Taxi Driver Online

Legislation exists for private hire operators to operate only private hire vehicles and drivers in the controlled licensing area and its not a condition, it is statutory legislation. The same legislation exempts Hackney carriages and London cabs, therefore a council cannot impose a condition on an operator which makes perfectly legal statutory legislation, illegal.

Regards

JD

You have stated this before JD ................. but I cannot find the exemption in the 1976 Act and so would be grateful if you could direct me to the legislation you mention.

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.

OH hang on a minute ................. is this it -

46 Vehicle, drivers' and operators' licences (1) Except as authorised by this
Part of this Act—
(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney
carriage [or London Cab] in respect of which a vehicle licence is in
force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as
a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current
licence under section 48 of this Act;

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 can see you fail to understand that section. This part is the exemption.

not being a hackney carriage [or London Cab] in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force,

The section reads like this.

Vehicle, drivers' and operators' licences

(1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act—

(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;

And then we move on to section 80 which defines exactly what is meant by private hire vehicle.

"private hire vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to seat [fewer than nine passengers], other than a hackney carriage or public service vehicle [or a London cab] [or tramcar], which is provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers;

Is that a little clearer?

Regards

JD

If so, is it not the case, that in order for a licence to be in force it must be within the prescribed distance as directed within the 1847 Act.

What I mean is that a Hackney Carriage cannot conduct the business of a Hackney Carriage outside of its prescribed distance.

Or are you suggesting different.

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 I have read through these sections a million times ................. the bottom line is that we both interpret the wording differently.

I understand what a private hire vehicle is and I understand how it is defined in law ................... I have no problem with that aspect.

I know the Act excludes Hackney Carriages [or London Cabs] from being considered as private hire vehicles and I accept and understand the fact ......................... however what puzzles me is why anyone would think that a Hackney Carriage could undertake work under a private hire contract for a licensed private hire operator from another borough just because it is not a private hire car and has exemption from the requirement to have a private hire operators licence to accept bookings.

Surely the geographics of the PH operators licence would define a clear boundry of use.

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.

Only if the vehicle is being used as a hackney carriage plying for public hire.

As you are aware when a hackney carriage or london cab goes outside its licensed area it cannot ply for public hire but for the purpose of private hire the hackney carriage does not come under private hire legislation and neither does a London Cab.

The alternative theory is that once a hackney carriage leaves the area in which it is licensed, it becomes an ordinary vehicle. At first glance you might think that is feasible but when you read all the relevant legislation and how it has been interpreted by the judiciary you soon realise that that is not the case.

There is one case from 1995 which might throw a lifeline to those who think that way but I don't think it does and neither does Jim Button or Manchester licensing department.

If Newcastle do anything about these operator who are supposedly utilising Hackney carriages from other authorities we shall soon have this little lot sorted out. Conjecture will then be history, in fact it should have been sorted out in Gladen, instead of leaving it in the balance?

By the way, If I thought Gladen read differently, I would certainly say so.

Regards

JD

JD I do understand that confusion of the issue and debate because of the way the legislation is written extends far beyond this forum.

I see a similarity between this debate and the circumstances relating to section 75, but I know you do not.

My own belief is that a local authority has a duty of care relating to all products and services offered by that authority. Again I know that you question their involvement in taxi licensing, but I believe they are forced to neglect that duty of care by allowing people to offer a licensed service within their area to which they have no control.

We then go into the quality issue, where higher standards could be circumvented. Lets say that Mangate Council insist that a new applicant who has 9 points on their licence must sit a DSA driving test before being granted a licence but neighbouring Womangate Council does not. Is it not wrong that a person with 9 points can obtain a licence in Womangate and then work full time in Mangate? Is Mangate wrong for trying to raise standards and are they wasting their time if Womangate don't?

The law needs to be changed to stop this activity ............ in exactly the same way as section 75 needed to be removed.

Thats my opinion anyway.

