Taxi Driver Online

The Taxicall link jimbo provided http://www.taxi-call.info/ proves that technology is moving faster than the will of politicians to implement modern legislation. Technology wouldn't be hard pressed to trot past Legislation dating back to 1847 and 1976 but Taxicall deserves closer scrutiny.

What it does for hackney carriage drivers and as I understand it some private hire drivers in Scotland is furnish them with a local number that terminates at your mobile phone. If you lived in Liverpool it could give you a local number of say 0151 234 5555 and it would go straight to your mobile.

The information from the cambridge tele.com website lists the following details.

You need a number that customers remember so that they will automatically think of it when they call for a taxi. If you already have such a number then you can use it for TaxiCall, but if not then we can offer the choice of a memorable local number for your area or an 0800 Freephone number. Incoming telephone calls to this number are passed through to the Drivers' mobiles. The service tries the available Drivers in turn, going first to those who have least recently received a call. The service is simple to set up and operates automatically. Calls are billed to the nearest second at 20p/min. There is a one-off set up charge per Driver of £23.50, and a monthly charge of £11.75 which includes £5.87 of calls. In practice the average length of a call is 30 seconds, so the monthly charge should cover the first 50 calls. (Prices include VAT).

It costs nothing for Drivers to call in when they are coming on or going off duty. They simply dial a number which rings once but does not answer, so the system knows that they have called but there is no charge on their mobile bill.

It would appear the customer only pays a local call rate to connect to the service provider with the taxi driver picking up a tab of 20p per minute for the duration of the booking. However Cambridge do say that the average call is about 40 seconds which results in 14p per call.

This system is clearly taking advantage of the Gladen ruling and if Licensing officers are accepting it over the Wilson ruling of 1995 then it goes to prove that the whole face of the way we do business in respect of telephone bookings has fundamentally changed.

Perhaps the Taxicall model could do with a little fine tuning to make it more adaptable to the way Taxi drivers work but the concept is right and once again it highlights the fact that as we move forward legislation stands still.

Regards

JD

I understand Luton has a similar hackney carriage central booking agency/call diversion setup, if anyone has any info on this can you please let us know?

Regards

JD

Thats a new slant on the Kingston upon Hull vs. Wilson case JD, why dont you put the whole case up?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

lol perhaps I will? Any other requests? How about Baxter v Rawlins I'm sure that might interest you?

I have my own theory on the Wilson case but Just as a matter of interest what's yours?

Regards

JD

_________________
IDFIMH

I kind of think the Wilson case casts doubt on HC's working as PHV's in other districts

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

To a certain extent that might seem the case but there is good reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps you care to expand on the verdict and the technicality on which it was arrived?

Regards

JD

Wasnt this case one where the LA failed to prove it had adopted the 76 Act?

regards

CC

PS

The case was mentioned in Benson vs. Boyce

23. Counsel referred us to another, more recent decision of this court, Kingston upon Hull District Council v. Wilson (Balcombe LJ and Buxton J) reported in The Times for 25th July 1995. The transcript obtained from the Crown Office shows that in that case the appellant had had an operator's licence to operate private hire vehicles from an address at Francis Street in Hull (which the prosecution maintained to be a controlled district) but no proprietor's or driver's licence, while his wife had all three kinds of licence for the vehicle as a hackney carriage in Beverley (a different controlled district). The information laid related to a hiring arranged, as the court held, in Hull in the course of a business carried on there, albeit from a quite different address to the Francis Street address. The justices' acquittal of the appellant under section 46(1)(a) was upheld on the ground that it sufficed for the appellant to show that the vehicle was by nature a hackney carriage in respect of which a licence was in force in Beverley and that it was irrelevant to the application of the express qualification in section 46(1)(a) that the licence related to another controlled district or person (the appellant's wife). The court relied in this connection on a further decision of this court in Britain v ABC (Camberley) Limited [1981] RTR 395.


