Taxi Driver Online

Long may this forum continue. It is great to see like minded people agreeing that we are indeed in 2003 and not the 1840's and it is time to move on. New law and the necessary political will to enforce it a.s.a.p
Ged

OF COURSE IT DOES!
iT GOES ON ABOUT THE THINKING AND THE JUDGEMENT

Wharfie

What I meant was that it quotes the old Act, before it was amended, but doesn't actually rule on it, because it would obviously be pointless ruliing on an (unamended) Act that does not have any legal relevance today.

Obviously the amended Act has relevance, but the judge was just quoting from the unamended Act to aid his interpretation of the amended Act.

Innit??

Dusty

yes Sussex I am just as confused, if an act is irrelevant a judge does not comment on it

Wharfie

I think the problem with have with the 1847 act, is that some parts of it were up-dated by the 1976 act, but alas not all.

However an appeal, following a refusal of a HC vehicle license application, is one that still needs to go back to 1847.

Thus he was quoting the 1847 act correctly.

So what does the amended version of the Act currently say then Andy or Wharfy - sorry, I haven't got the £300 law books on my desk

Dusty

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Does the 1847 Act actually get ammended by the 1976 Act in so far as Hackney Carriage is concerned? Is it not only the regulation of PH that is included in the 76 Act as a separate issue?

PS. You dont need £300 Law books Dusty, just go to the HMSO web site and your local library. The LAW is available to everyone, tis said.

(Affording to have it enforced, however, is an entirely separate matter).

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

Sorry mate, I've lost the will to live on this thread.

What particular bit of the act?

Queen v Doncaster was about that la, who insisted offices should have private hire licenses, for hackney offices the judge ruled misc provisions act dont cover Hackneys.

the misc prov act is about hackney drivers?

the ancient act says taxis can ply 5miles from GPO.

this has been upheld.

Wharfie

The bit about the post office, believe it or not!

Dusty

I don't think HMSO contains the older Acts Andy7, especially not the 1847 one , I don't think the internet was invented in those days

I've got the two Castlepoint cases, someone kindly sent them to me ages ago, but what I wanted to know was what the section of the Act (as amended) in question says precisely. It does quote the relevant part in the case, but I'm not sure if that's exactly what's in the Act (as amended) but see below, once I've had my supper

Since Button comes out in December (although which year, I'm not entirely certain) then I'll send a note to Santa Claus and see if he'll be good to me

Dusty

Supper? its 2 in the morning!

we call that breakfast here!

Wharfie

Yes, I have breakfast at two in the afternoon.

Dusty

Before the Transport Act 1985 amendment, the section 37 of the 1847 Act, as quoted in the first Castle Point case states:

“The [local authority] may from time to time license to ply for hire within [their borough] ... such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit.”

The HC drivers in Castle Point wanted the new HC licenses to be prevented from hacking at Benfleet station, where most of the existing HCs ranked up.

They argued that the section above meant that the LA could license HCs within the borough, and the LA could then attach a condition by virtue of the LG(MP) Act 1976. They thus were arguing that the section quoted above did not mean that any licenses issued had to be for the whole borough.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the wording of the section meant that they could only license for the whole borough, and therefore couldn't confine any HCs to any particular part of the borough.

Obviously the above section can be read either way

1 - the LA can license to ply within the borough, meaning that any license was for the whole borough.

2 - the other way to read it is that the LA has powers to license in that borough, but how they exercise that power is up to them - ie they could zone.

So the Court of Appeal looked back at the initial version of the Act to see if that could shed light on what the amended version meant.

The original version read:

"The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance,) such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit."

The judge concluded that with that version of the Act the part in bold clearly showed that in those days the powers related only to the fact that the LA could only license to ply throughout the relevant area (ie within the prescribed distance) and they could not therefore zone the relevant area.

He then concluded that the amendment to the act could only have been intended to change the area within which the LA could license, and it therefore did not give them any further powers. So zoning using the LG(MP) Act was not possible.

Thus the old version of the Act was used to interpret the new version of the Act.

The old version of the Act is OLD LAW.

Innit?

Dusty