Taxi Driver Online

Taxi agent wins High Court fight

BRENTWOOD Council has lost a High Court appeal to stop a taxi agent taking taxi bookings without an operator's licence.

The case began when the council prosecuted Andrew Gladen, former operator of 848 Cars, based in Brentwood.

Mr Gladen faced claims that he infringed the Local Government (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1976 by taking four bookings for drivers with Hackney Carriage licences over a two-month period. Lawyers for the council claimed Mr Gladen fell foul of the Act because he was not registered as a private hire vehicle operator.

They argued that while drivers could ply for hire around Brentwood in their own right, Mr Gladen was barred from taking telephone bookings.

The council's case was dismissed by a district judge at Grays Magistrates Court on Friday, February 6.

Then the council appealed against the decision at London's High Court last Thursday.

But Mr Justice Collins - sitting with Mr Justice Silber - dismissed the appeal, ruling that Mr Gladen had not required an additional licence as contended by the council.

James Findlay, the council's barrister, told the court: "This ruling is a matter of considerable concern to many local authorities."

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

the defense barrister should have read r v Doncaster council.

half the doormen of hotels would be breaking the law if the judgement had been different

Brentwood you are tossers.

I think what Brentwood sort of wanted clarified was not the Doncaster case (where the drivers took the bookings themselves), but when a third party took the bookings.

In the Doncaster case, the bookings agent (cab driver) could and is checked to be fit and proper, whereas in this case the agent was not licensed by anyone.

When you have agents of taxis not being checked, yet agents of mini-cab are, then the cab trade has gone down that slippery old slope a bit too fast.

_________________
IDFIMH

A lad in Mansfield asked the Council if he needed an ops licence because he was taking bookings via his home phone then his missus was passing them on via a radio, the Council said no you'll be ok as you are.

with all due respect that was not the case
Doncaster said all taxi offices had to be licensed as private hire

the judge said no it did not come within misc prov act.

From memory, cos I've lost the judgement, it involved drivers not firms.

But didn't the judge say that the council couldn't put a condition on via the 1976 Act, but could by another way, possibly a bye-law?

_________________
IDFIMH

I live outside London, although I chose to work inside London, as I understand it here, is the taxi's can take their own bookings and ply for hire without an operators license, providing the bookings are not passed onto other drivers, as soon as that happens then an operators license is required.

Same as Black Taxi's in london.

I do think Sussex you are confusing this with another case.

there was another case where a judge ruled taxi offices needed licensing and Doncaster went back to status quo.

we need the opinion of John Davies, cos I think you are quoting another case completely.

With so much Taxi related case law around it's no wonder that people sometimes get confused about cetain apsects of individual cases. Of course in this instance Sussex is perhaps confusing two seperate cases.

The two instances that spring to mind regarding the suggestion of bye laws are the Wathan, Neath case and the Carmarthen case of 19 year old lady driver who argued successfully that her age had no bearing on the decision to grant her a licence and the only consideration the council was legally allowed to consider was the length of time she had held a driving licence.

In this instance the council had a rule that applicants should be 21 in order to obtain a licence, a rule which they had no right to impose on Hackney Carriage licence applicants.

The Wathan case is where the Judge reminded the local Authority that it had no legal right under the 1976 act to impose restrictions on a Hackney carriage driver by way of that act. It was pointed out to the council that if it wished to regulate H/C drivers it must do so by way of provision of the 1847 act and by way of bye laws.

The Doncaster case which is the one under discussion made the point that Hackney carriages are not private hire vehicles and therefore any legislation apertaining to private hire vehicles or drivers has no bearing on the way a Hackney carriage driver or vehicle may operate. It was therefore deeemed by the court that a private hire operators licence came under the provision of the relevant 1976 act which regulates the Private hire sector but that same legislation does not regulate the Hackney carriage sector. The latest Case of Gladden enforces the view taken in the Doncaster case.

It has become more apperent in the last couple of years that an increasing number of councils are putting their own misguided conditions on Hackney carriage vehicle and driver licences, these conditions are in most instances not compatible with the law and are sometimes in the extreme. A debt of thanks should be offered to those people who have had the will to challange such onerous conditions.

There has to come a time when councils realise that they too have to abide by the law and can't introduce conditions of licence just to suit themselves. The sooner this de-restriction business is sorted out perhaps the sooner we can get on with organising a decent cohesive fully representive National Taxi organisation. I think only then will we have the financial power to challenge these misguided council decisions.

