| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Cross Border Authorisation of Authorised Officer http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16002 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Cross Border Authorisation of Authorised Officer |
We have some quite severe touting & illegal plying for hire issues in Brum & many of these are by licensed vehicles, both HC & PH from adjacent LAs. In particular, one Walsall PH company operating under the name 'Hot Line' & using top lights which are allowed by Walsall Licensing, regularly infest the Sutton Coldfield suburb of Birmingham & blatantly ply for hire. Brum's licensing enforcement officers say that they are not empowered as authorised officers to deal with out of area licensed vehicles, even though they are transgressing within the Brum LA. Today I asked a senior licensing enforcement officer why they do not seek authorisation from neighbouring councils to become authorised officers for these LAs, so that they can act when the relevant cross border transgressors transgress. This arrangement could also work reciprocally. They said they would look into the matter to see whether it was feasible. Then I rang Brian with a Y & low & behold he told me that this arrangement is already alive & kicking in four out of the five Merseyside LAs & also at Gatwick Airport, where licensing enforcement officers from numerous LAs along the south coast are authorised officers by Crawley LA & do enforcement exercises within the airport area. If this is possible, then why is this arrangement & practice not expanded nationwide to tackle the problems of cross border plying & standing for hire? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wonder about this. If the vehicle wasn't licensed at all the local authority would act, because it's got a plate on from another area they wont? Whats the difference........surely trading standards or suchlike can do a swoop and then prosecute for illegal plying regardless of where the vehicle is licensed? CC |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: I wonder about this.
If the vehicle wasn't licensed at all the local authority would act, because it's got a plate on from another area they wont? Whats the difference........surely trading standards or suchlike can do a swoop and then prosecute for illegal plying regardless of where the vehicle is licensed? CC For illegal plying if proved by the driver accepting the fare it could & they would. But the point is that if they are standing & just that, the local LEO can't question the driver or ask what he is doing there, because it is not a licensed vehicle in the LEO's LA. To all intents & purposes, because it is not a licensed vehicle in the LA in which it is standing, it is just another vehicle as far as the local LEO is concerned. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Liverpool ,Sefton and the rest, have been working the system for least 10 years |
|
| Author: | Caledonian Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: For illegal plying if proved by the driver accepting the fare it could & they would.
But the point is that if they are standing & just that, the local LEO can't question the driver or ask what he is doing there, because it is not a licensed vehicle in the LEO's LA. So if they can act on cross-border vehicles accepting a hire, why can't the act on illegal plying per se? After all, if they're sitting in the wrong place without a booking then that's illegal plying as much as when the actually accept a punter, or is the latter case just easier to prove? Anyway, it's ridiculous that in the Hitchin article they managed to suspend the licence of a Stevenage driver who didn't have a fire extinguisher, yet here they can't do anything at all. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Caledonian Cabbie wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: For illegal plying if proved by the driver accepting the fare it could & they would. But the point is that if they are standing & just that, the local LEO can't question the driver or ask what he is doing there, because it is not a licensed vehicle in the LEO's LA. So if they can act on cross-border vehicles accepting a hire, why can't the act on illegal plying per se? After all, if they're sitting in the wrong place without a booking then that's illegal plying as much as when the actually accept a punter, or is the latter case just easier to prove? Anyway, it's ridiculous that in the Hitchin article they managed to suspend the licence of a Stevenage driver who didn't have a fire extinguisher, yet here they can't do anything at all. If they accept a booking whilst standing or plying that's easy. It's the 'bird-scaring' bit that's the hard part. And the fact that the Merseyside LAs have all authorised each others LEOs to act in a cross border manner shows that LEOs are limited by the legislation as to who they can act against & where, unless they are indeed cross border authorised by neighbouring LAs. Otherwise what would be the point of cross border authorisation of LEOs as in Merseyside & at Gatwick? All of which really does beg the question; WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: All of which really does beg the question;
WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs? Give that man a cigar......I been saying the same thing for months 
CC |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: All of which really does beg the question; WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs? Give that man a cigar......I been saying the same thing for months CC Yeah, but I write it instead of saying it!!! The pen is mightier than the sword!! Or in this case, my keyboard is mightier than your gob!! 
|
|
| Author: | Caledonian Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well I haven't seen or read any of the Trans Comm stuff, but I'd bet that cross-border authorisation wasn't exactly at the top of the agenda. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Caledonian Cabbie wrote: Well I haven't seen or read any of the Trans Comm stuff, but I'd bet that cross-border authorisation wasn't exactly at the top of the agenda.
In that case sit through 2 hours and 11 minutes of this; http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Playe ... ingId=7444 |
|
| Author: | Caledonian Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: Caledonian Cabbie wrote: Well I haven't seen or read any of the Trans Comm stuff, but I'd bet that cross-border authorisation wasn't exactly at the top of the agenda. In that case sit through 2 hours and 11 minutes of this; http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Playe ... ingId=7444 Thanks - once I've recovered from the video of the 2004 meeting I might have a butcher's 
Wondered why I couldn't find it on the iPlayer. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Caledonian Cabbie wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: Caledonian Cabbie wrote: Well I haven't seen or read any of the Trans Comm stuff, but I'd bet that cross-border authorisation wasn't exactly at the top of the agenda. In that case sit through 2 hours and 11 minutes of this; http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Playe ... ingId=7444 Thanks - once I've recovered from the video of the 2004 meeting I might have a butcher's Wondered why I couldn't find it on the iPlayer. If you had looked on iPlayer under comedy you might have found it there too!! |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: All of which really does beg the question; WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs? Give that man a cigar......I been saying the same thing for months But the main bone of contention isn't PH plying out of area, but PH waiting out of area. Having LOs with many hats ain't going to address that. |
|
| Author: | wannabeeahack [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
but the police can nick em if they take a flagdown/unbooked jobbie |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex wrote: captain cab wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: All of which really does beg the question; WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs? Give that man a cigar......I been saying the same thing for months But the main bone of contention isn't PH plying out of area, but PH waiting out of area. Having LOs with many hats ain't going to address that. Why not? They would be acting within their own LA, tackling PH standing & plying out of area within the LEOs area & the LEO would have the same powers as if he was the trangressor's LEO. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|