OM: THE NPHTA
this does not mean it can be made available for hire when it is outside its area without already having a booking to attend.
SECTION 46 (1) (D) OF THE 1976 ACT: no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act;
or
no person shall in the Borough of Stafford operate any vehi- cle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act. Again, plain as day. You have to have an operator’s licence in the borough of Stafford - not in the City of Wolverhampton - if you want to operate in Stafford.
I’m a great believer in the rule of law because without it, democracy is meaningless. If elected Members of Parliament cannot pass laws which are subsequently enforced they are wasting their time being there. Moreover, why should the cit- izens of Wolverhampton exclusively have a say, via their elected members, on licensing policy applicable to drivers working all over the country when citizens of other places have no such say? We live in strange times where laws don’t apply to everyone and where all animals may be equal but some are more equal than others...
CORONAVIRUS CONSIDERATIONS
This brings me to Covid-19 and whether certain journeys are lawful.
Actually, I’m more interested in which journeys we may refuse in these troubled times. You’ve spent anywhere between £70 and over £300 of your very hard-earned money on having a screen fitted to your saloon hackney or private hire vehicle.
The screen protects you, your passengers and anyone else who may come in contact with you or them from catching the virus, at least to some degree.
You attend a booking or you are on a taxi rank lawfully plying for hire and in either instance, four passengers approach your vehicle and this means that one of them will sit in the front next to you, breathe and potentially cough or sneeze on you.
Can you refuse to take the passenger who would have to sit in the front if you are licensed to carry four passengers, or are you obliged to take all four? As a hackney carriage driver the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 covers this. Basically, according to Sections 51 and 52 of the 1847 Act, the maxi- mum number of passengers licensed to be carried has to be specified on the plate and the driver may not refuse to take less than the specified number.
JUNE 2020
HOWEVER: Section 53 - penalty on the 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 dis- tance, 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].
I would suggest that someone potentially having a conta- gious disease would count as a reasonable excuse. Given that Covid-19 can be infectious for a number of days in peo- ple not showing symptoms, it would be a reasonable precaution to take to assume that every potential passenger may have the disease whether symptomatic or not, and this would constitute a reasonable excuse in accordance with Section 53 above.
The 1976 Act makes no mention at all regarding the maxi- mum permitted number of passengers to be licensed. This is left to the discretion of local authorities in accordance with the provisions in Section 48 where signage and plates are concerned.
I would advise private hire drivers to check the wording of their local conditions in this regard. If the maximum number of passengers is reduced by one in order to vacate the front seat as part of a contract agreed at the time of booking, I cannot see, in my humble opinion, that there has been any breach in law.
Also, the discretion of officers cannot be bound or fettered by policy and any officer putting lives at risk by not exercis- ing such discretion would merit a description not printable on this page.
Thanks and acknowledgement to Mark Jennings of Southend for bringing Section 35 of the Plymouth Act to my attention, and to George Orwell for writing Animal Farm.
Trust Steve to attack head-on the issues faced under both pandemics. Obviously the remote out-of-area working syn- drome isn’t going to go away any time soon… it’ll rear its unsightly head again when we start to approach the “new normal”, no doubt, as it has already in some places. As for the way to deal with restricting passengers, that will prove to be most problematic – as highlighted by Zak Kowalski from Birmingham last time. We’d really appreciate hearing from any PHTM readers if you’ve experienced difficulties in refusing passengers on the basis of social distancing, or indeed suspecting a potential passenger has the virus. So much is down to trust… and instinct. Stay safe!
41
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
