mancityfan wrote:
Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998
Because of section 5,of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, only those persons who have an operating centre in the London area licensed by the Public Carriage Office are the only people who can legally sub-contract to operators outside the London area. We can hardly think that Parliament would have responded with this permissive piece of legislation if it was not clear to them that this had caused problems elsewhere. It also highlights the fact that the 1976 Act does not contain the same freedom of action, as indeed highlighted by the Courts.those cases include Dittah -v- Choudhry, Top Cars -v- Windsor, Powers -v- Bromsgrove, East Staffordshire -v- Rendell, Murtagh -v- Bromsgrove, and Shanks (Blue Line) -v- North Tyneside,ect.
The charge was operating unlicensed vehicles under section 48. But actually section 48 doesn't mention operating unlicensed vehicles. The correct section on which the prosecution should have been prosecuted is section 46 [e]
46 Vehicle, drivers' and operators' licences (1) Except as authorised by this Part 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.
Don't get sidelined with sub contracting because it is not an issue.
Regards
JD