Taxi Driver Online

Just as a side issue, if a vehicle is out of test and is being taken for Test , remember it is not under the council's rules until a Licence has been issued, in my opinion the best way for mechanics is to be allowed to remove the plate and cover up the for hire sign when road-testing ..... and if it has a ordinary MoT it's legal as far as the police are concerned. and as for the law being vague, what new there....

_________________
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 law needs amending, the DfT were wrong to do nothing back in 2000. An owner shouldn't be penalised for driving his own vehicle under conditions that are far removed from plying for hire. I think there's a strong case to support removing the plates as a sign that the vehicle is not plying for hire. This would allow spouses etc to drive the vehicle when it is not being used as a taxi or private hire vehicle. The law needs sorting and sorting now but then again it wont get sorted if you continue to have the attitude that tinkering around the edges will solve all problems.

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 only a mere mortal, and you do not really know what my views are, standing still is not an option, and some progress is better than none....... we work well as a team. .. good cop bad cop .......... ha ha....

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

Local Government Act 1972

223.(1) Any member or officer of a local authority who is authorised by that authority to prosecute or defend on their behalf, or to appear on their behalf in, proceedings before a magistrates’ court shall be entitled to prosecute or defend or to appear in any such proceedings, and, notwithstanding anything contained in [the M1Solicitors Act 1974], to conduct any such proceedings although he is not a solicitor holding a current practising certificate


Do others find this ironic or is it just me.

I don't understand the relevance? All the act does if confer a power on a local Authority to allow anyone they feel competent, to prosecute a matter in the magistrates court.

The full text of that section is as follows.
__________________________

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972
1972 CHAPTER 70

PART XI GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Legal proceedings
Royal Assent [26 October 1972]

Local Government Act 1972, Ch. 70, s. 223 (Eng.)

223 Appearance of local authorities in legal proceedings

(1) Any member or officer of a local authority who is authorised by that authority to prosecute or defend on their behalf, or to appear on their behalf in, proceedings before a magistrates' court shall be entitled to prosecute or defend or to appear in any such proceedings, and, notwithstanding anything contained in [the Solicitors Act 1974], to conduct any such proceedings although he is not a solicitor holding a current practising certificate.

(2) In this section "local authority" includes the Common Council[, a joint authority[, the Greater London Authority] [. . .][, a police authority established under [section 3 of the Police Act 1996]] [and the Metropolitan Police Authority] ... ] ... .

NOTES:

Initial Commencement

Specified date

Specified date: 1 April 1974 (unless the Secretary of State by order appoints an earlier date): see s 273(1)-(3).

Appointment

Appointment: this section came into force in relation to England on 1 April 1973 and 1 January 1974 forthe respective purposes of any authority taking any action to ensure effective and convenient local government as from 1 April 1974 and for the preparation or service of any precept or approval of any rate to be made in respect of a period commencing on that date: see SI 1973/373, arts 11, 12.

Appointment: this section came into force in relation to Wales on 1 April 1973 and 1 January 1974 for the respective purposes of any authority taking any action to ensure effective and convenient local government as from 1 April 1974 and for the preparation or service of any precept or approval of any rate to be made in respect of a period commencing on that date: see SI 1973/375, arts 11, 12.

Extent

This section does not extend to Scotland: see s 274(2).

Amendment

Sub-s (1): words "the Solicitors Act 1974" in square brackets substituted by the Solicitors Act 1974, s 89(1), Sch 3, para 9.

Sub-s (2): words in square brackets beginning with the words ", a joint authority" inserted by the Local Government Act 1985, s 84, Sch 14, para 21.

Sub-s (2): words", the Greater London Authority" in square brackets inserted by SI 2001/3719, art 2, Schedule, paras 1, 2.

Date in force: 20 November 2001: see SI 2001/3719, art 1.

Sub-s (2): first word omitted in square brackets inserted by the Environment Act 1995, s 120, Sch 22, para 17(a).

Sub-s (2): first word omitted repealed by the Police Act 1997, s 134(2), Sch 10.

Date in force: 1 April 1998: see SI 1998/354, art 2(2)(bc).

Sub-s (2): words in square brackets beginning with the words ", a police authority established under" inserted by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, s 43, Sch 4, Pt I, para 12.

Sub-s (2): words "section 3 of the Police Act 1996" in square brackets substituted by the Police Act 1996, s 103, Sch 7, para 1(2)(h).

Sub-s (2): words"and the Metropolitan Police Authority" in square brackets substituted by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, s 128(1), Sch 6, Pt 2, paras 22, 29.

Date in force: 1 April 2002: see SI 2002/344, art 3(k).

Sub-s (2): second words omitted repealed by the Education Reform Act 1988, s 237, Sch 13, Pt I.

Sub-s (2): final words omitted repealed by the Environment Act 1995, s 120, Sch 22, para 17(b), Sch 24.

Modification

Modified by the Waste Regulation and Disposal (Authorities) Order 1985, SI 1985/1884, art 10, Sch 3.

This section has effect as if a National Park authority were a principal council for the purposes of this Act and as if the relevant Park were the authority's area, by virtue of the Environment Act 1995, s 65, Sch 8, para 3(1).

See Further

See further, in relation to persons authorised to exercise a function of a local authority: the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, Sch 16, para 3.

See further, for provision whereby the body corporate known as the Residuary Body for Wales is to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of this section: the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, Sch 13, para 19(f).

