Taxi Driver Online

Not really sure if legally has an interpretation, other than maybe not illegally.

The law is the law until it is either changed by a senior judge or parliament (be that UK or EU).

There is only one law, and that's the current one.

_________________
IDFIMH

If a court interprets legislation or rules on something that the legislation is silent on then that becomes part of the law, if that's what you mean.

So 'legally' alludes to both legislation and the interpreration of the courts of them, ie precedents set by the courts.

For example, if the statute says you can't ply for hire in a public place, but doesn't say precisely what a public place is, then that could end up for the judges to decide, in the Eastbourne case for example.

A fine piece of interpretation, if I may say so!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

That sounds more like a discussion of the morals and fairness of the situation rather than what the actual law is. Thus seems to stray a bit too far from judicial reasoning, you could say.

Sounds a bit like saying that, yes, I broke the speed limit on the motorway, but because the law is to be changed to increase it it doesn't matter.

The leglislation as regards HCs has to be interpreted in relation to what Parliament intended at the time, not what might happen in the future.

I've always thought that the Berwick situation was a loophole due to the age of the legislation - ie back then horses wouldn't be working out of area because they could only really ply for hire rather than do pre-booked work, because clearly they didn't have radios - and that the judge in the original case tried to close the loophole, but I was never really convinced he had the authority to do it, but clearly since then other LAs have relied on the decision to stop HCs licensing in their are to do pre-booked work in other areas.

Didn't read the Fidler v Stockton case, but I think that more or less suggested that the judge was wrong in the original Berwick case?

Anyway, it's still all as clear as mud, hence the LC etc.

And no doubt the LC's documentation provides a much better summary of the current law than my efforts above, but I've still not got to that bit

Indeed, which is why I suspect what you said about the uncertainty created by the Law Commission isn't or at least shouldn't really be relevant as regards the application and interpretation of current law.

All he has to do is follow the 001 example, they've got hackneys from south Oxfordshire, west Oxfordshire licensing areas working as ph in Oxford. They've set up a phone number for that area and it all gets diverted to Oxford. Isn't it a case of Boisdale again?

Only thing is he will have to find a ph company to work for up there, can anyone explain the insurance angle to me??

So are the standards/fees for PH quite high in Oxford then?

Standards are higher, I think fees have gone up to stop the influx of non native, non English speaking drivers so loved by the PH Baron, even you would have to agree that if you want to work in a certain area, then you should be licensed by that area, not have to use tricks and cheats to work there.

I have heard that, if the area of working is different than that in which the driver and vehicle are licensed in, then it could be a problem with insurers withdrawing cover or asking for an additional / higher premium, if the area worked in is a higher risk area than that in which the licences have been obtained.

There is also the fact that all insurances are contracts 'in good faith' and an insurance company may well feel that the insured has not been totally honest when taking out the cover.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

The insurance aspect was discussed here a few months ago. Basically I think the answer was that as long as it's not illegal and full disclosure is made then there's no problem.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18129

Does every illegal action lead to criminal/civil proceedings, the answer is no. If we follow your line of thought then the answer would be yes.

In many many criminal cases proceedings are stopped on the 'is this in the public interest' basis.

In many many civil cases proceedings don't go ahead because of costs and/or will the outcome actually achieve much and/or will we win.

Therefore the law may be the law, but that doesn't mean law breakers have actions taken against them.

But back to the issue at hand, I believe a council would have to take into account what the law might be in a few years time, but more importantly will have to decide if the costs of such actions are justified.

And in this case I don't think they would be.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well indeed as regards the application and enforcement of the law there are lots of factors relevant to LA action - or lack thereof - such as resources, nods and winks, blind eyes, ignorance of the law, lack of legal clarity, central government guidance etc, and of course there's to an extent LAs who simply ignore the law in the hope they won't be noticed, and others who simply can't be bothered. And of course the whole thing is helped along by those in the trade who aren't particuarly au fait with the legal niceties and assume that LAs are acting in good faith, not to mention the cost barrier and that many understandably feel intimidated by local authority procedures and practices, and that's even before embarking on challenging things on a more strictly legal basis.

Understandably the LC mentions or at least alludes to such things in its documentation, and there's one phrase that seems to crop up quite a lot, namely the 'chilling effect' of much of the law and process, a phrase which indeed looks like it's used at least slightly euphemistically.

Anyway, a quick search for the phrase using the Adobe Acrobat reader reveals the following, for example:



Or:



Anyway, all that's perhaps getting away from the issue at hand a bit, but it's just to make the point that I agree with what you say about what the law is in theory not being the end of the story when it comes to what happens back in the real world.

However, as regards the particular point in question you said:



Which is about how a court would interpret the law, whereas your latest post is about how an LA might apply and enforce the law. To that extent I don't think what you're saying now is really relevant to judicial reasoning - what the LC process might or might not result in is not really relevant - rather than what is more in the domain of local government politics.

You also said:



And to that extent how a court would apply the law might be different to how an LA might approach the situation.

Also, your contrast between how an LA might approach the situation now and six months ago seems to a large extent assume a uniform change in direction based on what the LC is doing.

However, in view of the number of LAs involved, the uncertainty regarding the Berwick and Stockton cases, the uncertainty and time involved regarding the LC's process and the wooly nature of how each individual LA might approach the situation in an administrative and enforcement sense then I doubt if the change in direction would be as black and white as you portray it.

Gosh, even Dusty would agree that you shouldn't need to use 'tricks and cheats'.

That's very charitable of you.

But what are these tricks and cheats anyway, or do you simply perhaps mean a legal loophole that you don't like?

By the way, as regards you first point, and to put this as delicately as possible, aren't you of ethnic minority origin?

not just me mate, but a lot of people up and down the country, if i wanted to work where you work, then i should have to do a local knowledge test, not go to some two bit council, license myself as a hack, and then go do private hire in your area



don't be delicate, after all you know heaps about me dont you..and if you're born here then your British no matter what the EDL, BNP, NF wackos may say, and oh yeah, pledge allegiance to the Queen, but even I would say that its bad when these people use the tricks and cheats to get licensed on the sly.

Quit the fock argueing with yourself,