CROSS-BORDER HIRING:
The Aylesbury Vale Council v Call a Cab case is interest- ing, in as much as Call a Cab was convicted, under section 46 (1) (d), for five separate offences of operating in an area for which they were not licensed. And yet Call a Cab appealed against the conviction, only to be convicted anyway by the evidence heard at the High Court, with the Lord Justices remitting the matter back to the District Judge with a basis on which to convict. (In layman’s terms, the big Judges told the little judge to convict)
They were convicted and received fines totalling £22,500.
The case is interesting because the defending barrister was also well known in the trade, up until recently, as the barrister for Uber a Mr Philip Kolvin QC, and yet this case was in 2013, a year after Uber started operating in England. The defence utilised was, did Aylesbury Vale Council adopt the 76 Act properly.
We’ve always wondered why that defence was used, when we have seen this particular barrister in action in other cases and he has said that Uber drivers “have the right to roam” indicating that they had the right to work anywhere.
Surely if this is the case why didn’t he use this stance back in 2013?
All documents mentioned can be found here.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kTE54xgod vHErKKPYnHKrr4JK9w6W5pS
We like to quote LCJ Hickingbottom, as we have always liked the way in which he is absolutely precise in his judgements, and his clarity has never left us in any doubt as to his meaning.
This was said in 2012, three years before the Deregula- tion Act 2015 reached Royal Ascent, and allowed operators to subcontract jobs to each other in different licensed authorities.
Please note: the Deregulation Act 2015, as explained earlier, only allowed operators to subcontract jobs within the same district. Once that job was received by the second operator, they had to follow the same regime that they have always had to follow since being licensed under the 76 Act, the collars and cuffs had to match, and the communication of the operation had to happen inside the licensing area.
LCJ Hickingbottom Blueline v Newcastle 2012
Judgement Approved by the court for handing down Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd v Newcastle City Council
8. The operation is geographically fixed in the operator’s licensing area: that area must be where the operator’s premises are located, bookings made and from which vehicles are dispatched (Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough council v Khan [1994] RTR 87, and Shanks). It is an offence for operators to operate outside that licensing area; nor can they subcontract work to operators outside that area (Dittah). It is therefore clear that Parliament has determined that the licensing regime for private hire vehicles is inherently local in nature - presumably on the basis that “devolved decision making in relation to the application of the legislation is beneficial in that local authorities are in the best position to determine what is needed most in their area and what the main problems and issues are” (Law Commission Consultation Paper, paragraph 2.8) - and it is a “central principle of this legislation” that “the authorities responsible for granting licences should have the ability to exercise full control over the operation of private hire vehicles within their area” (Shanks at [12], per Latham LJ).
9. However, although the operator must be based and “operate” exclusively in the relevant licensing authority’s area, that does not prevent a pre-booked journey, in whole or in part, being made outside that authority’s area. So long as the relevant operator’s licence, vehicle licence and driver’s licence are all issued by the same local authority, then it is irrelevant that any particular journey undertaken by a private hire vehicle neither
COME AND HAVE YOUR SAY ON THIS HOT TOPIC WITH INDUSTRY BODIES - DfT, NALEO & IoL
10 APRIL 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
