Taxi Driver Online

Before the innovation of two way radio systems and private hire legislation it become established by at least 1949 that a private car hire business based on contractual bookings, was in no way shape or form plying for hire in the meaning of any act of parliament. Including the act of 1847 and the London cab acts.

If you look at the dated legislation governing hackney carriages and omnibuses you will notice that the words "plying for hire" encompass practically every type of licensed hire or reward passenger conveyance, imaginable? Therefore it is understandable that any vehicle not licensed under the terms of these outdated acts, such as private hire vehicles, could in the main only be successfully prosecuted under the offence of plying for hire or reward without a license.

This is one such case where the prosecution alleged that payment at separate fares meant the private hire driver was acting as a coach express driver, for which he had no license and the vehicle he was driving did not have appropriate insurance.

The distinction between private and public hire is set out quite clearly in this case and makes you realise how simple a distinction it is?

The majority of case law in respect of drivers plying for hire in a vehicle other than a hackney carriage has come about because of the perceived activity of drivers exhibiting their vehicle in a public place in order to attract custom.

This case also highlights that private hire bookings were not limited by boundaries and therefore it is no surprise that this particular logic has stood the test of time.

The case also makes you realise why minicabs in London could ply their trade so successfully without fear of prosecution. Yet on the other hand London hackney cabs in one area under a contract of private hire in another area of London to which they were not licensed could be prosecuted under London hackney carriage legislation?

The test case of London failed but considering the legislation was specifically aimed at London cab drivers with yellow badges and related to no more than a specific condition, then it would have made no difference to the rest of the world if it had succeeded?

This case is nothing special when compared to others but it does give you an insight into how the lack of legislation allowed the private hire sector to evolve over the years. It also puts into perspective the snail like progress undertaken in London in not introducing licensing legislation to regulate London minicabs.

JD
.......................................................................

LYONS v. DENSCOMBE.

KING'S BENCH DIVISION

[1949] 1 All ER 977, 47 LGR 412, 113 JP 305, [1949] WN 257

HEARING-DATES: 12 April 1949

12 April 1949

Street Traffic -- Express carriage -- Car used to take owner's fellow workmen home from work -- Owner paid lump sum a week -- Road Traffic Act, 1930 (c. 43), s. 61 (1).

Insurance -- Motor insurance -- Third party risks -- Policy excluding "use for hire or reward other than private hire" -- Supply of car "direct from garage" -- Car used to take owner's fellow workmen home from work -- Car taken to place of work hours before.

A mineworker drove to the colliery each morning in his motor car and in the evening drove home four fellow workmen, who, pursuant to an agreement made by the mineworker with one of them, paid him 8s. a week (2s. each) whether they used the car or not. The car was licensed as a private hire car and hackney carriage, and it was insured, but the insurance policy did not cover "use for hire or reward other than 'private hire'", which was defined to mean the "letting of the vehicle supplied direct from the policy holder's garage."

HELD: (i) the contract was for the lump sum of 8s. a week and not for separate fares and, therefore, the car was not used as an express carriage as defined by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, s. 61 (1), without a public service vehicle licence or a road service licence contrary to ss. 67 (1) and 72 (1) of the Act.

(ii) "private hire" meant hire for a defined journey at a defined time as distinct from plying for hire and included the picking up of passengers away from the policy holder's garage even though the car went to the place some hours before the hirers got into it, and, therefore, the car was covered by the policy.

INTRODUCTION:
CASE STATED by Glamorgan justices.

At a court of summary jurisdiction sitting at Cowbridge on Nov. 16, 1948, informations were preferred by the appellant charging the respondent with having used his Austin 12 h.p. saloon motor car on a road at Llanharan between July 13, 1948, and Sept. 1, 1948, without there being in force in relation thereto a policy of insurance or other security in respect of third party risks as required by the Road Traffic Act, 1930, s. 35 (1), and with having caused the car over the same period to be used on a road at Llanharan as an express carriage without his being the holder of a licence to use it as a vehicle of that class, contrary to s. 67 of the Act, and without being the holder of a road service licence granted by the Road Traffic Commissioners, contrary to s. 72 thereof.

The car was licensed for private and hackney purposes and there was no road service licence or public service licence in respect of it. There was a certificate of insurance in force in respect of it which did not cover use for hire or reward other than "private hire," which was defined as the letting of the car supplied direct from the policy holder's garage.

The respondent contended that the car was a private hire car. The justices dismissed the informations. The prosecutor appealed and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal. The facts appear in the judgment of LORD GODDARD, C.J.

