|
Courtesy of 'Upfront' magazine from early 2006
For some inexplicable reason, known only to the editor, I have been asked to write another column.
I wonder if any of you out there can help me with a little problem I have, you see I am a little confused about this cross-border / sub contracting of work thing. We don’t have the cross-border argument over here for obvious reasons pertaining to the geography of the County, it being a pain in the backside and our love of sheep. However, your cross-border problems in the North East, whilst causing me mild amusement are leading to sleepless nights (no, not really).
As you will know (aye right), section 80 of the LGMP Act 1976 is pretty clear when it comes to describing the various terms of the act, “Operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle. Therefore anyone accepting a booking in the course of business must be licensed.
Over the years many thousands of pounds have been spent on barristers and solicitors in shed loads of court cases. These include Dittah vs. Choudhry, Top Cars vs. Windsor, Powers vs. Bromsgrove, East Staffordshire vs. Rendell, Murtagh vs. Bromsgrove and of course you’re very own Shanks vs. North Tyneside.
It is more or less certain that a private hire operator cannot sub-contract work across borders. The general rule of thumb seems to be that where the phone rings is where the operators license should be issued, obviously both driver and vehicle also need to be licensed where the operator is (all three licenses).
It can therefore be assumed if I call a private hire operator / person who accepts bookings in the course of their business from Newcastle for a car to pick me up, he cannot phone up his mate in Carlisle and send me a vehicle licensed in Carlisle. He must send a vehicle licensed in Newcastle, with a driver licensed in Newcastle.
This obviously raises questions about some of the firms who operate on a national basis with call centres. There is an argument that they are merely acting as an agency, but surely any radio circuit, in any town is merely doing the same thing for the people who hire their radios. The description of an operator is, as previously stated ‘in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle’.
I’m reasonably certain you’ll all be aware of the Shanks case, where the court found one firm couldn’t sub-contract to another. North Tyneside effectively said, as a North Tyneside licensed operator you could only use North Tyneside licensed vehicles and drivers and this is a stated case. However, if I set up a national call centre in Carlisle, go down the road of promising various national companies a decent service at a discounted rate, with a Carlisle national call centre number, then I sub-contract that work to firms a little nearer, using their cars and drivers, is this legal?
In this respect I would ask if firms such as ‘Fraser Eagle’ and ‘Taxibank’ are operating in a manner any different to the Shanks case? I know if I were in Mr. Shank’s size 9’s I’d be more than a little aggrieved, indeed I would possibly do a Cartman style ‘Godamnit!’.
If it has been deemed as illegal for me to pass a booking to another company 3 miles away, then surely it is equally illegal for me to pass a booking to someone 300 miles away? (that’s a question not a statement).
I would ask the question, in view of the cross border / sub contracting of work court cases if the following advertisement is lawful; ‘Taxibank is a national provider of professional private hire and taxi operators and our presence at this show is to introduce. We already organise cars for many blue chip clients across the country - try us and see how easy we make booking a taxi - anywhere!’
However, since these court cases the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 has become law. Section 5 (1) reads as follows;
A London PHV operator (the first operator) who has in London accepted a private hire booking may not arrange for another operator to provide a vehicle to carry out that booking as a sub contractor unless: -
(a) The other operator is a London PHV operator and the sub contracted booking is accepted at an operating centre in London.
(b) The other operator is licensed under section 55 of the local government (miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976 (in this referred to as the 1976 Act) by the council of a district and the sub-contracted booking is accepted in that district; or
(c) The other operator accepts the sub contracted booking in Scotland
It would therefore appear that whilst provincial private hire operators cannot accept bookings and then sub contract them, their London counterparts can! The hypocrisy of this clear for all to see. It would appear that I could set up a London based call centre and send out PHV’s on a national basis, provided the operator who is sub-contracting from me is licensed under section 55 of the LGMP 1976 Act.
During the course of my work I have spoken with a number of Judges (no, I wasn’t appearing in front of them), one particular judge said with a smile, you taxi drivers are a litigious lot, however, given the ambiguities of licensing law, its very often the interpretation by others that makes us this way.
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
