Taxi Driver Online

I think I'm still waiting to see the legal reasons why I can't pick up a radio job in Edinburgh.

And if I can pick up a radio job in Edinburgh, then why can't hundreds of me's also pick up radio work in Edinburgh?

Oh how wrong you are. Experts on Scots law now?
Yes you could pick up here but only if you were in your own area when you got the job or were here returning to your own area. Under no circumstances could you legally operate totally within Edinburgh - unless it was part of an existing hire of more than 24 hour duration.
Simple unequivocal F A C T!

Should you wish to try the experiment do let us know and we will make the necessary arrangements for your arrest, incarceration and subsequent castration.

Precedent was set when you lot did it to Willie Wallace when he tried to pick up near Tower Bridge

(3) Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to the operation of a vehicle
within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not
licensed if there are in force--

(i) in respect of the vehicle, a licence under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (licensing of
hackney carriages) or section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1976 (licensing of private hire vehicles); and

(ii) in respect of its driver, a licence under section 46 of the said Act of 1847 (licensing of hackney
carriage drivers) or, as the case may be, section 51 of the said Act of 1976 (licensing of drivers of
private hire vehicles).

s 22 Saving for certain vehicles etc.

Nothing in sections 10 to 21 (with the exception of subsection (7) of section 21
of this Act shall--

(a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within and
taking them out of an area in respect of which the vehicle is not licensed
as a taxi or a private hire car in pursuance of a contract for the hire of
the vehicle made outside the area if the vehicle is not made available for
hire within the area;

Please find the relevant law below ;

[i]CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 CHAPTER 45

PART II LICENSING AND REGULATION--PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES

LICENSING AND REGULATION OF TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE CARS

s 21 Offences.

(1) If any person--

(a) operates, or permits the operation of, a taxi within an area in
respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed or the
driver requires to be but is not licensed, or

(b) picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up by, a
private hire car within an area in respect of which its operation requires
to be but is not licensed or the driver requires to be but is not licensed,

that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary
conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN1].

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the operation of a taxi or
private hire car within an area in respect of which its operation or its
driver is not licensed if the request for its hiring was received by its
driver [(otherwise than in a public place from the person to be conveyed in
it, or a person acting on his behalf, for a journey beginning there and
then) ] [FN2] whilst--

(a) in the area or in that part thereof in respect of which its operation
and its driver are licensed;

(b) engaged on hire on a journey which began in that area or part or will
end there; or

(c) returning to that area or part immediately following completion of a
journey on hire.

(3) Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to the operation of a vehicle
within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not
licensed if there are in force--

(i) in respect of the vehicle, a licence under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (licensing of
hackney carriages) or section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1976 (licensing of private hire vehicles); and

(ii) in respect of its driver, a licence under section 46 of the said Act of 1847 (licensing of hackney
carriage drivers) or, as the case may be, section 51 of the said Act of 1976 (licensing of drivers of
private hire vehicles).



(4) If any person, being the holder of a taxi licence or private hire car
licence in respect of a vehicle, permits another person who does not have a
current taxi driver's licence or private hire car driver's licence, as the
case may be, to operate the vehicle as a taxi or, as the case may be, a
private hire car he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary
conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN3].

CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 CHAPTER 45

PART II LICENSING AND REGULATION--PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES

LICENSING AND REGULATION OF TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE CARS

s 22 Saving for certain vehicles etc.

Nothing in sections 10 to 21 (with the exception of subsection (7) of section 21
of this Act shall--

(a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within and
taking them out of an area in respect of which the vehicle is not licensed
as a taxi or a private hire car in pursuance of a contract for the hire of
the vehicle made outside the area if the vehicle is not made available for
hire within the area;

Hope this helps in the debate

I think you should give him time to explain his reasons why you can't undertake a cross border hiring? It might appear he has dug a hole for himself but before you bury him in case law I think you should at least give him an opportunity to dig himself out of the mess he has created for himself.

Only he knows what prompted him to write the following passage but who are we to argue that he might be wrong? The least we can offer him is the courtesy to explain his reasons for doing so. Under those circumstances he has the floor.

Regards

JD

Having re-checked the relevant legislation, it would appear that English PH can operate within Scotland (and vice versa) but Scottish PH cannot operate totally within another Scottish area. (hence my (in hindsight) rash statement, based on an out of date conditions book!!!
However the offer of castration or disembowelment still stands!!!

First I must thank you for posting the link to the online report it was most helpful.

I have read the report but just like the governments response to the OFT report when that was first published, there was instant euphoria by those who didn't really comprehend the full consequence of its contents.

I fully understand that this is a legal judgement albeit by the lowest court in the land but in order to fully argue against the Sheriffs opinion one has to dissect her reasoning with a fine tooth-comb. You have to look at the judgement with an open mind and balance the evidence in the light of current legislation and case law. The sheriff interpretation of current case law is no doubt open to challenge so in that respect perhaps you could tell us if in your opinion you think the sheriff has correctly interpreted the relevant case law?

