Taxi Driver Online

I dont think it would be right to name the areas on here as I think there will be prosceutions forthcoming.

regards

CC

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

And what obligation do you have to the local authority you alluded to? And what about the status of the vehicles in question, for instance why were they operating without a license? I don't believe I asked for names of companies.

Regards

JD

No obligation JD, just I reserve the right

regards

CC

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

I tend (without wanting to get boring here) to think that the principle was firmly established from this case that the HC had to be physically within its own area when accepting the pre booking, it would appear from the ruling (DPP vs. Com Cab & Others) that the only reason the drivers were found not guilty was because at the time the accepted the job the were in the yellow badge area.

CC

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

The case revolves around a condition of the yellow badge license, which is pertinent to London cab drivers. That condition is section 31.1.ii of the 1934 London Cab order. Which Paragraph 31(1) states:

"If the holder of a cab-driver's licence plies for hire with a cab or "permits" the cab to be hired in any part of the metropolitan area in which by a condition attached to his licence he is prohibited from plying for hire with a cab, "he shall be guilty of a breach of this Order."

The case was brought under these words in the passage, "permits the cab to be hired"

It was alleged by the prosecution that the two drivers had "permitted their cabs to be hired" in the central area which their license didn't permit.

For some unknown reason extinguishing the meter and allowing it to run took centre stage but it would have made no difference if the meter had been switched off. The judge determined that in this particular case the drivers in question had not breached the condition of their license by permitting their cabs to be hired in the central area.

It was never contended that the drivers were in the central area when they got the jobs. The contention was that by picking the hire up at an address outside their licensed area they committed an offence. The question of taking the job while inside the area never arose and was never put forward by the prosecution, for the simple fact that it was already agreed that the booking was accepted first by the central agency and second by the drivers who were in their own area.

All that remained to be satisfied was did the action of picking up the passenger from an address in the central area constitute an offence under the specific condition of section 31.1.ii of the 1934 London Cab order. Which Paragraph 31(1) states:

"If the holder of a cab-driver's licence plies for hire with a cab or "permits" the cab to be hired in any part of the metropolitan area in which by a condition attached to his licence he is prohibited from plying for hire with a cab, "he shall be guilty of a breach of this Order."

The judge answered it this way.

"Whether, notwithstanding any prior booking arrangement or hiring agreement, the licensed cab driver for the purposes of Paragraph 31 of the London Cab Order 1934 permits his cab to be hired at the time and place at which he physically picks "up the hirer?"

is "No"; and, as to the second question, namely:

"Was I correct in law, on the agreed facts, in dismissing the informations?"

the answer is "Yes". Of course the offences in the informations laid in relation to aiding and abetting against the first Respondents must, of course, fail with the informations laid against the other Respondents.

Accordingly for those reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.

So as I stated at the begginning which is the point I made then and that which I make now, is that of the connection between a central agency and a licensed driver outwith that central agency and the provision of bookings in correlation to the two disticnt activities. Albeit that this particular scenario is pertinent to London in the form of a London Cab act.

I can see the reference which no doubt appeals to you and I must admit that it does give rise to some thought but I have come to the conclusion that taken in contect of the whole paragragh and subsequent judgment the refference to the word "permitted" is a mistake by the reporter.

In my judgment, once the position is reached where nothing further remains to be agreed between the driver and the customer within the unlicensed area, the conclusion is inescapable that the hiring took place in the area where these defendants were licensed.

"The inevitable consequence of that, as it seems to me, is that the cabs in the instant case were not "permitted" to be hired in the licensed area". The hiring had already taken place.

It follows that the answer to the first question posed by the Stipendiary Magistrate, namely:

"Whether, notwithstanding any prior booking arrangement or hiring agreement, the licensed cab driver for the purposes of Paragraph 31 of the London Cab Order 1934 permits his cab to be hired at the time and place at which he physically picks "up the hirer?" is "No";

The fact that Yellow cab holders now take radio jobs while they are inside metropolitan area proves that this particular judgment allowed them to do it. Otherwise i'm sure there would have been a second test case.

We must not forget that the circumstances were specific to London under a specific "condition" which is completely different to any situation we have outside of London. The fact remains that outside of London there is no legislation that relates to that which this prosecution was brought namely this,

"If the holder of a cab-driver's licence plies for hire with a cab or "permits" the cab to be hired in any part of the metropolitan area in which by a condition attached to his licence he is prohibited from plying for hire with a cab, "he shall be guilty of a breach of this Order."

