Taxi Driver Online

Can you explain what this section of Eastbourne -v-Sterling alludes too?

21. I only add that this litigation in the High Court could have been avoided because the case is concerned with railway premises. Had the appellant Council adopted section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925, as it is conceded they could have done, proceedings could have been taken against the respondents under that section. Subject to exceptions, section 76 provides:

“In any area within which the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages are in force, those provisions and any bylaws of the local authority with respect to hackney carriages shall be as fully applicable in all respects to hackney carriages standing or plying for hire at any railway station or railway premises within such area, as if such railway station or railway premises were a stand for hackney carriages on a street.”

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

__________________________________

Public Health Act 1925, Ch. 71, s. 76 (Eng.)

76 As to public vehicles taken at railway stations

In any area within which the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages are in force, those provisions and any byelaws of the local authority with respect to hackney carriages shall be as fully applicable in all respects to hackney carriages standing or plying for hire at any railwaystation or railway premises within such area, as if such railway station or railway premises were a stand for hackney carriages or a street:

Provided that--

(a) the provisions of this section shall not apply to any vehicle belonging to or used by any railway company for the purpose of carrying passengers and their luggage to or from any of their railway stations or railway premises, or to the driver or conductor of such vehicle;

(b) nothing in this section shall empower the local authority to fix the site of the stand or starting place of any hackney carriage in any railway station or railway premises, or in any yard belonging to a railway company, except with the consent of that company.
_______________________

The passage concerned the adoption of statutory powers namely the public health act 1925. It is obvious that Eastbourne hadn't done so. If they had they would have had an open and shut case of standing and plying for hire on a Taxi Rank. As it was Eastbourne had to prove the vehicles were plying for hire by making themselves available to the public while sat on a rank that had been leased to the company operating the vehicles and drivers. Therefore the court had to determine whether or not the "private hire vehicles" on the rank regardless of the agreement they had with the lease holder, were plying for hire. Even though the rank was on private property and was not subject to the bylaws of the local council it was deemed they were plying for hire.

With respect to Hackney carriages it would appear that the local bylaws did not apply to them while they were on station property with the permission of the Railway. Even without permission of the railway the situation might be that only the Railway Company could prosecute them for being on their land?

I shall have to look up other case law to determine the actuality of this particular scenario.

Regards

JD

The restriction of the control of the Act of 1847 to vehicles standing or plying for hire on public property has been recognised by Parliament in that in 1925 it specifically extended that control to railway premises; see section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925; and Hulin v Cook [1977] RTR 345.

Section 76 of the Public Health Act 1925 extended to local licensing authorities the control of vehicles standing and plying for hire on public property. Including Railways as if they were a public street.

Some Cases that will assist you, most of which can be found on TDO, are as follows. It is worth remembering that the Eastbourne case re-affirmed the public invitation scenario of private land being no defence. I'll post some more cases in due course.

Young v Scampion. long but informative.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=58042

Hulin v Cook [1977] RTR 345, DC

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=67799

Curtis v Embery (1872) LR 7 Exch 369

Jones v Short (1900) 69 LJQB

White v Cubitt

Allen v Tunbridge (1871) LR 6 CP 481, DC;

Case v Storey (1869) LR 4 Exch 319

Eastern Counties and the London and Blackwall Railway Co v Marriage (1860) 9 HLC 32, HL(E)

Martins v Fowler [1926] AC 746, HL(E)

Nutter v Accrington Local Board of Health (1879) 4 QBD 375, CA

Robinson v Local Board for the District of Barton-Eccles, Winton and Monton (1883) 8 App Cas 798, HL(E)

Skinner v Usher (1872) LR 7 QB 423, DC.

Birmingham and Midland Omnibus Co v Thompson [1918] 2 KB 105

Clark & Goodge v Stanford (1871) LR 6 QB 357

Bateson v Oddy (1874) 38 JP 598

Foinett v Clark (1877) 41 JP 359

Marks v Ford (1880) 45 JP 157

The great western case.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=5463

Some short references to Railway cases.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3064

Hackney carriage drivers and proprietors should take note that a council cannot introduce bylaws or conditions that circumvent or try to avoid statutory provisions. Therefore it is always in your best interest to look at the statutory provision to see if the council are empowered to make a particular condition and if they have already made one which is incompatible with statutory provisions then it will most likely be unlawful.

Remember that most offences for vehicle and driver are associated with "Plying for Hire" so if you feel vulnerable in any way then the first words out of your mouth should be "you are not plying for hire". In fact in circumstances where you might have forgotten your badge, you should have a ready made reasonable excuse to offer in the event you are asked for it from an enforcement officer or similiar?

Take note of the opening lines in section 68 of the TPCA especially where it states

"For regulating the conduct of the "proprietors" and "drivers" of hackney carriages "plying within the prescribed distance" in their several employment's ".

This means unless "otherwise stated" that the bylaws made under this act and subsequently the conditions, which are made under section 47 of the LGMPA, only apply while the vehicle and driver is plying for hire. However, as I previously stated some "vehicle" conditions and bylaws may apply regardless of whether the vehicle is plying for hire?

68 Bylaws for regulating hackney carriages

The commissioners may from time to time (subject to the restrictions of this and the special Act) make "bylaws" for all or any of the purposes following; (that is to say,)

For regulating the conduct of the "proprietors" and "drivers" of hackney carriages plying within the prescribed distance in their several employment's, and determining whether such drivers shall wear any and what badges, and for regulating the hours within which they may exercise their calling:

For regulating the manner in which the number of each carriage, corresponding with the number of its licence, shall be displayed:

For regulating the number of persons to be carried by such hackney carriages, and in what manner such number is to be shown on such carriage, and what number of horses or other animals is to draw the same, and the placing of check strings to the carriages, and the holding of the same by the driver, and how such hackney carriages are to be furnished or provided:

For fixing the stands of such hackney carriages, and the distance to which they may be compelled to take passengers, not exceeding the prescribed distance:

For fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for such hackney carriages within the prescribed distance, and for securing the due publication of such fares;

For securing the safe custody and re-delivery of any property accidentally left in hackney carriages, and fixing the charges to be made in respect thereof.

Section 47 of the LGMPA provides.

47 Licensing of hackney carriages

(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.

(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates' court.
_____________________________________

Cogley v Sherwood is a good case for the definition of a hackney carriage plying or not plying for hire.

A hackney or stage carriage does not ply for hire within the meaning of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, unless it is exhibited as being for hire.

Some definitions of Plying for hire.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2382

The Hussain v Bradford case is very interesting in respect of conditions not applying when the driver and vehicle are not plying for hire.

Regards

JD

I think you will find that Eastbourne was about the only council not to adpot that section.

Which is why no-one else really needs to worry about it.

_________________
IDFIMH