Taxi Driver Online

First taxi driver in Kent prosecuted for personalised number plate after case brought by Thanet District Council

A taxi firm and unlicensed driver have been hit with a fine for emblazoning the letters ‘CAB’ on a personalised number plate.

The company had repeatedly been warned the wording was unlawful for unauthorised cars, a court heard.

The driver was stopped in a joint operation organised by the local authority and police.

It was discovered they had been using a personalised number plate with the company name and letters ‘CAB’.

It is prohibited under the Private Hire Licence conditions and only Hackney Carriages are permitted to display the words ‘CAB’ or ‘TAXI’ on vehicles.

The driver was found to be displaying the plate after council licensing officers repeatedly warned them to stop.

The offender would deny any wrongdoing but was convicted following a trial at Margate Magistrates Court on April 26.

The court also dismissed an appeal and the council was awarded costs of £1,376.83, in what is understood to be the first case of its kind in Kent.

The taxi operator was found guilty of allowing an unlicensed private hire vehicle to be used and handed fines and costs totalling £1,039.

They were also found guilty of driving without a private hire vehicle licence and handed fines and costs totalling £824.

Cllr Heather Keen, cabinet member for neighbourhoods, said: “Taxis provide an important service to our residents.

“It is extremely important that they are operating within the law, to protect taxi users and other licensed operators.

“Vehicle licences are issued with conditions to ensure the comfort and safety of passengers and may be subject to spot checks by licensing officers.

“We take matters of this nature very seriously, and won’t hesitate to prosecute where we have evidence of vehicles operating without a valid licence in place.”

It is understood to be the first time a prosecution has been brought in Kent, involving wording on a personalised number plate.

Passengers should always check private hire vehicles or taxis are licensed, the district coiuncil has warned.

Licensed cars display an identification plate on the rear, which states the correct vehicle registration number and expiry date.

_________________
IDFIMH

Interesting case, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, for anyone with more than a passing interest in such matters, I suspect there are several misleading things in the article above (not to mention Sussex's thread title )

But the article above is the press rehash of a council press release, the latter reading as follows (and let's just ignore the use of the t-word):


Council brings successful prosecution of unlicensed taxi operation

https://www.thanet.gov.uk/council-bring ... operation/

Thanet District Council has brought a successful prosecution against a Private Hire Taxi Operator and Driver, following hearings in Margate Magistrates Court on Wednesday 26 April.

The court dismissed an appeal and awarded the council costs of £1,376.83.

At prosecution, the taxi operator was found guilty of allowing an unlicensed Private Hire Vehicle to be used and given fines and costs totalling £1,039.

In addition, the driver was found guilty of driving without a Private Hire Vehicle licence and given fines and costs totalling £824.

The case was brought because the operator was allowing the use of a personalised number plate with the company name and the letters ‘CAB’, which could be used to ply for hire. This is prohibited under the Private Hire Licence conditions; only Hackney Carriages are permitted to display the words ‘CAB’ or ‘TAXI’ on vehicles.

The driver was stopped in a joint operation organised by Thanet District Council and Kent Police. They were found to be displaying this number plate on their vehicle, after being repeatedly advised by council Licensing Officers that they could not licence the vehicle as private hire with that particular licence plate.

Cllr Heather Keen, Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, said: “Taxis provide an important service to our residents. It is extremely important that they are operating within the law, to protect taxi users and other licensed operators.

“Vehicle licences are issued with conditions to ensure the comfort and safety of passengers and may be subject to spot checks by Licensing Officers.”

“We take matters of this nature very seriously, and won’t hesitate to prosecute where we have evidence of vehicles operating without a valid licence in place.”

This is the first time that a successful prosecution has been brought in Kent, involving wording on a personalised number plate.

Members of the public are advised to always check that private hire vehicles or taxis are licensed. Licensed vehicles display an identification plate on the rear, which states the correct vehicle registration number and expiry date.

1 For a start, I'd guess there was no prosecution for using 'CAB' on a number plate. The prosecutions were for an unlicensed vehicle, and both the operator and driver were prosecuted in that regard. Read the council's news release carefully, and that's all that's been prosecuted. The nearest it gets to saying that there was a prosecution for using the CAB number plate was simply to say the prosecution 'involved' the number plate, which is a bit less direct, and to me suggests there was no prosecution 'for personalised number plate', as stated in the press article:


2 A related point is that I doubt if the driver was prosecuted for being unlicensed, as stated in the press report. Where does it say that in the council's news release? The driver was prosecuted for using an unlicensed vehicle, not for being unbadged. I'd guess he's a licensed PHD.

