Caledonian Cabbie wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
For illegal plying if proved by the driver accepting the fare it could & they would.
But the point is that if they are standing & just that, the local LEO can't question the driver or ask what he is doing there, because it is not a licensed vehicle in the LEO's LA.
So if they can act on cross-border vehicles accepting a hire, why can't the act on illegal plying per se? After all, if they're sitting in the wrong place without a booking then that's illegal plying as much as when the actually accept a punter, or is the latter case just easier to prove?
Anyway, it's ridiculous that in the Hitchin article they managed to
suspend the licence of a Stevenage driver who didn't have a fire extinguisher, yet here they can't do anything at all.
If they accept a booking whilst standing or plying that's easy. It's the 'bird-scaring' bit that's the hard part.
And the fact that the Merseyside LAs have all authorised each others LEOs to act in a cross border manner shows that LEOs are limited by the legislation as to who they can act against & where, unless they are indeed cross border authorised by neighbouring LAs.
Otherwise what would be the point of cross border authorisation of LEOs as in Merseyside & at Gatwick?
All of which really does beg the question;
WHY IS A PARLIAMENTARY TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE LOOKING IN PART AT THIS ISSUE WHEN IT CAN BE SOLVED BY CROSS BORDER AUTHORISATION OF LEOs?