Taxi Driver Online

Just seen on the regional news that Pink Ladies in Warrington have lost in court today.
They are giving all their passengers free lifts while they work out what they are going to do next, they did say that they were probably going to become a Community Transport non profit organisation and carry on.

Even 'free rides' are classed as 'hire and reward'.

But fab news that firm has lost, well done to the council for bringing this action.

Some may say a little too late, but I say well done all the same.

_________________
IDFIMH

they'll need to be community spirited cos all they'll be entitled to is 40p a mile as a voluntary driver...and if they have to wait for their charity lift to go home they wont get nothing for their waiting time, add to that that if they do community work they will have to be seen as equal oppertunity employers and take on as many men as women....sweet!!!!!!!.

why dont they just admit defeat and face the facts...theyre bending over backwards to break the law...

hear hear

All this just avoid operating like the rest of us, it's pathetic

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Is it that simple to become a "community transport provider"? I would guess that there must be certain criteria that have to be met.

_________________
Grandad,

Just how hard is it to licence the vehicles and drivers, why do they not just do it.

Some people just have a problem with council licensing. We have a company near me. They have got a full PCV operators license and 10 pcv discs just so that they can run saloon cars and avoid PH licensing. They still are not legal and it is costing them a lot more money.
As I understand it on a full PCV license you can run about 10% saloon cars. This company has a couple of mini buses and the rest are saloons. They only do school transport and the county council think that they are OK.

_________________
Grandad,

Not sure about that one Sussex. Hire and no reward really. If a person takes someone from A to B and doesn’t charge it's not hire and reward.
If it was most of the Dads in the country would all be locked up for running their children about.
You have taken the REWARD factor out of the equation.

You have to be breathing & have a four door car & have fully comp insurance.

They do it to avoid all the bullsh*t. Some councils are very expensive and full of red tape. If you already an operating centre for PCV's then to add on saloons is not that much extra per vehicle, although the inspections will be an extra cost to them. They do not have to put plates on them and silly stickers. They can also cover their vehicles with whatever they like and be whatever colour they want.

sorry about the size could not find a link


Warrington Borough Council
v
Tina Mary Dutton
Andrea Michelle Winders
Karen McFarlane
Julie Victoria Richardson

23rd & 24th July 2009 at Runcorn Magistrates Court
29th July at Warrington Magistrates Court


Representation:- Prosecuting : Mr Allanson
Defending: Mr Parry (for all Defendants)