Best wishes

JD

I agree with Sussex that the practice of an unlicensed person sets up an office providing taxi services using HC only is completely wrong and should require adequate licensing.

A HC can take telephone bookings and pass these bookings to another HC, the legallity of the booking is only questionable if that booking is passed to a PH vehicle where the person taking or passing on the booking doesn't hold a licence to operate that vehicle.

If a group of HC drivers decided to start a cooperative to take bookings, even if bookings are to be taken from a office, no licence is required as each person involved has a licence to operate. Its only if they decide to involve PH vehicles that a requirement for obtaining a licence to operate PH vehicles exists.

Charlie
you are missing the plot, Sussex was arguing fact and made an error not voicing opinion.as to law

given your scrawls elsewhere you are a racketman, which wants taxi restrictions and will play a game by giving private hire a role to acomplish it.

historically there is only one trade the taxi trade and hense all jobs are ours.

nowthen come clean are you of vested interest?

we had one pillock on here who argued that premiums were good for the taxi trade as it gave commitment

yeh commitment to ripping people off.

All I can tell you is that I am a PH driver who's only income is what I take in my car.

I'm not playing any game here Yorkie, I have seen my income fall since delimitation, I have seen our regular customers let down when drivers leave the office I work from believing the HC trade is more profitable.

I have heard people argue that delimitation meets the demands of our customers, when I have whitnessed first hand that waiting times have risen for a PH vehicle in the area I work.
Now I'm not saying that this will be what happens anywhere else, ONLY that its what I percieve to be happening here, only that it could be a possibility worthy of consideration.

What seems to be forgotten on here is the implimentation of the DDA which ONLY has implications to the HC fleet, if a single tier was introduced then that would have severe financial implications, not only on myself but also on every other PH driver who has no desire to have a HC.

All I am asking for is clear legislation, which puts the demands of the public at the fore. The only way to properly achieve this is for councils to properly investigate, using every available facility, what the transport demands of the people they represent are and provide them with a choice of services to cover their needs.

I believe that some people have lost sight of what this trade is all about, and thats providing proper service to our customers. If we do that well then we make money, regardless what plates' fixed to our rear bumper.

look pal the trade changes every so often.

when I was a lad a wedding would keep a 6 fleet going all day and funerals would have up to 10 cars

we are in change now and yes we need to accomodate client needs, ok these are diverse and many, so why all all private hire the same?

rush pick up set down.

your trade has obviously changed where you picked up, taxis are waiting outside

thats how it should be,

find a void fill it.

If anyone wants a read of the full judgement, then here it is.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2500.html

Apart from the judgement I think the most telling comment is the very last one by Mr Justice Collins.

_________________
IDFIMH

You are right to point out the comments of Justice Collins but his comments only confirm the point I’ve been trying to get over with regard to some councils who try and apply their own interpretation of the law with unchecked impunity.

Only now after 28 years do we have a clear understanding of this section of the 1976 act. The implication of this ruling is significant because it takes away the power of an Authority to impose any part of the 1976 act on Hackney Carriage drivers which does not specifically apply.

The Ruling also throws into question the observations made by Licensing solicitor Mr James Button. Mr Button spent a considerable time here in Manchester as licensing solicitor he has subsequently wrote a book on licensing of which I assume a large part is devoted to Taxi and Private hire licensing.

I think the book has become some kind of licensing officer’s bible as it seems more and more licensing officers are referring to it as gospel. I am glad the courts have seen fit to discredit Jim’s book because opinion should never be stated as fact and that’s what Jim Button did when he wrote this book. He put his own interpretation on the law and implied it as fact.

It has taken 28 years for this ambiguous section to be rightly determined but how many more ambiguous sections of both acts are we letting slip by without challenging their legal interpretation? The sad part of our trade is that the preoccupation with restricted numbers has somewhat blunted the will of the Taxi trade to challenge council decisions which have been contentious to the point of being illegal. I don’t know if Mr Gladdon realised what he was doing when he originally embarked on the course that he did but if he did think it through and he interpreted the act as the way it was played out in court, then he is in indeed a wise man.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that we owe people like Mr Gladdon a dept of gratitude for determining yet another section of our ambiguous acts of parliament which the courts are left to interpret.


Best wishes

JD