Taxi Driver Online

Considering the practice of putting a soiling charge on a fare chart is a relevantly recent event in most areas and by recent I mean within the last 30 years or so, has anyone ever considered how such a decision was arrived at and under what legislation it was applied and whether councillors had the power to make such an order in the first place?

One assumes every local council will say they have such power by virtue of the fact that section 68 of the 1847 act and section 65 of the 1976 act allows them to have that privilege when regulating taxi fares.

Councillors being councillors really haven’t a clue what they are allowed to do under either act until such time it has been spelt out to them by a licensing officer in conjunction with a council solicitor.

I presume most if not all of these soiling charge orders that are around today originated by way of agitation from local taxi drivers fed up of having to clean up the mess left behind by passengers, whether it be litter, drink or vomit?

No one can blame cabbies for trying to get what is “legally a civil matter” put into a form of legal jargon that they unwittingly think gives them the legal right to demand money from passengers, regardless of whether the claim or the amount of claim is disputed?

For me, the recent incident involving a Cheltenham cab driver has shone a huge spotlight on the legality of soiling charges which feature heavily on fare cards up and down the country.

On examining the law which these orders are made it soon became apparent to me (as it did to Andy Gladen and his legal team regarding private hire operator licenses) that a council has no power to make such an order. I say that because section 68 is quite explicit in what can be regulated and it certainly doesn’t allow cab drivers to demand money from fare paying passengers by way of an arbitrary fining system unlawfully implied in a table of fares for vehicle damage, whether it be by way of soiling or other means? Section 65 of the 1976 act offers the same negativity.

Section 68 of the 1847 act specifically regulates hackney carriages, proprietors and drivers. It does not bestow a power on a council to demand that a member of the public pay a fine by way of penalty or any other means, or bestow a power on a cab driver to do likewise for any such purpose including soiling. If it was Parliaments intention to give such powers to councillors then they would have done so. The only provision for exacting money from a fare paying passenger is by way of section 66 of the 1847 act and that is summarily as a civil debt and if anyone doesn’t know, it is the only reference to the recovery of monies in respect of passengers, in the whole act.

The section 68 reads as follows

68 Byelaws for regulating hackney carriages The commissioners may from time to time (subject to the restrictions of this and the special Act) make byelaws for all or any of the purposes following; (that is to say,)

For regulating the conduct of the proprietors and drivers of hackney carriages plying within the prescribed distance in their several employments, and determining whether such drivers shall wear any and what badges, and for regulating the hours within which they may exercise their calling:

For regulating the manner in which the number of each carriage, corresponding with the number of its licence, shall be displayed:

For regulating the number of persons to be carried by such hackney carriages, and in what manner such number is to be shown on such carriage, and what number of horses or other animals is to draw the same, and the placing of check strings to the carriages, and the holding of the same by the driver, and how such hackney carriages are to be furnished or provided:

For fixing the stands of such hackney carriages, and the distance to which they may be compelled to take passengers, not exceeding the prescribed distance:

**For fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for such hackney carriages within the prescribed distance, and for securing the due publication of such fares;**

For securing the safe custody and re-delivery of any property accidentally left in hackney carriages, and fixing the charges to be made in respect thereof
__________________

I know some people have convinced themselves that an unlawful written reference on a tariff card to what amounts to a demand for money for an unqualified amount of soiling to a cab, is somehow legal but I beg to differ.

Section 65 of the LGMPA 1976 also gives power to a council to set fares in conjunction with section 68 but adds nothing in respect of soiling fines for passengers.

The opening section reads as follows.

65 Fixing of fares for hackney carriages (1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for a time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle or with the arrangements for the hire of a vehicle, to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages by means of a table (hereafter in this section referred to as a "table of fares") made or varied in accordance with the provisions of this section.

It goes on to state about the requirements for advertising the table of fares and inclusion in byelaws etc.

