Taxi Driver Online

GMB Calls for Tighter Taxi Standards for Vulnerable Children in Brighton & Hove (Revisited)

Some months ago the Brighton & Hove GMB PDB (professional drivers branch) raised issues regarding the standards of transport which was being contracted by Brighton & Hove City council to transport vulnerable children to and from home.

A lad from our local PH Association and I have recently been communicating with the Licensing Department of Lewes District Council. We felt that a company contracted by Brighton and Hove City Council, Minibus Travel Services (MTS), which has an office in the Lewes district, but operates its business from a Brighton & Hove address, was not complying with sections of the 1976 Miss Prov Act.

We now have received a reply from the Licensing Officer of Lewes who has informed us that they have received legal advice from Counsel. On Thursday 6th December 2007 a meeting was held with the owners of MTS and the issues raised from that advice were discussed with regard to their Operators Licence, their general licensing practice and their future plans. The owners of MTS have been invited to make written representations to us on the points raised at the meeting so that we can bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion that adheres to the legal advice that we have been given.

Here we have it, Brighton & Hove City Council contracting transport for Vulnerable Children to a Private Hire company operating outside of the 1976 Miss Prov Act, and Lewes District Council allowing for many years a Private Hire Company to operate in another Licensing Authority’s area.

The question is, if this company are operating outside of the 1976 Miss Prov Act, are they properly insured?

My colleague from the local PH association also found this little gem on the Lewes council web site.

http://www.lewes.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/B ... misDoc=274

This company also applied for an exemption from the DSA and got it, why?

It was suggested that the additional financial and time implications of adopting the DSA testing regime would have serious repercussions on driver recruitment and subsequently on the company’s ability to tender for contracts.

The second question the Brighton and Hove GMB PDB are asking is there any further depths Brighton and Hove City council’s schools department can sink too, if they continue to allow the most vulnerable children to be transported to school by operator’s not properly licensed, and drivers who can’t be bothered to take the proper driving tests that all other drivers must?

Regards
BB

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

So no-one at Lewes knows the rules/laws relating to cross-border hiring.

As for the insurance issue, well I suspect if there's an accident which leads to a claim of £100, then the insurance company will pay out.

But if the claim is for £100,000, then that claim will be decided by a High Court Judge.

_________________
IDFIMH

Hear we go again.
Lets all have a go at Lewes.

Mr Flyer,

The GMB PDB Brighton & Hove section are not having a go at Lewes or any of its drivers.

My post merely lists facts relating to transport for vulnerable children.

Regards
BB

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

TBH Mr Flyer I'm amazed you guys have let the minibus firm get away with not doing the DSA.

But as Mr BB says, the issue isn't a slant on the good drivers of Lewes, but on a council and an operator that didn't know the law of this land.

Or maybe they did, but just didn't want to adhere to them.

_________________
IDFIMH

Perhaps you could start with quality controls that pertain to acceptable behaviour standards by GMB Branch secretaries?

Then people may just listen to the GMBPD a bit more, and the London Minicab branch may get it's 27th member.

Lets not ask me what I’m talking about, I get bored cutting and pasting from Tony Mites Forum for wanabee communist Minicab drivers.

Where you ever given an answer to the questions you posed regarding Brighton using inferior vehicles and drivers?

I think I read in this thread that the Lewes licensed P/H company was or is operating from within Brighton, is that correct?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

It seems that is the case.

Looking at the company concerned, they have an admin address in the district of Lewes, but they "operate" means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle; within the district of Brighton and Hove.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think the GMB could have a rosy future, cos they do have some sound folks out there who want to do nothing but help other folks.

Only time will tell to see if that happens, but IMO it's in their hands.

_________________
IDFIMH

Time will tell, and some aint got much time left

CC

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

Rumour has it that the Schools department have the deluded opinion that the Lewes firm can operate under the sec 75 exemption till 28/01/08.

Clearly it must have missed their minds that this mob is licensed, albeit in the wrong manor.

_________________
IDFIMH

It would not surprise me if our mob come out with some old b*ll shiet from Mr Button.

Only time will tell.

Anyone else have issues with operators licensed in one area and having their trading base in another authority?

Regards
BB

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

I'm not too sure Mr Button is the man to rely on when it comes to issues relating to operator licenses.

Taken from Brentwood Borough Council v Gladen

[28] The other source which Mr Findlay relies on is a book entitled Taxis - Licensing Law and Practice by Mr James Button. In that, he discusses the question of hackney carriages used as private hire vehicles. At para 13.60 he says this:

"A question which often arises concerns the use of hackney carriages as private hire vehicles. This can occur in one of two ways. First, the hackney carriage can be used effectively as a private hire vehicle because a booking is made with a person, either by telephone or in person, and a vehicle, which is a hackney carriage, is dispatched to fulfil the booking. Secondly, a private hire operator can operate a vehicle as a private hire vehicle, but the vehicle is licensed as a hackney carriage."

[29] He then sets out the relevant provisions of s 46, and then at 13.64 he says this:

"It appears that the effect of [the 1976 Act], s.46(1)(d) is to require an operator's licence for a person who operates 'any vehicle as a private hire vehicle', the effect being to bring within the provisions of that subsection any vehicle that maybe operated for the purposes of a private hire vehicle, irrespective of whether or not the vehicle itself is actually a private hire vehicle. This obviously therefore includes hackney carriages which are pre-booked, as a pre-booked hackney carriage falls within the definition of operate within [the 1976 Act] s 80."

[30] With the greatest respect to Mr Button, I am afraid I cannot agree with what he there says. It seems to me apparent that s 80 excludes hackney carriages from s 46(1)(d). I say that because, without going in detail over ground that I have already covered, "operate" relates to business in relation to bookings for a private hire vehicle. An "operator's licence" means a licence under s 55, and a "private hire vehicle" is defined as meaning a vehicle other than a hackney carriage. Thus, that, coupled with the provisions of s 55 and 56 which I have already read, seem to me to make it apparent that Parliament has recognised that different regimes apply to hackney carriages and to private hire vehicles, and that it is not necessary for a licensed hackney carriage, driven by a licensed hackney carriage driver, to be subject also to the requirements of an operator's licence; otherwise the limitations on the wording which Parliament has clearly set out would not be given their true meaning.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed Sussex, one day sane people without warped minds may take over, but as long as racists, and bigots such as 'you know who' (with the teeth) and his servile snake like creature from South London exist, the public at large will continue to laugh in the face of Unions.

They're yesterday’s news, shouting abuse and threats from the sidelines whilst the employers pay lip service to them.

As a wise man once said:

The typical response of a committed socialist in screaming racism, thug and murderers at those that have a difference of opinion to them politically shows just how poisoned the union is against any form of democratic opinion.

That's why we have over 8000 members in London, and they have less than 1500 from the whole of the UK.
Once the half wit pop's his clogs, which can't be too long, ( ) I suspect the numbers may grow . . .

Just a bit confused here.

Can you be licensed (both car & driver by the same LA) with an office in area A, but you can still carry out work in area B, without the journey starting or finishing in your own area, so long as the booking is made by your office sited within your own area.

_________________
you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.