Taxi Driver Online

We are still fighting (under incredible stress!) to get action taken on what we see as illegal touting, by out of area Hacks, and local PHV, operating and taking custom from private land locally.

I know this may seem stupid to some of you, but can someone be kind enough to confirm that section 167. Of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT, 1994, is usable to prosecute both of these types for plying for hire whilst in their vehicles, and on private land.

Or is it (as the councils wonderfully switched on solicitor is saying) prosecution is not possible because:

(a) they have to be out of the cars an attracting the public (WTF?),

or (b) the act is "designed to prosecute an unlicenced driver / car" and not any that are badged - and yes, I don`t know what he means either!

(c) even though both of the main locations are swarming with people, outside clubs, they are not a "public place"

Please help me defend our position, Any case law or other tactics I might use?

Help (as always) very appreciated

Your LO is out of touch with the law.

"it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers"

Regardless of whether the person is "sat in", or "stood outside" the vehicle. I might add that goes for Taxis and private hire vehicles.

Apart from the qualifying words 'in any street', a carriage/vehicle may be said to ply for hire if it stands ready to take up passengers on private property: Clarke and Goodge v Stanford (1871) LR 6 QB 357, DC; Allen v Tunbridge (1871) LR 6 CP 481; Bateson v Oddy (1874) 38 JP 598, DC; Foinett v Clark (1877) 41 JP 359, DC; Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co v Thompson [1918] 2 KB 105, DC; White v Cubitt [1930] 1 KB 443, DC. The vehicle must, however, be exhibited to the public as available for hire: Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311, [1959] 2 All ER 313, DC; Vant v Cripps (1963) 62 LGR 88, DC.

If a vehicle or vehicles accompanied by a driver stand on private property "waiting to take up passengers" it matters not whether they are licensed or otherwise, they are plying for hire. Advise your LO to read those cases and the list attached and if he is still unpersuaded ask him to come on here and have a word with us.

It would seem your LO just wants an easy life and is trying to pacify you by making lame excuses which he hopes will convince you that he knows what he's talking about. It is obvious he doesn't know what he is talking about but that puts him in the ballpark with a great many other licensing officers who also want an easy life. I can't say I blame them lol.

Take taxi licensing out of the hands of councils and then we might get some progress.

Regards

JD

Chorley Borough Council v Thomas ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 17 July 2001

Eastbourne BC v Stirling QBD October 31, 2000

York City Council v Thornton QBD 12 July 1994

Knowsley BC v John Thorpe Liverpool Crown court 12/12/92

Ogwr BC v Baker (DC) Divisional Court c.1988

Milton Keynes Borough Council v Barry QBD 3 July 1984

Hullin v Cook Queen's Bench Division 22 June 1977

Vant v Cripps (QBD) Queen's Bench Division c.1964

Newman v Vincent QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 31 MAY 1962

Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd QBD 31 MAY 1962

Gilbert v McKay KING'S BENCH DIVISION 28 JANUARY 1946

White v Cubitt DIVISIONAL COURT 15 November 1929

ARMSTRONG v. OGLE. 1926 May 10. DIVISIONAL COURT

SKINNER v USHER QBD 1 May 1872

CURTIS v EMBERY 22 June 1872

ALLEN v TUNBRIDGE 6 June 1871 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Clarke v. Stanford QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 29 April 1871

CASE v STOREY 31 May 1869

BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLAND MOTOR COMPANY v THOMPSON DIV CRT 18/4/18
____________________

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

Well that's the complete opposite of what the courts decided in the Watford Station situation.

There the court decided that drivers outside of their vehicles couldn't be done for plying for hire, as it was their vehicle doing it, and a car cannot be prosecuted.

Just a thought but I would say a 'plying for hire' prosecution would be easy to obtain than a touting one.

_________________
IDFIMH

The councils solicitor seems to be saying that they can't prosecute because it is not a public place and the law only states:-

"it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers"

_________________
Grandad,

I'm afraid private land doesn't nullify the meaning of public place. The law is already established where people off the street obtaining custom from on the street are just as guilty. Likewise being available to the public on private land stills means you are available to the public, regardless of whether the public is on or off private land.

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.

I know you are right JD but the councils' solicitor obviousy doesn't know how the law in this case should be interpreted.

_________________
Grandad,

Thanks for the replies gents.

So far as I can tell, the question of acting against the PHV on these sites is fairly clear cut, as I understand things; they are insured for Public Hire, and not plying for hire.

Getting the powers that be to do something about it is another matter though – can I (we) take out a private prosecution or something, just to prove our point and test the law?

In the case of the out of area Hackneys, their own LO has said that the practice is illegal, and they have asked the police to act – they have done precisely diddly, which matches our LO precisely.

From the point of view of our LO, It seems that if you are an out of area Hack, on private land, you become some kind of “Super Cab”, the land is a wormhole in Narnia, and they are immune from all the normal rules!

The biggest problem of all is getting someone in authority to actually call a spade a spade, instead of fudging the issues, and finally get off of their arses and do something.

Incidentally, one of my colleagues has just been banned from the premises of one site, just for telling one of the cabs that they were operating illegally there.

I was wondering, that because the private land incorporate a bus stop, for a scheduled bus route, (especially for the club patrons) can the licensee actually, legally, ban a cab from the car park – which he does not own anyway -, we are PSV`s ourselves as I understand it – surely my friend is being obstructed carrying out his lawful duties?

