Taxi Driver Online

The point you are deliberately avoiding is that vehicles have to be serviced, and at times road tested, sometimes road-testing might be over a couple of days( intermittent fault). and that the council must recognise the fact that a mechanic is needed to ascertain and repair the vehicle so that it fulfils the council's conditions on safety, over riding factor public safety. in my opinion, the magistrate would have to consider whether it would be reasonable For every mechanic in the country to have to hold a licence both private hire and hackney from every licensed authority in the event that he would at some time or other have to road test a Hackney or private hire vehicle, the stupidity is beyond words, and it is obvious the Ministry of Transport hold the same opinion .

Under sections 48 and 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the
licensing authority is under a specific statutory obligation not to grant a PHV licence unless it is
satisfied that the vehicle is safe and in a suitable mechanical condition nor to grant a PHV driver's
licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Inevitably, these
obligations will involve an element of testing, during which a person who does not hold a PHV
driver's licence will have to drive a licensed PHV. If this were not the case, then it would be
extremely difficult to comply with the obligations.

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

A timely reminder of what constitutes a hackney carriage.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2366

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 am not deliberately avoiding any point. I have pointed out the law as it stands. If you wish to make assumptions of what a court of law might decide in these circumstances then so bit it, however I for one have no intention of second guessing what the high court might decide?

The only opinion I have on the matter is that which has already been stated in law and just so you fully understand what that is, my position is that until the relevant legislation is changed to allow unlicensed hackney carriage drivers to drive a hackney carriage when it is not being used in plying for hire, then I have no other alternative than to accept the ruling of the court.

Don't forget its you who wants to tinker around the edges with all this outdated legislation, the rest of us want a new modern act that will encompass the many different modes of hire and reward in one fell swoop.

I think that goes for the majority of people who frequent this website.



You are entitled to your opinion regardless of how informed or ill informed it might be? I am not going to war with your opinion, I presented the facts as they currently stand. You mention magistrates but I think you might find a case such as this might eventually go beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrates.



Section 48 refers specifically to the licensing of private hire vehicles and the reference to mechanical fitness is specific to them, you are going to have to search the appropriate legislation that defines mechanical fitness of hackney carriages if we are to concentrate our minds on accuracy?.

I think the person in question was driving a hackney carriage, wasn't he?

Section 48 describes an unlicensed vehicle obtaining a license but as we know this also includes renewal. However, in this particular case an unlicensed driver was driving a licensed hackney carriage. It is your understanding that he was legally entitled to do that because he says he was road testing the vehicle for mechanical defects. I can't find legislation that allows an unlicensed person to drive a licensed hackney carriage other than what is laid down in the relevant road transport act. We have already published that relevant section and if you can show me where it says an unlicensed person can drive a licensed hackney carriage then I might be persuaded that the person in this case has a valid reason in law for driving a licensed hackney carriage vehicle while being unlicensed.

You will know doubt notice that section 48 isn't about the legalities of who can drive a licensed vehicle that is fully explained in section 46. Section 48 only concerns the mechanical fitness of the vehicle when it is presented for test, how that mechanical fitness was arrived at is not the concern of the council.

section 46 in its entirety.

"(1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act--

(a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage or London cab in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;

(b) no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 51 of this Act;

(c) no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51;

(d) no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act;

(e) no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle;

(i) if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or

(ii) if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51.

(2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence."

The licences to which this section refers are issued by the district council for the area of each controlled district. They consist of a licence to use a vehicle as a private hire vehicle under s 48, a driver's licence to drive private hire vehicles under s 51 and a licence to operate private hire vehicles under s 55. Under ss 45(2) and 80(2) the application of the relevant part of the Act and the efficacy of licences issued under it are territorially limited. Section 45(2) reads:

"If the Act [that is the Town Police Clauses Act 1847] is in force in the area of a district council, the council may resolve that the provisions of this Act, other than this section, are to apply to the relevant area; and if the council do so resolve those provisions shall come into force in the relevant area..."
_____________________

In these circumstances private hire vehicle has no relevance whatsoever. This case involves a licensed hackney carriage vehicle and we should concentrate our minds on that alone.

