Whenever did the traffic commissioners have any jurisdiction over HC and PH licences?
The headline is simply misleading, and defo one where I would have left out the t-word in the thread title, and questioned the use of the t-word in the Daily Record's headline (where the article was published).
So it seems the PSVs were on a restricted licence, and to that extent the income from the HC/PHV side should exceed the income from the PSVs. But other than that, there's no real mention of the HC/PHV side in the commissioner's decision.
But it looks like a small business with a couple of PSVs and a couple of HCs and/or PHVs, and to that extent the Daily Record used the t-word in the headline, although the judgment wasn't about that side of the business at all
Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Scottish Traffic Area, wrote:
With regard to the Bryan Haulage (No. 2) (2002/217) question; “is the conduct such that the operator ought to be put out of business?” the answer is firmly “yes”, albeit that this is a restricted licence where cessation of the business may not be automatic as the bulk of the income is said to be from taxi hire.
Deputy Traffic Commissioner, Scottish Traffic Area, wrote:
I further find that the operator has failed to satisfy the main occupation criterion under section 13(3)(b)(ii) of the Act. The operator was called to a Public Inquiry in December 2017 regarding this matter. I have no doubt that the Traffic Commissioner would have made it abundantly clear to the operator that records needed to be maintained demonstrating that income from his private hire/taxi business exceeded his PSV income. Notwithstanding this, the operator has failed to keep such records.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -pm1102777
Login
Register
FAQ
), but find it very hard to believe that.