1. The Defendants are variously charged with offences under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 and also under the Road Traffic Act 1988 arising out of an operation conducted by officers of the Warrington Borough Council on and before the 6th November 2008.
2. I have been given access to a wealth of material which includes:
a) A bundle with 263 pages of documents which the Defendant’s Solicitors have filed with the Court
b) A bundle with 343 pages of documents entitled “Prosecution Skeleton Argument Bundle of Documents” files with the Court on behalf of the Prosecution.
c) A further bundle of 138 pages of documents (Pages A1 – C83) entitled “Index to Bundle of Documents” filed with the Court by the Prosecution,
d) Numerous other documents and case reports filed during the course of the trial at Runcorn Magistrates Court.
3. All the Summonses issued by the Prosecution relate to the use and operation of 2 apparently identical Renault Kango cars (MJ05 NBB & MJ05 NDF) on the 6th November 2008.
4. The Defendant Karen McFarlane, as the driver of MJ05 NDF on the 6th November 2008 faces 1 summons in relation to using the vehicle without insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
5. The Defendant Julia Richardson, as the driver of MJ05 MBB on the 6th November 2008 faces 2 summonses, 1 alleging breach of the provisions of section 46 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 in that she drove the vehicle without being licensed to drive for private hire and 1 in relation to using the vehicle with out insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Safety Act 1988.
6. The other 2 Defendants Tina Dutton and Andrea Winders face a plethora of summonses alleging breach of provisions of sections 55, 46 and 48 of 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 and permitting use of the vehicles without insurance. They are perceived and appear to accept that they are the main controllers of the business which is the subject of these proceedings.
7. All defendants had denied the allegations at an earlier hearing and there was some indication that both sides representatives had not complied in a timely fashion with the directions for trial.
8. Having heard 2 days of evidence either on oath or Section 9 from officers at the Warrington Borough Council, police officers, Mr Bryan Roland the Director and General Secretary of the National Private Hire Association and all four Defendants I set out below a brief, but not necessarily a wholly accurate, synopsis of the circumstances leading up to the issue of the proceedings in this case.
9. In 2005 the defendants Winders and Dutton perceived a need in the Warrington area for the provision of female taxi drivers solely for the carriage of female passengers. They researched the market and made soundings and in consequence decided to set up a business to be known as Pink Ladies Ltd. The taxi’s that would be used would be painted pink with the upholstery similarly coloured. The drivers would be pink uniformed, female and would only accept customers who were female and who telephoned their central telephone number for a taxi (0845 1247465). The telephone number would be answered at the firm’s base at Hawthorne Business Park Warrington by either one of the controllers or an employee acting on their behalf.
10. They quite properly consulted with the local taxi licensing authority and had a number of meetings with Mr Phil Barnes a licensing officer in the Warrington Borough Licensing team. It is not in dispute that Mr Barnes was for some time very supportive of the plans and gave advice and assistance to them regarding the requirements necessary in order to comply with the law. He advised that as each vehicle used as a private hire car would need to be licensed by the local authority, each driver would need to be similarly licensed and an operator’s licence would be required by the proprietors of the vehicles.
11. The advice given appears to have been accepted in the first instance despite the onerous requirements of testing both drivers and vehicles, and Pink Ladies started trading as a private hire vehicle operation following the grant of licences to drivers and vehicles and operators licences granted to Mrs Winders by Warrington Borough Council.
12. Miss Winders who had the original pink ladies idea then described in her evidence how the idea took off and that it became clear to her and Miss Dutton that there was a national demand for the provision of female driven vehicles for females who required transportation from A to B.
13. They took legal advice and consulted again with the licensing department of the Warrington Borough Council but by this time the Mrs Winders & Dutton had lost their trust in the licensing department because they felt that someone in that department was leaking confidential information which included their long term business plans which might well affect the ultimate future profitability of the business. They had also not renewed their licences with the Council and so the Council no doubt viewed their continued operation as outside the law and a potential target for prosecution.
14. The Pink Ladies problem was that they wanted to expand the business nationally but the regulations as drawn required any contract for the provision of a private hire vehicle to be made in the area where the vehicles were licensed (in this case Warrington). In order to expand their operation they were no doubt advised that licences would be required by drivers, vehicles & vehicle proprietors alike from the Council where each contract for private hire was made. This, as Mrs Winders told the Court, would have made no financial sense although she stressed it was the need to provide the service rather than the profit motive which was more important.
