Taxi Driver Online

Least we forget.

I've put together some basic principles of taxi licensing in England and Wales, which to be quite honest are already available on TDO but if least we do forget there are some important case law bench marks listed below which most can be found on TDO.
________________________

A district council may from time to time license hackney carriages to ply for hire within the prescribed distance "and persons to act as drivers of licensed hackney carriages."

In granting or refusing licences the council must exercise a just and reasonable discretion, and in the case of drivers may require the applicant to attend in person.

Meaning of 'hackney carriage'.

For the purposes of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, 'hackney carriage' does not include a stage coach used for the purpose of standing or plying for passengers to be carried for hire at separate fares. With this exception it includes every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance and every carriage standing upon any street within the prescribed distance, and having on it any numbered plate required to be fixed upon a hackney carriage or any plate resembling or intended to resemble such a plate.

In the Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, unless the subject or the context otherwise requires, 'hackney carriage' has the same meaning as in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

Apart from any statutory definition, 'hackney carriage' means a carriage exposed for hire to the public, whether standing in the public street or a private yard: Bateson v Oddy (1874) 38 JP 598, DC. The name is derived from an old French word denoting an ambling horse or mare: Oxford English Dictionary.

Apart from the qualifying words 'in any street', a carriage may be said to ply for hire if it stands ready to take up passengers on private property: Clarke and Goodge v Stanford (1871) LR 6 QB 357, DC; Allen v Tunbridge (1871) LR 6 CP 481; Bateson v Oddy (1874) 38 JP 598, DC; Foinett v Clark (1877) 41 JP 359, DC; Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co v Thompson [1918] 2 KB 105, DC; White v Cubitt [1930] 1 KB 443, DC. The vehicle must, however, be exhibited to the public as available for hire: Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311, [1959] 2 All ER 313, DC; Vant v Cripps (1963) 62 LGR 88, DC.

A licensed hackney carriage is nonetheless 'used in standing or plying for hire' even though at the time it is employed otherwise: Hawkins v Edwards [1901] 2 KB 169, DC; Yates v Gates [1970] 2 QB 27, [1970] 1 All ER 754, DC. A carriage plies for hire even though the driver only asks for voluntary contributions from passengers: Cocks v Mayner (1893) 58 JP 104, DC.

In the absence of touting, a specially engaged carriage which is not exhibited outside the proprietor's premises does not ply for hire: Cavill v Amos (1900) 64 JP 309, DC; Cogley v Sherwood [1959] 2 QB 311, [1959] 2 All ER 313, DC. As to unattended vehicles see Vant v Cripps (1963) 62 LGR 88, DC.

An unlicensed private hire vehicle ought to have been found to be plying for hire when waiting beside a hackney carriage stand: Pettigrew v Barry (1984) Times, 12 July. When the driver of a marked licensed private hire vehicle agreed to carry two persons who had enquired as to his availability to do so, the vehicle was held to be plying for hire: Nottingham City Council v Woodings [1994] RTR 72, DC.

'private hire vehicle' means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to seat fewer than nine passengers, other than a hackney carriage or public service vehicle or a London cab, which is provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers:

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, may 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.

A person may operate a vehicle as a private hire vehicle even though there is no payment for the hiring, if the operator can fairly be said to derive commercial benefit from a transaction: St Albans District Council v Taylor [1991] RTR DC.

The meaning of 'knowingly' has been judicially considered in various contexts. 'Knowingly' imports some actual knowledge on the part of the person committing the offence:

R v Bannen (1844) 1 Car & Kir 295, CCR; R v Chainey [1914] 1 KB 137, CCA; Gaumont British Distributors Ltd v Henry [1939] 2 KB 711, [1939] 2 All ER 808, DC; R v Hallam [1957] 1 QB 569, [1957] 1 All ER 665, CCA.

Deliberate avoidance of making inquiries for fear of the results may amount to actual knowledge in law:

Knox v Boyd 1941 JC 82; Taylor's Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd v Roper (1951) 115 JP 445, DC; Mallon v Allen [1964] 1 QB 385, [1963] 3 All ER 843, DC.

Mere neglect to inquire would not constitute knowledge: see Taylor's Central Garages (Exeter) Ltd v Roper supra; Mallon v Allen supra; and cf London Computator Ltd v Seymour [1944] 2 All ER 11, DC.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as it considers reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration.
____________________

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