section 65 mp act 1976.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:31 pm

Caledonian Cabbage wrote:

Captain Charisma wrote:

But your daft point was addressed earlier on the thread.

Well if you think I'm that "thick" and "daft" then you'll have to spell out what you said earlier, because the only thing of relevance I can find is where you got the Curzon case wrong.

And my question was addressed to Brummie, since your stance on fare discounting seems clear enough from the quote below.

All I was asking was what he thought of your stance on it, since he seems to consider the OFT's take on it "barmy", although the OFT's stance seems similar to your own.

But in simple terms, presumably you and Brummie disagree over fare discounting??

Brummie Cabbie wrote:

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

Captain Charisma wrote:

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

I dont think I did get the curzon case wrong.

And since you cannot be bothered to skip back two pages, there's little I can do.

CC

gusmac · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:29 pm

MR T wrote:

I am never very receptive to Anyone that undermines the worth of a taxi driver

MR T wrote:

.... but whingeing taxi-drivers that feel life owes them a living.... seen too many.. mostly totally lazy... and couldn't do a full day's work if they tried.... :lol:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... c&start=60

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:37 pm

gusmac wrote:

MR T wrote:

I am never very receptive to Anyone that undermines the worth of a taxi driver

MR T wrote:

.... but whingeing taxi-drivers that feel life owes them a living.... seen too many.. mostly totally lazy... and couldn't do a full day's work if they tried.... :lol:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... c&start=60

He was referring to you though. :lol:

CC

gusmac · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:41 pm

captain cab wrote:

gusmac wrote:

MR T wrote:

I am never very receptive to Anyone that undermines the worth of a taxi driver

MR T wrote:

.... but whingeing taxi-drivers that feel life owes them a living.... seen too many.. mostly totally lazy... and couldn't do a full day's work if they tried.... :lol:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... c&start=60

He was referring to you though. :lol:

CC

He was talking in the plural.
I'm good but there is only one...

jimbo · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:49 pm

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.

Anyway, back to the topic.

I would suppose that everyone has discounted at some time. A passenger is 10 or 20 pence short of the fare, and you let it go. Hardly likely to be hauled over the coals for that. A runner takes a 100% discount.

What I'm driving at is would a taxi proprietor be allowed to advertise the fact that they offer a discount? With signeage stating for instance, "25% discount on all metered fares?" Would the council allow this? Would they be within the law to allow or dissallow such signeage?

I would imagine that the discounting driver (discount cabs?, No. there's already a company called that in Lincoln) would royally pee off his workmates. You could be as popular as Skippy 41 in your own home town.

The 1845 act was enacted before the taximeter was invented.

The 1976 TPC makes no mention of maximum fares.

So where are we?

And stop fighting, or I'll send you all to bed with no supper.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:52 pm

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.

Anyway, back to the topic.

I would suppose that everyone has discounted at some time. A passenger is 10 or 20 pence short of the fare, and you let it go. Hardly likely to be hauled over the coals for that. A runner takes a 100% discount.

What I'm driving at is would a taxi proprietor be allowed to advertise the fact that they offer a discount? With signeage stating for instance, "25% discount on all metered fares?" Would the council allow this? Would they be within the law to allow or dissallow such signeage?

I would imagine that the discounting driver (discount cabs?, No. there's already a company called that in Lincoln) would royally pee off his workmates. You could be as popular as Skippy 41 in your own home town.

The 1845 act was enacted before the taximeter was invented.

The 1976 TPC makes no mention of maximum fares.

So where are we?

And stop fighting, or I'll send you all to bed with no supper.

I refer you back to the post's I already made :wink:

CC

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:15 am

captain cab wrote:

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

captain cab wrote:

I dont think I did get the curzon case wrong.

James Button, solictor specialising in licensing law wrote:

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.

Mr Justice McCullough in R v Liverpool CC ex parte Curzon wrote:

‘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.’

Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

Now who would seem the most credible, a solicitor, a judge or Captain Charisma

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:18 am

captain cab wrote:

And since you cannot be bothered to skip back two pages, there's little I can do.

No, I've looked back and to be honest I think you're talking out of your fundament.

Indeed, if you call me "thick" and "daft" then what's the point of me looking back? You'll have to explain things in terms that a simpleton can understand :lol:

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:20 am

Wayne Casey, NTA, wrote:

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

By the way, how do you square that with the NTA's response to the OFT?

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:56 pm

Section 54 of the 1847 act releates to making agreements for fares in advance of the hiring.

The Curzon case states the driver can only charge the fare that is displayed on the meter.

CC

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:55 am

captain cab wrote:

The Curzon case states the driver can only charge the fare that is displayed on the meter.

And the judge also said:

Quote:

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.’

And you said:

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.

So I think it's a bit simplistic just to dismiss the relevance of Curzon, don't you think?

And have you dug out the NTA's response to the OFT's recommendation and how this is conistent with your own statement above?

I can't recall anyone actually agreeing with the OFT's recommendation regarding fare discounting, so presumably your recently stated position is inconsisent with the NTA, or has the NTA changed its mind since OFT?

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:29 am

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

So I think it's a bit simplistic just to dismiss the relevance of Curzon, don't you think?

And have you dug out the NTA's response to the OFT's recommendation and how this is conistent with your own statement above?

I can't recall anyone actually agreeing with the OFT's recommendation regarding fare discounting, so presumably your recently stated position is inconsisent with the NTA, or has the NTA changed its mind since OFT?

I refer you to my answer on the first page in Bold type.

CC

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:00 am

But surely Curzon overrules the Sparks case?

The Curzon case doesn't seem to mention Sparks, so perhaps I'm missing something in the court hierarchy, precedent etc?

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=3623

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:21 am

Caledonian Cabbie wrote:

But surely Curzon overrules the Sparks case?

The Curzon case doesn't seem to mention Sparks, so perhaps I'm missing something in the court hierarchy, precedent etc?

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=3623

I think you need to look at the Curzon case as a whole rather than selective snippets.

But you're right, as Curzon is after Sparks, it's strange that Sparks wasn't mentioned.

This leads me to think there are two and different distinct issues?

I think the background to Curzon was about mechanical meters and Liverpool CC bringing in a second night time tariff, the mechanical meters couldn't have the second tariff, but could have the first one.

I also think the judge basically stated whatever fare was on the meter is the fare the passenger expected to pay?

I must admit the curzon case isn't exactly clear and I'm not alone in thinking that.

CC

Taxi Driver Online

section 65 mp act 1976.

Who is online