The conclusion is that in my opinion references to demanding soiling charges on tariff cards purporting to have a legal standing is unlawful.

Even in the unlikely event that it was lawful, which it isn’t a council has no legal standing on which such an order can be legally enforced in a court of law other than a civil court.

If cab drivers see soiling charges disappearing from their tariff cards within the next 12 months then you can blame our friend in Cheltenham.

Regards

JD
_______________________________

Here is one particular version of a byelaw regulating fares. I sugest your own might differ slightly as there are more standard bye versions in force.

Provisions fixing the rates or fares to be paid for hackney carriages within the district and securing the due publication of such fares

1. The proprietor or driver of a hackney carriage shall be entitled to demand and take for the hire of the carriage the rate or fare prescribed by the table of fares made or varied from time to time by the Council under Section 65, Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976,

the rate or fare being calculated by distance and time unless the hirer express at the commencement of the hiring his desire to engage by time only. Provided always that where a hackney carriage furnished with a taximeter shall be hired by distance and time the proprietor or driver thereof shall not be entitled to demand and take a fare greater than that recorded on the face of the taximeter, save for any extra charges authorised by the table of fares which it may not be possible to record on the face of the taximeter.

2. (a) The proprietor of a hackney carriage shall cause a copy of the table of fares to be exhibited inside the carriage, in clearly distinguishable letters and figures.

(b). The proprietor or driver of a hackney carriage bearing a statement of fares in accordance with this byelaw shall not wilfully or negligently cause or suffer
________________________

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

Are you suggesting the route for recovery is via the police and courts for criminal damage?

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Also, the following is mentioned in the byelaws you reproduced;



Would that cover it?

Additionally, what about those areas that charge a higher rate for vehicles with more seats, is that legal?

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Reading through section 65 of the 76' act you are correct JD.

The fares table is charges connected with the hire of the vehicle.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

65. Fixing of fares for hackney carriages.—

(1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle or with the arrangements for the hire of a vehicle, to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages by means of a table (hereafter in this section referred to as a “table of fares”) made or varied in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) (a) When a district council make or vary a table of fares they shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district a notice setting out the table of fares or the variation thereof and specifying the period, which shall not be less than fourteen days from the date of the first publication of the notice, within which and the manner in which objections to the table of fares or variation can be made.

(b) A copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall for the period of fourteen days from the date of the first publication thereof be deposited at the offices of the council which published the notice, and shall at all reasonable hours be open to public inspection without payment.

(3) If no objection to a table of fares or variation is duly made within the period specified in the notice referred to in subsection (2) of this section, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the table of fares or variation shall come into operation on the date of the expiration of the period specified in the notice or the date of withdrawal of the objection or, if more than one, of the last objection, whichever date is the later.

(4) If objection is duly made as aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the district council shall set a further date, not later than two months after the first specified date, on which the table of fares shall come into force with or without modifications as decided by them after consideration of the objections.

(5) A table of fares made or varied under this section shall have effect for the purposes of the Act of 1847 as if it were included in hackney carriage byelaws made thereunder.

(6) On the coming into operation of a table of fares made by a council under this section for the district, any hackney carriage byelaws fixing the rates and fares or any table of fares previously made under this section for the district, as the case may be, shall cease to have effect.

(7) Section 236(8)(except the words “when confirmed”) and section 238 of the M1 Local Government Act 1972 (except paragraphs (c) and (d) of that section) shall extend and apply to a table of fares made or varied under this section as they apply to byelaws made by a district council.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Or dare I say a fixed penalty notice?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ouch!

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

You have two types of damage one is accidental the other intentional but no matter what they amount to, it is still damage. Is there provision in any of the cab acts that give power to a council to fine a passenger for such damage? The answer is "No". The word describing the damage matters not, whether it be soiling or damage, or any other word, there is no provision for the instant recovery of monies in any of the acts." Any damage intentional or otherwise must take its course accordingly either by agreement or through the courts but a cab driver cannot demand anything.

