Taxi Driver Online

You owe me nothing it was my pleasure

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

Schedule 7 to which Rupert Cope refers is published below, however the council are of the opinion that you were driving the vehicle for other reasons than road testing. No doubt they feel they have a strong enough case to take you to court.

No doubt it will all will be resolved in court, should it ever get there?
_____________________________

TRANSPORT ACT 1985

1985 CHAPTER 67

SCHEDULE 7 MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Section 139(2)

Royal Assent [30 October 1985]

Transport Act 1985, Ch. 67, Sch. 7 (Eng.)

SCHEDULE 7 Minor and Consequential Amendments

General

1

In England and Wales, the provisions made by or under any enactment which apply to motor vehicles used--

(a) to carry passengers under a contract express or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum; and

(b) to ply for hire for such use;

shall apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than nine passengers as they apply to motor vehicles adapted to carry less than eight passengers.

2

. . .
The Town Police Clauses Act 1847

3

Section 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (drivers not to act without first obtaining a licence) shall not apply to a person driving a hackney carriage licensed under that Act for the purpose of or in connection with--

(a) any test of the mechanical condition or fitness of the hackney carriage or its equipment carried out for the purposes of [section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1988] (tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles other than goods vehicles) or for the purposes of any requirements with respect to such condition or fitness imposed by or under any other enactment; or

(b) any test of that person's competence to drive a hackney carriage carried out for the purposes of any application made by him for a licence to drive a hackney carriage.
______________________________________
______________________________

Normally I would wizz you out the link, but I haven't all my tools in front of me to do so.


Yes those rides can be very painful, plenty of hot baths, and soothing cream will help

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

The council would need more proof than "just thinking" that the vehicle was being used for other purposes.
I would just like to say that it is refreshing to see members working together for the benefit of another member instead of sniping at one another.

_________________
Grandad,

I think you better read all the information provided by this site before you get a false sense of security from some.

Here is what the relevent act states with regard to persons qualified, to road test vehicles. I would read these sections very carefully and then give schedule 7 of the transport act close scrutiny. You might then wish to contemplate what you are being charged with? If you meet all of the requirements as laid down in the 1998 and 1985 acts then you shouldn't have any problem persuading a court that what you were doing was perfectly lawful.

If you don't meet all the requirements as laid down in these two acts, then you better get yourself a good solicitor, because I have a feeling you are going to need one.

Regards

JD
_______________________________

Tests of vehicles other than goods vehicles to which section 49 applies

Tests of satisfactory condition of vehicles.

45.—(1) This section applies to motor vehicles other than goods vehicles which are required by regulations under section 49 of this Act to be submitted for a vehicle test under that section and has effect for the purpose of ascertaining whether the prescribed statutory requirements relating to the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment are complied with.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for the examination of vehicles submitted for examination under this section, and

(b) for the issue, where it is found on such an examination that the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with, of a certificate (in this Act referred to as a "test certificate") that at the date of the examination the requirements were complied with in relation to the vehicle.

(3) Examinations for the purposes of this section shall be carried out by—

(a) persons, not being officers of the Secretary of State, authorised for those purposes by the Secretary of State (in this section and section 46 of this Act referred to as "authorised examiners" ),

(b) inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State, or

(c) inspectors appointed by any council designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section and section 46 of this Act, being the council of a county, district or London borough or the Common Council of the City of London or the council of a region or islands area.

(4) Where a test certificate is refused, the examiner or inspector must issue a notification of the refusal stating the grounds of the refusal, and a person aggrieved by the refusal or the grounds of the refusal may appeal to the Secretary of State.

(5) On any such appeal the Secretary of State must cause a further examination to be made and either issue a test certificate or issue a notification of the refusal stating the grounds of the refusal.

(6) For the purposes of their functions under this section the Secretary of State or a council designated for the purposes of this section may provide and maintain—

(a) stations where examinations under this section may be carried out, and

(b) apparatus for carrying out such examinations.

(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section for the purpose of giving effect to this section and for prescribing anything authorised by this section and section 46 of this Act to be prescribed.

8. In its application to vehicles in which recording equipment is required by Article 3 of the Community Recording Equipment Regulation to be installed and used, this section shall have effect as if any reference to prescribed statutory requirements relating to the construction and condition of motor vehicles or their accessories or equipment included a reference to the prescribed requirements of so much of that Regulation as relates to the installation of recording equipment and the seals to be fixed to such equipment.

Particular aspects of regulations under section 45.