15. Their solution was to declare that their operation was no longer that of a private hire business but that of a members club. The Defence say they split their operation into two separate entities. The first was the members club which they called the Pink Ladies Members Club Ltd – this so called entity was joined by all those ladies wanting to avail themselves of transport driven by a female driver. On the 24th January 2008 the vehicles originally owned by Pink Ladies Ltd were transferred to Pink Ladies Members Club (these included the two vehicles which are the subject of the summonses) and the rules or terms and conditions of the club declared that on joining the club and paying the appropriate fee the member would be entitled to use one of the member club’s vehicles (if available) and that having paid a further sum to credit the members account they could contact the club via the same telephone number and driver and car would be provided. The driver was in fact employed by Pink Ladies Female Chauffeurs Ltd. I have simplified the arrangement but I believe the facts to be basically correct.
16. Thus by this method the Defendants’ solicitor asserts that none of the vehicles , their drivers or vehicle owners are subject of the regulations governed by sections 55, 46 and 48 of 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976.
17. The Defence also asked me to question the credibility of Mr Phil Barnes because they say he has not told the truth about the identity of the person who clearly leaked some confidential information following a meeting between the Pink Ladies and the Council. Whilst there is some evidence that it was indeed Mr Barnes who was responsible for the leak and subsequent total failure of trust on the part of the Pink Ladies, I was nevertheless impressed by his evidence and overall veracity.
18. The Prosecution say that this arrangement is a mere sham to circumvent the law – there are not 2 separate entities but in reality there is one and the control is clearly in the hands of the Mrs Winders and Dutton.
19. If the defence are correct then their operation drives the proverbial coach and horses through the legislation and in consequence the regulation of private hire operations throughout the jurisdiction of the Court. It would mean that anyone (well meaning or otherwise) could set up as the Mrs Winders and Dutton have done, without having to have their vehicles inspected more rigorously than the Department of Transport’s MOT, without having to have their drivers licensed or vetted and without having to have someone (the person with the Operators licence) responsible legally for the vehicles.
20. The evidence I have heard leads me to the following clear conclusions without any doubt:
a) The two main defendants though motivated by laudable well meaning motives are also motivated by profit and that is entirely normal.
b) The Pink Ladies Members Club whether limited by liability, guarantee or otherwise is a sham. The evidence of the two Warrington Borough Council employees who joined “the club” in the summer of 2008 clearly indicates that the so called members were no such thing. They were not given any rules terms or conditions (other than the woefully inadequate joining confirmation letter), they were not told of their rights to attend any meetings, to be stand and be elected as trustees or even when such meeting would take place. The joining confirmation letter refers so called members to the same telephone number, but purports to come from Warrington Pink Ladies Ltd. The “members” credit payment for future drivers’ services was paid into the same bank account as the joining fee (although subsequently transferred to another account). There are other examples and although I was impressed at Mrs Winders desire to provide a service for members of the public who feel and may in fact be vulnerable I felt that she was quick to blame others or make light of the reasons why certain things were either very questionable or clearly not correct.
c) The true owners or proprietors of the Renault Kango vehicles on the 6th November 2008 were the Mrs Winders & Dutton.
d) On the 6th November 2008 they were carrying on Private Hire Car business.
e) On the 6th November 2008 they were through themselves agents or employees operating two vehicles namely Renault Kangos registered numbers MJ05 NBB & MJ05 NDF as private hire vehicles in a controlled district without an operators licence.
f) There was a hiring of the driver AND vehicle by the “member”
g) I have been shown a copy of the insurance certificate covering the vehicles concerned – the Prosecutor is anxious that I look behind the wording on the document but it seems to me that on a strict interpretation of that document the vehicles and the drivers were covered by that certificate whether or not the drivers or vehicles had licenses for private hire granted by the Warrington Borough Council
21. For these reasons I find Mrs McFarlane Not Guilty of the one matter she faces and Mrs Richardson Not Guilty of the No Insurance allegation but guilty of driving a private hire vehicle without a licence.
As for the Mrs Winders and Dutton it follows that I find them not guilty of the Insurance offences but guilty of the rest.

