Taxi Driver Online

s.29(1) of the 1994 Act provides:

"If a person uses or keeps on a public road a vehicle not being an exempt vehicle which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence."

An exempt vehicle, for these purposes, is defined by para.22 of sch.2 of the 1994 Act. That reads:

"A vehicle is an exempt vehicle when it is being used

solely for the purpose of -

(a) submitting it (by previous arrangement for a specified date) for a compulsory test, or

(b) bringing it away from a compulsory test."

Regards

JD

Now that we have well and truly put to bed the fact that you don't need an excise license to obtain a Hackney Carriage or private hire vehicle license excepting as I've been told in London, we can now safely say that the insurance comes first, the MOT comes second and the Excise license comes last.

Under those circumstance we have proved that the road tax has nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining a Hackney carriage or Private hire vehicle license.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us knowing that under the law it is an offence to keep a vehicle on the road which does not have an insurance certificate, a valid MOT, or a current Vehicle excise license. All three you need in order to legally drive on the queens highway.

Does a Vehicle excise license have anything to do with obtaining a Hackney carriage or private hire vehicle license? Well apart from London, as I'm reliably informed, sadly it doesn't.

Regards

JD

Hello JD,
The problem with the para 22 of Sch2 of the 1994 Act is, that is after the keeper of the vehicle has attended a testing station, he may well wish to use that vehicle on the public road for the purpose of plying for hire, rather than continually driving backwards and forwards to the testing station - and for that he will require a valid VEL which allows the keeper to use that vehicle on the public road as a Hackney Carriage. Understanding that this licence is not obtained through an LA but through the DVLA, the question arises what additional rights does the vehicle keeper receive whilst using the public road, by making an application for one of these concurrent LA's licences, for which he is required to pay a further fee?
Regards,
Jeff

Do you have some statistics to back this up please Dave? Or is this just another rumour doing the rounds in the huts?

A new mirror for an E7 is £97.60, a TX2 is £188, not fitted. Cheaper?

The price for a FULL spec E7 is £26'000, the price for a full spec (Gold) TX2 (thats the rattling one) is £34'000, so you've gone astray by a few thousand.

As for this tosh about the public getting confused, they did'nt get confused over the FX3 / The Winchester / The FX4 / The Asquith / The Metrocab, why will they not recognise an E7? or a Mercedes?

I've driven many cabs before i bought my own in the early nineties, I can't say i'm particularly impressed with any of Carbodies / LTI's products, even my latest TX1 is ok, but does'nt win any awards in innovation or comfort.

Roll on the alternatives, I want a choice, I don't want to be told what Cab I have to buy, I don't want to go cap in hand back to LTI when something goes wrong with the brand new £34K cab i've just bought and be told theres no problem, but if I leave it for a week they will get round to it (My mate Norm) LTI need a serious kick in the gonads, and you know its coming in the shape of Cab Direct.

So you don't think tonight people will be hailing anything that passes them in Charing Cross road?

Dave, people don't give a [edited by admin] what they get into, as long as its got a taxi sign on the roof, with a licensed driver they are happy with that.

If LTI are so great they will dominate.

But I think we both know that the E7 outsold the TX2 last year.

Drivers will decide.

I know my choice in a couple of years.

You are quite right it was and probably still is a statutory requirement for "London" Cabs under the 1934 London cab order. However that was before the 1994 act came into force, I haven't found anything to suggest it has been modified so that more than likely still applies. I shall confirm the exact position on Tuesday and let you know.

You forgot to mention that it is a London Cab order, which only applies to "London Cabs". It does not apply anywhere else in the UK. I did point this out when CabbyDave reliably informed me of the VEL PCO requirement for London Cabs.

I suspect there might well be a conflict in law if TfL insist on a VEL before the vehicle is tested, but we shall see.


Regards

JD

As I understand it from my garage, (Tent) they don't road test them any more.

Yep, roll over, sit up, and go woof every time Ellis tells you to do so.

Or you could join the London Cab Drivers Club, since their rag is sponsered by LTI they will agree with you all the way on keeping the rattle...... sorry, Icon as the only cab we can buy.