46. Regulations under section 45 of this Act may, in particular, make provision as to—

(a) the authorisation of examiners, the imposition of conditions to be complied with by authorised examiners and the withdrawal of authorisations,

(b) the manner in which, conditions under which and apparatus with which examinations are carried out, the maintenance of that apparatus in an efficient state, and the inspection of premises at which and apparatus with which examinations are being, or are to be, carried out,

(c) the manner in which applications may be made for the examination of vehicles under section 45 of this Act, the manner in which and time within which appeals may be brought under subsection (4) of that section, the information to be supplied and documents to be produced on such an application, examination or appeal, the fees to be paid on such an application or appeal, and the repayment of the whole or part of the fee paid on such an appeal where it appears to the Secretary of State that there were substantial grounds for contesting the whole or part of the decision appealed against,

(d) the form of, and particulars to be contained in, test certificates and notifications of the refusal of test certificates, and the supply by the Secretary of State of forms for such certificates and notifications and the charges to be made for the supply of such forms,

(e) the issue of duplicates of test certificates lost or defaced and the fee to be paid for the issue of such duplicates,

(f) the issue of copies of test certificates and the fees to be paid for the issue of such copies,

(g) the keeping by designated councils and authorised examiners of registers of test certificates in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars, and the inspection of such registers by such persons and in such circumstances as may be prescribed,

(h) the keeping of records by designated councils and authorised examiners and the providing by them of returns and information to the Secretary of State,

and regulations under that section may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of cases.
Obligatory test certificates.

47.—(1) A person who uses on a road at any time, or causes or permits to be so used, a motor vehicle to which this section applies, and as respects which no test certificate has been issued within the appropriate period before that time, is guilty of an offence.

In this section and section 48 of this Act, the "appropriate period" means a period of twelve months or such shorter period as may be prescribed.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (5) below, the motor vehicles to which this section applies at any time are—

(a) those first registered under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971, the [1962 c. 13.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962, the [1949 c. 89.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1949 or the [1920 c. 72.] Roads Act 1920, not less than three years before that time, and

(b) those which, having a date of manufacture not less than three years before that time, have been used on roads (whether in Great Britain or elsewhere) before being registered under the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 or the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1962,

being, in either case, motor vehicles other than goods vehicles which are required by regulations under section 49 of this Act to be submitted for a goods vehicle test.

(3) As respects a vehicle being—

(a) a motor vehicle used for the carriage of passengers and with more than eight seats, excluding the driver's seat, or

(b) a taxi (as defined in section 64 (3) of the [1980 c. 34.] Transport Act 1980), being a vehicle licensed to ply for hire, or


(c) an ambulance, that is to say, a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted, and primarily used, for the carriage of persons to a place where they will receive, or from a place where they have received, medical or dental treatment, and which, by reason of design, marking or equipment is readily identifiable as a vehicle so constructed or adapted,

subsection (2)(a) above shall have effect as if for the period there mentioned there were substituted a period of one year.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, there shall be disregarded the use of a vehicle before it is sold or supplied by retail.

(5) This section does not apply to vehicles of such classes as may be prescribed.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) above the use of vehicles for such purposes as may be prescribed.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from subsection (1) above the use of vehicles in any such area as may be prescribed.

8. For the purposes of this section the date of manufacture of a vehicle shall be taken to be the last day of the year during which its final assembly is completed, except where after that day modifications are made to the vehicle before it is sold or supplied by retail, and in that excepted case shall be taken to be the last day of the year during which the modifications are completed.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument direct that subsection (2) above shall have effect with the substitution, for three years (in both places), of such other period (not being more than ten years) as may be specified in the order.

An order under this subsection shall not have effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
________________________

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

but we take the view that, despite Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 in relation
to taxis, it could never have been the intention that the strict interpretation should have the effect of
precluding the statutory testing and general maintenance of PHVs or of preventing a licensing
authority from complying with its statutory obligations. Such an interpretation would produce an
absurd result.

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

I expect you told the council you weren't a qualified mechanic? Having now read the relevant acts of Parliament I suppose you understanding the significance of Rupert Copes letter?

Considering you have been in the game 20 years wasn't it rather foolish to relinquish your badge considering the circumstances relating to your father and the added burden it might place on your family? I suppose you no longer viewed the badge as an asset?



I'm surprised you can't recall why you had to go to the County Hall? Do you go there frequently?

I was wondering if your vehicle was in use as a Taxi and who drove it considering you no longer hold a license. I was also wondering, how and where you were caught driving the vehicle and by whom?

You are going to have to forgive me for pointing out what I see as a few imponderables? However I'm sure any questions I may have raised will be easily disposed of.

Regards

JD

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

Section 41 and 42 referred to in Schedule 7, relates to vehicles that do not have an MOT certificate.

I think you better take a closer look at what was said.

In the light of this judgement, the Department carried out a consultation exercise to seek views on whether we should make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to broaden the range
of people eligible to drive licensed PHVs.

"The conclusion that the Minister announced in July was that only people conducting "legally" necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver, should be eligible to drive licensed PHVs without themselves holding a PHV driver licence.