Both acts are quite specific in the fact that both sections are clear in their meaning and direction and that they specifically relate to **fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for such hackney carriages within the prescribed distance, and for securing the due publication of such fares.**

Damage or soiling whatever you want to call it is not part of the fare structure set out by parliament, if it was then it would have stated such in the legislation. As it is the only demand a driver can make in the whole act is a demand for the fair displayed on the meter or otherwise agreed and if the passenger refuses to pay for whatever reason then the fare can be recovered summarily as a civil debt. Now if parliament had intended to include damage or soling in this act by passengers they would have done so and provided a similar recovery method through the courts as that provided in section 66.

I'm afraid councils have been doing a Gladen or dare I say a Carlisle in respect of wrongfully applying a power that they do not have.

I am glad this subject surfaced because now everyone is now aware of the law.

The proof is in the enforcement of this fine, in what way can a council enforce it, except by taking a passenger to court and trying to convince a judge that they had the power and jurisdiction to make it in the first place?


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.

That being said JD, whilst I would concede the incident with the child is an exception rather than the norm, this highlights all those other charges taxis perhaps illegally add to fares.

I'm thinking of toll charges, congestion charges etc

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

if i pay, they pay, after all, its them wanting to go, not me...

what about airport robbery, er, access charges then?





Q. If the additional charges were made out of area wouldnt they be just the same as charging non-area fixed meter rates?...and who would prosecute, the vehicles LA or the dropoff LA?...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

No, Hackney fares are only applicable within their prescribed area.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

lol do you think a great big can of worms has been opened up by taxi driver online? I'll leave toll and congestion charges to you, I got the easy one with the soiling charge. I'm sure you can think of many charges that might be demanded but in law might not be recoverable. Except perhaps through a court?

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.

hack rates already include overtime waiting time pushchair/suitcase extras what more do you want?

when i give a price thats it - both parties agree - common law verbal contract

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

I know of instances where soiling charges have been abused, but I also know of instances where they havent been charged, I think its called discretion.

I suppose we could add parking charges to the list as well.

I am slightly confused by the wording of the 76 act on this;

1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle or with the arrangements for the hire of a vehicle, to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages by means of a table (hereafter in this section referred to as a “table of fares”) made or varied in accordance with the provisions of this section.

Is soiling a charge in connection with the hire of a vehicle, only presumably if the person is sick.......in a similar way to luggage being an additional charge only if the passenger has luggage? Or a dog.....only an additional charge if the customer has a dog with them?

Is it possible we're chasing our own tails?

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I took a long look at that section in the 1976 act and naturaly I was as aprehensive as you. However all things considered I drew the conclusion that damage under such conditions was not part of the fare and in no way has parliament given an express right that demand can be made for such damage. I believe a fare is that which is set out as a contract of travel as with any transporting of passengers whether it be by rail, land, sea or air which incidentally have no fine or penalty for such things as soiling. I believe if parliament intended such an arbitary fine they would have legislated for it. However if a court did deem that section to allow for such a charge then the section would be subject to section 66 of the 1847 act as defined in law, which states if a person refuses to pay the legal fare it may be recovered summarily as a civil debt with costs. it would also bring into play the offence of demanding more than the legal fare because any soilage is disputable and considering there is no offence for such soiling then there is no legal foundation for a demand in the first place. Therefore any demand even though unlawful could be deemed excessive by the passenger and a gross overcharging of the fare.

There is no statutory requirement to carry luggage although some bylaws will state that you are required to carry a reasonable amount of luggage and in such a case this is reflected in the charge which is applied before the journey commences and in most cases is displayed on the meter as an extra, therefore it is part of the fare.

I can see the catch all element in the 1976 section as in the same catch all element in "any other reasonable cause" but In any event as I stated even if a court did rule it as part of the fare it is still a civil matter and open to interpretation as to the extent of any damage between the two parties?

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.