Taxi Driver Online

Regardless of whether you have this vehicle hired out to a third party one would assume that from time to time you would want to drive it in order to satisfy yourself that the vehicle was in a sound mechanical condition. That is the very least of your obligations towards the general public. If for instance the vehicle was hired out to a third party and the third party complained of a rumbling noise you would want to investigate the cause of that noise? One would also assume that in order to investigate the problem the ideal way of doing so would be to drive the vehicle yourself? Considering you carry out your own maintenance and repairs you consider yourself to fall into the category of mechanic for the purpose of maintaining your own vehicle. Under those circumstances you believe you are entitled to road test a vehicle from time to time in order to make sure it is safe for public use and that when a mechanical defect has been corrected you have a duty of care to the public and the driver of the vehicle to make sure the defect you have corrected is problem free and the vehicle is once again mechanically sound.

On the occasion in question you were in the process of road testing your vehicle after correcting a mechanical fault. The fact that you chose to road test the vehicle at the time you did and the route you took is immaterial. On guidance from the Department of Transport a mechanic carrying out maintenance on licensed taxi vehicles is not expected to hold a hackney carriage drivers license in order to carry out mechanical repairs.

You are aware of the relevant case law in respect of driving a licensed vehicle without the appropriate license but in those cases the persons convicted admitted to carrying members of the public in their vehicles. The circumstance in your case is entirely different. Your only purpose for driving the vehicle was to make sure it was road worthy for public use and that you were aware of the legal limitations attached to the use of your vehicle under the conditions of maintenance.

The letter you have submitted in evidence from the Department of Transport adequately explains the limitations on vehicle maintenance and you are confident you have not exceeded those limitations. It would appear to you and hopefully to this court that Pembrokeshire council are not prepared to give any latitude on the issue of vehicle maintenance except where such maintenance is carried out by a mechanic who holds a hackney carriage drivers license. In line with the Department of Transport you do not believe that such a narrow interpretation of the law is what Parliament intended and in the natural progression of evolution from when this act came into being in 1847 to present day the courts have to take into account the evolution from a horse drawn carriage to a mechanically driven vehicle.

The first consideration of any licensing authority must be to the public therefore ensuring every license vehicle is mechanically sound and fit for public use. This can only be achieved if the council is prepared to admit that in order for a vehicle to remain mechanically sound it has to have regular mechanical checks. This can only be done proficiently if the owner of the vehicle carries out such checks either by himself or a qualified third party. In this particular instance the maintenance was carried out by the vehicle owner and in order to pass the vehicle fit for public use the owner had to road test the vehicle as a matter of cause. It was during this process that you fell foul of the council’s narrow interpretation of section 46 in so far they rigidly applied the narrow definition handed down by the court of appeal in the case of Darlington BC v Thain which relates to Hackney carriages and Benson v Boyce in respect of private hire licenses. However the court of appeal were not presented with facts relating to ongoing vehicle maintenance and in both those cases the circumstances were entirely different to your own. The facts in this case turn on whether a mechanic who carries out maintenance on a licensed vehicle can in effect road test that vehicle without having to first obtain a hackney carriage drivers license. It is beyond belief to think that every motor mechanic in the United Kingdom who wanted to road test a licensed vehicle had to obtain a hackney carriage drivers license in order to do so.

You submit that on the evidence before the court equity should reside with the defendant on the basis that regular maintenance is a requirement by law and in order to effect such maintenance road testing of a vehicle is not only a vital ingredient of that maintenance but also a necessity. Therefore the requirement of a hackney carriage driver’s license should not be a pre requisite in order for a mechanic to be able to carry out such maintenance.
_______________________________

I might add that any issue of insurance is a matter only you can resolve.

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.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

Main body

Part II Construction and Use of Vehicles and Equipment

Tests of vehicles other than goods vehicles to which section 49 applies

Version 7 of 7 (Prospective available)

45. Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles.— (1) This section applies to motor vehicles other than goods vehicles which are required by regulations under section 49 of this Act to be submitted for a vehicle test under that section and has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether the [F1 following requirements are complied with, namely—

(a)the prescribed statutory requirements relating to the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment, and

(b)the requirement that the condition of motor vehicles should not be such that their use on a road would involve a danger of injury to any person.]

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a)for the examination of vehicles submitted for examination under this section, and

(b)for the issue, where it is found on such an examination that the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with, of a certificate (in this Act referred to as a “test certificate") that at the date of the examination the requirements were complied with in relation to the vehicle.

(3) Examinations for the purposes of this section shall be carried out by—

(a)persons, not being officers of the Secretary of State, authorised for those purposes by the Secretary of State (in this section and section 46 of this Act referred to as “authorised examiners"),
[ F2 (b)examiners appointed under section 66A of this Act]
(c)inspectors appointed by any council designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and section 46 of this Act, being the council of a county, district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London or [F3 a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.]