Ah! Metrocab. Nearly forgot! Call the Birmingham Taxi warehouse and ask how many years long the current waiting list is?

Anyway Dave, hows the coffee on your sales floor at M & O ?

I've answered, as I'm sure the LTDA have, your remark on our poor 'confused' public.

As for 'vans with windows', lets replace that with 'soundly built, air conditioned, economical, w.a.v, full 5 year warranty , reliable , quiet, quick , recognisable, easy access ramp , Taxi.'

Lets also say 'Expensive , sluggish , crap service from dealers , Rattling , unreliable , poor MPG , poor service intervals , VAN engined TX2'

Peoples choice of words to describe our (cough) 'Icon' or an alternative does'nt mask the truth.

Now that i've mentioned the ICON word, why is the TX2 (Fabric of Britain, soon to be made in China!) an Icon?

The FX4 maybe, but not the TX shape.

It comes down to the turning circle.

I, (and millions of others do) can live without that, especially £8K worth of turning circle.

I may add the E7 turns in about 30ft, opposed to my 'Icons' 27ft.

I think tax disc's can be interesting.

You just need a different outlook on the subject, thats all.

There is no problem with the 1994 legislation it just says that in order to have a vehicle tested it doesn't need road Tax for the purpose of driving it too and from any vehicle testing station. It also follows that outside of London you don’t have to have a vehicle excise license to obtain a Hackney carriage vehicle license. Everyone needs a license to drive on the road and the same applies to Insurance and MOT but the VEL outside of London does not come first by any stretch of the imagination.

In respect of London, you do have to have a valid VEL but the PCO informed me those vehicles that don't have an MOT are entitled to get a "Vehicle excise license by virtue of Form V112". This is an exemption form for certain types of vehicles including London Hackney carriages.

Under certain circumstances the form also allows for an exemption of both Hackney carriage and Private hire vehicles outside of London. I find this information particularly useful and I would be interest to hear if anyone else knew about these exemptions and if indeed anyone else has ever obtained a Vehicle Excise License by these methods?

The following are the Taxi vehicle Exemptions of form V112.

(1) Hackney carriages or private hire cars licensed to ply for hire by certain local authorities authorised to carry out roadworthiness checks on their vehicles.

(2) Hackney carriages granted licences by Transport for London.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/0 ... 009592.pdf

In your initial enquiry to me you stated the following,

"The problem is that the fee to use a mechanically propelled vehicle as HC is, and has been, paid as an integral part of the vehicle excise licence - and that procedure is undertaken and satisfied through a post office before any involvement with a local authority".

I would hope I have demonstrated that apart from London a Vehicle Excise license is not a statutory requirement in order for a vehicle to have an involvement with the Local licensing authority?

Excluding London, I have also demonstrated that a vehicle can obtain either a public or private hire Taxi license from a council without first needing to obtain a VEL.

Putting both those rules together, demonstrates that payment to a licensing authority comes before any payment to the Government. So in answer to your submission that a Vehicle excise license has to be obtained first before any involvement with a local authority, is simply not the case.

In respect of keeping a vehicle on the road I have consistantly stated that every mechanically propelled Vehicle which isn't exempt under current legislation has to have a vehicle excise license in order to travel or be kept on a public road.

Therefore can we agree that for vehicles over three years old, insurance comes first, the MOT comes second and the VEL comes last?

Can we reflect on your statement for a moment and reconsider what you think to be the case?

Can we agree that the function of the two bodies namely the collector of taxes for the VEL and the administrative licensing authorities are totally different entities?

1. Does one body not collect a Tax and the other an administration fee?

2. Is one license not a source of tax revenue and the other an administration charge?

3. Are taxi license fees retained by the local licensing authority or are they paid to the Government?

4. Since the 1847 Town police clauses act came into force has there ever been legislation amending section 37, Which states

The commissioners may from time to time license to ply for hire within the prescribed distance such number of Hackney coaches or carriages of any kind as they think fit?

And does subordinate legislation not state that a licensing authority can recover their cost of administering that licensing duty?

If we concentrate on the legislation of 1847 for a moment, do you agree with me that there isn't any legislation on the Statute either "past or present" that has amended section 37 excepting the 1985 Transport act?