Dated 29th July 2009
R J Ross
Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Court)

sorry about the size could not find a link


Warrington Borough Council
v
Tina Mary Dutton
Andrea Michelle Winders
Karen McFarlane
Julie Victoria Richardson

23rd & 24th July 2009 at Runcorn Magistrates Court
29th July at Warrington Magistrates Court


Representation:- Prosecuting : Mr Allanson
Defending: Mr Parry (for all Defendants)




1. The Defendants are variously charged with offences under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 and also under the Road Traffic Act 1988 arising out of an operation conducted by officers of the Warrington Borough Council on and before the 6th November 2008.
2. I have been given access to a wealth of material which includes:
a) A bundle with 263 pages of documents which the Defendant’s Solicitors have filed with the Court
b) A bundle with 343 pages of documents entitled “Prosecution Skeleton Argument Bundle of Documents” files with the Court on behalf of the Prosecution.
c) A further bundle of 138 pages of documents (Pages A1 – C83) entitled “Index to Bundle of Documents” filed with the Court by the Prosecution,
d) Numerous other documents and case reports filed during the course of the trial at Runcorn Magistrates Court.
3. All the Summonses issued by the Prosecution relate to the use and operation of 2 apparently identical Renault Kango cars (MJ05 NBB & MJ05 NDF) on the 6th November 2008.
4. The Defendant Karen McFarlane, as the driver of MJ05 NDF on the 6th November 2008 faces 1 summons in relation to using the vehicle without insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
5. The Defendant Julia Richardson, as the driver of MJ05 MBB on the 6th November 2008 faces 2 summonses, 1 alleging breach of the provisions of section 46 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 in that she drove the vehicle without being licensed to drive for private hire and 1 in relation to using the vehicle with out insurance contrary to Section 143 of the Road Safety Act 1988.
6. The other 2 Defendants Tina Dutton and Andrea Winders face a plethora of summonses alleging breach of provisions of sections 55, 46 and 48 of 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976 and permitting use of the vehicles without insurance. They are perceived and appear to accept that they are the main controllers of the business which is the subject of these proceedings.
7. All defendants had denied the allegations at an earlier hearing and there was some indication that both sides representatives had not complied in a timely fashion with the directions for trial.
8. Having heard 2 days of evidence either on oath or Section 9 from officers at the Warrington Borough Council, police officers, Mr Bryan Roland the Director and General Secretary of the National Private Hire Association and all four Defendants I set out below a brief, but not necessarily a wholly accurate, synopsis of the circumstances leading up to the issue of the proceedings in this case.
9. In 2005 the defendants Winders and Dutton perceived a need in the Warrington area for the provision of female taxi drivers solely for the carriage of female passengers. They researched the market and made soundings and in consequence decided to set up a business to be known as Pink Ladies Ltd. The taxi’s that would be used would be painted pink with the upholstery similarly coloured. The drivers would be pink uniformed, female and would only accept customers who were female and who telephoned their central telephone number for a taxi (0845 1247465). The telephone number would be answered at the firm’s base at Hawthorne Business Park Warrington by either one of the controllers or an employee acting on their behalf.
10. They quite properly consulted with the local taxi licensing authority and had a number of meetings with Mr Phil Barnes a licensing officer in the Warrington Borough Licensing team. It is not in dispute that Mr Barnes was for some time very supportive of the plans and gave advice and assistance to them regarding the requirements necessary in order to comply with the law. He advised that as each vehicle used as a private hire car would need to be licensed by the local authority, each driver would need to be similarly licensed and an operator’s licence would be required by the proprietors of the vehicles.
11. The advice given appears to have been accepted in the first instance despite the onerous requirements of testing both drivers and vehicles, and Pink Ladies started trading as a private hire vehicle operation following the grant of licences to drivers and vehicles and operators licences granted to Mrs Winders by Warrington Borough Council.
12. Miss Winders who had the original pink ladies idea then described in her evidence how the idea took off and that it became clear to her and Miss Dutton that there was a national demand for the provision of female driven vehicles for females who required transportation from A to B.
13. They took legal advice and consulted again with the licensing department of the Warrington Borough Council but by this time the Mrs Winders & Dutton had lost their trust in the licensing department because they felt that someone in that department was leaking confidential information which included their long term business plans which might well affect the ultimate future profitability of the business. They had also not renewed their licences with the Council and so the Council no doubt viewed their continued operation as outside the law and a potential target for prosecution.
