Taxi Driver Online

Hi all I need some help,
I have been in the game for twenty years now, I do the maintenance and the repair of the taxis (but am not a qualified mechanic) and because I did the odd long distance run, I have always held a hackney carriage licence up until 2004 when my dad lost both of his legs and I had to look after him full time. I could still do the mechanics but could not go on any long runs, as I had to take care of him.
On the 6th of Nov 06 I had to go to the county hall, cant remember if it was to go to a meeting or if I went to see licensing. As I had to road test the car I was working on I took the taxi.
To cut a long story short, On the 6th of Feb 2007, I had a letter to go to licensing for an interview under caution. Had the interview told them my story and came home and forgot about it.
Last Saturday I received a summons to go to court as they (The Council) are charging me with under section 46 and 47 of TSPCA 1847 driving without having a hackney drivers licence and for not having any insurance. The car was insured for hire and reward and for social domestic and pleasure.

I have always believed that I could road test the cars but the council are now saying that I can’t, as I am not a qualified mechanic. Can anyone give me some guidance?

Where do these councils get 160 year old laws from.
As long as you have insurance I would not worry about it, make them look total idiots if it goes before the court.
Any mechanic can road test a taxi, and the length of time you have been doing it more than qualifies you as one.

I'm afraid there is case law appertaining to driving a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle while not holding a license.

I'll dig the cases out and you can read them for yourself and perhaps we can take it from there?

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 that exclude the car recovery man, tyre/exhaust fitters. car mechanics, and yer Council tester who drives it off the ramp, and in some cases the meter installer who runs it over the mile.

Certain types of insurance allows certain people to drive almost any car under certain circumstances.

It might help him if he reads the case law under the two sections he is being charged? Don't you think?

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.

many mechanics are time served and not fully qualified ie. City and Guilds, and are often better mechanics, I think I would be asking for the exact wording relating to mechanic's Do you not agree JD,,

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

After spending the last two weeks looking at the Statute Law Database. This is the only reference I can find under the acts (Transport act 1985). This only applies to mot testing. As our council is the only one allowed to test taxis. It would make it unlawful for anyone to roadtest a taxi unless he is doing the MOT. The only part that may apply is the part that I have underlined.

3. Section 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (drivers not to act without first obtaining a licence) shall not apply to a person driving a hackney carriage licensed under that Act for the purpose of or in connection with—
(a)
any test of the mechanical condition or fitness of the hackney carriage or its equipment carried out for the purposes of [F1section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988](tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles other than goods vehicles) or for the purposes of any requirements with respect to such condition or fitness imposed by or under any other enactment; or
(b)
any test of that person’s competence to drive a hackney carriage carried out for the purposes of any application made by him for a licence to drive a hackney carriage.

My post should read (section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) without the F1

Yes I agree but if my memory serves me well the case law so far only applies to what amounts to the normal driving of a licensed vehicle. I shall have to re read it but I think it is pretty obvious that in this case the council believe the vehicle was being driven for reasons other than mechanical testing, for example pleasure.

The point in respect of the law is that the vehicle is "licensed" if the vehicle wasn't licensed as a hackney carriage then obviously he could do what he liked.

The best solution would have been to inform the council he was road testing the vehicle on such and such a date, the council would have then advised him if he was allowed to do that?

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.

As I had to road test the car I was working on I took the taxi.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I think the law relating to work and pleasure in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles needs revisiting. However it won't be revisited by tinkering around the edges with outdated legislation.

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.

As a side Issue to this. as a mechanic I have a trades policy which overrides the insurance issue, and secondly I always make sure the for hire sign is covered.... simple precautions.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I can well understand the council's thinking, maybe not in this case particularly, but I do know of a firm that a certain council not far from me were having problems with , every time they stopped one of this firm's cars on a Friday and Saturday night the driver would say that he was a mechanic on his way home and was not working the vehicle, they seemed to have more mechanics than licensed drivers.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I believed 110% that I was not breaking any law. That is until I read some of JDs postings, I now have some doubts, but if I did break any law it was not knowingly. (I know that’s no defence) but as it is common practice in this area and that other mechanics have been stopped and no action taken, I thought I was within my rights. I believe that I have enough evidence to prove (thanks in part to some of JDs postings) that, I have not broken the law. I also think I can prove that, by taking me to court they are in fact acting unlawfully. I cannot give you the details until they are proven, and also don’t want to give my defence away. This is a popular site and we don’t know who’s watching. But I will let you know as soon as possible. JD posted another item, jurisdiction of a council to prosecute. It says in Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 that a council may prosecute.

(1) When a local authority considers it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area-
How can it be in the interest of the public when the affects will be to stop taxis having proper road tests that can diagnose problems that will make a taxi safer?

MR T I am covered by a trades policy, and secondly we are not allowed to cover the for hire sign or plate, not so simple precautions. They have never asked to see my insurance they just say that being I have no HC licence I don’t have insurance.Yes we also have that problem but maybe the answer to that is we could let the council know who does our repairs

MR T I am covered by a trades policy, and secondly we are not allowed to cover the for hire sign or plate, not so simple precautions. They have never asked to see my insurance they just say that being I have no HC licence I don’t have insurance.Yes we also have that problem but maybe the answer to that is we could let the council know who does our repairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was not being flippant with you about covering the for hire sign, it is just that by doing so they have a extremely hard job trying to say you were plying for hire, and I am competent that the judge would agree.

I think a important thing to establish is whether or not they are actually claiming that you were at that time plying for hire .

I think the question a magistrates' would have to ask themselves is ( would it be reasonable for every mechanic to have to hold a hackney Licence or private hire Licence, and even the same from different councils if he worked on vehicles from other areas just to road test a vehicle) for the purpose of making sure it is in a safe condition to transport the general public....


PS. one other thing do your vehicles have a ordinary MoT?

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!