section 65 mp act 1976.

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:14 pm

MR T wrote:

You people.... which would suggest a difference.. interesting

Well thanks for that incisive comment there Mr T, which really does show your scintillating personality in its best light. :wink:

Not that I'm picking on you, because I thought having a personality was a disqualification for posting on here, unless of course you're Captain PMSL, FFS. :lol:

The use of such acronyms meaning that you have a great personality.

Kind regards

The Educated Idiot

captain cab · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:17 pm

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

The Educated Idiot

PMSL.....I like educated idiots in taxis.......it makes this uneducated one feel so much better about doing f*ck all for 5 years.

CC

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

MR T wrote:

You people.... which would suggest a difference.. interesting

Well thanks for that incisive comment there Mr T, which really does show your scintillating personality in its best light. :wink:

Not that I'm picking on you, because I thought having a personality was a disqualification for posting on here, unless of course you're Captain PMSL, FFS. :lol:

The use of such acronyms meaning that you have a great personality.

Kind regards

The Educated Idiot

my personality... only really shines... after the first bottle of Bell's.. . there are many people on here that I disagree with.... but they're taxi and private hire drivers and owners...You people... as you call them.... .. rather strange that you disassociate yourself from them.. :wink:

captain cab · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:21 pm

MR T wrote:

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

MR T wrote:

You people.... which would suggest a difference.. interesting

Well thanks for that incisive comment there Mr T, which really does show your scintillating personality in its best light. :wink:

Not that I'm picking on you, because I thought having a personality was a disqualification for posting on here, unless of course you're Captain PMSL, FFS. :lol:

The use of such acronyms meaning that you have a great personality.

Kind regards

The Educated Idiot

my personality... only really shines... after the first bottle of Bell's.. . there are many people on here that I disagree with.... but they're a taxi and private hire drivers and owners... those people... as you call them.... .. rather strange that you disassociate yourself from them.. :wink:

Thats right, for a proper input from T.....you gotta get him p*ssed and avoid the wine throwing :lol:

and apologies the next day

CC

Brummie Cabbie · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:21 pm

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

And please excuse my own ill-informed remark (particularly when it's so lacking in personality), but doesn't the Liverpool case have some bearing on the discussion in hand?

And isn't the issue addressed in the annexe to the OFT report which discusses the legal issues (either Annex 1 or 2?)

I seem to recall it concluded that only London fares were fixed in that the driver coudn't discount, although there were even exceptions to that.

It's the OFT FFS!!!

It ain't Parliament!!

No, I said it DISCUSSES the legal issues.

Are you people being deliberately obtuse?

And when Parliament discusses, what they discuss usually becomes law.

And when the OFT discusses it becomes f*ck all!!

captain cab · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:25 pm

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

And when Parliament discusses, what they discuss usually becomes law.

And when the OFT discusses it becomes f*ck all!!

Maybe Caledonian C is making a point?

CC

Brummie Cabbie · **Posted:** Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:55 pm

captain cab wrote:

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

And when Parliament discusses, what they discuss usually becomes law.

And when the OFT discusses it becomes f*ck all!!

Maybe Caledonian C is making a point?

CC

Well someone nicked my crystal ball yesterday, so I'm f*cked now until I get a new one off eBay!!

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:03 am

captain cab wrote:

No I think you're wrong about the curzon case, it has little bearing, IMO.

The OFT report wasnt actually law :wink:

CC

I know I'm in danger of getting my head bitten off again and ridiculed, but here's what Annexe A of the OFT report said about Liverpool v Curzon:

According to R v Liverpool City Council ex p. Curzon Limited fares fixed under either the TPCA 1847 or the LG(MP)A 1976 are maximum fares only. Taxi drivers are entitled to charge less than the prescribed rate if they wish. This results in part from section 54 of the TPCA 1847, which entitles a taxi proprietor or driver to agree to take a job for less than the fixed fare.

The footnote says:

Mr Justice McCullough concluded: ‘I am persuaded that the statutes [Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976] do not empower a district council to impose on drivers…a fare structure to which they must adhere. Such doubt as there is should be resolved in favour of the less restrictive construction. It is my view that the statutes prevent a driver from charging more thanthe fares prescribed, but not less; they do not empower a district council to prevent him from charging less.’