14. The Pink Ladies problem was that they wanted to expand the business nationally but the regulations as drawn required any contract for the provision of a private hire vehicle to be made in the area where the vehicles were licensed (in this case Warrington). In order to expand their operation they were no doubt advised that licences would be required by drivers, vehicles & vehicle proprietors alike from the Council where each contract for private hire was made. This, as Mrs Winders told the Court, would have made no financial sense although she stressed it was the need to provide the service rather than the profit motive which was more important.
15. Their solution was to declare that their operation was no longer that of a private hire business but that of a members club. The Defence say they split their operation into two separate entities. The first was the members club which they called the Pink Ladies Members Club Ltd – this so called entity was joined by all those ladies wanting to avail themselves of transport driven by a female driver. On the 24th January 2008 the vehicles originally owned by Pink Ladies Ltd were transferred to Pink Ladies Members Club (these included the two vehicles which are the subject of the summonses) and the rules or terms and conditions of the club declared that on joining the club and paying the appropriate fee the member would be entitled to use one of the member club’s vehicles (if available) and that having paid a further sum to credit the members account they could contact the club via the same telephone number and driver and car would be provided. The driver was in fact employed by Pink Ladies Female Chauffeurs Ltd. I have simplified the arrangement but I believe the facts to be basically correct.
16. Thus by this method the Defendants’ solicitor asserts that none of the vehicles , their drivers or vehicle owners are subject of the regulations governed by sections 55, 46 and 48 of 51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 1976.
17. The Defence also asked me to question the credibility of Mr Phil Barnes because they say he has not told the truth about the identity of the person who clearly leaked some confidential information following a meeting between the Pink Ladies and the Council. Whilst there is some evidence that it was indeed Mr Barnes who was responsible for the leak and subsequent total failure of trust on the part of the Pink Ladies, I was nevertheless impressed by his evidence and overall veracity.
18. The Prosecution say that this arrangement is a mere sham to circumvent the law – there are not 2 separate entities but in reality there is one and the control is clearly in the hands of the Mrs Winders and Dutton.
19. If the defence are correct then their operation drives the proverbial coach and horses through the legislation and in consequence the regulation of private hire operations throughout the jurisdiction of the Court. It would mean that anyone (well meaning or otherwise) could set up as the Mrs Winders and Dutton have done, without having to have their vehicles inspected more rigorously than the Department of Transport’s MOT, without having to have their drivers licensed or vetted and without having to have someone (the person with the Operators licence) responsible legally for the vehicles.
20. The evidence I have heard leads me to the following clear conclusions without any doubt:
a) The two main defendants though motivated by laudable well meaning motives are also motivated by profit and that is entirely normal.
b) The Pink Ladies Members Club whether limited by liability, guarantee or otherwise is a sham. The evidence of the two Warrington Borough Council employees who joined “the club” in the summer of 2008 clearly indicates that the so called members were no such thing. They were not given any rules terms or conditions (other than the woefully inadequate joining confirmation letter), they were not told of their rights to attend any meetings, to be stand and be elected as trustees or even when such meeting would take place. The joining confirmation letter refers so called members to the same telephone number, but purports to come from Warrington Pink Ladies Ltd. The “members” credit payment for future drivers’ services was paid into the same bank account as the joining fee (although subsequently transferred to another account). There are other examples and although I was impressed at Mrs Winders desire to provide a service for members of the public who feel and may in fact be vulnerable I felt that she was quick to blame others or make light of the reasons why certain things were either very questionable or clearly not correct.
c) The true owners or proprietors of the Renault Kango vehicles on the 6th November 2008 were the Mrs Winders & Dutton.
d) On the 6th November 2008 they were carrying on Private Hire Car business.
e) On the 6th November 2008 they were through themselves agents or employees operating two vehicles namely Renault Kangos registered numbers MJ05 NBB & MJ05 NDF as private hire vehicles in a controlled district without an operators licence.
f) There was a hiring of the driver AND vehicle by the “member”
g) I have been shown a copy of the insurance certificate covering the vehicles concerned – the Prosecutor is anxious that I look behind the wording on the document but it seems to me that on a strict interpretation of that document the vehicles and the drivers were covered by that certificate whether or not the drivers or vehicles had licenses for private hire granted by the Warrington Borough Council
21. For these reasons I find Mrs McFarlane Not Guilty of the one matter she faces and Mrs Richardson Not Guilty of the No Insurance allegation but guilty of driving a private hire vehicle without a licence.
As for the Mrs Winders and Dutton it follows that I find them not guilty of the Insurance offences but guilty of the rest.

Dated 29th July 2009
R J Ross
Deputy District Judge (Magistrates Court)

cant see any mention of sex discrimination, if i advertised as only carrying men id be in court faster than a fast thing going fast...

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

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