Taxi Driver Online

If a so-called 'taxi club' was to start operating up here in Scotland & I was the licensing officer in the its area of operation I would point out the following ;

Under the Civic Government Act 1982 -


s 21 Offences.

(1) If any person--

(a) operates, or permits the operation of, a taxi within an area in
respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed or the
driver requires to be but is not licensed, or

(b) picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up by, a
private hire car within an area in respect of which its operation requires
to be but is not licensed or the driver requires to be but is not licensed,

that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary
conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN1].

s 22 Saving for certain vehicles etc.

Nothing in sections 10 to 21 (with the exception of subsection (7) of section 21
of this Act shall--

(a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within and
taking them out of an area in respect of which the vehicle is not licensed
as a taxi or a private hire car in pursuance of a contract for the hire of
the vehicle made outside the area if the vehicle is not made available for
hire within the area;

(b) apply to a vehicle while it is being used in connection with a funeral
or wedding;

(c) apply to any vehicle while it is being used for carrying passengers
under a contract for its exclusive hire for a period of not less than 24
hours.

s 23 Interpretation of sections 10 to 22.

(1) In sections 10 to 22 of this Act--

"taxi" means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a
public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on
his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and

"private hire car" means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning
of this subsection.

(2) In subsection (1) above, "hire car" means a motor vehicle with a driver
(other than a vehicle being a public service vehicle within the meaning of
section 1(1)(a) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) which
is, with a view to profit, available for hire by the public for personal
conveyance.

(3) Notwithstanding that a vehicle in respect of which there is a licence
for its operation as a taxi is, on any occasion, engaged as a hire car
otherwise than in the manner referred to in subsection (1) above, the
enactments relating to its operation as a taxi, and to the driving of it as
such (including any such enactments in this Act) shall nonetheless apply in
relation to it; and that other manner of engagement on that occasion shall
not of itself cause the operation or driving of the licensed taxi to be
regarded for the purposes of this Act as the operation or driving of a
private hire car within the meaning of subsection (1) above.



A quick perusal of the above sections clearly state licensing is required

Just because it is a 'club' & hires are 'prebooked' doesn't alter the fact that hires are for shorter than 24 hours & with a view to a profit

It seems to me that the reasoning that's being employed is that the vehicle(s) is permanently contracted to the club, thus it falls within the letter of the law outlined above (the English legislation is largely the same, I think, except for the time period involved, but if the contract is long term then to that extent the time period matters little).

If a vehicle was permanently contracted to a football club to move its players around, for example, then clearly that would be the kind of scenario envisaged for the exemption.

Thus the only difference with the pink ladies is that the club is largely contrived and artificial and presumably set up with the sole intention of getting round the licensing provisions. The club contracts with the vehicle, and the club has numerous contracts with the customers/club members, but it's the single contract between the club and the vehicle that's the relevant one.

Of course, individual licensing authorities and/or a court could take different views on this, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with them, but the scenario seems fairly plausible for want of a better explanation.

In short, if the Carlisle scenario is accepted then it's a loophole, and loopholes can only be closed by changing the legislation.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I take the argument but unless the 'club' takes only a level membership fee , (ie. doesn't charge per trip) then I would argue each individual is a separate contract

Whats to stop unlicensed operators forming the same arrangements with supermarkets or nightclubs ie. picking clubbers from nightclubs & saying they have a contract with the establishment ?

Ultimately it will be up to the Courts to decide

We have had this discussion before.

The way I read the exemption and the court did in the Pitts-v-Lewis is that only one car can do one contract.

PHM have printed the judgement in their April edition http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1145435148.pdf page 3 of the pdf.

IMHO if they have more than one contract, if they have more than one car, if they inter-change contracts and cars, then they are acting illegally.

The only way they can act legally if to license the base as an operator, and the vehicles and drivers as PH or HC.

_________________
IDFIMH

Under the franchise agreement the franchisee must purchase 7 vehicles, as I understand it from the 'Pink Ladies' supplier, uniforms and sundries are also bought from the franchise seller.

