Taxi Driver Online

John.
I am glad you said what you did about Button, his book is a nightmare for some who has to work under it.

I has a case with the ombudsman, nearly all the reasons to kick it out quoted Button.

I am far from happy about it.

See I was right.

Mr Justice Collins said at 33

There were observations made by Maurice Kay J in a case which was cited to us, R v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Heath (unreported), decided on 16 October 2000. That case is not directly in point, but it is to be noted that the submission made then to Maurice Kay J was that the schemes relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were two distinct schemes, and that the issues in that case had arisen because the Council had fallen into the trap of seeking to apply private hire statutory provisions to a hackney carriage situation. Although Maurice Kay J did not specifically have to deal with that point, it is plain from the tenor of his judgment that he was entirely sympathetic to it and essentially agreed with it. But what he did say in paragraph 21 of his judgment was that the Council might be able to require persons in the position of the applicant in that case, who was licensed under the 1847 Act, to provide information in advance about who would act as a substitute driver in a case of need, and further requiring him or anyone else driving the vehicle to keep a contemporaneous record of who drove which vehicle on what day. No doubt, this is very sensible, but we have been referred to the relevant provisions of the two Acts and the only conditions which can be attached in relation to hackney carriages appears to be those arising under section 47 of the 1976 Act, which enables conditions to be attached to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage but not a driver's licence. So far as the driver is concerned, byelaws under section 68 of the Act can be imposed, and as far as I can see there is no reason in principle why, if there is a problem in any particular district, the Local Council should not decide to try to impose byelaws which require a driver to provide the information which they regard as desirable in the interests of the public and to keep records which equally are considered desirable. If any Council which has a problem is able to persuade the Department that some such conditions are needed, then no doubt they could be imposed. But that is as far as it can go.

_________________
IDFIMH

clever [edited by admin]

_________________
IDFIMH

lol i'm glad I said "Perhaps" but there are so many cases where a reference to bye laws has been made that it is not surprising that many people cite other case law.

We have discovered three from memory but I suspect there are many more.

Well done for getting it right. By the way, when are you going to come up with a transcript of this unreported Doncaster case?

Best wishes

JD

DURHAM MAGISTRATES COURT. - 18th NOVEMBER 2004

JUSTICES' REASONS - FETS v DURHAM CITY COUNCIL APPEAL UNDER s47 (3) LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976. DURHAM M.C. - 18th NOVEMBER 2004 On 2/8/04 Durham City Council's Cabinet approved a colour policy that, as of 1 September 2004, newly licensed hackney carriages in Durham City must be white. Conversely, newly licensed private hire vehicles may be any colour other than white. The transition period in which currently licensed vehicles must comply with the colour policy is the earlier of either the licence being transferred to another vehicle or the maximum vehicle age being reached. Vehicles do not have to be replaced until 7 years from the date of registration, or at the age of 10 years if maintained and agreed by the council to be in exceptional condition. A letter was sent to all licensed vehicle proprietors on 4 August 2004 advising them of the licensing changes. One such proprietor was the complainant, Adrian Fets. Mr Fets brings this appeal, being aggrieved by the Council's decision to impose a condition that hackney carriages in Durham City be white in colour. The relevant legislation is contained in s47 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and by virtue of the legislation, Mr Fets has to satisfy us, on a balance of probabilities, that the condition is not reasonably necessary. The Council's reasons for imposing such a condition appear to be three-fold - i/ to achieve uniformity with neighbouring areas in the County - we accept that the Council are entitled to have regard to the approach adopted in other areas faced with a similar decision to make, but the same conclusion does not have to be reached. We accept Mr Singh's submission that there appears to have been no assessment made by the Durham City Council as to why a colour policy is reasonably necessary for Durham. The mere fact that such a policy is reasonably necessary for one area does not automatically make it so for another. ii/ to ensure hackney carriages are readily distinguishable from private hire vehicles. We accept that the principal purpose of the legislation is that the public should be able to differentiate safely and simply between the two types of vehicles. The colour policy should be interpreted in a way which supports that principal purpose. However, we have evidence before us that hackney carriages already have 3 distinctive features, namely a sign on the top, a logo on the door and the plate itself. The public should be able to clearly identify a Durham hackney carriage and distinguish it from a private hire vehicle by its current identification marks. iii/ to ensure public safety - again we believe the present distinguishing features are adequate to deter the passing off of unlicensed vehicles as Hackney Carriages and thereby sufficient to secure passenger safety. We accept that, prior to the introduction of the policy; there were a number of open meetings at which objectors were given an opportunity to make representations. The way in which the Council reached its decision was fair in that regard. Some of the traders' concerns were addressed by the Council, in allowing a transition period for existing licence holders. However, the 12-week safety zone, which applies when existing vehicles are taken off the road for repair, does little to alleviate traders' concerns and in fact enhances their worries and frustrations. If an unforeseen event arose in the nature of an accident or mechanical breakdown, a proprietor is faced with either losing work and income for the period during which the vehicle is being repaired, or transferring the licence to a temporary vehicle and then being unable to transfer it back to the original vehicle unless the original vehicle complies with the colour policy. This is one of Mr Fets' main objections. We are in no doubt that this effect of the policy is wholly unreasonable. It would potentially result in substantial economic loss to the proprietor and, had it not been for the intervening accident or break down, the proprietor could have continued to use the vehicle for possibly several years before having to comply with the colour policy. This aspect of the licensing changes cannot therefore be reasonably necessary on grounds of harmonisation, safety or to ensure the vehicle is readily distinguishable from a private hire vehicle. Another of Mr Fets' objections is in relation to the relative unavailability of white vehicles. Due to the transition period and the time frame within which a proprietor can change his vehicle to render it compliant with the colour policy, we see this as no more than an inconvenience. It is less surmountable however, in the unfortunate case of an accident or breakdown and we reiterate what has already been said about the 12-week safety zone being unreasonable. In all of the circumstances therefore, Mr Fets has satisfied us that the condition that hackney carriages in Durham be white in colour is not reasonably necessary and we accordingly allow his appeal and reverse the decision of the Council to impose such a condition on his licence. Source NPHA