Taxi Driver Online

What about conditions and byelaws?

Two seperate regulations for drivers under two different Acts of Parliament.

_________________
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.

_________________
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.

When you renewed your licence, did the LA operative behind the desk give you a copy of Conditions of Private Hire Driver Licence for the Private Hire Driver Licence part of your licence as under the LG[MP] Act 1976 and a copy of the Byelaws for Hackney Carriage Drivers for the Hackney Carriage Driver Licence part of your licence as under the TPC Act 1847?

_________________
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.

Hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, that man!!!

And that's why those LAs that can get away with it do it!!

And all the drivers see and say is, "That's a good idea!" without thinking it through all the way.

Remember, there is always a method in an LA's madness.

_________________
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's great in restricted mind-set theory!

But if you have a dual badge and you are a Hackney driver and have witheringly subscribed to Conditions of Private Hire Driver Licence and then transgress and lose your licence, you have lost both licences.

Note with concern Mr 2 Jobs previous post;


Why has his council not allowed the third option of exclusive Hackney Carriage Driver Licence only?

It’s my guess that they operate on Conditions of Driver Licence only, which are passed by a Licensing Committee in their wisdom. If any of those conditions are felt to be unreasonably and a driver falls foul of such a condition, his only recourse is to challenge such unreasonable condition through the courts and that costs plenty of money which drivers are invariably unwilling to pay and so reluctantly accept their ‘unlawful’ punishment.

Contrast that with Byelaws for Hackney Carriage Drivers which have to be passed by the lawyers at the DfT. They won’t stand for some of the weird byelaws that some LAs try to include [which could easily be included by LAs in Conditions of Private Hire Driver Licence] and have model byelaws that are a starting point for all LAs.

The process for establishing byelaws is also very lengthy, primarily because the DfT lawyers take ‘an age and a day’ to respond to an LA’s submission of draft byelaws and if rejected take another ‘age and a day’ to respond to the second, third and any subsequent drafts when they too are submitted. And LAs don't wants to go through such a convoluted process. From memory, Brum’s byelaws took some 3-4 years to be ratified and then they had to be approved by both the Licensing Committee and then the full Birmingham City Council.

That’s just the legal process for these byelaws to be enacted, so of course LAs will look to cut corners, illegally!

http://www.national-taxi-association.co.uk/?page_id=34 and click on Model Byelaws for Hackney Carriages.

_________________
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.

My "Conditions" clearly state "Private hire" and include notifying the LA about accidents/convictions/etc

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Do you have byelaws for your HC licence?

_________________
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.

none at all

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Then you are not regulated for the Hackney part of your dual licence.

See WATHAN v NEATH AND PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL (2002)

_________________
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.

badge says both, good enough for me

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

WATHAN v NEATH AND PORT TALBOT COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL (2002)

QBD Administrative Court (Sir Edwin Jowitt) 12/7/2002

LICENSING - ROAD TRAFFIC - LOCAL GOVERNMENT - HACKNEY CARRIAGE LICENCES : IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS : BYLAWS : POWER TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON HACKNEY CARRIAGE DRIVERS : S.51, S.52, S.57, S.80 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976 : S.68 TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847

There was no power to attach conditions to the licence of a hackney carriage driver under s.57 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which simply provided additional powers in deciding whether to grant a licence and to impose conditions.

Appeal by way of case stated from a magistrates' decision at Neath Magistrates' Court. The appellant ('W') was a licensed hackney carriage driver whose licence had been suspended by the respondent council for an alleged failure to notify it within seven days of convictions as required by condition 27 Neath and Port Talbot licensing conditions for hackney carriage and private hire drivers.

On W's appeal to the magistrates' court, he argued that the conditions on which the council had relied were invalid because there was no power under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to make such conditions in relation to drivers of hackney carriages.

The council argued that s.57(1) of the 1976 Act provided a power to issue licences for private hire and hackney carriage drivers, and also a power to issue conditions. The magistrates concluded that condition 27 was legally enforceable.

The questions set out in the case stated were as follows:

(i) whether the justices were correct in law in finding that s.57(1) of the 1976 Act empowered the council to attach conditions to W's hackney carriage driver licence thereby purporting to regulate his conduct in his role as a hackney carriage driver especially in circumstances where no information was obtained by the council to justify the condition prior to the licence having been issued;
(ii) whether the justices were correct in law in finding that condition 27 of the council's conditions of licence was enforceable against W in this case; and
(iii) whether the conduct of a hackney carriage driver, if to be regulated, should in law be regulated by way of by-laws approved by the Secretary of State for Transport in accordance with s.68 Town Police Clauses Act 1847. W and the council repeated their previous submissions on appeal.

HELD:

(1) The 1976 Act distinguished between the operator of a vehicle, the driver of a vehicle, and the vehicle itself. Section 55 of the 1976 Act empowered the council to issue a licence to operate a private hire vehicle, and to impose conditions on that licence. Section 51 made similar provisions in the case of the driver of a private hire vehicle. Section 48 contained a power to grant licences in respect of a private hire vehicle itself, and to impose conditions. If the council was right, there would be in s.57 of the 1976 Act the creation of a power to grant licences and impose conditions. In the preceding sections, however, that had already been dealt with. Section 57 1976 Act simply provided additional powers in deciding whether to grant a licence and to impose conditions, and that was why it came where it did in the 1976 Act. The magistrates were wrong when they considered s.57 of the 1976 Act.

(2) The distinction in relation to private hire vehicles in the 1976 Act was not quite the same in the 1847 Act. The only addition to s.68 of the 1847 Act to be found in the 1976 Act in relation to control by way of the imposition of conditions on operators of hackney carriages was in s.47 of the 1976 Act. Section 68 of the 1847 Act was not a very useful power in relation to the modern motor vehicle, hence the more general power in s.47 of the 1976 Act.

(3) A driver's licence as referred to in s.52(2) of the 1976 Act was quite plainly the driver's licence referred to in s.52(1). Section 80 of the 1976 Act reinforced the court's reading of s.57 of the 1976 Act as merely being a section dealing with the issue of licences and the imposition of conditions, and to facilitate that exercise.

(4) It was strange that two licences should be dealt with in different ways, but that did not allow the court to give s.57 of the 1976 Act any other than what it regarded as its plain meaning. There was no ambiguity. There was no power under s.57 of the 1976 Act to make conditions which attached to the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage, and the council had not issued any by-laws. Any regulation of a hackney carriage driver had to be covered by by-laws.

Appeal allowed. Questions answered accordingly

Mr Maddox instructed by Kearns & Co (Swansea) for W.

Paul Thomas instructed by and for the council.

_________________
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.