3 There are other differences which may look like slight details, but in fact maybe demonstrate that there's a big difference between the press report and the council's take. For example:



4 Which is a bit different. But I suspect goes to the crux of it all. I'd guess the firm tried to plate the car PHV, but the council said they couldn't because of the 'CAB' number plate. The press kind of give the impression that the car had been pulled up several times while working, but I think that's just misrepresenting that the council had said several times that the car couldn't be plated PHV with the 'CAB' number plate.

So they started using the car for hire and reward, and the driver and operator were then prosecuted for using an uplated vehicle.

The driver was badged, and there was never any prosecution as regards the number plate per se.


5 Don't think that's quite right either. The 'CAB' wording was unlawful for 'authorised' cars, but the car was never 'authorised'. Strictly speaking, the argument should be that the wording was unlawful for *authorised* cars, not the other way round.

I think

you need to get out more Stuart

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

In another place they have a photo of it.

The Registration Plate is F1NE CAB so really I think it's perfectly legal.

Don't see that the LA can have any reason to refuse it, if it is properly PH or Hack Plated.

If it isn't licensed, then unless it's illegally used for Hire and Reward, it isn't the LA's problem.

So I think the Court may have been wrong.

Interesting if they Appeal.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Maybe, or maybe the operator didn't appeal that particular matter.

Think it would be very hard to defend.


The above from the Press Release leads me to believe action was taken against the owner of the vehicle for the Cab number plate, especially as they have indicated there have been prior warnings.

_________________
IDFIMH

'Another place' - I like it

Not sure if you're being ironic, Chris, but pretty sure that's not the actual registration, and the photo elsewhere is an obvious mock up. I mean, there surely can't be a registration F1 NECAB, and it doesn't appear on the DVLA database.

But your post does point to another shortcoming in the reports - it's not at all clear what the car had actually been doing in terms of working, but there must have been evidence it was being used for hire and reward, and the council wouldn't plate it because of the number plate.

It's not clear what the specific rules are, but generally speaking, you can't display words like 'taxi' and 'cab' on PHVs, lest that means people could mistake it as a public hire taxi/hackney carriage, and because it facilitates illegal plying for hire by PHVs. This is the specific condition of licence used for private hire cars in Edinburgh:



Of course, the disputed number plate would be fine on an HC, or on a motor car not used for hire and reward (unless, perhaps, the chosen wording was achieved by mis-spacing or misrepresenting the characters, say.)

Now I have looked again - and yes it's a total mock up.

Apologies if I accidentally led you all astray.

Now I really want to know what the registration is, anybody know?

Do we have an Isle of Thanet correspondent at all?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Down here we have two separate bits of legislation that the council could have used.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... view=plain

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/section/48 section 48 (1)a iii.

Some licensing areas, Lewes as an example, take the view that the words cab, taxi can go on their PH provided it's not on the roof or roof sign.

Clearly they are choosing to read the legislation in a way that no normal person would.

I mean who thinks those drafting and agreeing the law believed that a taxi/cab sign on the roof was a big no-no, but big f*** off taxi/cab signage on the doors and windows was ticker tee boo?

_________________
IDFIMH

Can't recall reading that before. But to be fair to Lewes, the plain meaning of that is that it applies simply to stuff above the roofline, and to that extent the rest of the vehicle is open season

Totally daft, obviously, but the solution to daft legislation is to amend it. I'm amazed there's no big debate about amending that provision, but I suspect there's been a lot of comment on it, although I've probably missed it.

Any litigation based on that particular provision?

I think this is the equivalent Scottish provision in the legislation. Note how broad it is - 'on or in' a PHV, and how many different things it might apply to. Maybe a bit too broad brush, in fact. I mean, in Scotland if a PHV is fitted with a taximeter it must be set to the regulated taxi fares. Therefore, if a taximeter is fitted, and it's showing the taxi fares, then to that extent it's a 'feature' 'in' a PHC 'suggesting' the 'vehicle is available for hire as a taxi'? Or a PHV on a mixed circuit with 'ABC Taxis' business cards on display in the vehicle, for example?

Subsection (1)(a) obviously applies to roofsigns with the word 'taxi' or 'cab' on them, which is presumably why some councils allow PHV roofsigns as long as they don't include the word 'taxi' or 'cab'.

Obviously subsection (1)(b) is about more than simply the words 'taxi' or 'cab'. But if it doesn't apply to a roofsign without the words 'taxi' or 'cab', what might it possibly apply to?

Oh, aye, meant to reply to this one as well, but forgot.

Anyway, I took your advice a few weeks ago and have been trying to spend less time on here, but was posting a bit more when the car was off the road

But I'll leave the lion's share of posting the news to you and Sussex

(Part of the reason for posting so much on here was taking notes for my own benefit, effectively, which I can easily do in another way...)

And apologies for making the thread look like a dog's breakfast than it already was, but I'm trying to make a point of sorts...

Nice signage on a Lewes PH.

_________________
IDFIMH