|
Justice of the Peace
Since 1837 The Journal Dedicated to Magisterial and Local Government Law
(2001) 165 JPN 843
27 October 2001
Taxi Law: Some Contemporary Problems
Article
Alec Samuels
Taxi law and practice presents a complicated and unpleasing picture. The taxi trade is an important public service, albeit privately owned and run, and competitive. A taxi is a public service vehicle: Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 s.1(b). The involvement of the local authority and local politicians does not make way for harmony. The situation on the ground differs from area to area. The statutory law cries out for consolidation, modernization and re-enactment in contemporary form.
Fit and Proper Person
The phrase “fit and proper person” is not defined; indeed that is an almost impossible task: Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s.59. Regard must be had to the nature of the occupation involved and all the surrounding circumstances. Thus, a taxi-driver should be a person of good character. He (meaning he or she, for the purpose of this article) has access to the general public, usually works alone, and is usually alone with passengers in the vehicle.
Although within the local authority district the meter controls the cost of the journey, there is always the opportunity for overcharging (eg, foreigners), so honesty is paramount. Many vulnerable people look to taxi-drivers for a degree of protection: eg, women, children, elderly, disabled, persons not wholly familiar with England, English geography or the language. In addition, the passenger is often carried at night.The taxi-driver must hold a qualified driver's licence and have done so for at least 12 months: Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s.59.
He must be mentally and physically fit. His dress, appearance and manner should conform to acceptable standards. He must be a safe driver, having the responsibility for the care of the passenger. He should have sound “knowledge”, ie, be thoroughly conversant with the geography and road conditions generally in the area.
A degree of real interest and commitment to the trade is very desirable. References may properly be required.As a judicial authority under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, s.7(3) the local authority asks the chief constable to consider what spent convictions should be disclosed and the local authority then decides whether to consider such disclosed conviction and what weight to give to them: Adamson v. Waveney DC [1997] 2 All ER 898.
The applicant must be given the opportunity to make representations: R. v. Holborn Licensing Justices ex parte Stratford Catering [1926] All ER 279; (1926) 42 TLR 778 (Lord Hewart CJ); R. v. Hyde (1912) 106 LT 152, 157–158 (Lord Alverstone CJ) 160 (Bankes J) Strouds Judicial Dictionary, 5th edn, 989–990. A drivers' licence may be suspended or revoked or refused renewal because of a conviction for dishonesty, indecency or violence, failure to comply with conditions, or for any other reasonable cause:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s.61.Speeding offences and similar matters do not necessarily in themselves render a driver not a fit and proper person, but they may indicate irresponsible behaviour and a disregard for authority which would be relevant: Middleton v. Dundee City Council, 2001 SLT 287. A conviction for dishonesty, and a knowing or false declaration (eg, failure to disclose unspent convictions), would be considered very relevant: Nottingham City Council v. Farooq (1998) The Times October 28. Department of Transport circ.2/92. As stated above, the public must be protected. However, a person lacking culpability does not cease to be a fit and proper person: Ward v. Dundee City Council, 1999 SLT(sh) 56.
Unmet Demand
As far as licence applications go, the local authority must grant a licence if there is significant unmet demand: Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s.37, as amended by Transport Act 1985 s.16. The assessment of whether or not there is unmet demand and need, and to what extent, is not easy. Overall demand appears to be increasing. An independent expert survey and report is probably the best method of finding out.
Observation can indicate waiting times. The trade keeps records and will probably co-operate. Society seems to be becoming more affluent, the weekend night-time economy is booming and there is clear evidence of unmet demand from night-clubs. Also, congestion, parking, vandalism, and inadequate bus services increase dependence upon taxis.The Government is urging everybody to use public transport rather than the private car.
Railway patronage is increasing and largely relies on supporting taxi services. Depending upon local circumstances, football matches, festivals, new shopping centres, entertainment, cruise ships, students, can all increase demand. With violent crime on the streets at night, the taxi may offer the only safe way home.
