Interesting reading

Captain Cab wrote:Once upon a time in Manchester

By

The Reiver


The 1991 case of Manchester City Council vs. King had a major impact on the prices we all pay for taxi and private hire licenses.

The case concerned street traders and involved a solicitor’s called Aubrey Issacson & Co, who has incidentally represented the taxi trade on various occasions. It also involved a certain Mr. Button, who’s name does ring a bell was an assistant solicitor for the council at the time.

The full case is available on the NTA website @ www.national-taxi-association.co.uk and www.taxi-forum.net.

Manchester City Council wanted to impose what amounted to a 1000% increase in the license fees to use a market. As in so many cases over the years there appears to have been little consultation between the Council and the traders.

It also appears the councillors were incorrectly advised by their officers in terms of the 1982 act on which they relied, they seemed to falsely believe the act permitted them to ‘use their licensing powers as a income producing asset’.

The effect of this judgement went far beyond that of Manchester market stalls. In terms of taxi and private hire licensing, your license fees must reflect the cost of the licensing regime. Sufficed to say, the council involved and their legal team, got their asses well and truly kicked.

It gave Isaacson’s solicitor’s yet another victory for the licensed trade (okay this time it was market traders but we’re all in this together). And it finally proves that the opinions of some, are merely that, opinions, not law.

Once upon a time in Brentwood

The magazine has written before about the Brentwood vs. Gladen case.

The history behind it goes back to the Franklin & Carter vs. Bromsgrove case in June 1991, where a Crown Court made a decision that a Hackney Carriage needed a Private Hire Operators license to carry out private bookings. Incidentally, the old NFTA took a barristers opinion on this decision and were told there were grounds for appeal, unfortunately the appeal was out of time and it never got tested until perhaps the Doncaster vs. Heath (Oct 2000) case, but more importantly the Gladen case in 2004.

There are some who say the repercussions of the Gladen ruling are that hackney carriages can be used for private hire anywhere, in the case of some local authority licenses, this has been construed, in my view incorrectly, as effectively giving the hackney carriage carte blanche to be used exclusively in another area.

I don’t follow that line of thought, its one thing saying a hackney carriage doesn’t need a private hire operators license, quite another saying since it doesn’t it can be used exclusively for private hire in other areas.

Brentwood council relied upon a book entitled ‘Taxis -- Licensing Law and Practice’ by Mr James Button (now that name rings a bell), the book in layman’s terms states the opinion that section 46(1)(d) is to require an operator's licence for a person who operates 'any vehicle as a private hire vehicle', the inference was that this would include Hackney Carriages.

The Judge did not agree, and he stated;

‘With the greatest respect to Mr Button, I am afraid I cannot agree with what he there says. It seems to me apparent that section 80 excludes hackney carriages from section 46(1)(d). I say that because, without going in detail over ground that I have already covered, "operate" relates to business in relation to bookings for a private hire vehicle.

An "operator's licence" means a licence under section 55, and a "private hire vehicle" is defined as meaning a vehicle other than a hackney carriage. Thus, that, coupled with the provisions of section 55 and 56 which I have already read, seem to me to make it apparent that Parliament has recognised that different regimes apply to hackney carriages and to private hire vehicles, and that it is not necessary for a licensed hackney carriage, driven by a licensed hackney carriage driver, to be subject also to the requirements of an operator's licence; otherwise the limitations on the wording which Parliament has clearly set out would not be given their true meaning.’

The Gladen judgement again tells us that the opinions of some are merely that, opinions, not law.

Once upon a time in Cardiff

As many of you will be aware, Carlisle United went to the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff last year and subsequently got beat to Swansea in the Cup Final.

In taxi terms, Cardiff appears to be an unmitigated disaster area. Personal experience tells me of a relative being charged £20 for a 6-mile trip from a hotel into Cardiff City Centre, with the return leg costing £40. The Internet is full of similar stories of people being ripped off by taxi drivers who are either getting lost, or are so proud of their City they insist on everyone getting a guided tour.

Deregulation came to Cardiff during 2003. The council had periodically issued licenses by way of a waiting list, they decided in January 2003 to issue 6 licenses by way of a lottery. One member of the Cardiff Taxi Trade believed he was entitled to one of the six licenses that were to be granted, in his view the lottery was unfair, as he had been on the waiting list. I suppose given the same situation, many of you would have been rather p*ssed off too!

The chap who was on the list, as previously stated, was not too pleased with the lottery idea, he therefore chose to challenge the council decision. Between January and October 2003, the council decided to completely delimit hackney carriage numbers.

In effect, you seem to have a situation where in January the council were committed to gradual growth, to October being free marketers.

Amongst the many things that made Cardiff Council decide to delimit was the ‘expert advice’ given by a Mr James Button (now that name rings a bell), whose considered opinion it was to recommend delimitation.

copyright taxitalk magazine