ALL THINGS LICENSING
Article by Mike Smith, Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety at Guildford Borough Council and Vice-Chair of the Institute of Licensing South East Region.
Please note that this article represents my own views which are not presented as the views of the IoL or Guildford Borough Council.
Refusal of hackney carriage fares
Following February’s PHTM article looking at hackney carriage stands, in this month’s article I wanted to explore one of the common complaints which arise at ranks; refusing fares.
Complaints come to the licensing authority from both the public who have been refused a journey by a driver, and from other drivers who accuse others of ‘cherry picking’ jobs.
The Legislation Section 53 of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 says: “Penalty on driver for refusing to drive.
A driver of a hackney carriage standing at any of the stands for hackney carriages appointed by the commissioners, or in any street, who refuses or neglects, without reasonable excuse, to drive such carriage to any place within the prescribed distance, or the distance to be appointed by any byelaw of the commissioners, not exceeding the prescribed distance to which he is directed to drive by the person hiring or wishing to hire such carriage, shall for every such offence be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.”
Whilst the law may date back to Victorian times, its application to the modern day is still relevant and essentially says that any driver who refuses to drive a passenger within the licensed area without a reasonable excuse commits an offence.
If an offence is committed, then this could potentially lead to a level 2 fine, which is up to the amount of £500 upon conviction. In addition, refusal of a fare can lead to other action against the driver in respect of their licence remembering that Section 61 of the 1976 Act allows suspension or revocation of a driver licence on the grounds of non-compliance with parts of the 1847 Act or for any other reasonable cause, of which refusing a fare, even without being convicted, could be considered.
74
Further to this, the Equality Act 2010 and the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 requires all drivers to provide services to all passengers regardless of their race, gender, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic. This means that a driver cannot refuse a passenger on the grounds of their protected characteristics and must accept the carriage of any disabled person, provide them with reasonable mobility assistance, and carry their mobility aids, all without charging any more than they would for a non- disabled passenger.
Not all disabilities are visible, many disabled passengers show no outward sign of their condition, so drivers will need to know how to speak to the passenger about their condition and ascertain their specific needs, without causing offence or giving the customer potential grounds to consider that they have been refused on this basis.
It is clear that the crux of any refusal will boil down to what is considered to be a ‘reasonable excuse’ and unsurprisingly the view on this will differ between drivers and customers.
So what is a ‘reasonable excuse’?
The default position as per the law is that licensed drivers have a legal duty to provide a service to passengers unless they have a valid reason not to do so. What is considered to be a valid reason or a ‘reasonable excuse’ as it is termed in law will ultimately be a matter for a court to determine and will very much depend on the circumstances of the case.
As is regularly set out in the pages of PHTM, taxi driving is a difficult and often dangerous job and there will be circumstances where a taxi driver is made to feel threatened or unsafe, for example if the passenger is drunk or abusive. In the event of a complaint to the authority, it is very likely that the officer will be understanding of the driver’s position if the customer has behaved in an appalling manner towards them.
If a decision is taken to refuse a journey due to the actions of the customer, it is advisable to establish a ‘due diligence’ defence should a complaint follow. Naturally the best evidence is going to be from any CCTV camera installed in the vehicle, which only again adds weight to calls for this in all vehicles. However if your vehicle does not have CCTV then there are a number of options available which can help you to demonstrate you were acting with a good reason to
APRIL 2023 PHTM
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
