Taxi Driver Online

It's a long time since I dealt with this particular issue Sussex, from what I have read on here I believe there has been a recent case in Eastbourne, you are going to have to correct me if i'm wrong.

I'm working from memory here but I distinctly got the impression that the earlier cases which I mentioned about plying for hire on private land regarding unlicensed vehicles was this:

The rulling infered that any unlicenced person who solicited trade from the public was guilty of an offence. The ruling infered that the Public were public no matter where they were, and by that I mean on the highway, at venues, race courses dog tracks, you name it. But I will post the ruling and you can judge for yourself.

With regard to the Airports the judgement I mentioned was a case brought by either the Airport or the licence enforcement department of the Local Authority. I think the driver concerned was licenced in solihul or outside solihul, one of the two. That case is stated case as is the previous case I mentioned above, both cases would be called upon in any judgement in further similiar cases. I expect at least one of them would have been reffered to in the Eastbourne case.

Like I said in my last post there are other available stated cases which indirectly effect the status of what constitutes a public road on private land.

With regard to the airport you have to realise that they can invite anyone they want onto their land but for the purpose of private hire the vehicles would have to be situated in an area away from the public as to not to give the impression they were soliciting trade.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.

Ged

read that last para of Johns post arnet airport carz at Manchester ranking outside terminal buildings?

you two should be working together.

Yorkie

John, have a read yourself.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/410.html

It doesn't really help out on the 'out of sight' issue, but it's worth a read.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm reading it now thank you. I see the Birmingham case of Young v Scampion was mentioned, I told you they would probably refer to one of the cases I previoulsy mentioned, if not both.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester

I read the case thank you. The court interpreted the law as it was laid down in stated case, which I previously mentioned. They also mentioned the two cases which I referred to in my previous posts. I think it is the Jones case which clarifies the Judgement on unlicensed persons plying for hire on private land and soliciting the public by way of positioning their vehicle in such a way that the public could determine it was for hire.

In that case there was also a sign erected to inform the public there was a vehicle for hire. Now i'm saying that was the case I will have to look it up in my files but I'm quite positive it is that one.

The Eastbourne Judgement bears out everything I have previoulsy said on this topic. The judges never departed from stated case and their interpretation in my opinion was correct.

The cases you should be looking at are the Scampion v Young case and the Jones case. This eastbourne case came a long time after the cases I have just mentioned.

At least some people will now be a little wiser with regard to this particular judgement and how it effects them.

Best wishes.

John Davies.
Manchester.

Geoff,
We think we understand the law as regards our friends and we know that what they are up to is not kosher. But how on earth are we to convince the police, enforcement, traffic wardens and all the others dedicated to an easy life? It is a war of attrition and I hope that we are still standing at the end. In another thread I said that for me personally the Oft has arrived at the wrong time, rightly or wrongly my view is that the Airport cabs should be fighting the one battle. My feelings for the other argument are ambivalent, I want change but that change should be trade driven and not foisted on us by pen pushers.
Andy/John
Re barriers across roads, in days gone by when I used to work on Manchester Docks they had to close off the road for one day a year to maintain private status. Does this still apply? And as for soliciting I seem to remember a prostitute being charged in the sixties under the 1924 Public Health Act. She was calling to passing trade from her bedroom window.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Yes Ged, it's mentioned in 19 and 20 of the Eastbourne judgement.

_________________
IDFIMH

I do recall reading about the application of a Barrier on a once annual basis. It may have been mentioned in the Birmingham Judgement which incidently I have just located and am about to read.

You are right about the prostitute soliciting, in fact it was mentioned in the Eastbourne case. There were six in total one on a Balcony the others behind the windows of groud floor rooms. The court held they were guilty because the mischief aimed at was people being molested or solicited by prostitutes.

The act they were prosecuted under was the 1959 street offenders act. The prosecution had to convince the court that the ladies were soliciting in a street and public place. I suspsect the act doesn't state anything about soliciting from a private place of residence. Thats why the court had to find the mischief in the act. That means what parliament actually intended when it passed the bill. The mishchief is one of soliciting so therefore even though the act probably doesn't say anything about a private residence the court determined that for the purpose of this act a private residence was not a defence when it was applied to soliciting the public.

You can see the analogy in the cases about "plying for hire on private land".

I'm aware of the ongoing problems at the Airport but they have enough brains up there to sort this situation out. I know of the recent report from the detective agency and its implications but the point is this, are they legally doing anything wrong in the eyes of the Law? Getting evidence of individual breaches of licencing law may only bring about the prosecution of individual drivers. I suspect the lads at the Airport will want more than that.


Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.

So Nigel, what the current situation at Watford?

Did you mass demo have effect, or did it alienate the council and the train people even more.

A little bird tells me that because the council believe everything is OK, the T&G have thrown in the towel, following legal advice that there is nothing they can, or will do.

Now I suppose more stations will follow suit, and all because of the clue-less gobby pratts, that flag wave in CTN, but when it comes to the crunch, they run away.

_________________
IDFIMH

John,
Are they doing anything legally wrong? is it right that they are directly opposite a rank and today for example a group of 8 people spotted them and walked over and got in them. If this is not soliciting then I for one do not understand why we are obliged to follow any rules and regulations.
They are operating purely and simply because the Airport is leaning on the Town Hall to look the other way.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

I think that's the way to get them Ged i.e. by getting Joe Public to say they believe/believed them to be taxis, when clearly they are not.

Otherwise it's going to be a struggle, even when you're in the right.

_________________
IDFIMH

Thats why I asked the question what are they doing thats illegal? I'm not up there so I haven't seen where they are parked or what they are getting up to. I know who you have working on this and i'm surprised they havent sorted it out.

Unless I see it for myself I can't comment on their actions being legal or otherwise.

I'll be posting something that might help you but it's about time you guys up there starting taking the matters into your own hands and take this matter to court. It seems obvious to me that the drivers up there aren't too familiar with the law and that surprises me.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.

Bloody hell John you are in Manchester cannot you nip to the airport?

Why is it that when a hack company take telephone bookings they then become a private hire vehicle, just so they can do the work !! really a bit tongue in cheek when they want all the work any way.

There are at least two trade bodies working on this including the T & G so it doessn't need me to go hold their hands. They know what to do, all they have to do is put their hands in their pockets and have the balls to see it through. If they don't know the law up there then they should go see a good solicitor, its no good moaning about something thats in your own hands. Maybe they are all scared of being thrown off the Airport?

You tell me why they havent done anything legal about it, except complain to the council.

They have some of the most influential men in the trade up there, they certainly dont need me.

Best wishes

John Davies.