Clydebank: street cars dealt another blow

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

Kaiser Soze wrote:

"Quote by Skull"
I can tell you for a fact, that unless the "property owner" has closed a gate on his property, I think it's, three times a year. It's a pubic thoroughfare.

You'll need to check this out, but I'm almost certain it's the case.

Oh and I've been through all this malarkey of finding out what the law is in the past. I've given you a start now run

Skull you dimwit. You really haven't got a clue. You start by saying "I can tell you for a fact" then the next sentence, " you'll have to check this out, but I'm ALMOST certain that's the case" what a douchbag!

There are interpretations and exemptions that come with most laws, but I don't think it is the case here. I am as sure as I can be under the circumstances, and that's why I'm advising Cabhappy to check it out.

I read this [edited by admin] somewhere at least ten years ago. #-o

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 8:59 am

Cabhappy wrote:

captain cab wrote:

I think you're living in a reality that isn't the same as mine :wink:

private property is private property

Seriously CC, does this make any difference in a place thats open to the public. No barriers, no gates or turnstyles.

What law would a sheriff find in favour of an owner who tries to charge some people after the event just for being on the land but not others. No damage caused.
Is there any law which would apply even if an owner were to stand on the land like some feudal lord shouting "get off my land"

We think we can do as skull says but it would be helpful if statements like yours can be backed up.

Scottish Law is different to English - but there are lots of cases on TDO in respect of private land.

For Scots Law Gusmac seems very knowledgeable.

JD a sadly missed contributor once posted the following;

The restriction of the control of the Act of 1847 to vehicles standing or plying for hire on public property has been recognised by Parliament in that in 1925 it specifically extended that control to railway premises; see section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925; and Hulin v Cook [1977] RTR 345.

Section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925 extended to local licensing authorities the control of vehicles standing and plying for hire on public property. Including Railways as if they were a public street.

Some Cases that will assist you, most of which can be found on TDO, are as follows. It is worth remembering that the Eastbourne case re-affirmed the public invitation scenario of private land being no defence. I'll post some more cases in due course.

Young v Scampion. long but informative.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=58042

Hulin v Cook [1977] RTR 345, DC

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=67799

Curtis v Embery (1872) LR 7 Exch 369

Jones v Short (1900) 69 LJQB

White v Cubitt

Allen v Tunbridge (1871) LR 6 CP 481, DC;

Case v Storey (1869) LR 4 Exch 319

Eastern Counties and the London and Blackwall Railway Co v Marriage (1860) 9 HLC 32, HL(E)

Martins v Fowler [1926] AC 746, HL(E)

Nutter v Accrington Local Board of Health (1879) 4 QBD 375, CA

Robinson v Local Board for the District of Barton-Eccles, Winton and Monton (1883) 8 App Cas 798, HL(E)

Skinner v Usher (1872) LR 7 QB 423, DC.

Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Co v Thompson [1918] 2 KB 105

Clark & Goodge v Stanford (1871) LR 6 QB 357

Bateson v Oddy (1874) 38 JP 598

Foinett v Clark (1877) 41 JP 359

Marks v Ford (1880) 45 JP 157

The great western case.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5463

Some short references to Railway cases.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3064

Khan v Evans
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1985

[1985] R.T.R. 33

Summary

Subject: Road traffic

Hackney carriage; ply for reward; railway

Abstract: A hackney carriage which is not authorised to ply for reward on the railway is guilty of an offence even if it only enters the station in response to being hailed while outside it. K was found guilty of an offence under the British Rail byelaws of plying for reward as a hackney carriage driver on the railway without the permission of an authorised person.

He had been hailed as he drove past the station and had driven in and picked up passengers there. K argued that he was not plying for reward on the railway because the contract had been concluded while he was outside the station.