COUNSEL:
Lloyd-Jones for the appellant. The respondent did not appear.

PANEL: Lord Goddard, C.J., Oliver and Sellers, JJ.

JUDGMENTBY-1: LORD GODDARD, C.J.

JUDGMENT-1:
LORD GODDARD, C.J.: The respondent was summoned for using an uninsured motor car on the ground that the use to which he put it was not covered by his policy of insurance. It was also alleged that he had committed an offence because his car was used "as an express carriage without his being the holder of a licence to use the said motor car as a vehicle of that class," and also "for that he between the dates and at the place aforesaid did use the said motor car on a service as an express carriage without being the holder of a road service licence granted by the Road Traffic Commissioners."

The justices found that the respondent was a mineworker at Llanharan Colliery, Brynna, and there also worked at the colliery four men called Ware, Witts, Evans and Dykes. The respondent drove himself to the colliery every morning, and he drove these four men home every night. He had a licence covering the use of his car for private and hackney purposes, and, therefore, so far as the licence was concerned, he was entitled to use the car as what is generally known as a hire car. The four men were brought home each night by the respondent

"in pursuance of an arrangement entered into between Ware and the respondent whereby in consideration of a weekly payment of the sum of 8s. the respondent agreed to convey the said Ware, Witts, Evans and Dykes from the said colliery to Brynna aforesaid on six days in each week."

Each man contributed 2s. a week towards that 8s. a sum which was payable whether all of them rode in the car or not. In other words, the justices found that there was a contract between Ware and the respondent for the use of his car for 8s. a week.

For a vehicle to be an express carriage there must be an agreement for separate fares, and the contention of the appellant is that the justices should have regarded this contract, not as one for a lump sum of 8s., but as four different contracts of 2s. each because these men contributed equally to the 8s.

The justices do not find how the men would have contributed if one of them was ill or away from work for a week and the other three continued to use the car. I should expect that in that case those who used it would have to make up the 8s., but the contract the justices have found is clearly one of 8s. a week for the use of the car. That seems to me to put the case entirely outside the provisions with regard to express carriages in the Road Traffic Act and to show that the transaction was simply the hire of a hire car. Therefore, I think the two summonses with regard to the use of her car as an express carriage were rightly dismissed.

The third summons (for using the car when there was not a policy of insurance in force in respect of it) also presents no difficulty. It is found:

"... that there was in force between the said dates in relation to the said motor car a certificate of insurance which provided that the said certificate did not cover the said motor car against (inter alia) use for hire or reward other than 'private hire,' which expression in the said certificate was stated to mean the letting of the vehicle supplied direct from the policy holder's garage."

It is said that the letting of the vehicle was not direct from the policy holder's garage because it was driven to the colliery in the morning and the four men only travelled in it in the evening.

It seems to me, however, that this is clearly private hire. Private hire is distinct, in my opinion, from plying for hire, that is to say, using the car as a taxicab, standing in the street or driving about seeking passengers. It is private hire in the way that any private hire car is used, namely, by hiring the vehicle for a defined journey at a defined time.

It is said that what occurred in this case was not letting the vehicle direct from the policy holder's garage, but every person who hires a private hire car expects the car to pick him up somewhere. He may, of course, go to the garage and get into the car, there, but he need not do so. If I want a car to meet me at a railway station, it has to come to the station from the garage where it is kept. If it does so, it is supplied direct from the garage. It is not plying for hire.

Can it make any difference for the purpose of insurance that the car is driven to the place where the hirers are going to get into it some hours before they do get into it? Admittedly, if this car came straight out from the garage to the colliery and picked up the men there, it would be a letting direct from the garage.Why does it cease to be a letting direct from the garage if it gets to the colliery five minutes before the men get into it? If not, does it cease to be such a letting if half-an-hour or an hour elapses? Obviously not. For these reasons, I think that the policy was in force in respect of this car, that the justices came to a perfectly right decision in this case, and that the appeal must be dismissed.

JUDGMENTBY-2: OLIVER, J.

JUDGMENT-2:
OLIVER, J.: I agree.

JUDGMENTBY-3: SELLERS, J.

JUDGMENT-3:
SELLERS, J.: I agree. The definition of an express carriage is: "A motor vehicle carrying for hire or reward at separate fares," and our decision turns on the finding of the justices that this was a contract for one fare paid weekly. It is possible on the evidence that they might have come to another conclusion, but on their conclusion no infringement has been established.

..........................................

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.