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.

JD you must realise that I have one small problem with what you State , and the reason for that is that a number of years ago, I asked the question of my local authority as to whether or not a mechanic needed to be licensed, they intend made inquiries to clarify the situation, the letter from Rupert Cope was one of the replies, I find myself now asking the question what is the point of having a Ministry of Transport Department when all I needed to do was ask you . but never mind I will contact them again submitting Mr Cooke's Letter and your views I will simply ask them which is correct in their view ......

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

JD To answer some of your questions,

No I am not a qualified mechanic? But if I were, I’d still be taken to court.

I have to go to County Hall all the time and for different reasons, training as a school governor for one, and to go to licensing for another and yes I go there frequently.

The car park attendant reported me. The car was in the Councils car park with no car park permit on it; he stopped me on the way out.

I do own my car, (not a HC or PH) and if I had driven that, of course there would be no problem.

Yes the vehicle was a licensed Taxi. The firm has seven taxis and employ-licensed drivers to drive them.

Yes I do understanding the significance of Rupert Copes letter.
One of the conditions VOSA asks for, in their leaflet, (so you want to be a MOT examiner) is. You need to be a skilled mechanic for 4 years.

I have been in the Taxi game as a experienced mechanic for 20 years, but before that, have worked in two garages, been to sea as a second engineer, and was an instructor teaching mechanics to ex offenders and the council know all this.

I often road test cars to see what faults they have. Believe it or not sometimes drivers don’t report faults.

The reason I had to road test the taxi was because the car had a noisy wheel bearing and after manually checking the wheels on the car could find no play in the bearings so road testing the car was a must. I believe in preventative maintenance.

I always road test the cars after I repair them, making sure they are safe to go back on the road. By the way, I work form home when repairing the cars.

No it was not rather foolish to relinquish my badge, but necessary. I did hold a licence and use to do the odd run now and then and as I was looking after my father who was very ill. If I had to go anywhere I had to arrange for two care workers to look after him. The firm was short of drivers and I was being asked to go on runs that I could not, would not do. My refusing was causing friction so by letting my licence run out, I could not do the runs (it would have been unlawful) I could have put my father into a home, but wanted him to spend his last days with the ones he loved and those who loved him, and not have total strangers looking after him.

My Dad passed away last month and I would like him to be left with some dignity. It will be hard enough, if I have to give the reasons, some being medical, to the court, as to why I decided to road test the taxi on the way to the meeting, so please excuse me for not wanting to go into to great detail.

Another reason I don’t want to go into greater detail is I think the council are unlawfully taking me to court. Until that is proven in court I think it is wise not to comment, until I am proven right or wrong. I will then willingly tell you all.

Yes I will forgive you JD, for pointing out what you see are a few imponderables. I welcome any contributions, positive or negative and by showing me some of the negative points, will hopefully give me a better insight into the law, enabling me to contradict those arguments in my defence.

What is worrying though is, if the magistrates think, and use the same logic I will be found guilty. That worries me as it overlooks one very important point. I didn’t do anything wrong.

Regards
Alun

By all means submit my observations but do not forget to include my observations and yours that the person charged with this ofence has admitted to not being a qualified mechanic or an authorised person under the relevant road transport act.

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 hope you realise that in a legal predicament such as the one you find yourself in that any input from me will be based purely on what I personally believe to be the law. Others might give you false hope and I'm not saying that Mr T fits into that category because it is obvious he is trying to advise and help you in the best way he can. However you have to interpret the law as it stands and base your judgement on what is already established in law in conjunction with the legislation that governs this particular offence. If there is a legal clause that is likely to exempt you from prosecution then it will be there for everyone to see but it is up to you to find it and use it to your advantage.