I cannot see for one moment what the poor s*d has done wrong to deserve this kind of treatment, and we want him re-instated as soon as possible.

As to unattended vehicles see Vant v Cripps (1963) 62 LGR 88, DC. An unlicensed private hire vehicle ought to have been found to be plying for hire when waiting beside a hackney carriage stand: Pettigrew v Barry (1984) Times, 12 July. When the driver of a marked licensed private hire vehicle agreed to carry two persons who had enquired as to his availability to do so, the vehicle was held to be plying for hire: Nottingham City Council v Woodings [1994] RTR 72, DC. As to taxis in London see paras 1477–1494 post.

There is so much to consider when deciding if an unlicensed hackney carriage driver and vehicle is playing for hire or even looking like they are plying for hire.

You really do need to read all the case law on here appertaining to plying for hire in order to understand the reasoning of the courts, right back from when hackney carriages were first licensed.

In the case of Rose v Welbeck Wynn J said this about plying for hire.

WINN J. I agree, and would add only one very short point of my own, because all that I would wish to have said has been said so lucidly already by Lord Parker CJ.

"It seems to me that the essence of this case is what interpretation must be put on the appearance and the behaviour of the vehicle in the circumstances established prima facie by the evidence."

As I understood counsel for the respondents’ most helpful and lucid presentation of his case, "he would be constrained to accept the fact that it makes no difference in law" whether the vehicle was to be taken to be saying: “I am here available for you to step into and hire me as a cab”, or whether it must be taken to say: “I am here available to be hired by you conditional on my owner’s approval and ordering me to take you where you want to go”.

"His case is that neither of those representations or invitations or offers can properly be spelled out on the evidence as it stood when the case was stopped."

""As I see the matter,""

"leaving aside any possible technicality about whether goods displayed in a shop window are offered for sale, such goods when so displayed at least amount to an invitation to open negotiations for the purchase of those goods," and, where only one item of the kind is displayed, an invitation to negotiate for the purchase of that article assuming it to be of a rare kind or rare in the relevant circumstances."

"I think that, at the very lowest, the evidence given discloses "behaviour" and "appearance" on the part of this vehicle which amounted to an "invitation", “Get in touch one way or another with my owner and see whether he is willing for me to take you as a vehicle which you are hiring”.

For the reasons I have added, and for all those Lord Parker CJ has given, I agree.

The London Airport case of Cogley v Sherwood is now practically meaningless. The case was brought by two London cab drivers who wanted to establish that the private hire vehicles on contract at London Airport were plying for hire. This happened in 1959 when there was no legislation governing private hire vehicles and basically anything could become private hire as long as they didn't ply for public hire. The two hackney cab drivers and the persons behind this exercise didn't think it through because if it was there intention to obtain a prosecution for plying for public hire then logic tells you that you don't go and pre book a vehicle under the provision of private hire. This is what these two bright sparks did.

Each went to different terminals which housed booking booths for these private hire vehicles and each driver made a booking. They were then escorted to the private hire vehicles and driven to their destinations. After being convicted in the lower court the private hire drivers appealed to the Queen's Bench Division the case was heard by LORD PARKER CJ, DONOVAN AND SALMON JJ

To cut a long story short the judges basically said that even though these vehicles were exhibited they were not exhibited enough as to make the public think they were available for public hire. And also considering that that a private booking had been made by the two Taxi drivers then the private hire drivers could not be convicted for plying for hire.

It all seems elementary to me and it should to everyone else.

If the two hackney carriage drivers had conducted the exercise properly and asked the private hire drivers to take them from their parking place instead of going to the booking office then they probably would have got a lasting conviction providing the private hire drivers were willing to take them without a prior booking?

It may have been the case that the hackney carriage drivers new they couldn't obtain a vehicle without a prior booking? If that was the case then the operation was doomed to failure from the beginning. However there must have been some indication either rightly or wrongly that people who had not booked through the office were being carried as passengers.

The whole case is largely academic now because the whole of the UK has some sort of private hire legislation and the only reason that the private hire Heathrow firm got away with illegal plying for hire was the fact that the place where they were parked did not resemble a Taxi rank of any sort. However if it had then I have no doubt that they would have been convicted if all the elements were in place.


There is one other case where vehicles were parked outside or near an office but with no drivers in them. The court deemed the vehicles were not plying for hire. The P/H drivers at Watford station had to comply with the law in this particular case which is more or less similar to the London Airport case.

It follows from all these cases that in order for a vehicle to be deemed not to be plying for hire, two essential ingredients have to be in place.

1. The vehicle must be empty while parked in the street or public place or parked in such a place with the driver where the public are unlikely to have access.

2. There has to be no signs on or about the vehicle that suggests it can be hired by the public.

It seems absurd but that just about sums it up and that is why private hire drivers at Watford Station had to vacate their vehicles even though they were on private railway land.

I might add that the case law of convictions against those unlicensed persons who illegally plied for public hire far outweighs the two cases I highlighted above.

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.

Can I suggest that it is probably because the LO is not authorised to enforce the provisions of this act and section by his Local Authority and also because it is recordable (i.e. fingerprints, dna and power of arrest) it is seen as a Police matter.

_________________
oldbloke

Councils are allowed to prosecute for touting and for plying for hire illegally.

The recordable issue relates to their criminal record, so it's a conviction in a court that makes offences recordable, not who prosecutes.

Just for the record instant fines for disorder are about to be made recordable.

_________________
IDFIMH