So under the circumstances we have to live with the fact that a central hackney carriage agency doesn't need to be licensed and a licensed hackney carriage can be anywhere when he takes a job.

Even though I know you personally do not subscribe to that notion.

Regards

JD

I suppose this entire debate clearly states the great need for local authorities to undertake great diligence when issuing hackney carriage licenses, indeed, it may need a call for greater regulation of the issue of taxi licenses.

If licenses are issued in areas where there is no demand for additional taxis, and those taxis go to find work elsewhere (such as what is currently happening in Manchester), then surely the local authorities issuing the licenses are doing so with scant regard to how their licensees operate.

One ideal example was explained to me this week, 5 taxis were sent for on the spot inspections from a rank in a certain area, these cabs were legally working the area they were supposed to. The same authority are aware that certain licenses they issue are worked in an adjacent district, the chances of those cabs receiving the same treatment are highly doubtful.

Indeed, as we are all aware, we are subjected from time to time by visits from licensing staff on ranks, checking our badges etc, this is all on the auspices of public safety, yet others, operating in other districts are not subjected to the same.

A further question which obviously needs raised is the liability of the local authority issuing the hackney carriages. If they are aware of their licensees working in other districts, then they are knowingly issuing licenses to work elsewhere, I cannot see that as being legal.

Especially if I were an adjacent district council short of licensing funds. It could perhaps be argued that the district knowingly issuing the licenses are acting irresponsibly and generating surplus funds.

Section 37 of the TPCA clearly defines and states where the license is to work, if a council knowingly issue a license to a person they know has little or no intention of working that license in the prescribed distance, then surely the license should be refused?

It is quite reasonable when you think about it, I mean you cannot imagine a licensing officer in Truro wishing to do an on the spot inspection in Newcastle can you?

regards

CC

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

Such as what?



If we ever get cabs from other authorities sat plying for hire on our ranks along side licensed Manchester cabs, i'll let you know. Likewise I'll also let you know if we ever get these same cabs you mention joining one of our two hackney radio circuits.

I haven't heard of hackney carriages from other areas joining our local private hire circuits so perhaps your source of information needs fine tuning?

A licensing body cant refuse a license unless it can prove there is no unmet demand and it can only license a vehicle to ply for public hire within its own prescribed distance.

This debate is not about plying for hire on a taxi rank within a prescribed distance its about "private bookings". There isn't as yet an act that restricts a hackney carriage from taking private bookings, either within or without its licensed area, although I'm sure you would like one.



Cabs from one area cannot sit on ranks in another area, so your analogy is preposterous. A licensing authority can go to a proprietors home address or the address where the vehicle is kept and inspect the vehicle any time they like, they can also write or phone the proprietor and tell them to bring the vehicle in for a spot check again at any time they like? Your inference that a licensing authority has no control over a vehicle is preposterous and misleading.

You should be fully aware that a police officer can spot check any vehicle from any authority at any time they wish. That is why when undertaking spot checks at least in this City, local enforcement officers always go accompanied with a police officer.

section 68 TPCA: Fitness of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles Any authorised officer of the council in question "or any constable" shall have power at all reasonable times to inspect and test, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness, any hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licensed by a district council.

73 Obstruction of authorised officers (1) Any person who —

(a) wilfully obstructs an authorised officer or ""constable"" acting in pursuance of this Part of this Act or the Act of 1847; or without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement properly made to him by such officer or ""constable"" under this Part of this Act; or

(c) without reasonable cause fails to give such an officer or ""constable"" so acting any other assistance or information which he may reasonably require of such person for the purpose of the performance of his functions under this Part of this Act or the Act of 1847; shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If any person, in giving any such information as is mentioned in the preceding subsection, makes any statement which he knows to be false, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Quote:

Indeed, as we are all aware, we are subjected from time to time by visits from licensing staff on ranks, checking our badges etc, this is all on the auspices of public safety, yet others, operating in other districts are not subjected to the same.

So now your saying Taxis licensed in one authority go and sit and ply for hire on Taxi ranks in another authority? This gets more and more ridiculous.

How do licensing officials check private hire vehicles and drivers who don't have the luxury of sitting on a taxi rank?