What I have done is taken the scenario you presented to us and evaluated the circumstances and advised you of the legal position so far. I can only give you the facts as to what has transpired in the courts and the facts are that the courts have deemed both licensed Hackney carriages and Private hire vehicles have to be driven by licensed drivers at all times. The exception to this is what is stated in the Transport act which relates to authorised persons.

Now you told us you were a mechanic which I have no doubt you are but the relevance has to be in the word "authorised". The act also provides that the vehicle can only be used by the authorised person for certain activities relating to the mechanical preparation of the vehicle.

You have a problem in that respect which I suspect you are going to have to remedy.

The fact that you now tell us that the vehicle was parked in the car park suggests that the only person who saw you drive it was the car park attendant. I honestly don't know how that will play out in court but it would appear that the council are charging you by what you said in your interview under caution.

The fact is that you really need a solicitor and that is the best advice I can give you.

Good luck.

JD

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

JD is right in what he is saying insomuch as the cases he has quoted were proven guilty. If I’m not mistaken all the cases he has posted have been where persons HAVE BEEN PLYING FOR HIRE. I wish I could see the case of Yates v Gates as this case prompted a question to be asked in the House of Commons and a response by the minister leading to the Rupert Cope letter that was meant to clarify the position. However the point he may be overlooking is were any of these cases of mechanics road testing a taxi, as I don’t know. The ones I’ve seen are not.

You have it wrong, neither of the two cases to which I referred were deemed to be plying for hire in fact the courts accepted that they were not plying for hire and that is the gravity of the predicament to which you find yourself.

The two cases in question are Benson V Boyce. Private hire and Darlington Borough Council v Thain. Hackney carriage

Yates V Gates can be found here

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2400

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.

One other thing DJ I posted my original query to help me clarify how I legally stood, and some of the replies have been very helpful. In Pembrokeshire it was accepted that mechanics did not have to have a HC or PH license to road test a car. Many have been stopped on the road and have not been prosecuted. I had seen it in writing. But that was several years ago, but could not find it anywhere. The letter by Rupert Cope proves that they did not need a licence. (my interpretation) I appreciate your franc comments even if I think you’re a bit ridged in your interpretations.

Yes point taken but are any of the cases you quoted mechanics road testing a car if not can you point me to one that does.

Regards
Alun

It was the private hire case of Benson v Boyce that brought about the DfT response in relation to Rupert Copes letter.

I have previously stated that the problem you have is convincing a court of law that you are a qualified mechanic and authorised to road test vehicles under the relevant Transport act. And also, at the time you drove your vehicle to County hall you were testing it for the purpose of road worthiness.

I have already stated that the defence of road testing a licensed hackney carriage vehicle as far as I know has never been tried in a court of law. It will be interesting to see how your interpretation turns out?

If the council believed you were road testing your vehicle I doubt they would have charged you. Obviously they believe the facts to be contrary to how you described them.

Considering you are going to base your defence on Rupert Copes letter I shall remind you what he said.

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.

I would advise you to concentrate on the policy of the council that is taking you to court and not that of Pembrokeshire.

What is the court date on the summons? Or do you have an ulterior motive for presenting this scenario?

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.

Thanks JD I know what you are saying and appreciate it, the council is Pembrokeshire County Council and I’m in court on the 18th of June and no I haven’t a ulterior motive but I think they have. I may be paranoid. But all things being equal why are they taking me to court and not others.

I have been in the Taxi game as a experienced mechanic for 20 years, but before that, have worked in two garages, been to sea as a second engineer, and was an instructor teaching mechanics to ex offenders and the council know all this.

ak5222. it is nice to see JD helping...... just a thought..... Cabaid provide hackney and private hire vehicles all over the country, and obviously have to Licence and Test the vehicles...... it might well be worth your while giving them a ring and asking if they have ever experienced any problems, I cannot see them holding driving licences for every town and district.......

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

this firm also supply ready plated/tested, cab of any area, delievered to you door,
got freephone so maybe give em a ring, ask how they get around the plying for hire
http://www.autoassistltd.co.uk/taxiassist.phtml