Taxi Driver Online

Well to me it means all licenses must match the area in which your licensed, so i am not sure why so many councils are giving operators licenses to bases operating outside there controlled district.as for your theory the deregulation act over rides it.

Oh Trafford are

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

There are a lot more than Trafford ok he asked about section 80(2)
I automatically assume that at some stage Trafford has formally adopted the 1976 Act, and if so, then section 80(2) comes into force:-

"In this Part of this Act references to a licence, in connection with a controlled district, are references to a licence issued by the council whose area consists of or includes that district, and "licensed" shall be construed accordingly."
Without delving deeper into quoting the legislation at this stage, "the area" is set by the 1847 Act, which in turn was defined by section 15 of the Transport Act 1985 which set the boundaries for the whole of the council's area.
Whilst I am fully aware of the speculative comments in Mr Button's book that perhaps a local authority can issue licences outside of its area, the huge amounts of cross-border cases over the years quite clearly have all set boundaries.
In short, I do not believe that it is lawful in any way, shape or form for Trafford Council to set up a private hire business and license it and the drivers working for it, and the vehicles those drivers use, anywhere other than within their controlled district.

I move to Section 57 of the 1976 Act, and the wording of that Act which appears to have confused many as to where they can issue licences.
Let me first say that section 57 is NOT a section of the Act which applies to the setting of conditions, or anything other than the power to request information. And that information is only available for local authorities to decide whether to issue a licence or not, as the case may be.
The confusing wording is contained in section (2)(b)(ii): the words are "the address or addresses, whether within the council or not, for which he intends to carry on a business in connection with private hire vehicles licensed under this Part of this Act."

Over the years there have been many cross-border cases. In one of those cases, Murtagh —v- Bromsgrove, the issue of the wording of section 57 was raised on behalf of the Appellant in an attempt to protect their position. Unfortunately as it was a preliminary point, it did not form part of the judgement; but I know that Bryan was in Court when the suggestion that section 57 meant that licences could be issued outside the area was dismissed in a single sentence, with raised eyebrows as to why anyone should suggest that this was the case, by Lord Justice Kennedy, who said: "This information would merely allow a local authority to decide whether to issue a licence or not, and if the application was from outside the area it would be automatically refused."

I have to say it made common sense to me, but the most important aspect would be that the staff of Trafford,Bolsover,Mansfield,Ashfield licensing departments to name a few are not authorised officers of the surrounding districts, as required by the legislation, and effectively they have no measure of control over any operation, the recording of any records, the access to those records.

I understand all that - just a shame Trafford licensing department doesn't

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Ok so we all get it apart from Trafford, I wonder if they get there aiding a criminal offence?
Quite clearly even the testing of vehicles is restricted under section 50 of the 1976 Act to "at such place within the area of the council".

In the Kennedy decision in the Murtagh case; you will note that there are quotes in there with regard to Dittah —v- Birmingham, where Lord Justice Kennedy was also the Judge in that case. If I direct your attention HHJ Kennedy's comments at the end of the judgement,
you will see that he states that if the licensed operator opens an office in a neighbouring district, he commits a criminal offence.

More importantly he says, "To keep within the law, he must then obtain a whole series of fresh licences, an operator licence, driver licences and vehicle licences, for the second area." I do not believe that you could get a clearer input on the issue that those operators who are outside the area need to be licensed in those other areas, NOT Trafford; and that every day that they do not have those licences they are committing a criminal offence and are almost certainly not insured.

We must all bear in mind that receiving work isn't the same as giving work. IMO the giving of work to HC is quite clear. Anyone can. However where Berwick comes in is in respect of receiving work and where. That's the question mark and some councils are making it a licensing condition that HCs work predominately in their licensing area.

Too many IMO.

And we go back to the 'if it's not legally forbidden, it's legal' scenario.

Indeed no act that I've read says HC only operators need operator licenses (well not in England and Wales), and I think that's a huge mistake. On par with sec 16 of the 1985 Transport Act.

_________________
IDFIMH

[quote="captain cab"][quote="mancityfan"]

There are a lot more than Trafford ok he asked about section 80(2)
I automatically assume that at some stage Trafford has formally adopted the 1976 Act, and if so, then section 80(2) comes into force:-

"In this Part of this Act references to a licence, in connection with a controlled district, are references to a licence issued by the council whose area consists of or includes that district, and "licensed" shall be construed accordingly."
Without delving deeper into quoting the legislation at this stage, "the area" is set by the 1847 Act, which in turn was defined by section 15 of the Transport Act 1985 which set the boundaries for the whole of the council's area.
Whilst I am fully aware of the speculative comments in Mr Button's book that perhaps a local authority can issue licences outside of its area, the huge amounts of cross-border cases over the years quite clearly have all set boundaries.
In short, I do not believe that it is lawful in any way, shape or form for Trafford Council to set up a private hire business and license it and the drivers working for it, and the vehicles those drivers use, anywhere other than within their controlled district.

You have just supported my argument about out of town vehicles,the controlled district did not issue the license,the Deregulation Act only applies to Private Hire Operators except in Scotland,it does not refer to TAXIS(hackney carriage) for England or Wales.
This means they should only accept work for outside their Licensing area when they are within the boundaries of their Licensing area

And the moon is made out of cheese.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think I just wasted my time

And this view is supported by caselaw from London - DPP vs Comcab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Welcome to my world.

_________________
IDFIMH

And how many London cabbies have been prosecuted for taking prebooked phone work, whilst outside of London, in the last 10 years?

I would say none.

Different acts, and in my view trumped by Gladen.

_________________
IDFIMH

The judiciary seem very selective

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

You just can't trust them.

_________________
IDFIMH