Summary: Held, dismissing the appeal, that driving along with a "for hire " sign was an invitation to treat; the hailing by the prospective passenger indicated a desire to negotiate, as did K's pulling into the station; at this stage no offer capable of being accepted had been made, and K was plying for reward on the railway.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 9:34 am

Circular 25/1986: Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Cars

2.43 Section 19 provides a discretionary power for licensing authorities, after prior consultation with the representatives of taxi operators in their area and with the consent of the owners of the land, to designate taxi stances and vary the number of vehicles to be at each stance. Before appointing or varying stances the licensing authority must give notice to the Chief Constable, and must also publish notification of their proposals and take into consideration any objections or representations received.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/04/2261/2

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 9:35 am

Hulin v Cook
(DC) Divisional Court
c.1977

[1977] R.T.R. 345
76 L.G.R. 115
(1978) 75 L.S.G. 819
(1977) 121 S.J. 493

Summary: A hackney carriage driver plying for hire within the confines of railway property requires not only a licence issued by a local authority under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 but also a permission in accordance with the British Railways Board By-laws by-law 22(2)(c). D, a taxi-driver, held a licence from the City of Cardiff Council under the council's by-laws made in accordance with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 68. The only stand specified by the by- laws was at Cardiff Central Station. D plied for hire at the station without permission in accordance with the British Railways Board By-laws 1965 by-law 22(2)(c).

On being charged with contravention of by-law 22(2)(c), he contended that the Public Health Act 1925 s. 76 exempted him from by-law 22(2)(c). The magistrate dismissed the information. On appeal by the prosecutor, held, allowing the appeal, that s. 76 conferred no new right. It merely extended the powers of licensing under the 1847 Act to the property of the railways. Accordingly, a licence under by-law 22(2)(c) was also required to ply for hire there, and the case would be remitted to the magistrate to continue the hearing.

Legislation Cited

Public Health Act 1925 s. 76
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 37
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 45
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s. 68
Transport Act 1962 s. 67

Artur and molshy · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 9:39 am

Sounds like the Clydebank cabbies want to get a fund together and take legal action against the authorities.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 9:45 am

Artur and molshy wrote:

Sounds like the Clydebank cabbies want to get a fund together and take legal action against the authorities.

They will need a lot of money.

Artur and molshy · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 10:11 am

captain cab wrote:

Artur and molshy wrote:

Sounds like the Clydebank cabbies want to get a fund together and take legal action against the authorities.

They will need a lot of money.

Sad but true.

Cabhappy · **Joined:** Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:05 pm **Posts:** 216

First of all thanks for all the info , really appreciated and we will plough through it.
Same thanks for all the supportive comments.

We do not have any funds, just over a hundred of us chip in a couple quid a month to the Trade Association which has kept things ticking along.
Perhaps when this is all done a lot more will sign up.

What we do have is the Council on our side which might help with the legal process.

If this is not successfully defended the same monopolies could be created anywhere in the country.
Maybe instead of all the squabbling and gloating/ even if most of it is just harmless ribbing, that goes on here an elsewhere amongst cabbies we could all see the big picture.
The real gains are not made by those who 'win' the privilege of plying certain locations, but by those who divide us up and decide who gets in and who doesn't.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 11:02 am

Cabhappy wrote:

If this is not successfully defended the same situation could crop up anywhere in the country.

It already has - it has happened for twenty odd years at the Metro Centre near Newcastle and the Trafford Centre near Manchester, the same happens at rail stations, ferry terminals, airports and bus stations - the land owner dictates who can enter their property and how much they will pay.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 11:08 am

Confirmation of Taxi Permit Schemes on Private Land

Burges Salmon has advised client First Great Western on its successful defeat of an aggressive challenge brought by Bristol Taxi drivers against a permit scheme introduced at Temple Meads station in 2012.

In the judgment, given on 26 April 2013, the High Court confirmed the existing law that private landowners can enforce permit schemes for taxi drivers who want to ply for hire from their land.