"The decision took into account that an exemption for "testing" "licensed" taxis and would-be taxi drivers is included in Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 and that we consulted on the basis that a deregulation order would be necessary to effect the options for change proposed.

Against that background, many have sought clarification of why the Minister reached this conclusion.

**This letter sets out the Department's view of the law, but ultimately interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. **

**If anyone is in doubt about whether or not they are entitled to drive a licensed PHV in any particular circumstances, it is of course open to them to obtain their own legal advice.**

There is no express statutory provision which ***exempts*** those carrying out legally necessary tests of, or in, licensed PHVs from holding a PHV driver licence. But we consider that it is necessary to look at the wider legal picture.

The ****'MOT'**** testing scheme for motor vehicles other than goods vehicles is established under sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. By section 47(1) of that Act a person who uses on a road a motor vehicle to which the section applies will commit an offence if a test certificate has not been issued within the appropriate period. The only way of obtaining an 'MOT' certificate is by having the vehicle tested by someone who is authorised to do so.

I think that puts things in perspective.

If the person road testing a vehicle for an "mot" is not a qualified person then how will he know the vehicle is mechanically sound? Thats the first question any lay person would want answered.

The law needs changing but as Rupert Cope stated, it's the courts that have the final jurisdiction where acts of parliament are concerned and no matter what Cope Said, from what I can see the law is heavily weighted against those who are not qualified to drive licensed hackney carriage vehicles.

You must remember that if a vehicle isn't already licensed as a hackney carriage then it is not a hackney carriage. In order for the council to prosecute this case the vehicle already had a license therefore I doubt the courts will look kindly on an unqualified mechanic road testing a vehicle which to all intents and purposes carries fare paying passengers for reward.

Regards

JD

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

I know many MoT testers that are not mechanics, there is no requirement for a MoT tester to be one.

If the person road testing a vehicle for an "mot" is not a qualified person then how will he know the vehicle is mechanically sound? Thats the first question any lay person would want answered.

Passing and failing a vehicle is totally different to repairing one .

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

Well said Grandad,we can all bicker and disagree and have a bit of a laugh but when it comes down to someone being in trouble it is nice to see them being helped out

_________________
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z07K29Fc15U

Its no good telling me, that Trevor Jones says its alright for anyone without a drivers badge to drive a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle, its the courts you have to convince. I might suggest you read the legislation again because you seem to have missed the point about authorised persons.

Answer me this, "Was or Wasn't" this hackney carriage we are discussing already licensed at the time of the incident?

And what is the significance of going to a meeting at the County Hall? Is that supposed to be the time when the driving offence was committed? If the vehicle is being driven for domestic use by a non badge holder then they are breaking the law, its that simple.

I think going to a meeting at the County Hall in a licensed cab being driven by an unlicensed driver who says he has been in the trade for 20 years and that he is just road testing the vehicle for whatever reasons, is hard to fathom. What did he do to the vehicle that he had to drive it to County Hall in order for it to be road tested?

I'm afraid I don't buy into this thread because there are too many inconsistencies. I will be surprised if I'm the only one who sees it that way.

Interesting point I might add but driving a licensed vehicle when not licensed or authorised to drive the vehicle under statutory legislation has already been established in law and was deemed unlawful.

Considering the Gentleman has already had his summons then it shouldn't be long before it goes before the Magistrates? In the meantime I'll look forward to the advice you give him and wait in anticipation to see how it is received by the courts.

Regards

JD

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

So it is JD' s considered opinion that every licensed vehicle owner must surrender his licence before his vehicle can be serviced and road-tested,,, that should be interesting ...

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

Where did I say that? Please don't attribute comments to me that I never made. I don't do it to you, so please don't do it to me.

Regards

JD

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

It's the only logical conclusions to your logic

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

First and foremost this site is about striving for accuracy, especially when people are looking for sound advice. There are many people who frequent TDO who have their own brand of specialised knowledge and are only too willing to help others but it is up to the individual to make decisions based on the facts placed before them.

I don't have to interpret the law on this subject because the law is already established. If someone else wishes to make out a case in respect of driving a licensed hackney carriage without a license then they have to consider the law as it stands and not make wild guesses at what they think will apply in a court of law.

Circumstances may differ in each individual case but the law as it stands is as follows. If by any chance you can convince the court that an unlicensed driver is entitled to drive a licensed hackney carriage then you will have achieved what no other person has so far managed to achieve under similar circumstances. Good luck.
_______________________________________

Darlington Borough Council v Thain

Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office List)

HEARING-DATES: 23 February 1995

23 February 1995

COUNSEL:
R Merritt for the Appellant; The Respondent did not appear and was not represented

PANEL: Rose LJ, Tuckey J

JUDGMENTBY-1: TUCKEY J

JUDGMENT-1:
TUCKEY J: This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of the Durham Justices who dismissed an information alleging that on 25 July 1993 the Respondent,

Mr Thain, acted as a driver of a Hackney carriage, not then having obtained a licence to act as such a driver, contrary to s 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

For over a hundred years, Parliament has decreed either by special Act or by the Town Police Clauses Act that Hackney carriages, or taxis as I shall call them, which ply for hire have to be licensed, and those who drive such taxis also have to be licensed.

