Taxi Driver Online

I merely pointed out the date of the boundary changes I didn't comment on anything else. Maybe you read more into what I posted. If so you might wish to share it with us.

JD

so you was being irrelevant?

2 cases now disaggree with your assesment

Which cases might they be?

Yesterday I highlighted what I thought were passages in the Maud Court of Appeal case that appeared to highlight the above view posted by JD.

I'm now more inclined to agree with JD that the above quote is the accurate exposition of the law. However, my opinion of the Maud case was derived by reading the case in isolation, for example the following passages on the first page of the judgement:

It is necessary at the outset to deal with the somewhat complex statutory provisions relevant to this appeal. One begins with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ("the 1847 Act"). Section 45 makes it an offence to drive, stand or ply for hire without a hackney carriage licence. The granting of such licences is covered by Section 37 which in its original form provided as follows:

"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."

Originally Section 1 of the 1847 Act provided that the Act only applied where it was subsequently incorporated in a local Act of Parliament. But the Public Health Act 1875, by Section 171, extended the provisions relating to hackney carriages in the 1847 Act to all urban districts in England and Wales. The licensing authority is now the district or borough council. Section 171 of the 1875 Act also defined the expression "within the prescribed distance" in Section 37 of the 1847 Act as meaning "within any urban district".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but JD's quote seems to be saying that the 1875 Act gave LAs the option to treat the whole area as the relevant one for the purposes of plying for hire under the 1847 Act, but on the other hand could continue to use prescribed distances, which we now describe as zones.

On the other hand, the third paragraph of the Court of Appeal judgement seems to be saying that the 1875 Act automatically replaced the 'prescribed distance' criterion by the whole area being treated as the relevant one for the purposes of the 1847 Act.

Thus to that extent I don't think the Court of Appeal case explains the relevant law too clearly.

Apart from this aspect of the case, I'm saying no more on this, but does anyone know a good lawyer

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Just think none of this thread wiould have been needed if the perfect yorkie kept to his licensing conditions.
Called scabs in London.

hey ass hole who said I have not stuck to licensing conditions?

the trouble with you after all the information pated you have taken in [edited by admin] all!

I think Cgull is suggesting you didn't hold a license for the Zone you ranked up in. I know you think differently, otherwise you wouldn't have ranked up there in the first place.

Regards

JD

I don't know of the case Highway therefore I would be foolish to attempt to comment on it. However I can say this. You mentioned that yorkie operates in a Zoned area and I take it you know how zoned areas work?

As far as we can gather he went and sat on a Taxi rank in a zone in Calderdale which he wasn't licensed for. Thats the top and bottom of it. The case you mention we don't have any information on so we do not know the details. What we do know from your information is that the 5 license holders from Ryedale who were involved in the case had the situation resolved in court before any offence had been committed. That is not the situation in Yorkies case. Yorkie was granted a license to ply for hire in his own zone. If he thought he was entitled to ply in more than one zone then he should have taken the matter up in the courts or when he was granted his vehicle license. Its as simple as that.

By the way, as far as i'm aware, drivers can ply for hire in any zone in calderdale as long as the vehicle is licensed for that particular zone.

Regards

JD

So whats the problem them. And why have you spent loads of time with your council.
See you can have a maon about the cartel. But5 you aint mr perfect.

C Gull misses a basic point all taxidrivers should know, that is conditions neither apply to taxidrivers or thier vehicles thats down to bye laws

conditions are written for private hire lads to ignore.

but yes I ranked within the law I am convinced of that!

nobody is perfect we operate in a free market environment and know the rules.

you on the other hand work so closely with private hire you think conditions are lawfull for taxi drivers they are not

buck your ideas up boy.

with all due respect thats bollox, you never go to court to ask the law!

one knows the law, the courts merely adjudicate on innocence or guilt

the law is clear, within an authority a person may ply for hire within 5 miles of a general post office unless a lesser distance is prescribled.

Calderdale Council dont know if there is a lesser distance,"until the legal boys have dug it out!"



fortunatly I am not quite as lax I can tell you for certain, there is not any lesser distance

an enforcement officer at the behest of a jelous owner has queried the position he has not yet come back with a response

YORKIE.. Lucky you are not paying them ,by now you would be asking for your money back.......mrT ....

If Calderdale say you are wrong, you could always take them to court, seeing as how you feel so strongly about it. That will settle it once and for all.

JD

I'm fairly certain Yorkie will sort the situation out in his own way.

Captain cab

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