(4) Where a test certificate is refused, the examiner or inspector must issue a notification of the refusal stating the grounds of the refusal, and a person aggrieved by the refusal or the grounds of the refusal may appeal to the Secretary of State.

(5) On any such appeal the Secretary of State must cause a further examination to be made and either issue a test certificate or issue a notification of the refusal stating the grounds of the refusal.

(6) For the purposes of their functions under this section the Secretary of State or a council designated for the purposes of this section may provide and maintain—

(a)stations where examinations under this section may be carried out, and

(b)apparatus for carrying out such examinations.

[F4 (6A) The Secretary of State may provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, courses of instruction in connection with the carrying out of examinations under this section; and may charge prescribed fees in respect of attendance on such courses.

(6B) The Secretary of State shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, records containing such particulars as he thinks fit of—

(a)vehicles submitted for examination under this section, and

(b)the carrying out of and the results of the examinations.]

(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section for the purpose of giving effect to this section and for prescribing anything authorised by this section and section 46 of this Act to be prescribed.

( In its application to vehicles in which recording equipment is required by Article 3 of the Community Recording Equipment Regulation to be installed and used, this section shall have effect as if any reference to prescribed statutory requirements relating to the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment included a reference to the prescribed requirements of so much of that Regulation as relates to the installation of recording equipment and the seals to be fixed to such equipment.Annotations:

Amendments (Textual)

F1 Words in s. 45(1) substituted (1.7.1992) by Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40, SIF 107:1), s. 48, Sch. 4 para. 52(2); S.I. 1992/1286, art. 2, Sch.
F2 S. 45(3)(b) substituted (1.7.1992) by Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40, SIF 107:1), s. 48, Sch. 4 para. 52(3); S.I. 1992/1286, art. 2, Sch.
F3 Words in s. 45(3)(c) substituted (S.) (1.4.1996) by 1994 c. 39, s. 180(1), Sch. 13 para. 159(5); S.I. 1996/323, art. 4(1)(b)(c)
F4 S. 45(6A)(6B) inserted (1.6.2001 in relation to s. 45(6B) and otherwiseprosp.) by 1999 c. 12, ss. 1(3), 9(2); S.I. 2001/1896, art. 2(1)
Subordinate Legislation Made

P1 S. 45 (with ss. 46 and 47(5)): power exercised by S.I. 1991/253
S. 45 (with s. 46): power exercised by S.I. 1991/455

For previous exercises of power under s. 45 see Index to Government Orders

P2 S. 45: s. 45 (with s. 46) power exercised (4.7.1991) by S. I. 1991/1525 and (7.10.1991) by S.I. 1991/2229
P3 S. 45 (with s. 46) power exercised (9.12.1991) by S.I. 1991/2791

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

Ammendment to the 1847 act

The M2 Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Annotations:
Marginal Citations
M2 1847 c. 89.

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 [F1 section 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.

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1 Words substituted by Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Act 1988 (c. 54, SIF 107:1), s. 4, Sch. 3 para. 31

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

Alan,

How do you feel about bearing your soul to the world?

Do you have a solicitor or is it your intention to get one?

Obviously we don't know the full circumstances of your case but I suggest you email David Farmer at the DfT and confirm the departments position on hackney carriage owners who do not hold a hackney carriage drivers license but road test their own vehicles for the purpose of maintenance?

In the meantime I've written to Pembroke licensing department and asked for confirmation of their policy on the maintenance of hackney carriage vehicles and in particular the road testing of such vehicles by persons who are not qualified as hackney carriage drivers.

I assume you have insurance to drive your own vehicle but does it state anything about licensed drivers only?

I also take it that you don't have trade insurance that allows you to drive any vehicle for the purpose of maintenance etc?

If you can supply us with any information in respect of your case then we will do all we can to help you.

Is this the first hearing on the 18th?

I understand your case is a matter of public record therefore in order for us to help you to the best of our ability we need know exactly what is stated on the summons. For example, on such and such a date at such a location you drove a hackney carriage vehicle licensed by pembrokeshire county council without being in posession a current recognised hackney carriage drivers license and vehicle insurance, contrary to section 46 of the 1847 Town police clauses act.

If you want to conduct this exercise in public in order to get the maximum input possible then write down the text of the actual charge and circumstances that the council say prevailed at the time of the offence.

It might be a little unorthodox but you will have the benefit of everyone's input before you decide on whether or not to instruct a solicitor. It might be the case that the council may drop the charge before it goes to court. I understand there is a meeting next week which may be in consideration of your case. If that is so then at that stage they might decide to drop it, however I wouldn't bank on that.

If you get a solicitor to write to the council explaining that the gravity of the offence, if indeed any offence has actually been commited is not one that couldn't be remedied by other means. And that there was no intent on your behalf to circumvent the law providing that the law under these circumstances is as the council alludes?

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.

