Taxi Driver Online

I see you haven't got the revised version as yet.

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

It doesn't matter whether its revised or not because it it isn't going anywhere. The only place its going, is in the bin.

Regards

Dennis.

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Why make it so complicated??

Full stop after 'booking'; delete 'for a future date'

It is obvious that any booking is for the future, even if for asap, it is still for the future!

Complicated legislation is what makes such legislation ambiguous.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Wouldn't "a future date" be any date after today's present date?

i.e. Tomorrow or next tuesday or whenever?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Yes I am aware of words "future date" and I nearly deleted them and as you can see I heavily criticised them as being practically meaningless but this amendment is the "brainchild of the meeting of minds bunch" and obviously they feel the words have some significance, therefore I merely operated around them to show that if they wished to achieve what they supposedly intended to achieve, which was independence of the hackney carriage driver in their own area, then they could have done so without any problem whatsoever even if they wanted to use the words "future date".

If I was writing it myself from scratch then it would be completely different, however regardless of what what they propose or how inept they are at trying to achieve it, I do not agree that hackney carriage drivers should be made criminals by accepting a mobile phone booking or any other booking outside their own area. It has never applied in London and it has never applied outside of London and there is no need for it to apply now.

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.

Which would mean that a booking could not be taken, or even, it would have to be refused, if the booking was for the day on which it was taken.

And that sounds like nonsense to me!!

"Can I have a taxi for an hour time, say for 2.35pm today?"

"Sorry my dear, you should have phoned yesterday for that. We can send you a taxi tomorrow though!"

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

This is the first I've seen of this. But, what I'm getting is that a Hackney driver can't take pre-booked work unless it comes through a licensed operator...

If that's what the post is about then it's always 'really' been the case and al they're doing is highlighting a loophole and closing it..
I have a theory about this. What do you think...
Within the next 3 or 4 years, the authorities are going to remove the whole 'P.H.' identity. We are the only country that has it and the policing of the seperate restrictions is too much hastle.
So, my guess is that to ipliment it they'll:
1. increase the amount of vehicle models available... Done
2. Stop licensing new P.H. vehicles and drivers
3 Allow natural wastage to get rid of the remaining P.H.
4. Enforce that all pre-booked work is recorded through an operator.. See this post

Then the tax man can monitor earnings and ensure his peace of pie is big as can be for the minimum work....

Remember you heard it here first........

The words "future date" are not necessary and that is why I was scathing about it because the phrase is practically meaningless. The words future and date are obviously self explanatory but as Mr Brummie says they are meaningless unless they have a specific ulterior motive?

Obviously the draftsmen of this amendment were not too bright and those that sanctioned it were not bright enough to see its flaws. Or if they were they certainly weren't forceful enough to change it. they were probably too concerned in getting this done and dusted, well at least some of them were and still are.

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.

Horse drawn Hackney carriage legislation came about in the 1800's first in London and then in the provinces. At no time since that date to this date has a hackney carriage driver ever been required by law to enlist the services of any other person for the purpose of a private booking either within or without the area they are licensed.

Private hire legislation came into force in the provinces in 1976 and the reason it came into force was because unlike the hackney carriage industry the unlicensed private hire industry was not regulated.

Now here comes the nitty gritty surrounding the reason why hackney carriages are not required to come under private hire legislation.

When parliament enacted the 1976 LGMPA and the 1998 London private hire act they were already aware that the hackney carriage industry were successfully licensed and have been so for over a hundred years, therefore hackney carriage drivers were already accountable under their own licensing regime. That is why Parliament decided there was no requirement for hackney carriages or their drivers to come under private hire legislation.

If you aren't already aware, hackney carriage drivers have been taking private hire bookings long before telephones were even invented and from all areas far and wide.

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.

To concentrate a few minds, I've said this before and I'm about to say it again.

In respect of legal judgements if there is no specific reference amending previous legislation the main proviso of the court is to find the mischief in the law. If mischief is absent then a court will only rule on what the legislation prescribes, therefore if there is no specific amendment then the law is applied per say and that is exactly what happened in the Gladen case.

The judge in the Gladen case looked at the 1976 act and asked himself does this act amend the provisions in the 1847 act and he came to the conclusion that it didn't and rightly so.

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.

Agreed!

But just imagine for a moment that you have gone back in time (like Superman) & it is 1847, & that you are a legislator in 1847 drafting the TPC 1847.

You have a prescribed distance of say five miles radius in which a Hackney Carriage is licensed & can stand & ply for hire. And let's say for the sake of argument that the Horse drawn Hackney Carriage is licensed in Liverpool.

In the post this morning a Liverpool licensed Hackney Carriage proprietor receive a letter from a regular passenger who would like to be picked up in Manchester a week on Saturday at a certain time & be brought back to Liverpool.

I would very much doubt if such a scenario would have ever been envisaged by legislators in 1847!

For a start, the horse would have been knackered by the time he had trotted half way to Manchester for the pick-up, let alone get to the pick-up address, collect the passenger & return to Liverpool!

IMO the situation that we have now is a million miles away from what it was in 1847, when the TPC 1847 was enacted.

The legislators would never have imagined a future without horse power & so would not have foreseen the need to legislate for cross-border hirings.

Times change & there is a need for legislation to keep pace with the acceleration of events, technology, etc., so that the laws are fit for purpose & the times we live in.

IMO the current laws that 'regulate' the 'taxi' trade are a joke & unfit for the 21st century.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I'm in full agreement that the law needs modernising as anyone on here will tell you. However there are those who think the law does not need modernising and considering the Government thinks new taxi legislation is a low priority then the chance of meaningful change in the foreseeable future, is remote.

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.

I thought the 2 tin cans and a length of string was all the rage then

If PH where to be brought under hackney ruels how many PH would quit

With a bit of luck, all of them!

Runners were a common ingredient of a private booking before the telephone became established. Many of the early cases refer to runners and also the fact that it was perfectly legal for unlicensed private carriages to carry fare paying passengers under a contract of private hire. So the concept of private hire has always been with us, the fact that such unlicensed vehicles now have to be licensed just like hackney carriages is a modern concept but such private hire legislation does not impact on the legislation applicable to a hackney carriage. However it is obvious that there are some who think it should.

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.