LATEST NEWS FR
A FRESH LOOK AT OUR LEGISLATION: HOW THE LEGALESE STACKS UP
We welcome a contribution this month from NPHTA Board member Steven Toy of Cannock Chase. Steve has always specialised in sizing up – and successfully working with - our rather anti- quated but still functional legislation in light of modern trends. Here he looks at the ever-growing pandemic (yes, the other one) of remote out-of-area working and the way this practice has stretched the rules.
One council in England and Wales, outside London, namely Plymouth City Council, did not adopt the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. This was because they didn’t have to: they beat all the other councils to it with their very own Plymouth Act of 1975.
It is largely similar to the 1976 Act and is its clear forerunner. Comparing and contrasting Section 35 of the Plymouth Act with Section 75(1)(a) of the LGMPA 1976 Act is particularly enlightening, so let’s play a little game of spot the difference, shall we?
PLYMOUTH ACT 1975: S 35. Nothing in this Act shall - (1) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within the city in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the city if the vehicle is not made avail- able for hire within the city;
SECTION 75 OF THE LGMPA 1976: Saving for certain vehicles etc. (1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall - (a) apply to a vehicle used for bringing passen- gers or goods within a controlled district in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the district if the vehicle is not made available for hire within the district;
The first difference is in the first line: “Nothing in this part of this Act” in the 1976 Act. This is because the 1976 Act is divided into three parts. Part 2 is dedicated to hackney car- riages and private hire vehicles. The other parts deal with other local authority matters such as dangerous trees.
I mention this to illustrate that every single word counts in legal text, leaving no real room for cognitive bias in inter- preting them, at least not in theory...
The next difference is “the city” in the Plymouth Act version is replaced with “a controlled district” in the 1976 Act.
The wording in the Plymouth version is much clearer and less ambiguous than in the 1976 Act, but the spirit and meaning of both are identical.
Just take the name of your local authority and insert it in 40
place of “the city” or “a controlled district.” I'll pick Stafford Borough because it is a large district near me where a certain peer-to-peer app-based operator does not have an opera- tor’s licence: (1) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall— (a) apply to a vehi- cle used for bringing passengers or goods within Stafford Borough in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside Stafford Borough if the vehicle is not made available for hire within Stafford Borough;
Thus, when a vehicle licensed outside Stafford brings pas- sengers or goods into Stafford, it cannot then be used in Stafford to undertake another journey for hire and reward.
There, plain as day!
It is still on the statute book and was not removed when the Deregulation Act came into effect. There is no loophole as many seem to think. Section 11 of the Deregulation Act allows bookings to be subcontracted to an operator in another area.
That’s all.
It does not allow the operator in the other area to make available vehicles for hire in your area which are licensed in theirs in anticipation of bookings subsequently being accepted in your area.
If a particular app (there are several) shows a Wolverhamp- ton-licensed vehicle (for example) as being present and available for hire to a passenger in Stafford when they open an app, the licensed operator of the app in question may potentially be committing an offence by allowing the vehicle to be visibly available on the screen.
THINK ABOUT IT…
This is controversial, I know, but I fail to see any other possi- ble interpretation. If the vehicle, at the time it was visible on the screen, was inside the boundaries of the City of Wolver- hampton, there would be no breach of Section 75(1) (a).
A private hire vehicle can undertake a journey anywhere but JUNE 2020
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 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