24. Under section 46(1)(b) the court held that, subject to the technical but decisive point that there was no proof that Hull was a controlled district, the existence of the hackney carriage licence in Beverley provided no defence. The appellant's argument had relied on the words in the definition of private hire vehicle in section 80(1) "other than a hackney carriage..." The essence of the court's reasoning was that the mere existence of a hackney carriage licence in respect of a vehicle was not sufficient to "make...that vehicle a hackney carriage for all time, even if it is functioning as a private hire vehicle". The court's judgment does not mention, and it seems probable that the court was not referred to, the decisions in Hawkins v Edwards and Yates v Gates . But even in the light of those authorities, I see no difficulty about the court's conclusion under sections 46(1)(b) and 80(1) in a case where there is nothing more than a hackney carriage licence -- as was, so far as appears, the position in Kingston upon Hull District Council v. Wilson . The characteristic use of standing or plying for hire in a street, which is the hallmark of a hackney carriage, is not achieved by simply obtaining a licence for such use. I say nothing, however, about the extent to which it is consistent to ignore such considerations when applying the exception relating to hackney carriages in section 46(1)(a). Nor do I feel it necessary to go further into the extent to which the exclusions relating to hackney carriages in sections 46(1)(a) and 80(1) can apply to vehicles, if there are such, operated as private hire vehicles in one controlled area but as hackney carriages in another; or the extent to which a private hire vehicle characterised as such in one controlled district must always be regarded as such in any other, whatever its characteristic or actual use there. Neither the issues before us, nor the information and submissions which we have had, make this an appropriate case to consider such matters. There is no suggestion in the present case that the relevant vehicle was a hackney carriage anywhere, and the vehicle was being driven in the controlled district where it was both licensed and used characteristically as a private hire vehicle.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Precisely. However that was back in 1995 and as you can see in the reference to Boyce that there were two relevent cases not cited. And although the reasoning of the judge in the Wilson case may have been appropriate for the consideration of the 1976 act back in 1995 the Gladen judgement negates that reasoning. I would naturaly prefer Wilson to go in order for Gladen to be watertight in all areas where the driver does not hold a license.

There is no problem circumventing Wilson because it is already being circumvented by Taxicall and other operations. Harrogate who use the services of Jim Button have informed me that they cannot prosecute hackney carriage drivers because they do not come under that part of the legislation. Which confirms they interpret Gladen as most others interpret it.

Have you read the full transcript of the Wilson case?

Regards

JD

I have a theory that JB is wrong.

In the parts of the Wilson case I have read it seems pretty certain that the Judge new his stuff. Going as far as passing comment on Hackney Carriages operating in Truro or Newcastle Upon Tyne.

I found it quite amazing that JB was prepared to state in his book the Judge was wrong in elements, and I would perhaps suggest if LA's go down the route of subscribing to that particular practice we will soon have mass confusion everywhere.

This would to a certain degree perhaps suggest JB is a tad bitter because the Judge in the Gladen case effectively threw out a certain authors opinion?

Incidentally, Carlisle CC use JB's services, this was the same person saying we didnt have a case against the 'Pink Ladies', when in actual fact I would suggest we did.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

!995

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

JB must have been a little deflated with the Gladen judgment but the Wilson case does raise certain doubts as to the prospect of widening the Gladen judgment to all areas? However there are elements of the Wilson case that may not stand the test of time and as yet there has not been a case which will test the reasoning in Wilson.

Regards

JD

As you will be aware JD, the Hackney Carriage hired in the Gladen case was a hackney carriage licensed in the same area of the booking.

The argument of the LA was that HC's needed a PH Operators license, the argument of Gladen was that it was not necessary.

We all know the result.

I feel a certain JB should go into the construction business.

Regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So perhaps the best we can hope for is that a certain Northern Local Authority prosecute a certain firm for operating vehicles without a license.

That may clear it up until the NTA propose ammendments to current legislation

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

What are the circumstances to which you refer? Which local authority and what are the status of the unlicensed vehicles?

Regards

JD