Taxi Driver Online

As your obviously struggling to answer I will give you a clearer example.


John Davies moves house from Nenchester to Goatshead and wants to drive a PH vehicle ............ he sits the locality test but fails 4 times off the belt.

John then approaches Derwentborough Council and recieves a HC badge as they do not have a locality test and gets a HC vehicle licence for his 12 year old Mondeo as identified unmet demand means no restriction of vehicle numbers.

Goatshead have a vehicle age policy where vehicles over 10 years old cannot be licensed, and a temporary restriction of vehicle licenses is in place.

John then returns to Goatshead and works permanantly under a PH contract with Goatsheads biggest PH operator using his Derwentborough HC. He never ply's for hire or picks anyone up who hasn't prebooked with the operator he works for.


Is this right or wrong?

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.

Like to see that particular cab driver adhere to the 'go back to the nearest rank when free' bylaw.

And love to see how he could operate without breaching the 'plying for hire' bylaws.

_________________
IDFIMH

lol, I never struggle for answers my friend but dragging clarity out of you is a complex task. Now that we know what you mean when you state, "work along side other hackney carriages" I can perhaps address your simplistic point of a driver from one authority taking bookings from another.

First let me put right, considering what you have just said, exactly what you really mean?

Your reference to hackney carriages from one authority, working along side hackney carriages from another authority on a Taxi rank under the act of 1847, was misleading? What you really meant when you stated the word "work" is a hackney carriage taking bookings from an area, other than the one he is licensed? Is that correct?

JD

We have HC drivers who choose to work for a PH operation who do not adhere to the "return to the closest rank" bylaw, they sit and wait for work in the area that the customers who use the particular PH operation are most likely to call from.

And rightly so.

The problem exists when the vehicle being used is licensed as a hackney carriage from another area.

The way the law stands, or is intepreted by Mr Button, is that I could bring my HC from Gateshead down to Eastbourne, fit a radio or data from the same office you work in and therefore work alongside you.

DO YOU THINK THAT IS RIGHT ????????????????????????????????

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.

JD ................ on more than one occasion I stated quite clearly UNDER A PH CONTRACT

You are trying to complicate a very simple question ............. and there is absolutely no need.

On a regular basis I see HC licensed from borough A working for a PH operator in borough B.

Just to bring it a bit closer to home ........................ if I had a HC licensed in Wigan, Mr Buttons advice would be that I can legally work under a PH contract for a PH operator in the City of Manchester.

How many more times will I have to explain this before you understand

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.

Please point out where I stated that within this thread or indeed anywhere else.

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.

It all seems to be a mess, I don't tend to believe that.

A hackney carriage is licensed by virtue of section 37 of the 1847 act.

It is reasonably obvious the hackney carriage is licensed within a prescribed distance or due to section 15 of the 1985 transport act the local authority licensing area.

It is as plain as night is day what the intention is and was....to territorially limit where the vehicle could work.

If this is not clear to some, then I hope that either legislative change or the courts will be forthcoming to clarify the matter.

One thing that strikes me is if a local authority knowingly issue a license that will be worked elsewhere than their prescribed distance, is that local authority acting with reasonable care?

Indeed, if a local authority is issuing so many licenses that its licensees are forced to look outside the prescribed area for work, then surely the licensing authority are issuing too many licenses?

Furthermore, if a local authority issues licenses that will be worked in other districts, then are they neglecting their duty to protect the public?

regards

CC

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

I agree 100% Cap.

It is strange though that some people don't get the simple facts as you clearly describe them.

Surely the same amount of support should be afforded to this point of view from the professional trade, as was afforded to another licensing anomaly which was section 75.

The depth of silence from some is deafening

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.

Didn't you say this?

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.

I rest my case.

JD

Why do that JD? it cant be tired already

regards

CC

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

In my opinion thats a totally wrong interpretation of the act. The act relates to vehicles being licensed to ply for hire and only within the licensed area of which the issuing body has control. Private bookings are not plying for hire in the meaning of the 1847 act, different concept altogether. You fail to address the concept because you think the 1995 case of Wilson might bail you out? For my part I would not go as far and say Wilson might not bail you out but I can see many disparages in that case that lead me to believe it would be torn apart if such a scenario ever came before a court today. The proof is in the proverbial pudding and if you thought you were right you wouldn't be submitting resolutions to alter the way we hackney carriage drivers do business?

Regards

JD

try the use of some lateral thinking JD.

A HC license is granted under section 37?

Section 37 specifically states the 'prescribed area'?

If an LO issues me a license knowing I have no intention of working it within the 'prescribed area', then what would your opinion be?

regards

CC

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

Firstly, an LO has no power to refuse a fit and proper person a hackney carriage driver license, so it makes no difference what he or anyone else thinks. The requirements for a hackney carriage proprietors license are subject to the same requirements with the added ingredient of section 16.

I think we should remove the ambiguity you keep injecting into this debate in respect of prescribed area because it does not relate to hackney carriages taking bookings. The prescribed area is in reference to standing and plying for hire but you include private bookings in that scenario, the 1847 act doesn't include private bookings, as the Judge in Gladden pointed out.

Regards

JD

This is where we disagree.

In my opinion the Judge in Gladen merely stated what we had all previously believed, HC's didnt need PH Operators licenses.

I keep on referring to the prescribed area because that is where the license is supposed to work in.

regards

CC

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

I am not talking about a HC taking bookings ............ I am talking about a HC undertaking work under a private hire contract with a PH operator accepting bookings on behalf of everyone contracted to that operation.

Thus the working alongside statement was that of working alongside PH vehicles and drivers, with the HC vehicle and driver being licensed by a different local authority.

The original question remains unanswered

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.