When you think about it, 7 vehicles at say £9K each? = £63,000

Vehicles = £63,000

Uniforms etc £500 estimated

Exclusive area franchise £5,000 estimated

Now, when you think that a percentage of each fare allegedly goes either back to the franchise or to charity, it does make you wonder how and why people expect to make money from this thing. (obviously making all female passengers scared sh*tless about legitimate PH and HC companies is one route)

But with the cost of licensing vehicles in Carlisle not overly excessive at around £120 per year, why would someone have no qualms about paying £70K and then get flustered about £1K ?

Captain Cab

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

So are they getting flustered, or will they if they have to license?

Perhaps they've been just been informed by the franchise that they don't have to license, in which case they won't bother - after all, if we didn't have to license, none of us would do it voluntarily.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Yes, but my recollection was that it didn't come to any satisfactory conclusion, thus that's why I asked, but in fact I now recall that I never got round to reading the case.

I will hopefully read it (and the other one) this week sometime, but in the meantime I respectfully agree with you and Mr Paisley Buddie

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Our LO has told them if they operate here he fully expects them to be licensed.

If they dont obtain the necessaries he will advise that the City should take legal action to stop the operation.

I understand the 'Pink Ladies' legal 'experts' are forwarding reasons why they needn't be licensed this week to our LO.

You are correct, the franchise sellers told the potential franchisees they didnt need to be licensed. (which was rather funny because where they operated in Warrington they were licensed and in London they are on the PHV operator register)

They also advised they operated in Plymouth, which I dont think is actually correct.

Mind you, if they get away with it, I'll take the plates off all my vehicles and operate as a club too

regards


Captain Cab

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

Who are you?

With your previous for certain clubs in Newcastle, Pink might not be too appropriate!

hehe, I blame very poor lighting

Captain Cab

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

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread but on further investigation it turns out that this particular activity proposed by Pink Ladies is going to be ongoing and that the previous information offered by various councils in respect of licensing was wrong? Those are the words of the delectable Tina Dutton of Pink Ladies and not mine.

It could be the case in future that existing Franchises licensed under the 1976 act will forego the licensing requirements of the act and work under what they deem to be an exemption by way of section 75 of the LGMPA.

Their Liverpool solicitor has advised them they can legally conduct business under section 75 of the LGMPA. I have posted the details of that particular section which is similar to what "Paisley buddy" submitted in an earlier post.

7 5 Saving for certain vehicles etc (I) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall —
(a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within a controlled district in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the district if the vehicle is not made available for hire within the district;

(b) apply to a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward under a contract for the hire of the vehicle for a period of not less than seven days;

(c) apply to a vehicle while it is being used in connection with a funeral or a vehicle used wholly or mainly, by a person carrying on the business of a funeral director, for the purpose of funerals;
[(cc) apply to a vehicle while it is being used in connection with a wedding;]

(d) require the display of any plate, disc or notice in or on any private hire vehicle licensed by a council under this Part of this Act during such period that such vehicle is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward—

(i) ...
(ii) under a contract for the hire of the vehicle for a period of not less than 24 hours.

(2) Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 46(1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of a vehicle or to the employment of a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle in a controlled district if a licence issued under section 48 of this Act by the council whose area consists of or includes another controlled district is then in force for the vehicle and a driver's licence issued by such a council is then in force for the driver of the vehicle.

[(2A) Where a vehicle is being used as a taxi or private hire car, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 46(1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of the vehicle or the employment of a person to drive it if—

(a) a licence issued under section 10 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for its use as a taxi or, as the case may be, private hire car is then in force, and

(b) the driver holds a licence issued under section 13 of that Act for the driving of taxis or, as the case may be, private hire cars.

In this subsection, "private hire car" and "taxi" have the same meaning as in sections 10 to 22 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.]

[(2B) Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 46(1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of a vehicle, or to the employment of a driver of a vehicle, if—

(a) a London PHV licence issued under section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is in force in relation to that vehicle; and

(b) the driver of the vehicle holds a London PHV driver's licence issued under section 13 of that Act.]

(3) Where a licence under section 48 of this Act is in force for a vehicle, the council which issued the licence may, by a notice in writing given to the proprietor of the vehicle, provide that paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of that section shall not apply to the vehicle on any occasion specified in the notice or shall not so apply while the notice is carried in the vehicle; and on any occasion on which by virtue of this subsection that paragraph does not apply to a vehicle section 54(2)(a) of this Act shall not apply to the driver of the vehicle.

