Taxi Driver Online

The Cumbrian Way

The views expressed in this column may not be those of the National Taxi Association

‘Every great thinker is someone else’s moron’
Richard Shultz

Can a Hackney Carriage licensed in are ‘A’, operate on a radio circuit in area ‘B’? This seems to be one of the most difficult questions currently asked to local authorities. As ever with taxi licensing law there are two schools of thought, both in clear contradiction of each other.

School of thought number one, and for the sake of argument lets call them ‘Buttonites’, believe it is legal because of the ‘Gladen’ case.

School of thought number two, and for the sake of mild amusement lets call them ‘me’, believe the Buttonites are total idiots intent on making a large mountain out of a very small molehill.

I suppose I had better give you the story of the Gladen judgement. Well, Mr Gladen operated Hackney Carriages in Brentwood district, the local authority believed (as Buttonites believed) that as Mr Gladen operated a radio circuit he should hold a Private Hire Operators license.

The Judge’s (Justices Collins & Silber) ruled that it was not necessary for a Hackney Carriage to hold a license under section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Or in other words, Hackney Carriages don’t need Private Hire operator’s licenses.

To go from Hackney Carriages not needing PH Operators licenses, to Hackney Carriages can legally operate on radio circuits in other areas, is perhaps a rather wild step to take, yet this is precisely what the Buttonites argue. It strikes me as a rather strange take on the issue, a little like, ‘if Tony Blair is the British PM and George Bush is the USA’s President, then surely Carlisle United will win the League again this year’.

Of course, the Buttonites maybe a little bitter here, Brentwood Council relied upon a book titled ‘Licensing Law and Practice’ by Mr James Button, this is effectively (and perhaps unwisely) treated as a bible by some licensing departments. One of the Judges in the Gladen case specifically stated ‘With the greatest respect to Mr Button, I am afraid I cannot agree with what he there says’.

I personally believe there is a deliberate construction being made upon the Gladen case.

It is patently ridiculous that a Hackney Carriage licensed in Truro (for example) could operate on a radio circuit in North Tyneside (for example), yet this is what the Buttonites believe the Gladen judgement has allowed. Errm, no it didn’t, it merely pointed out that Hackney Carriages didn’t need PH Operators licenses.

If you operate a Hackney Carriage from Truro on a radio circuit in North Tyneside, then you are breaking the law. Section 38 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 describes a hackney carriage; ‘Every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance’. Please note the term written in bold lettering, ‘within the prescribed distance’; it is clear from this that section 38 territorially limits where the Hackney Carriage can be used. Indeed section 37 of the same act clearly uses the same phrase.

What is the solution if a Hackney Carriage is used as effectively a Private Hire vehicle in another area? Prosecution by virtue of section 46 of the 1976 act would perhaps be a decent suggestion.

copyright upfront magazine

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

Strange to call those who believe Gladen means taxis can take radio work anywhere Buttonites, when he had the opposite view.

_________________
IDFIMH

I take it you dont receive buttonite advice then?

CC

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

You could always test your theory by bringing a test case?



It would be ridiculous for a Truro cab to sit and ply for hire in North Tyneside or any other authority because it would be against the law. However you completely miss the distinction between plying for hire and a private booking.



Private hire operators license to do what? Take bookings? So you have determined that the law has decided a hackney carriage is not a private hire vehicle and therefore does not conform to any private hire legislation. Excepting that which is specific to Hackney carriages. And that the proprietor does not need a private hire operators license to take a private booking? So if you phone me from Carlisle to pick you up you do so on the understanding you are getting a licensed hackney carriage and driver and that the booking is a contract between you and I and that it is not illegall, regardless where I may be at the time you contact my mobile phone?

You would aggree that the law has already determined there is no such thing as "operating" a hackney carriage in respect of a private hire operator license?



Well this is the nub of the matter and where your argument completely falls apart.

You're relying on legislation that specifically relates to hackney carriages being licensed to ply for hire while standing in a street and that the local authority only has a power to license vehicles for that particular purpose. Obtaining work from a private booking is not plying for hire under the purpose of section 38 but no doubt you would like it to fit your argument ? sadly for you it doesn't even come close.

If that is your only legislative argument against the Gladen judgement then it's misguided. However, for one who has all the answers in respect of legislation I find it unusual that you don't have the answers to the conundrum I set about cross border hiring, especially considering your fervent belief that you are right and almost everyone else is wrong.