Can we agree on Questions one and two that the two bodies perform a different function for a totally different purpose? I think question three is a formality.

You asked for my opinion and if possible clarification on Sec 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 as reported in Halsbury Statutes 4th Edition 1995 and in particular the "Notes". I previously tried to locate that information for you as you know but I hope to have it today. If you don't mind, I will post the relevant information in this thread so it can accessed by everyone and anyone wishing to comment?


Regards

JD

Hello JD,
For an individual to use his vehicle on the public road irrespective of whether he registers his interest with an LA or not, he must be in possession of a curent VEL. Such a documents is not dependendant upon an LA. The keeper of the vehicle could use any authorised MOT testing station, and then present the relevant MOT test certificate at the time of applicaton for a VEL - effectively bypassing the LA, and would have still obtained the VEL which entitles the keeper to use that vehicle on the public road as a HC.
Regarding LA's, these are subordinate authorites, their functions being undertaken on behalf of the Sec For Transport, the method of their funding (with respect to motor cabs) being set down in para 3-(4), (b) of the Roads Act 1920 - this being a charge set against the Road Fund account.
I feel that the confusion that exist is possibly because although the LA's were instructed to cease taking fees for motor vehicles at the time the RA 1920 came into force, they were still left with powers to demand fees for an application for a licence by owners of horse cabs, and that that legislation has subsequently been incorrectly applied and mistakenly extended to motor cabs.

Regards,
Jeff

I think we have established that fact and we are both in no doubt that a VEL is a requirement by law in order to use a vehicle on the road.



So you agree that the MOT certificate comes before a VEL. We are both in agreement on that score.



The 1920 roads act is defunct as I have already pointed out and you can no longer refer to that act. Besides, local authorities do not have anything to do with collecting Road Taxes. A license to ply for hire is not a Road Tax. Or do you think it is?

If you must quote legislation lets try and quote legislation that is curent.

You mentioned LA's being subordinate to the Sec of State for Transport?

The powers of a Local Authority are subordinate to Central Government and ultimately to Parliament. For the purpose of licensing Hackney carriage and Private hire vehicles a licensing authority is not subordinate to the Sec of State for Transport. The 1847 and 1976 acts bestow an administrative right on councils to regulate both Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles and drivers. This right can only be changed by Parliament, there is a difference which I am sure you are aware between a statutory instrument and an act of parliament. For the purpose of licensing hackney carriages or private hire vehicles the Secretary of State has no power to intervene in that process. There is no SI on the statute that gives the secretary of State the power to alter section 37 of the 1847 act.


I think you should embrace the fact that licensing these types of vehicles has nothing whatsoever to do with road tax.

Those reading this thread will probably be able to distinguish between an administrative charge and a tax levied in order to obtain revenue. We might be able to make some headway into your focal point that "licensing authorities can't levy a charge under current legislation", if you accept the fact that a licesning authority is not adminsitering its service as a TAX levi?

In order to show you it has been repealed, I'm going to post sections 3 and 4 of scedule one of the 1920 Roads act that you refer, Perhaps we can then move on from this act?

United Kingdom Statute 1920 c 72

ROADS ACT 1920 CHAPTER 72

The whole of the remaining act repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act (2004 c.14)

An Act to make provision for the collection and application of the excise duties on mechanically-propelled vehicles and on carriages; to amend the Finance Act, 1920, as respects such duties; and to amend the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and to make other provision with respect to roads and vehicles used on roads, and for purposes connected therewith.

[December 23, 1920]

Notes:

Words of enactment omitted under authority of Statue Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland

UK ST 1920 c 72 (Refs & Annos)

ROADS ACT 1920 CHAPTER 72

s 1

1.