Amendment
Sub-s (I): para (cc) inserted and para (d)(i) repealed by the Transport Act 1985, s
139(2), Sch 7.
Sub-s (2A): inserted by the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, s 16.
Sub-s (2B): inserted by the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s 39(1), Sch 1,
para 1.
Date in force: to be appointed: see the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, s
40(2).

Having today spoken with the Pink ladies solicitor in respect of the proposed new Franchise in Carlisle I can inform everyone that the section being relied upon is section 75. (B)

(b) apply to a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward
under a contract for the hire of the vehicle for a period of not less than
seven days;

B is the only part of section 75 that might appear to give anyone contemplating setting up a hire and reward business under these circumstances, any chance of success? That's how it would appear if you could invent a contract that could circumvent the mischief in the legislation?

Now we know the clause to which Pink Ladies rely, we don't now need the LO of Carlisle to furnish us with these particulars.

We can dissect the relevant legislation, what it means in terms of past case law and if Pink Ladies are likely to find any relief in the law?

I put it to Mr Greene that there was the small consideration of licensed drivers irrespective of vehicles, he informed me he hadn't yet crossed that bridge?

The company will work on the basis that a contract of hire is entered into over 12 months and that a particular vehicle will be designated to each contractor. The company is working on the premise that the 12 month rolling contract is sufficient to comply with section 75 even though the vehicle will not be used on a continual basis and every time the vehicle is used the contractor will have to pay a fee for the hire and reward of that vehicle every time it is used and while it is on contract?

Is this likely to satisfy the courts? My opinion is unlikely.

I may do an article on this depending how events unfold, on the other hand I suspect Mr Cab has already set wheels in motion to do likewise. One would hope that if he uses the resources or references or feedback from this website he will acknowledges as such in any article he may author?

Regards

JD

Yes, I had assumed that the following from the newspaper article meant that some kind of official endorsement to the club idea had been forthcoming, but it's obviously just a line spun by the pinkies and accepted as read by the newspaper without getting the LA's side of things:

Because they are run on a membership basis, Pink Ladies does not need to be licensed by Carlisle City Council like traditional taxis

But it just goes to show, don't take as gospel everything that's published in the press

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

If there is a loophole to be exploited, then no doubt more will take advantage of it, but perhaps the point is that in the normal course of events it's easier just to license and retain the advantage of being able to take one-off booking from people who don't use cabs often, such as visitors coming from an airport, rather than going through the rigmarole of making them members of a club, which is sure to put many such people off, not to mention regular cab users.

And as Captain said, in financial terms licensing isn't normally too onerous.

If a loophole did exist it's more likely to be attractive in exceptional circumstances such as the lad a few months ago who couldn't get his CRB through (?) rather than the norm.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I am rather glad you did get involved.

JD, what their solicitor advises and whats actually legal is open to debate, as you will know, many thousands of pounds have been earned from what solicitors have incorrectly thought over the years.

The information although advised by LA's is in the Act and section 75 clearly states what exemptions may be claimed.

As you will know section 80 gives the definitions, everything I see in section 80 tells me they are operating as private hire, the franchise and the private members club dont in my opinion exclude it from licensing, which is there after all to protect all sections of society from the unlicensed.

Does anything in the following description of their activities give rise to any section 75 exemption?

1. The vehicles intended for use are ‘Renault Kangoo’s’ with less than 9 passenger seats.

2. The member hires the vehicle complete with driver.

3. The vehicle is requested by pre-booking with the Pink Lady franchise by means of either text message or telephone call.

4. The member at some point pays for the journey.

I have already stated the costs of purchasing the vehicles and franchise, this amounts to many thousands of pounds, why would any company go to such lengths to be outside of the regulatory framework, when licensing would cost a fraction of the amount.

Would it be the driving tests? the CRB check? the Conditions of License? or as this site puts it, the 'hassle' attributed to licensing.

Or would it be the Free Publicity from the trade crying unfair play?

I can see a test case in the offing.

Captain Cab

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