See further, for provision whereby the body corporate known as the Local Government Residuary Body (England) isto be treated as a local authority for the purposes of this section: the Local Government Residuary Body (England) Order 1995, SI 1995/401, Schedule, para 1(d).

See further, the application of this section in relation to a contractor exercising the function of applying to a magistrates' court for a liability order by virtue of Part 1 of the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of BID Levy Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 2005, SI 2005/215: the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of BID Levy Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 2005, SI 2005/215, art 21.
____________________________________

Do others find this ironic or is it just me.

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

1. ON 06/11/06
AT HAVERFORDWEST, YOU NOT BEING THE HOLDDER OF A CURRENT HACKNEY CARRIAGE DRIVERS LICENCE UNDER SECTION 46 OF THE TOWN POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY DROVE A LICENSED HACKNEY CARRAGE NAMLY A PEUGEOT 406 MOTOR CAR REGISTRATION NO. P52 FNA BEING REGISTERED HACKNEY CARRIAGE NO. 133 TO PLY FOR HIRE CONTRARY TO SECTION 47 OF THE TOWN AND POLICE CLAUSES ACT 1847

2. ON 06/11/06
AT HAVERFORDWEST YOU USED A MOTER VEHICLE NAMELY A PEUGEOT 406 REGISTRATION P52 FNA ON A ROAD NAMLY THE A4076 WHEN THERE WAS NOT IN FORCE IN RELATION TO THAT USE SUCH A POLICY OF INSURANCE OR SUCH SECURITY IN RESPECT OF THIRD PARTY RISKS AS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF PART VI OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988.
CONTRY TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 AND SCHEDULE 2 TO THE ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENDERS ACT 1988

Did it state the time and place?



I see this charge gives the road but no defined intersections or land marks nor the time of the offence? Where did they come up with charge of plying for hire, if you were in the car park?

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.

Hi JD

No. I have written the summons out word for word. I tried to scan in the summons but was unable to. There is no time on the summons.
You drive out of the car park onto a side road that is about 10 yards/meters long, then go on to the A4076.
I don’t know why they’re charging me with plying for hire and reward. Talking to the council they’re saying there not, but one persons comment was you could have picked someone up on the way home.
The only person I saw or talked to, in the car park was the car park attendant. He stopped me to ask what I was doing in the car park as the only cars allowed in the car park have passes. They have a statement off him to say I was driving the taxi and drove it on to the main road.
Regards
Alun

How does the meter work in that car ...... does it come on automatically when you turn the ignition on, or do you have to switch it on separately, was it on at the time displaying the for hire sign ......

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

There is a question I have been meaning to ask you. you say you do not hold a hackney drivers Licence,........ why did you attend a meeting with the licensing officers......

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

HI MR T

I go up to licensing to hand in drivers licence applications, applications for new taxi licences, hand old plates in, have new cars inspected by the officers after MOT, that kind of stuff.
No I let my taxi licence run out in 2004 as I could not do taxi runs anymore. The meter in the car has to be turned on and it was turned off (good point). I was not having a meeting with licensing on that day. I can’t remember if I had to go to a meeting on that day (nothing to do with licensing) or hand in a new taxi application. But I will look and find out.
Regards
Alun

In order to ply for hire there has to be a set of circumstances in place that makes out a prima facie case of plying for hire.

I might add that none of what you have told us so far, remotely makes out a prima facie case of plying for hire. Therefore that part of the first charge should be of little concern. I might add that it is not enough to suggest that while driving on a public highway you were plying for hire. There has to be an invitation to treat and unless you were parked in public view with your light on inviting the public to hire you, then i'm afraid you were not plying for hire. It would appear that apart from your statement under caution the only witness to this event is this car park attendant. I doubt he would be in a position to state you were plying for hire, therefore the council are relying on the fact that you drove the vehicle on a public road so therefore you must have been plying for hire. Unless of course there is something you have forgotten to tell us? lol.

All the relevant case law can be found on TDO in the licensing and legal section if you care to search for it.

I have already told you that the council will prosecute the first charge of driving a licensed hackney carriage vehicle while not having a hackney carriage drivers license. This charge will not go away and it will be prosecuted on the grounds of the two cases that are already established as case law. This is a hurdle you are going to have to overcome and the only way you might overcome that is by employing a good licensing solicitor.

The second charge is one of insurance and the council are suggesting because you were plying for hire without a license you didn't have appropriate insurance. If the first charge is not proved then the second falls by default.

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.

[quote]have new cars inspected by the officers after MOT, that kind of stuff.






Please correct me if I am wrong, but I take it you are saying that it has been normal practice for you to drive a Hackney vehicle for the purpose of being inspected and licensed by your licensing department. whilst not holding a hackney Licence.....

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

Thanks JD

Yes Mr T most of the licensing staff knew that I did the mechanics and that’s what’s so annoying, they’ve hung me out to dry like a kipper. If they would of said to me that they thought I was breaking the law by road testing cars, I would have stopped and got the issue clarified.

Even the contracts manager and one of the MOT mechanics who have both worked in the councils garage for over twenty years, have said to me, get licensing to phone them up and they will Confirm that I have been repairing cars over that period as I have taken all of the taxis for test or retest at least twice a year for the last twenty years. At times I have asked them for advice if I was not sure on how to do a job.

But again no one wants to know.
Regards
Alun