There is also the element of “suppressed demand”, eg, people wanting a taxi but not being able to find one, or walking home out of desperation, or not getting through on the telephone, or being told that no taxi is available, or simply not bothering to try to get a taxi. The telephone as opposed to the taxi rank or flagging down is becoming the most usual method of seeking a taxi. The local authority must be ready to support its assertion of no unmet demand: Kelly v. Wirral MBC (1996) The Times May 13, CA. An appeal against refusal goes to the Crown Court.
Regulations or Deregulation
Argument has long persisted over whether the number of taxis should or should not be regulated, restricted or limited. Those in favour of regulation argue that the local authority knows the situation in the locality and can best adjust the numbers to bring supply and demand into the balance.
A “free-for-all” could lead to an excessive number of taxis on the road, traffic congestion, cut-throat competition, uneconomically low fares, and drivers going out of business. The value of an existing plate — many thousands of pounds — would be lost overnight.
As the law stands, a balance can be achieved. The decision by the local authority on numbers can be challenged in the courts if it cannot be shown to be supported by evidence and to be in all the circumstances reasonable, fair and just.Those in favour of deregulation argue that the market should be allowed to balance supply and demand in a competitive market. Where there is deregulation things seems to work perfectly satisfactorily.
By contrast, in some other areas the local authority has managed to maintain a restrictive policy, which has favour in the trade but not with the public.In order to overcome the problem that proprietors and drivers have invested considerable sums of money in plates, a situation created by an artificial shortage of licences, a comparatively short transition period, or appropriate notice, should suffice: Transport Bill, Hansard, Standing Committee A, April 2, 1985.
That a licence issued by a local authority should become a thing of real monetary value to be traded in the market is anathema.If anybody who wanted a licence could have one — provided he is a fit and proper person and the vehicle conforms to all the proper suitability and safety requirements — there would be no legal problems over applications, allocations, numbers and all the other issues that currently arise between the local authority, the trade, other interested persons, and the public. The anomalous dichotomy between taxis (hackney carriage) and private hire would disappear too.
Conditions
The local authority may impose conditions: Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s.47 and 2000 SI 412, art.4 (see R. v. Hyde [1912] 1 KB 645), but those conditions must be reasonable and fair and just, otherwise they could be struck down by the courts.The conditions may be few and general, or many and specific. They may relate to such things as the colour of the vehicles, advertisements on the vehicles, radio equipment, attendance at training courses. Conditions must not go further than the proper regulation of the taxi trade in the public interest.
A condition to observe the local authority policy, often expressed in very general aspirational terms, may well be too uncertain to be enforceable.A condition requiring late-night working would be unlawful. The licence holder may conduct his business as he likes — working such hours and when, as he likes.
Nowadays, there is a move to impose a wheelchair accessible condition. The aspiration to encourage the trade to make proper provision for the disabled is clearly laudable. However, its legality must be open to doubt. The evidence is that demand is low and the cost of a new or adapted wheelchair accessible vehicle is very high. The burden on the licence holder is also considerable. The market value of a non-wheelchair accessible licence will increase.
The Secretary of State has the power to make regulations regarding wheelchair accessible taxis, but has not done so thus far: Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ss.34–38 (though he has done so for guide dogs for the blind (Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Taxis) (Carrying of Guide Dogs (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 SI 2990) and for public service vehicles). So, a local authority condition may be found to be unreasonable — “jumping the gun” before the Secretary of State has acted.
Transferable
The licence adheres to the vehicle and may be transferred from one proprietor to another as of right: R. v. Weymouth Borough Council ex parte Teletax [1947] KB 583, 591; R. v. Southampton Corporation ex parte Lankford, October 27, 1960 (unreported). A licence is subject to all the normal procedures when it expires and comes up for renewal after the year: Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s.37, as amended by Transport Act 1985, s.16.
