Taxi Driver Online

46 Vehicle, drivers' and operators' licences

(1) Except as **authorised** by this Part of this Act—

(a) no person being the **proprietor**

of **any vehicle**,

***not being a hackney carriage [or London Cab]** in respect of which a **vehicle licence** is in **force**,

shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;

Get it?

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

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4733&highlight=wilson

No

regards

CC

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

***not being a hackney carriage [or London Cab]**

The clue is in "London cabs".

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.

But the following was stated in Wilson;

First of all, as my Lord pointed out in argument, s 46(1)(a) speaks of a vehicle "not being a hackney carriage in respect of which a vehicle licence was in force" and goes on to prohibit the use of such a vehicle as a private hire vehicle. If it is right that such a licence automatically prevents the vehicle being a private hire vehicle that provision would make no sense.

Secondly, and more generally, if one looks at the definition of "hackney carriage" in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which I have already read, it seems to me clear that that definition at least starts by looking at the function that the vehicle is performing and not at its nature, construction or inherent identity. If that is so it cannot, in my view, be the case that simply to license a vehicle as a hackney carriage thereby makes that vehicle a hackney carriage for all time, even if it is functioning as a private hire vehicle. In my judgement, therefore, it is not enough that a hackney carriage licence exists to establish that this vehicle was a hackney carriage so that term is used in the definition of a "private hire vehicle" in s 80 of the 1976 Act.

I am, therefore, quite satisfied that it was made out before the Magistrates that this was a private hire vehicle.

Regards

CC

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

Collins firmly put that eroneous view to bed when he dissected the reference "to operate any vehicle". He specifically stated a hackney carriage was not a private hire vehicle therefore it could not be operated under the guise of a private hire vehicle no matter what construction you might wish to place on the interpretation of a private hire vehicle.

The glairing point that everyone fails to comprehend is that Collins considered Wilson even though he didn't mention it. And how do I know that? Well that is for you to discover because it is firmly entrenched in his judgement.

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 suppose we'll find out when the wrexham case comes to appeal.

regards

CC

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

Yes that will be crowning moment and I'll be glad when its all done and dusted.

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.

Yes, then hosilities can resume!

regards

CC

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

I was under the impression you had "cap" "it" "u" "lated" but perhaps I was wrong? lol

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.

Is the Wrexham case similar to the Berwick one??????????????
And when is it due to be heard

im appealing


is all this just to make QC more money, if so we are being used as porns


(i wish)

Just about skip yes, theres a thread on the legal section about it and its mentioned in the Berwick decision.

regards

CC

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

The Wrexham case will hopefully put this issue to bed one way or the other but then we another potential problem with this postal code issue so the litigation drags on and on.

I'm sure someone somewhere mentioned a new act, perhaps that would sort out the needless and endless litigation.

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.

Would a 2008 rule book help and scrap the old one

The one thing stated at the NTA Conference was that new taxi legislation was very low on the list of government priorities and parliamentary time was of the essence anyway.

CC

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