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:05 am

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

captain cab wrote:

No I think you're wrong about the curzon case, it has little bearing, IMO.

The OFT report wasnt actually law :wink:

CC

I know I'm in danger of getting my head bitten off again and ridiculed, but here's what Annexe A of the OFT report said about Liverpool v Curzon:

According to R v Liverpool City Council ex p. Curzon Limited,59
fares fixed under either the TPCA 1847 or the LG(MP)A 1976 are
maximum fares only. Taxi drivers are entitled to charge less than
the prescribed rate if they wish. This results in part from section 54
of the TPCA 1847, which entitles a taxi proprietor or driver to
agree to take a job for less than the fixed fare.

The footnote says:

Mr Justice McCullough concluded: ‘I am persuaded that the statutes [Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976] do not empower a district council to impose on drivers…a fare structure to which they must adhere. Such doubt as there is should be resolved in favour of the less restrictive construction. It is my view that the statutes prevent a driver from charging more thanthe fares prescribed, but not less; they do not empower a district council to prevent him from charging less.’

I suppose thats why they call it a select committee :lol:

CC

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:13 am

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

And when Parliament discusses, what they discuss usually becomes law.

And when the OFT discusses it becomes f*ck all!!

As I recall it the OFT made no proposals regarding chaning the law on fare regulation.

Anway, I think you're missing the point. When someone posted some info on the legal position you were all over it like a rash, when I do the same you're going off on one.

I merely mentioned that the OFT's report contained an outline of the law - which I believe was written by Jim Button - and it was strictly the legal stuff rather than that contained in the main body of the report, which made a recommendation to encourage fare discounting.

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:17 am

jimbo wrote:

Section 65 Fixing of fares for Hackney Carriages, states that, " (1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district.."

with the operative word being "FIXED" where does this leave discretion for a driver to discount?

I can't find any mention in the act of the metered fare being the MAXIMUM that can be demanded.

If you haven't got the Button Book - like me - then the relevant law is outlined by Mr Button in this part of the OFT report. It's pages 41-45.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/report ... nnexea.pdf

Now if anyone has any issues with that then perhaps they could present it in a reasonable manner for proper discussion, if that doesn't sound too much like having a personality defect :roll:

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:28 am

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

The idea that the Table of Fares is a maximum is an OFT barmyism!!

So what does that make Captain Cab, then, who a couple of weeks ago was saying:

Quote:

Most LA's are okay once its explained to them the fare is a maximum and drivers can charge below it if they wish.

Funny that when I was taking him to task for this there wasn't peep out of you, I wonder why that was :roll:

But let's be charitable and assume you didn't see the thread.

But it's still there if you want to throw your tuppence worth in. Don't worry, I'll help you out if Captain Charisma starts getting lairy :lol:

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=198516

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:41 am

MR T wrote:

my personality... only really shines... after the first bottle of Bell's.. . there are many people on here that I disagree with.... but they're taxi and private hire drivers and owners...You people... as you call them.... .. rather strange that you disassociate yourself from them.. :wink:

More makey up stuff :roll:

In fact I thought that was how you referred to your drivers, Mr T.

Or was it 'minions' :lol:

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

MR T wrote:

my personality... only really shines... after the first bottle of Bell's.. . there are many people on here that I disagree with.... but they're taxi and private hire drivers and owners...You people... as you call them.... .. rather strange that you disassociate yourself from them.. :wink:

More makey up stuff :roll:

In fact I thought that was how you referred to your drivers, Mr T.

Or was it 'minions' :lol:

Your words not mine.... and as to how I refer to my drivers..... the word is friends....

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

jimbo wrote:

Section 65 Fixing of fares for Hackney Carriages, states that, " (1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district.."

with the operative word being "FIXED" where does this leave discretion for a driver to discount?

I can't find any mention in the act of the metered fare being the MAXIMUM that can be demanded.

If you haven't got the Button Book - like me - then the relevant law is outlined by Mr Button in this part of the OFT report. It's pages 41-45.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/report ... nnexea.pdf

Now if anyone has any issues with that then perhaps they could present it in a reasonable manner for proper discussion, if that doesn't sound too much like having a personality defect :roll:

You seem to rely on Mr buttons book... or on people that have read it.... you seem to ignore the fact that quite a few judges disagree with it.

Taxi Driver Online

section 65 mp act 1976.

Who is online