Taxi Driver Online

Out in Liverpool down by the docks,
My religion was catholic occupation hard knocks,
Stealing from Lorries I was adept,
Under old overcoats that's were I slept.

In my Liverpool home,
In my Liverpool home,
We speak with an accent exceedingly rare
Meet under a statue exceedingly bare
And if you want a cathedral we have one to spare...
In my Liverpool home.

Well the words go something like that but maybe one day someone will write a song about the way Liverpool got private hire vehicles to return to their own licensing area because the saga still goes on as this recent article in the Liverpool Echo explains.
_________________________

Liverpool Daily Echo

July 30, 2007, Monday

CABBIES FLAG UP A PRIVATE HIRE FIGHT;

Hackney call to have same rules for all

LIVERPOOL cabbies want a change in the law to stop private hire cars taking their customers.

They would like vehicles from other parts of Merseyside to be forced to return to their own districts after dropping off customers in the city.

Cabbies believe this will stop passengers acting illegally by taking private hire cars from the street, rather than phoning for one.

Drivers from firms outside Liverpool are allowed to park inside the city boundaries after a journey to wait for another pre-booked job.

But taxi driver representatives say this gives them an unfair advantage over Hackney cabs, which must return to their home district by law after dropping off.

They have already held talks with government officials about the law change, which they say would place all drivers on a "level playing field".

Liverpool council is supporting their case, saying that queues of private hire cars encourage people to break the law by flagging them down, rather than booking.

It believes a law change would almost eradicate this problem, which can lead to drivers receiving hefty fines if caught accepting passengers from the street. The government has now asked the council for more details about cross-border hiring and the issues it raises.

Tommy McIntyre, taxi convener for the T&G union, said: "We have no problem with a driver from Knowsley or Sefton getting a pre-booked job after dropping off in Liverpool.

"The problem is that these guys sit in the city rather than go back to their own district.

"We just want the same rule to apply to everyone."

Damien Edwards, the council's principal licensing officer, said: "Increasingly over the years, vehicles from other boroughs have congregated in different parts of the city.

"They are not doing anything wrong, they are waiting for the next pre-booked call. But just by being there, members of the public who just want to get home will try to hire them, and that is illegal.

"If the law is changed so they have to go back to their borough after dropping off, it removes the risk of people being tempted to break the law. It is a simple piece of legislation, not a sea change."

In May, council and T&G officials and Merseyside police met transport under-secretary Gillian Merron MP and Riverside MP Louise Ellman in London to discuss a law change.

They are now a waiting a response.
____________________

I wonder if they really mean that?

_________________
IDFIMH

If there are queues of PH encouraging folks to get into un-booked vehicles, then why isn't the council prosecuting for illegal plying for hire?

Because they would easily gain convictions.

_________________
IDFIMH

I thought it was drivers who were breaking the law. Are the passengers breaking the law as well?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Gusmac rightly pointed out the inaccuracy in this statement but there are other blatant inaccuracies that need highlighting.



Obviously any hackney carriage driver who wants to ply for public hire must return to the area where they are licensed but if the hackney carriage was working under a contract of private hire then that places him in the same position as the "private hire driver" therefore he or she is not legally required to return to their licensed area. The statement is factually incorrect and a reporter who knows nothing about the Taxi trade wouldn't necessarily know that but the person who made the statement in the first place probably would.

Besides being unworkable, this proposal hasn't got a cat in hells chance of succeeding but if it ever did, it would mean every hackney carriage driver working under a contract of private hire would also be required to return to their licensing area and I don't think the taxi trade would be too happy about that.



I don't believe this guy, if we are really honest with ourselves the only level playing field is a "one tier" system and they certainly don't have a one tier system in Liverpool.

In respect of private hire contracts a level playing field already exists, hacks working under a contract of private hire can park up anywhere in the country, just the same as private hire vehicles working under the 1976 act.



I would like to know which particular law this council has in mind when it refers to private hire vehicles encouraging people to break it.



The change of law will never happen because I strongly suspect the proposed changes fall foul of a whole raft of existing legislation.