Is your command of current case law greater than the Sheriff's or do you think that just because she is a Sheriff she automatically has superior knowledge to that of your own?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves did the sheriff ere in law when she granted the council an extension. Did the higher court not state that a council must be in possession of the evidence of unmet demand when the application falls due?

Would it be right to assume that the higher court might consider “the council’s own admission that it wasn't in a position to know if demand existed or not at the time the applications fell due”. Would this be clear evidence that the council had defaulted in its duty to keep itself informed in the light of both Dundee and Coyle.

Is a high court judge who has already ruled in a previous case that "A council must have such evidence of demand at the time the application falls due" likely to turn on that decision just because Edinburgh council need more time to complete a survey?

I am just posing an alternative as to how the higher court may see it in the light of previous decisions made by themselves. It all fits into the Euphoria element I previously spoke about.

The euphoria of those that greeted the Government response to the OFT report has been short lived and now those euphoric chickens are well and truly coming home to roost with a vengeance. Do not make the same mistake of falling into the same false sense of security that befell those that rejoiced in the Government response to the OFT report. The fat lady might have initially cleared her throat but we shall have to wait and see what tune she finally dances to.

Regards

JD

Eh? What? Money? No the games dead, better off on the dole!

I asked, Is your command of current case law greater than the Sheriff's or do you think that just because she is a Sheriff she automatically has superior knowledge to that of your own?

Case law is an open book and we all have the same opportunity to interpret case law as we find it. It is called opinion. The reason why there are so many successful appeals to the higher court in Scotland is because in most cases the Sheriff has erred in their judgement of the law. I think you might agree on that?

I also think you might agree that on occasion some Sheriff's do get it wrong. When examining the present case I am looking for evidence to see if the Sheriff's reasoning was deficient? In order to do that you have to examine the quality of evidence or lack of it on which she based her decision. It doesn't matter where my sympathies lie, if the law is applied correctly then it will get the praise it deserves, if it is flawed then it needs to be exposed as being flawed. Don't you agree?

I am also looking for evidence that the Sheriff erred in law by putting too much weight on what some might see as incomplete evidence which was absolutely crucial to the determination of the material issues in this case.

I wasn't privy to the hearing but it may appear that the respondent's council did not have the evidence to counter the claim of the council's two pivotal points. I refer to the factually incorrect and misleading evidence of the licensing officers periodical survey reports and the councils assumption that six months was not long enough to process these applications.

The sheriff found that the council had acted in good faith even though they had ample time to process the applications and that the licensing officer's reports were evidence that the council were keeping matters under review.

There is no doubt that the council could and should have given their decision on these license applications within the six-month time frame, however the Sheriff chose not to question their reasoning as to why they didn't. Instead the Sheriff stated that she could offer an extension if it was shown that the council through no fault of their own had been unable to complete their enquiries in the statutory six-month period.

The sheriff tried to justify her reasoning by diminishing the rights of the respondent to a speedy decision and elevating the administrative rights of the appellant. A clear balance should have been struck between both parties and if the scales of justice were to be tipped in any direction it should have been in favour of the respondents. The onus is on the Council to speedily execute the application within the time frame allowed by law. They comprehensively failed to do this even though they had the means in which to do it.

The Sheriff in my opinion was wrong on many counts and I shall highlight the discrepancies in days to come.

Regards

JD

I rent Cabs out in a deregulated area and theyre no cheaper now than before deregulation. Possibly because insurance has gone up, servicing has gone up, labour and parts have gone up.

And fares have doubled

And the public still wait for ages to get a cab on a Saturday night

95% of vehicles are single shifted

If owner drivers have good weekends, they dont work the early part of the week,

unfortunately customers still want taxis, but then, this is in their best interest aint it, so they should be grateful, for the service being worse.

But then, I'm a bit of a cynic.

Captain Cab

I do not think I know Scots law better than a qualified and competent member of the Scottish legal profession. I have read the notes of the Coyle and Dundee cases, and I do not see the same relevance to this appeal as you seem to. The time to argue on that point is when the applications are refused.

Perhaps you or JD could enlighten me as to your legal qualification and knowledge of Scots law.

The point judged here was that CEC, having kept demand monitored, acted to verify whether an indicator of possible SUD was true.

The applications were lodged during the arrangements for this verification. There is good reason for deciding on the applications when the full up-to-date information is available. So just cause exists to extend the timeframe. The requirement is to know the level of demand at the time of deciding on the applications.

I have always acknowledge I know very little about Scottish law in fact I have said it on TDO on many occasions but when the occasion arises I can apply my mind very quickly to the relevant law if need be. I hope the little piece in the CEC v 3maxblack thread demonstrates that the Sheriff might have been a little less than perfect in her adjudication of the appeal.