sefton then how would Delta refute the judicial reasoning employed in the Berwick case?

Why shouldn't the Berwick judicial reasoning in relation to HCs not also apply to PHVs?

Of course, applying the Berwick HC judicial precedent to PH would overturn established precedent in relation to PHVs, but unless it's accepted that established precedent regarding PH is wrong then surely the judicial reasoning regarding HCs in the Berwick case is contradicting that relating to PH?

The judge said a council could have by-laws saying a hackney must work predominately in his licensing area.

I believe the nature of PH mean that couldn't apply.

_________________
IDFIMH

A restriction of trade.

Whereas the issue relating to the hackneys is that the firms they are working with are able to use locally licensed vehicles, be they hackney or PH.

_________________
IDFIMH

But equally, if Delta were operating in Brighton couldn't Brighton argue that the market could be serviced by locally licensed vehicles?

The essence of what the judge in the Berwick case said seems to be encapsulated in this passage:

"....it seems to me it is very difficult to exercise proper control over hackney carriages which are never, or rarely, used in the prescribed area. It is also undesirable for authorities to be faced with a proliferation of hackney carriages licensed outside the area in which they are being used and therefore not subject to the same conditions and byelaws as apply to those vehicles licensed in the area."

Thus why can't that logic and reasoning apply equally to PH?

But they are not, and even if they were what law would they be breaking if they took the calls in Sefton?

_________________
IDFIMH

I think the difference is that hackneys are license to ply in an area, and PH are license to work by an area.

But I agree with what the judge said.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, but they could and they are operating in another area.



The hypothetical condition that Sefton could stipulate saying that PHVs could only work primarily in their own area, along the lines of what the Berwick case says in relation to HCs.

My point isn't about your current interpretation of the law, it's about why the principle enunciated in the Berwick case in relation to HCs shouldn't apply in relation to PHVs.