Notes:
Words of enactment omitted under authority of Statue Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland

Repealed by Vehicles (Excise) Act 1949 (c. 89), Sch. 7

UK-LIF ST 1920 c 72 s 1
UK ST 1920 c 72 s 1

ROADS ACT 1920 CHAPTER 72

s 2

Notes:
Words of enactment omitted under authority of Statue Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland

Repealed by Finance Act 1936 (c. 34), Sch. 3 Pt. II

UK-LIF ST 1920 c 72 s 2
UK ST 1920 c 72 s 2

Amendment as at: July 22, 2004

s 3

repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act (2004 c.14), Sch 1 (14) Para 1

UK-LIF ST 1920 c 72 s 3
UK ST 1920 c 72 s 3

United Kingdom Statute 1920 c 72 s 4

ROADS ACT 1920 CHAPTER 72

s 4

Notes:
Words of enactment omitted under authority of Statue Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3This Act is not necessarily in the form in which it has effect in Northern Ireland

Repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989 (c.43), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. X

UK-LIF ST 1920 c 72 s 4
UK ST 1920 c 72 s 4 United Kingdom Statute 1971 c 10 (Refs & Annos)
..........................................................................................................

Most of the 1920 Roads act was repealed by the following act which was subsequently repealed by the 1994 act.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) ACT 1971 CHAPTER 10

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to excise duties on mechanically propelled vehicles, and to the licensing and registration of such vehicles with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission.

[March 16, 1971]

Notes:

Power to modify Act conferred by National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49), ss. 23(4), 27(5) in relation to England and Wales and National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (c. 29), ss. 15(3), 16(2) in relation to Scotland; Act excluded by S.I. 1979/1092, reg. 15, Act amended by Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 (c.72), s. 8 and Finance Act 1976 (c.40), ss. 11, 12, Act restricted by S.I. 1982/1271, reg. 19, Act excluded by S.I. 1986/1467, regs. 3, 4, Act applied by Finance Act 1986 (c.41), s. 9, Sch. 6 para. 6(1) and by Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1), s. 157, Sch. 6 Pt. II para. 1(2) UK ST 1971 c 10 (Refs & Annos)


United Kingdom Statute 1971 c 10 s 1

VEHICLES (EXCISE) ACT 1971 CHAPTER 10

EXCISE DUTY ON, AND LICENSING OF, MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES

Amendment as at: September 1, 1994

s 1

repealed by Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994 c.22), Sch 5 (I) Para 1

UK-LIF ST 1971 c 10 s 1
UK ST 1971 c 10 s 1

United Kingdom Statute 1971 c 10 s 4

VEHICLES (EXCISE) ACT 1971 CHAPTER 10. EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY.

s 4

repealed by Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994 c.22), Sch 5 (I) Para 1

UK-LIF ST 1971 c 10 s 4
UK ST 1971 c 10 s 4

United Kingdom Statute 1971 c 10 s 4

VEHICLES (EXCISE) ACT 1971 CHAPTER 10
EXEMPTIONS FROM DUTY

Amendment as at: September 1, 1994

s 4

repealed by Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994 c.22), Sch 5 (I) Para 1

UK-LIF ST 1971 c 10 s 4
UK ST 1971 c 10 s 4

United Kingdom Statute 1971 c 10 Sch 2 (I) Para 1

UNITED KINGDOM LAW IN FORCE

VEHICLES (EXCISE) ACT 1971 CHAPTER 10

SCHEDULE 2 ANNUAL RATES OF DUTY ON HACKNEY CARRIAGES

SCHEDULE PART I

Amendment as at: September 1, 1994

Para 1

repealed by Vehicle Excise and Registration Act (1994 c.22), Sch 5 (I) Para 1

UK-LIF ST 1971 c 10 Sch 2 (I) Para 1
UK ST 1971 c 10 Sch 2 (I) Para 1



If you notice the acts that repealed the various sections of the 1920 act you will see that it leads us to the modern day act of 1994. It is that act which you need to concentrate on and perhaps one or two of the finance acts which I have not mentioned becuase in short they lead us nowhere.

In the meantime I would be obliged if you could produce to me a copy of any legislation that states a council cannot make an administration charge for issuing a licence?

I'm off out, I'll carry this on when I get back, hopefully with your initial enquiry but you never gave me which volume of the fourth edition so I will have to do some digging.

Regards

JD

I've used this method for years.

The only time I get an MOT is if I'm going to sell my motor. Not because I have to, but just because it makes it easier to sell.

_________________
IDFIMH