Taxi Driver Online

In the past there have been cases where the juristiction of a council to prosecute a case has been brought into question. Here is legislation which empowers a council to take such action for Road Traffic offences as was defined in the case of Middlesborough BC v Safeer and Others [2001] EWHC Admin 525, [2002] RTR 17 "Plying for hire".
.....................................................................

Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides that:

(1) When a local authority considers it expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area-

(a) they may prosecute or defend or appear in any legal proceedings and, in the case of civil proceedings, may institute them in their own name ...

Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1980 provides that councils may institute proceedings for offences under ss 15A, 17 and 18 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (relating to wearing safety equipment). Section 4(2) and (3) permits them to 'institute proceedings' for a further list of offences (for example dogs on roads).

.........................................................................

And payment and acceptance of the appropriate VED entitles the keepr of a vehicle to use the public roads for the purpose of Plying For Hire......................so where do we go from here!
Which has precedence Statute Law or local Bye-laws?
Regards,
Jeff