Taxi Driver Online

Pretty straightforward case for the court, I'd guess, and a bit of a stretch to claim that they're used for medical purposes or as ambulances

And, of course, imagine the floodgates opening if the appellant had been successful


High Court upholds private hire vehicle licensing requirements

https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/sjart ... quirements

High Court dismissed appeal against convictions for operating unlicensed private hire vehicles in London

Introduction

The High Court dismissed an appeal brought by Samit Biswas against his conviction for operating vehicles as private hire vehicles without the requisite licences in London.The case, heard by Lord Justice Dingemans and Mrs Justice Farbey, revolved around the application of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998.

The appellant, Samit Biswas, was the director of Advatech Healthcare Europe Ltd, trading as Hippo Mobility. The company provided transport services for children with special educational needs (SEN) under contracts with local authorities. During November 2020, Biswas was found guilty of operating four vehicles without the necessary private hire vehicle licences, contrary to sections 6 and 12 of the 1998 Act.

Legal Issues

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the vehicles were private hire vehicles under the Act, and whether Biswas was an operator as defined by the legislation. The appellant argued that the vehicles were exempt from licensing as they were used for transporting children with SEN, not as traditional private hire vehicles.

Judgment

Mrs Justice Farbey, delivering the judgment, upheld the original convictions. She found that the vehicles were indeed used as private hire vehicles, as they were provided for hire with drivers for commercial reward. The court rejected the argument that the vehicles were exempt as ambulances or patient transport, noting that the purpose of the journeys was educational rather than medical.

Burden of Proof

The appellant contended that the burden of proof was improperly reversed by the District Judge. However, the High Court found no error in the application of the burden of proof, affirming that the prosecution had adequately demonstrated the vehicles were used contrary to the Act.

Statutory Interpretation

The court examined the statutory definitions within the 1998 Act, particularly focusing on the meaning of for hire and private hire vehicle. The judgment emphasised that the vehicles were made available for hire to local authorities for transporting children, thus falling within the scope of the Act.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the convictions were sound, as the vehicles met the statutory criteria for private hire vehicles and were operated without the necessary licences. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the importance of adhering to licensing requirements for private hire operations in London.

It does beg the question as to why the firm didn't license their vehicles and gain an operator's license.

Maybe the reduced costs of not having to adhere to licensing requirements was the reason they could undercut the fully licensed trade.

Delighted they have got their comeuppance.

_________________
IDFIMH

You do wonder how many more likr this there are out there

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

Maybe the schools or councils that are/were using the firm should be viewed as complicit and have charges brought against them.

_________________
IDFIMH

The case summary above states that it was local authorities in the plural, so presumably at least several involved

Of course, it's a slightly different scenario compared maybe to the usual county council arranging school runs, and district or borough councils doing the licensing (although in Scotland every local authority is single-tier, so the same council is procuring the cars for the runs that's also licensing them).

So the case is presumably all about London borough councils procuring the cars, while TfL should be licensing them, and presumably prosecuting the provider in this case. So it's maybe just a bit more remote as compared to the scenario we're more used to

(Or at least I'm assuming that's the way it works...)