I thought you would have been only too willing to answer that little conundrum but you won't because it negates your singular argument about cross border hiring, which you offer here.



Again you completely fail to understand the legislation, section 37 empowers a local authority to license hackney vehicles to ply for hire within the prescribed distance. Without going into the whole definition of standing and plying for hire it is basically one of "standing" in a public street and not that of taking a private booking. Your assumption is that any licensed vehicle not in their own area when they take a private booking under any circumstances is breaking the law. Which under that reasoning would mean every vehicle in the country would need to be licensed in all 343 licensing areas in order to take a private booking. That seems rather illogical to me and to the courts? However you change the rules somewhat when you realise that a Private hire operator taking a booking in his own area from anywhere in the country can dispatch a vehicle to that area regardless of which authority that vehicle might be in at the time they accept the job. Including the area where the job applies?

To me it would seem you are pre occupied with private hire legislation while failing to grasp the fact that Hackney carriage legislation is totally independent. If you can divorce yourself from thinking that private hire and hackney carriage legislation are entwined then you may be able to see the facts a little clearer.

The opening words in section 46 are

no person being the proprietor of any vehicle,

""""not being a hackney carriage [or London Cab]""""" .

I suggest you read section 46 very carefully because you will see it does not apply to hackney carriages or London cabs. It specifically relates to private hire vehicles and private hire operators. Your reasoning is obscure to say the least.

You should take note of the wording in section 46 because if it meant to "exclude London cabs" from taking bookings in any licensed area in the country it would have said so. That also applies to hackney carriages. The legislation as it stands completely exempts both types of licensed vehicles from the private hire constraints of section 46.



Hackney carriages are not private hire vehicles and section 46 only applies to private hire vehicles. Considering hackney carriages do not need an operators license then the only thing that they could be prosecuted under would be plying for hire but considering a private booking is not classed as plying for hire then you would no doubt have some difficulty convincing a court that it was? If you did convince a court that taking a private booking was plying for hire then every private hire firm in the country would have to shut up shop.

In any prosecution your going to have marry section 37 and 38 of the 1847 act to that of secttion 46 of the 1976 act. However section 46 specifically excludes licensed hackney carriages and London cabs while at the same time section 37 and 38 only applies to plying for hire in that particular authority. So it all boils down to whether or not taking a private booking from anywhere in the country is plying for hire.

Regards

JD

MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It is only surprising that it has not been expressly decided in the -- whatever it is -- 28 years that this has been in force. We have now decided it, rightly or wrongly

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

Cap? I keep forgetting to ask you this but while its still fresh in my memory can you tell me if the Carlisle LO asked and received advice from James Button in respect of the Gladen Verdict?

Regards

JD

I haven't spoken with my LO

regards

CC

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

All this proves is the need for reform,wheres your ideas JD??????????

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

I dont have a spare £50 to £100K in my back pocket



The Hull case prosecuted the person for operating a PH without a license, but no insurance, no HC license or anything else would suit me

regards

CC

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

As advocates of QUALITY control I find it strange that some people on here would happily allow high standards in their own area to be so disregarded by allowing someone to obtain a vehicle and drivers licence in another area, where standards are perhaps lower, and work alongside them.

Surely if standards are going to be maintained then we should all support the 1847 interpretation and ONLY allow HC to work within the issuing authorities area (or prescribed distance). Then the high standards achieved in any one area cannot be lowered by allowing other vehicles from other areas to tarnish those same standards.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

I find it strange that someone can spout a lot of nonsence about someone who never said that drivers "from one authority "should" be allowed to work alongside drivers in another authority".

It might help matters if you were a little more accurate?

JD

_________________
IDFIMH

So you agree then that a Hackney Carriage from Gateshead should not be able to work under a PH contract in Eastbourne or Manchester then?

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

You want to make your mind up to which legislation your refer? You start out by quoting the 1847 act, then you quote the 1976 act as though that is what you refered to in the first place? Which one do you wan't to play with 1847 or 1976?

Surely if standards are going to be maintained then we should all support the 1847 interpretation and ONLY allow HC to work within the issuing authorities area (or prescribed distance).

1847 or 1976? Deal or no Deal?

JD

Its not about what I want JD ........................ I asked you a question and would appriciate an answer to it.

So you agree then that a Hackney Carriage from Gateshead should not be able to work under a PH contract in Eastbourne or Manchester then?

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.