Plying for Hire
A taxi stationed on private land, such as a railway station forecourt or a shopping centre forecourt, is plying for hire in a street if likely to attract custom from members of the public in a public place, eg, an adjoining street: Eastbourne Borough Council v. Stirling (2000) The Times, November 16, DC (Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s.38.
Procedure
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law: European Convention on Human Rights, art.6, incorporated into English law by the Human Rights Act 1998, s.3. The procedure for dealing with licence applications must always be fair: R. v. Liverpool Corporation ex parte Liverpool Taxi Fleet Operations Association [1972] 2 QB 299, CA; Kelly v. Wirral MBC (1996) The Times, May 13, CA; Douglas v. City of Glasgow DC 1996 SLT 713.
Cross-examination must be permitted, and reasons given for the decision: R. v. Burton on Trent Justices ex parte Hussain (1997) 9 Admin LR 233. There must be no discrimination or unequal opportunities: art.14. Thus, all applications must be dealt with, carefully and on their merits.Application forms should not be complicated or restrictive so as to deter ordinary people. In addition, applications cannot be limited to one per household.
Simply to draw x number out of a hat, or the first x number to be received, would probably be unlawful. To restrict applicants to members of the trade or former members of the trade would be manifestly discriminatory and anti-competitive. To ignore the personal circumstances of an applicant is unacceptable: Glasgow DC v. Girvan 1998 SLT 1004; Douglas v. City of Glasgow 1996 SLT 713.
To require an administration or licence fee from a successful applicant is manifestly proper and unlawful, but to require a fee from an applicant, returnable if unsuccessful, must be open to considerable legal doubt.The strict rules of evidence do not apply, but the procedure and decision must be judicial or quasi-judicial: R. v. Brighton Corporation ex parte Thomas Tilling (1916) 85 LJKB 1552.
In view of the different standards of proof, a person acquitted of a crime in the criminal court could still be dealt with in a civil tribunal or committee, and hearing hearsay evidence: McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889. Guidance notes should take care to avoid creating any legitimate expectation: Docherty v. Edinburgh City Council 2001 SLT 291.
Appeal
An appeal lies from the local authority to the magistrates, and thence to the Crown Court, or the Divisional Court by way of case stated on a point of law; and directly to the Crown Court in respect of refusal and unmet demand. As the concepts of a fit and proper person, and unmet need, and conditions, are essentially matters of policy and judgment, the decision of the local authority is very difficult in practice to challenge unless there has been a serious procedural flaw, no evidence, or no sustainable reasons given. Judicial review is theoretically available, but much discouraged by the Judges where an appeal procedure is available.
Legislation
The taxi trade deserves modern comprehensive intelligible legislation. It cannot be right that the relevant law is to be found in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as amended by the Transport Act 1985, and other statutes. A review of the legislation was promised as long ago as 1985 and still has not seen the light of day. How much longer before the policy is reviewed and new legislation enacted? (See J. Button, Taxi Licensing Law and Practice, Butterworths, 1999 — a useful text on the subject.)
Duty of Care
The taxi-driver owes a duty of care towards his passenger. However, this duty ceases when the passenger leaves the taxi: Griffiths v. Brown (1998) The Times, October 26. The exception to this may be if the passenger is ill or disabled or drunk when put down.
Criminal Liability
Driving a taxi or private hire vehicle in ignorance of the law is no defence: Reading BC v. Ahmad (1999) 163 JP 451; Benson v. Boyce [1997] TRT 226. But the prosecution must prove subjective knowledge of the elements of the offence: Latif v. Middlesborough BC [1997] CLY 3424.
A taxi-driver coerced to carry more than the permitted maximum number of passengers may have the defence of duress in exceptional circumstances: Eden DC v. Briad [1998] COD 259. Finally, the local authority may prosecute a taxi-driver for offences such as driving uninsured: Middlesborough Borough Council v. Safeer (2001) The Times, August 16, DC.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
