Taxi Driver Online

Pivotal taxi case ends in conviction


A High Court decision that makes it clear that taxi drivers who pick up fares outside of the area they are licensed in are invalidating their insurance has led to a Newcastle driver being convicted.


Frederick Roy Page, a hackney carriage driver from Cowgate, Newcastle, pleaded guilty to driving without valid insurance during a re-hearing at Gateshead Magistrates on March 6.

Mr Page had first been before magistrates in the town on May 20 2011 to face charges of illegally plying for hire and of operating without valid insurance. He pleaded not guilty to both charges and following trial was convicted of illegally plying for hire, but not for operating without valid insurance. Magistrates handed him a 12 month conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £120 costs.

Following the court result, Gateshead Council chose to appeal the decision on insurance. On February 13, the High Court agreed to overturn the previous decision and refer the case back to Gateshead Magistrates for a re-hearing.

At the re-hearing, Mr Page pleaded guilty to driving without valid insurance. He was handed six penalty points on his driving licence, a £125 fine and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Page was originally caught during a routine test purchase operation staged by Gateshead Council licensing officers in October 2010. Despite being a Newcastle licensed hackney carriage, Mr Page picked up a fare in Gateshead. The law clearly states that hackney carriages (taxis) are not permitted to pick up fares outside of their licensed area without a booking.

Gateshead Council head of development and public protection, Anneliese Hutchinson, said: "This case is an important one for everyone who lives in, works in, or visits Gateshead and sends out a very clear message to taxi drivers. Hackney carriages are only permitted to pick up in the area they are licensed for, if they do not they are invalidating their insurance – a fact now clarified by the High Court.

"This is about the safety of passengers, if they are travelling in a taxi they need to know that it has insurance that would cover them in the unlikely event of an accident. Taxi drivers must take personal responsibility for the safety of their passengers, driving without valid insurance is simply not acceptable.

http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/Council%20a ... ction.aspx

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

I thought the law was clear on this anyway

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Not the insurance aspect.

CC

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

Any possible implications for the old “Private Land” scenario, do you think?

______________________________________________________________________

will find out when we get a copy of the judgement.

CC

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

Was he booked from an address in Gateshead and dropped off in Gateshead or, was he illegally plying for hire?

It was plying for hire I think.....but usually if the driver has public hire insurance they dont add penalty points to the driving license, they say this case is landmark, so lets hope it finally resolves the issue.

CC

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

It will be an interesting case to read.

Until then I'm perplexed as to how a taxi driver takes a booking, without a license to take one.

Clearly they could be on a circuit, or someone could ring them, but a booking is a booking, and that IMO means a verbal booking at the time of pick up.

Clearly, again, the court says different.

_________________
IDFIMH

The incident here mentions plying for hire....I cant see a reference to the job being a pre-booking.

CC

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

Would that not be a direct consequence of the insurance issue?

Having no insurance really isn't an issue for plying.

_________________
IDFIMH

there were two charges....the magistrates found him guilty of plying but waived the no insurance charge, the council appealed the no insurance and apparently won.

I want to see the court case because the court may well have made a landmark decision.

CC

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

I think the fly in the ointment could be that the case was sent back to Magistrates for consideration on the insurance - and Magistrates don't set precedent. Would have been better if the matter had been settled in the Upper Court.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Thankfully the fly you mention isn't a problem.

The High Court, in the nicest sense, have told the Magistrates what to do.

_________________
IDFIMH

Only PH have an operators license! In my area 99% of firms are all hackney NO operators license required it can confuse the hell out of some organisations you deal with who are totally bamboozled but we probably do 90% of our work from the phones and up to 25% or more are jobs outside of the licensing district as we border 3 other districts. but as we are all hackney we cannot have an operators license ! So if this chap was on a booking it would have been legal but he wasn't as the OP stated he was caught in a test purchase operation trying to pick up rank work in a neighbouring district

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

But has precedent been set by that action?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related