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 don't know the English legislation in detail, but presumably the problem arises because the HC Act was drawn up before the days of modern communications equipment, thus only plying for hire was relevant and to that extent the Act didn't address how HCs would deal with pre-booked work?

So basically if HCs can do pre-booked work anywhere then they're exploiting a loophole in the Act because this wasn't envisaged at the time.

The legislation for Scotland was passed in 1982 and addressed the issue by saying that neither taxis nor PH can operate out of area - they must return to their licensing area once they've done a job out of area.

Maybe its time the North East of England became the South East of Scotland.

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 mean it isn't?

_________________
IDFIMH

Typical gormless comment.

You standing by quality restrictions Suspect or are you sailing away like your friend JD.

Debate the issues raised ............. please.

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.

What you fail to understand and I must admit that there are a great many others who also fail to understand, is that a council does not offer a service. A council offers nothing in respect of Taxis or private hire except the occasional Taxi rank, which we pay for. All a council does is issue licenses, which by law they cannot refuse to issue. Licence holders such as you and I provide the service.

We work under legislation set by parliament and we also have conditions and bylaws set by councillors. However, "how we work", "when we work" and "what service we give to the public" is entirely up to us and not the council.

If the council want to offer a service then they can operate their own fleet of cabs and drivers. I think we should get one thing straight here, "A council does not offer a Taxi service to the public." All it does is "issue licenses."



Every service stands or falls on its merits, regardless of where the drivers come from? I doubt Taxis from other areas operating as private hire vehicles in Gateshead or anywhere else would prosper if they weren't supplying a good service.

A council's duty of care is to make sure that when they issue licenses the persons they issue them to are fit and proper and that they and their vehicles have complied with all the relevant conditions. That is the only duty of care prescribed in legislation.

If your council has any other duties of care then it certainly doesn't involve Taxi drivers. Unless you are saying the council should have powers to force everyone who enters Gateshead, to only use Gateshead Private hire vehicles?

Your stance, is that people in Gateshead should only use Vehicles and drivers licensed in Gateshead Regardless of the quality standards of any other authority? I'm afraid choice doesn't work that way.

No doubt Liverpool cab drivers might share your opinion in respect of Delta private hire but as we all know, Delta has a very lucrative market in Liverpool so would you like to apply your Gateshead quality criteria for both Sefton private hire and hacks, in relation to Liverpool?

Have you ever considered the fact that hackney carriage vehicles and drivers from another authority might be vastly superior and more competent than the localised private hire service? Could that be possible, or are you of the opinion it is impossible?



So if someone from the authority of EDEN passes a DSA test you don't mind them working in Gateshead? What if someone from Gateshead wanted to work in EDEN, would that be ok?

What if Eden had a large client base in Gateshead would it be ok for the client base to phone Eden for their services? Is there a difference in someone phoning from Gateshead to an office in Eden or Carlisle for their services and phoning an office in Gateshead for the very same service? Quality standards wouldn't come into the equation then would it? What would come into the equation is "Choice"

I seem to recall a Gateshead Taxi driver pleading guilty to Dangerous driving when he knocked down and killed a 13-year-old schoolboy. Is that what you mean by better driving standards? What about the 18 year old girl who was killed on Askew Road, was that a Gateshead cabby too? I don't think any authority has a monopoly on quality controls outside of London but if they are ever going to be uniformal then the only way to do that is get rid of the 343 licensing districts.

That is the only way you will standardise both costs and quality controls.

I don't think being able to pass a DSA test is a good yardstick to the quality of a Taxi driver. All it does is prove you can pass a driving test if need be? If you care to list Gateshead's current quality controls perhaps we can make our own judgement as to the quality of Gateshead drivers?



Which law would you like to see changed and how would it prevent someone from Gateshead using a taxi from Eden and Vice versa? And most importantly how would it standardise quality controls?

Regards

JD

Unlike you I've always had the same opinion that quality standards are the only way forward, not quantity restrictions.

_________________
IDFIMH

And unlike me you have been unable to effect change.

I learn something new every day Suspect ............. you claim to have known it all for years.

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.