Envisage this, the driver of any hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licensed outside of Liverpool, parked up in any Liverpool street being approached by Damien Edwards who asks them, "are you working", and the driver tells him to "p off", what will he do then? It would be up to Damien Edwards to go to court and prove the driver at that particular time was working and in particular waiting for a job. That would appear to me to be the near exact situation that applies now except for the fact Damien Edwards says they are doing nothing wrong.



Well Damien Edwards hit the nail firmly on the head when he said "they are not doing anything wrong". I suppose we have to ask the question why does he wish to make potential criminals of thousands of hackney carriage and private hire drivers if they are currently doing nothing wrong?



You can't blame private hire drivers for the actions of the public but it is Mr Edwards Department that is entrusted with policing any illegal activity by private hire drivers so the buck stops at him.



There we go again Mr Edwards believes there is a law that says members of the public cannot get into a private hire vehicle on the street. I know of a law that says private hire vehicles cannot ply for hire but Mr Edwards seems to have found a law that none of us ever dreamed existed?

This proposal is ill thought out and I’m extremely surprised that Damien Edwards put his name to it.

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 know by now not to believe everything you read in a paper , but what is interesting is what it does not say , there is no response from the Liverpool private hire who will also attend the trade Meetings , who are also Seriously being affected by Sefton private hire , it might be reasonable to assume that they're supporting the T&G in their endeavours ...

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

As we've discussed before Mr JD the proposal is basically as it is up here, and it seems to work well enough IMHO.

But of course changing it now in England would obviously cause a huge upheaval in Sefton/Liverpool if what's said in the story is correct.

The Berwick situation wouldn't happen here either.

I can recall us having a discussion about taxi meters but I wasn't aware we had ever discussed the prospect of private hire and hackney carriage drivers working under a private hire contract and having to return immediately to their licensing area? However considering your memory is probably much better than my own I suspect you may be right. lol

If you want to debate the Liverpool proposals then by all means do so I'm sure there are lots of differing opinions on why the law should or should not be changed?

Without me consulting the 1982 act can you remind me if Scottish hacks working a radio have to return to their area once they have dropped off a job outwith their area?

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.

Must return to base (licenced area) unless they already have another job to go to. not allowed to hang around waiting for a radio/phone job. Can accept such work if enroute to base or engaged on a hire

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Except that Berwick taxis are exempt from the 1982 Scots Act.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes; as gusmac says.

And that applies to both taxis and PH.

JD, you posted the relevant section yourself in this thread:

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=67711

s 21 Offences.

(1) If any person--

(a) operates, or permits the operation of, a taxi within an area in respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed or the driver requires to be but is not licensed, or

(b) picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up by, a private hire car within an area in respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed or the driver requires to be but is not licensed, that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN1].

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the operation of a taxi or private hire car within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not licensed if the request for its hiring was received by its driver [(otherwise than in a public place from the person to be conveyed in it, or a person acting on his behalf, for a journey beginning there and then) ] [FN2] whilst--

(a) in the area or in that part thereof in respect of which its operation and its driver are licensed;

(b) engaged on hire on a journey which began in that area or part or will end there; or

(c) returning to that area or part immediately following completion of a journey on hire.

(3) Subsection (1)(b) above does not apply to the operation of a vehicle within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not licensed if there are in force--

(i) in respect of the vehicle, a licence under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (licensing of hackney carriages) or section 48 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (licensing of private hire vehicles); and

(ii) in respect of its driver, a licence under section 46 of the said Act of 1847 (licensing of hackney carriage drivers) or, as the case may be, section 51 of the said Act of 1976 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles).

(4) If any person, being the holder of a taxi licence or private hire car licence in respect of a vehicle, permits another person who does not have a current taxi driver's licence or private hire car driver's licence, as the case may be, to operate the vehicle as a taxi or, as the case may be, a private hire car he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [level 4 on the standard scale] [FN3].

And I suppose I accepted the law in Scotland as it stands, or did I dispute it? lol

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.

Notes in a lawbook say:

There is no offence if the request is received by the driver in the area in which he is licensed, or while engagaged on a legitimate hire outside his area, or or while returning to his area.


"It therefore follows that it would be an offence to commence a hire in response to hailing the vehicle in the street outside the licensing area, to station vehicles deliberately or allow them to cruise outwith the licensed area so that they could respond to calls from an office within the area".