In restricted authorities P/H invariably outnumber hackneys by 3 to 1 or in the case of Sefton 6 to 1, so how are these drivers and vehicles checked?

Quote:

A further question which obviously needs raised is the liability of the local authority issuing the hackney carriages. If they are aware of their licensees working in other districts, then they are knowingly issuing licenses to work elsewhere, I cannot see that as being legal.

Here we go again, show us an instance where hackney carriages from one area sit and ply for hire on taxi ranks in another area? Apart from the one Yorkshireman who got his collar felt over the issue?

What you really mean when you refer to working in another area is a hackney carriage taking "private bookings" but it suits your purpose to cloud the issue by suggesting anyone who gets work from an authority other than the one they are licensed. You forget the simple fact that it is perfectly legal to obtain work from anywhere in the country the only problem you have is the way that work is obtained?

Quote:

Especially if I were an adjacent district council short of licensing funds. It could perhaps be argued that the district knowingly issuing the licenses are acting irresponsibly and generating surplus funds.

What's the relevance of this? As Mr T says, license funds and costs are in proportion to the number of licenses issued. If an authority restricts hackney carriages to twenty, then they have to cut their cloth accordingly? If an authority does not restrict licenses and has 200 proprietors, they will also cut their cloth accordingly. It doesn't matter where these drivers get their private hire work becausae it has no impact on the budget of any licensing authority.

Quote:

Section 37 of the TPCA clearly defines and states where the license is to work,

Oh what a deceitful web we weave? You know very well that "WORK" means standing and plying for hire in the prescribed distance. The TPCA cannot, nor does not, define license conditions for private bookings of hackney carriages except in section 67 of the LGMPA, which is basically about fares but it also gives a limited definition of a contract of hire. Therefore your reference to work is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

Quote:

if a council knowingly issue a license to a person they know has little or no intention of working that license in the prescribed distance, then surely the license should be refused?

There is only one circumstance where a council can refuse a license and i'm afraid telling a person how they must work is not one of them. Again your reference is meant to mislead because although you are referring to private bookings you don't draw the distinction of plying for hire on a taxi rank and private bookings. Anyone reading all of this would think you were referring to plying for hire on taxi ranks but your not. What you are referring to is private bookings taken by a hackney carriage driver other than at a Taxi rank, yet not once do you mention that fact?

Perhaps you should be reminded what the law states in that respect.

[b]67 Hackney carriages used for private hire

(1) No hackney carriage shall be used in the district under contract or purported contract for private hire except at a rate of fares or charges not greater than that fixed by the byelaws or table mentioned in section 66 of this Act, and, when any such hackney carriage is so used, the fare or charge shall be calculated from the point in the district at which the hirer commences his journey.

(2) Any person who knowingly contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) In subsection (1) of this section "contract" means—

(a) a contract made """otherwise""" than while the relevant hackney carriage is plying for hire in the district or waiting at a place in the district which, when the contract is made, is a stand for hackney carriages appointed by the district council under section 63 of this Act; and

(b) a contract made, """otherwise""" than with or through the driver of the relevant hackney carriage, while it is so plying or waiting. [/b]

Perhaps in future you might oblige us by stating the facts instead of trying to "mislead", for the want of a better word.

Regards

JD

You should be fully aware that a police officer can spot check any vehicle from any authority at any time they wish. That is why when undertaking spot checks at least in this City, local enforcement officers always go accompanied with a police officer.

section 68 TPCA: Fitness of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles Any authorised officer of the council in question "or any constable" shall have power at all reasonable times to inspect and test, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness, any hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licensed by a district council.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

You should be fully aware that a police officer can spot check any vehicle from any authority at any time they wish. That is why when undertaking spot checks at least in this City, local enforcement officers always go accompanied with a police officer.

section 68 TPCA: Fitness of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles Any authorised officer of the council in question "or any constable" shall have power at all reasonable times to inspect and test, for the purpose of ascertaining its fitness, any hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licensed by a district council.


A local enforcement officer does not have the power to physically stop a moving vehicle, he can only check a vehicle that is already stopped, the reason the police assist is because they do have the power to stop and detain.... different licensing officers work in different ways as you well know, the licensing officers in Sefton are also licensed by the rest of the metropolitan boroughs that make-up Merseyside and the same applies with Liverpool and the rest..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!