This has no relevance to the circumstances of this particular case Trevor. I don't think we should cloud the issue by submitting material that is not pertinent to the offence.

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.

Look in info@taxi-driver.co.uk

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

Yes but that section specifically relates to testing and authorised persons.

Try this, scroll down to mot testing.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3814

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.

Did you get this ammendment off TDO



This latter part of the section which I highlighted could possibly be a ray of hope because it might infer as Cope inferred in his letter of 2000, that vehicle maintenance is an ongoing requirement.

or

This is in reference to a person undergoing a driving test in a hackney carriage vehicle in order to obtain a hackney carriage drivers license.

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.

Can you please put up the letter from Keith Hill.

_________________
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 don't know to what letter you refer but the written answer to the question of Mr Ennis MP, is as follows.

Mr. Ennis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision he has reached following the consultation on proposals to amend the law after the judgment in the case of Benson v Boyce.

Mr. Hill: After very careful consideration of all the responses received and bearing in mind the weight of all the arguments, I have decided that the only people who should be entitled to drive a licensed private hire vehicle in England and Wales, outside London, without themselves having the appropriate licence, should be people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver. I am advised that it is already legal for people without a private hire vehicle driver's licence to conduct such tests. Accordingly, no order is necessary under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

It would appear that in referrence to the words "legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver", Mr Hill was referring to current legislation which states only authorised persons who carry out such legally required tests. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

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.

Trevor has already posted this in relation this case and I made the point of highlighting the section which might afford some kind of relief to aka222? However thats a farely big might.
___________

TRANSPORT ACT 1985

CHAPTER 67

SCHEDULE 7 MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Section 139 (2)

Royal Assent [30 October 1985]

Transport Act 1985, Ch. 67, Sch. 7 (Eng.)

SCHEDULE 7 Minor and Consequential Amendments

General

1 In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactment which apply to motor vehicles used--

(a) to carry passengers under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum; and

(b) to ply for hire for such use;

shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers.

2 The Town Police Clauses Act 1847

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 [section 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.
___________________________________

Here's the Keith Hill letter:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/KeithHilll ... -Boyce.pdf

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

JD SAYS I might add that any issue of insurance is a matter only you can resolve.

Regards

JD

I think your post has summed the case up for me brilliantly.

As for insurance, I have a taxi policy, private policy comp but covering me to drive any car 3rd party and a trader policy (cars in the care of). They have not asked to see any of my insurance policies.

THE PENNYS JUST DROPED JD You work for CAB TRADE NEWS I thought it was a funny logo, and you just had something to do with the Head Lines on that page. I wondered how you knew so much about taxi law and why you were holding so much information at hand. Am I thick or not? How did he know there is a meeting next week, who is this guy? I can’t believe I didn’t twig on.

JD there is a meeting Wednesday (today) at 11am, and under discussion will be, clarification of the charge, and the legal standing of mechanics road testing plated cars. As it stands, it would be unlawful for anyone to take a HC or PHV to a garage knowing that a mechanic would road test it without having a licence, and will the trade be notified of the change of policy, if it is one.

I will let you know what is happening later on today. I have a funny feeling that they may not had sight of the letters from Hill or Coupe, but if not why have they only just started to enforce this act now.

How do I feel about bearing my soul to the world? I just wanted to make sure that I was in the right. I did not think there would be so much interest and would be asked so many questions and to be fair be given so much advice. I honestly believe there’s more to this than what meets the eye. That’s my opinion I may be wrong. I will tell the whole story to all but only when I have the all facts.

Do I have a solicitor or is it my intention to get one? Not yet I have only been to court to plead not guilty and the pre-trial is on the 18th of June. I will decide after today.

Regards
Alun

I'm afraid the logo was a gift and I doubt cab trade news could handle my particular brand of investigative journalism. However, I think you should sit down and put a good letter together and send it to council solicitor Jeff Harris, I think he's dealing with your case, explain the ambiguity of the legislation and advise him that the best course for all concerned would be for the council to take the lead in this respect and formulate a policy that satisfies all those who have to work in the Taxi environment and those officers of the council who are burdened with the task of enforcing the law.

Make it known that you and your colleagues are not looking to break the law, you just want a sensible and coherent working policy that suits everyone.

Going to court won't serve any purpose for the council, therefore a compromise is by far the best solution for all.

I'm glad TDO might have helped you in some way, I think thanks should go to everyone who contributed to this thread if you feal that way. However you are going to have to bear in mind everything that has been mentioned in this thread. The ideal scenario would be for the council to drop the case lets hope they do that. If they don't you should consider getting a solicitor.

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.

Hi
Had a phone call at 8.50 this morning, just got off the phone. The Councils solicitor has phoned to say that the meeting has been cancelled due to licensing not wanting to discuss the issues involved. Had a good talk to him, and he has not seen the letters from Keith Hill or Rupert Cope? I think now is a good time to make an appointment with a solicitor.