In the instant case, the Respondent, Mr Thain, was the owner of a licensed taxi. He insured this vehicle for use both as a taxi and for his own private use. Until 14 June 1993 he was also a licensed driver, but on that day, his licence expired. He had applied to renew it but a week later the Appellant authority, Darlington Borough Council, refused this application.

The facts giving rise to the charge as found by the Justices were that on the evening of 25 July 1993 the Respondent had gone in his licensed taxi to pick up his daughter and son-in-law at 1.30 am in the morning at a nightclub or hotel called Tall Trees in Yarm. Unfortunately for him, partying in the same place was a Mr David Thornton, who was the Taxi Licensing Officer of Darlington Borough Council. He saw Mr Thain picking up his daughter and son-in-law. At that time the roof light on the taxi was illuminated, the plate number was displayed, as were the decals (whatever they are) on the side of the vehicle.

The Justices accepted that on the night in question Mr Thain had not intended to ply for hire. Indeed, by 24 July he had leased out his taxi to someone else and it was that person (who was a licensed driver) who was going to collect his daughter and son-in-law. But this driver became ill and was unable to go, so Mr Thain stepped in to meet the difficulty.

The Justices concluded that Mr Thain's sole purpose that evening was to transport his daughter and son-in-law from Tall Trees, and that he was, therefore, using the vehicle at the time as his private motor vehicle, not withstanding that it was a licensed Hackney carriage.

As they say in the case: "We accordingly dismissed the information against the Respondent..." They took the view that as he was not intending to ply for hire that evening he had committed no offence.

The section under which he was charged, s 46 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 says: "No person shall act as driver of any hackney carriage licensed in pursuance of this or the special Act to ply for hire... without first obtaining a licence...."

The Appellant's contention before the Justices and before this Court was that the driver's intention at the time is immaterial: if he is driving a licensed taxi and has no licence to do so he commits an offence under this section.

The Justices rejected this contention when dismissing the information against the Respondent, but in the case which they have stated for our opinion they conclude by saying:

"During the preparation of this case we have considered again the case of Yates v Gates and received further guidance upon that judgment, and are now of the opinion that in accordance with the decision in Yates v Gates, if a vehicle is licensed as a hackney carriage and at the material time bears the appearance of a hackney carriage, the driver of the vehicle must be the holder of a hackney carriage driver's licence."

Yates v Gates [1972] QB 27, [1970] 1 All ER 754 is a decision of this court. In his judgment the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, at P31.H says:

"The justices took the view that since on the occasion in question the sign "for hire" was not illuminated, and in the circumstances that the defendant was not driving the vehicle for hire, therefore he did not require a license,"

He then says that the Justices in that case dismissed the information on that basis. After referring to s 46 he said:

"Pausing there, it is undoubtedly true that the defendant did not have the necessary licence, and that the vehicle in question was itself licensed to ply for hire. The justices, however, took the view that unless the vehicle was plying for hire it would not be a hackney carriage, the driver of which would require a licence.

That, of course, envisages that a vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage as defined in section 38 of the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847, must change its character from moment to moment; when it is not plying for hire it is not a hackney carriage, and when it is plying for hire it is a hackney carriage."

He then says, and these are the important words:

"In my judgment section 46 is perfectly plain. No person shall drive any vehicle which is licensed as a hackney carriage, whatever it may be doing at the particular moment, unless he himself has a licence as required by section 46."

The Court allowed the prosecutors appeal.

With that very clear statement of principle it is not surprising, in my judgment, that the Justices were (when they reconsidered the case) decided that they had got it wrong. In my judgment they had.

***This offence is committed whenever a licensed taxi is driven by someone who is not licensed to do so, irrespective of his intention at the material time. ***

The question which the Justices posed for our consideration is whether in law a person who is not the holder of a Hackney carriage driver's licence may drive his own motor vehicle for a private purpose, if that motor vehicle is licensed as a Hackney carriage, and on the face of it bears the appearance of a Hackney carriage. I would answer that question, "no".

JUDGMENTBY-2: ROSE LJ

JUDGMENT-2:
ROSE LJ: I agree. The question will be answered as my Lord has indicated, and the appeal is consequently allowed.

DISPOSITION:
Appeal allowed. No order as to costs.

SOLICITORS:
Legal Department, Darlington Borough Council
____________________