First Great Western ("FGW") first introduced the permit scheme for taxi drivers, giving access to the stands at its Bristol Temple Meads station, in March 2012. Despite the widespread practice of such schemes and the established law (which had been recognised by amongst others the law commission), the local branch of the National Taxi Association disputed the landowner's right to control its land in this way.

The drivers raised a range of grounds to try to resist the obligation to sign up for a permit and pay for the right to earn money on private land including:

•That their city council licences and the fact that stands were fixed in city council byelaws gave them a right to access and ply for hire without reference to the landowner;

•That the imposition of a permit scheme breached their human rights because it resulted in the loss of the 'possession' of free access;

•That the land was a highway and they had a right to ply for hire on any highway even if it was private land.

The judge rejected each of their arguments in a comprehensive judgment. He confirmed the established law that City Council Taxi Byelaws grant no new property rights, permission to access someone else's land for free is not a possession for the purposes of Human Rights (and FGW was not a Public Authority anyway) and the land cannot be a highway because all access has been by permission of the landowner for railway purposes and (in any event) the British Transport Commission Act 1949 prevents highways arising over Railway land.

This judgment should reassure landowners of their rights to control their own land and to permit access to it to taxi drivers on their own terms.

Cabhappy · **Joined:** Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:05 pm **Posts:** 216

It is not the charging of permits etc I refer to.
Of course landlords all over the country are maximising their profits.

It is the consequences of their methodology, by selling control of such permits or land use to the highest bidder they are, for the taxi trade at least, creating the complete opposite of the free market that was intended by denationalisation and deregulation etc.

If the monopoly created in my small backyard is not stopped then the progression is obvious.
Every privately owned rank, airport railway and shopping centre controlled and charged out at a premium by a handful of very wealthy 'businessmen'

Self employed taxi driver - a pseudonym
Customer choice - long forgotten ideal.
Booking office- a cash cow
A council licence- deregulated, derestricted, insignificant worthless piece of paper but a cherished memory of when times were 'good'.

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

CC, I fully understand about Private Land Owners charging for Taxis to rank up on their land. However, the land owner does not have the right to restrict access to the customer upon leaving his property and thereby limiting the number of licensed vehicles providing a service, and sell him on for a profit.

Now I know you see this as a land issue but no one has the right to reduce a customer in status by restricting access and fettering choice.

Oh and I know there are lots of transport hubs, which do exactly that, but I believe it's never been properly challenged.

In the case of the Clydebank shopping center the land owner appears to be denying street cars access to a public thoroughfare to pick people up. :-|

It can't be right. :-|

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat May 04, 2013 12:27 pm

Skull wrote:

In the case of the Clydebank shopping center the land owner appears to be denying street cars access to a public thoroughfare to pick people up. :-|

It can't be right. :-|

Ahh - we were at cross purposes :wink:

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

captain cab wrote:

Skull wrote:

In the case of the Clydebank shopping center the land owner appears to be denying street cars access to a public thoroughfare to pick people up. :-|

It can't be right. :-|

Ahh - we were at cross purposes :wink:

Not entirely as I do take your points on private property but no one has approached this from the customer's perspective. No one profits out of me without my knowledge by restricting my access to a limited number of licensed services. And that's exactly what's happening here. :-|

Skull · **Joined:** Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54 am **Posts:** 10460

Oh and another thing CC, I don’t believe lawyers normally fight cases in terms of absolutes. It’s not in their interests. They make more money out of fighting disputes based on rights of access to land and what rights of ownership allow land lords to do with their land. If lawyers fought cases in absolutes, they could potentially end land owners operating restrictive practices the length and breadth of the country.

No one is looking at this from the individual’s right not to be reduced in status and to be sold on to their licensed service provider by a private entity?

Oh and that QC, I picked up at Edinburgh Airport was having none of it. He knew exactly what was going down, and as far as he was concerned it was a question of, how dare they? :-|

Taxi Driver Online

Clydebank: street cars dealt another blow

Who is online