|
Where the phone is answered is the operating address. You say he's operating Rutland p/hires from melton. Melton should be very interested in this, as his Rutland vehicles are committing and offence,and probably not insured, this should also interest county, who have a duty of care.
From the very first day cross-border issues were tested by local authorities in the Courts, briefly those cases include Dittah -v- Choudhry, Top Cars -v- Windsor, Powers -v- Bromsgrove, East Staffordshire -v- Rendell, Murtagh -v- Bromsgrove, and Shanks (Blue Line) -v- North Tyneside. All these cases have, since the first, followed the same pattern of determination. It may well be that that is because a number of these have been heard by the same Judge; or it may just be that the first decision was of sufficient gravitas to ensure the same result came forward each time these matters came to Court.
1. However, the fact remains that the overall decision of the Courts has been that it is unlawful for a private hire operator to sub-contract work across borders, whatever the circumstances of the initial contract. The initial view held in Choudhry and Dittah, and upheld in all the cases since then, is that once an operator's licence is issued, it is unlawful for that private hire operator to use any other vehicle or driver than those licensed by the same authority; but that once so licensed,the car and driver may be used to pick up and drop off anywhere in the country.
2. Thus in Choudhry and Dittah, the two operators - both licensed by Birmingham - were making use in Birmingham of vehicles licensed by numerous other authorities: Solihull, Wolverhampton etc.
This was found to be unlawful, and this was the fundamental case which said that all the licences -operator, vehicles and drivers - must match. This would permit sub-contracting amongst operators licensed by the same authority as themselves, but not otherwise.
3. The Top Cars case: Mr Mahboob Khan, the proprietor of Top Cars, held an operator licence, vehicle licences and driver licences all issued by Slough Borough Council. Windsor and Maidenhead prosecuted Mr Khan, making a case that as he was not licensed by Windsor and Maidenhead, he was not entitled to take work, or advertise for work, other than in Slough. Again, the courts held that where the phone rang was where the operator licence needed to be issued and, once issued, only Slough drivers and vehicles could be used; it did not matter where the service was advertised or where the work emanated. Therefore Mr Khan was acquitted.
4. In the East Staffordshire case, Mr Rendell was wholly licensed by Derbyshire Dales. His partner Mrs McCartin lived 50 yards away from him, but on the other side of a bridge which marked the boundary between East Staffordshire and Derbyshire Dales. The two partners, McCartin and Rendell, were in the habit in the daily course of their business of transferring their telephone line between each other when they were out on a job. The courts held that transferring the line from Derbyshire Dales to East Staffordshire without having an East Staffordshire operator licence, and consequently vehicles and drivers also licensed by East Staffordshire, was unlawful.
5. In the case of Mr Powers, all his vehicles and his office were licensed in Stratford-upon-Avon, but because this was not a 24-hour operation Mr Powers diverted his telephone number to his house in Bromsgrove, and was therefore making a provision in Bromsgrove, for which he required an operator licence. This worked fine, as long as Mr Powers had some vehicles licensed by Bromsgrove. However, once he had got rid of those licences and concentrated on Stratford alone, the council at Bromsgrove refused to renew his operator licence because under such licence he could only use Bromsgrove licensed vehicles and drivers, and has he had none of those it was inappropriate to give him a licence. His appeal against that decision failed.
6. In Murtagh -v- Bromsgrove Pat Murtagh, who is a senior Magistrate, had a business on the border of Bromsgrove and Birmingham. She was wholly licensed in Bromsgrove, but had nine freephones across the border in Birmingham. Birmingham City Council maintained and insisted that those freephones had to be served by Birmingham licensed drivers and vehicles. Acting under some pressure, Mrs Murtagh acceded to Birmingham's request to obtain an operator licence from Birmingham, and licensed half her vehicles and drivers with Birmingham.
7. Birmingham and Bromsgrove then embarked on a squabble as to who had the right of it, with Mrs Murtagh in effect being treated as pig in the middle. After some ten years Bromsgrove successfully prosecuted Mrs Murtagh, who then promptly moved her entire operation into Birmingham.
8. The Shanks case is perhaps the final straw that breaks the camel's back on cross-border. Mr Shanks, wishing to increase his business, opened an office in Newcastle-upon- Tyne. He held operator licences, vehicle licences and driver licences for both Newcastle and North Tyneside, so that his entire operation, like Mrs Murtagh's, was fully licensed. He even went to the trouble of having business cards made which advised customers that he was fully licensed in both areas, and because of that, customers could expect that from time to time Newcastle or North Tyneside vehicles could be dispatched to fulfil bookings.
9. Not so, said North Tyneside; that is unlawful. As a North Tyneside licensed operator, he can only use North Tyneside vehicles - and this, on trial, was indeed the decision of the Courts. This meant that even a person who operated his own business from two centres could not even sub-contract to himself across a licensing border.
10.In the case of Choudhry and Dittah, these two proprietors passed their own work to various licensed vehicles. In the cases of Khan, Powers, Rendell, Murtagh and Shanks, all defendants were principles in the various prosecutions, but none of those prosecutions involved third parties. In fact, they were passing work to cars on their own fleets, albeit licensed in other areas.
11. At this moment in time, it may well be that they think they are acting lawfully. Unfortunately, as is often the case, it is not until the unforseen happens that the true nature of the risk is explored through the Courts.
I apologise for the length of this report, but I didn't feel that I could do justice to the issues without expanding on them properly. I also know a Law Society expert witness and his opinion, either in evidential or advisory capacity, has been sought on many occasions. So from the very beginning he has been involved in all the cross-border cases I mention, except for the Camberley case. I could get him to be a witness in court for you for a small fee, I believe also that it would not cost the council a lot to bring a case to court, and you do not have to prove your case, it is for them to prove what they are doing is not illegal.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
