no tips wrote:
I have known Simon for about 15 years , he is like a dog with a bone he wont let it go, he will take this all the way, It has turned from the council being found out on a lot of differnt things.All council Licensing work is being looked at in depth now.
here is one example
Having studied the local government (local provisions) Act 1976 on the direct.gov website with the provisions that the council have to adhere to when setting in this case our licence fees, here are a couple of pages that i based my objection to the licence fee increases letter on, i think you will as i did find the content contained in them very interesting indeed. Thanks Simon Nash for sending me the original link to the website for the page regarding the re location of taxi ranks.
Taken from Kings Lynn taxi facebook page
But alot of the trouble is that the council have moved the main taxi rank inside a car park, where passengers have to mix with cars coming and going in a un safe way. the drivers dont like sitting inside in a glommy smelly invirement. there is no proper signs tell passengers where the rank is either. Be trouble at mill.
RUPERT COPE
HEAD OF TAXI BRANCH
BUSES AND TAXIS DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
INTEGRATED AND LOCAL TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
3/12
GREAT MINSTER HOUSE
Peter Perkins Esq 76 MARSHAM STREET
Chairman LONDON
NATPHLEO SW1P 4DR
2643A Stratford Road DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 2291
Hockley Heath DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 020 7944 2293
FAX: 020 7944 2279 SOLIHULL GTN CODE: 3533 2291
B94 5NH E-MAIL: e-mail:
rupert_cope@detr.gsi.gov.uk WEB SITE:
http://www.detr.gov.uk OUR REF: PT2 10/25/13
YOUR REF:
7 NOVEMBER 2000
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976: ELIGIBILITY
TO DRIVE A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE IN ENGLAND AND WALES OUTSIDE
LONDON
I refer to our conversation last week at Telford in which I said I would include you in the letters I
was sending out about eligibility to drive a private hire vehicle (PHV) in England and Wales
outside London.
The need for the letters was, of course, prompted by a parliamentary answer Keith Hill MP, the
Minister for Local Transport, gave to Jeffrey Ennis MP on 26 July. As you know, the matter stems
from a court case in 1997 which essentially stated that the only people who could drive licensed
PHVs in England and Wales outside London were those who held PHV driver licences. In the light
of this judgement, the Department carried out a consultation exercise to seek views on whether we
should make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to broaden the range
of people eligible to drive licensed PHVs. The conclusion that the Minister announced in July was
that only people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver, should be
eligible to drive licensed PHVs without themselves holding a PHV driver licence. For reasons
which are set out in the remainder of this letter, he concluded that a deregulation order was not
necessary for this purpose.
The decision took into account that an exemption for testing licensed taxis and would-be taxi
drivers is included in Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 and that we consulted on the basis that
a deregulation order would be necessary to effect the options for change proposed. Against that
background, many have sought clarification of why the Minister reached this conclusion.
This letter sets out the Department's view of the law, but ultimately interpretation of the law is a
matter for the courts. If anyone is in doubt about whether or not they are entitled to drive a licensed
PHV in any particular circumstances, it is of course open to them to obtain their own legal advice.
There is no express statutory provision which exempts those carrying out legally necessary tests of,
or in, licensed PHVs from holding a PHV driver licence. But we consider that it is necessary to
look at the wider legal picture.
The 'MOT' testing scheme for motor vehicles other than goods vehicles is established under
sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. By section 47(1) of that Act a person who uses
on a road a motor vehicle to which the section applies will commit an offence if a test certificate
has not been issued within the appropriate period. The only way of obtaining an 'MOT' certificate
is by having the vehicle tested by someone who is authorised to do so.
Closely linked to this are sections 41 and 42 of the 1988 Act which make provision for the general
regulation of the construction and use of vehicles. The principal regulations are the Road Vehicles
(Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Again, most people have to rely on motor mechanics to
ensure that they do not commit construction and use offences.
Almost inevitably in relation to an 'MOT' test, and in many instances in relation to motor vehicle
maintenance and repair, examiners or motor mechanics will need to road-test a vehicle. If they
were not able to do so in relation to PHVs, then they would probably be unable to carry out the test
or the work in the first place and the owners of the vehicles would find it difficult, if not
impossible, to comply with the statutory requirements. Under sections 48 and 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the
licensing authority is under a specific statutory obligation not to grant a PHV licence unless it is
satisfied that the vehicle is safe and in a suitable mechanical condition nor to grant a PHV driver's
licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Inevitably, these
obligations will involve an element of testing, during which a person who does not hold a PHV
driver's licence will have to drive a licensed PHV. If this were not the case,
then it would be
extremely difficult to comply with the obligations. In relation to the examples set out above, the view that in no circumstances can a licensed PHV be
driven in a controlled district by a person who does not hold a PHV driver licence produces an
apparent conflict not only between different provisions in the same Act but also between different
provisions in different Acts. If such a conflict were to arise in practice, it would be a matter for a
court to resolve; but we take the view that, despite Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 in relation
to taxis, it could never have been the intention that the strict interpretation should have the effect of
precluding the statutory testing and general maintenance of PHVs or of preventing a licensing
authority from complying with its statutory obligations.
Such an interpretation would produce an
absurd result. We are therefore of the view that should a court have to resolve such a conflict it would not find
that an offence had been committed where a person was driving a PHV in connection with the
testing of the vehicle for statutory purposes or for the purpose of work necessary to keep the
vehicle in good order. We take the same view in relation to the driving of a PHV in connection
with the performance of statutory obligations by a licensing authority. The purpose of the order-making power contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act
1994 is to reduce or alleviate a burden imposed by legislation but, having come to the conclusion
that the existing legislation would not be interpreted so as to impose a burden in relation to
statutory testing procedures or the compliance with statutory obligations, it followed that no such
order was necessary.
When we next write to the chief executives of all taxi and PHV licensing authorities in England
and Wales on various taxi/PHV matters, we shall include a similar clarification of the Minister's
announcement.
R F COPE
Send this to him..
Login
Register
FAQ
