FACT v FICTION: INDUSTRY M


We thought it might be a sound idea to kick-start the New Year by taking a look at some of the myths and misconcep- tions surrounding the licensing and general governance of this industry. And there are plenty of them! The line of think- ing is that if we can clear some of the existing fug connected with some of our, er, wonderful legislation, that might be an assist… just in case we could possibly be in line for consider- ation for new primary legislation. Stand Back in Amazement! Let’s just see, shall we…


We’ll start with the one that’s causing the most upheaval around the entire country:


F  F 


ICTION ACT


The Deregulation Act 2015 is responsible for the huge numbers of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles that are working cross-border entirely outside their licensed district.


Clause 11 of the Deregulation Act 2015 (which became Section 55A and B of the Local Government (Miscella- neous Provisions) Act 1976) deals with the sub-contracting of one private hire booking from the


operator that takes t he booking to any one of four other operators: either within his district, in another licensing area, in London, or in Scotland. The current growing trend of a single licensing authority issuing licences “like sweets” to people who never set foot in their district has come about through abuses of the LGMPA and case law that has evolved since its inception. The challenge will be how to stop this process and allow the provision of transport to revert to its orig- inal roots of localism – if that will ever happen. As for hackney carriages working on private hire circuits miles away from their licensing area, this practice of course was given the green light (deemed to be lawful) by the judgement in Stockton v Fidler and others. There is no mention of hackney carriages in the Dereg- ulation Act whatsoever. Let’s not speculate at this point as to how the massive abuse of cross-border activity will be resolved. That’s taken up hours of time during the Task and Finish group meetings, believe me. Government knows the full scope of seriousness, and it is being discussed in the Commons and in Westminster Hall (see last month’s PHTM).


F  F 


ICTION ACT


All licensed drivers must wear a seat belt at all times when they are driving, whether they have a passenger on board (they’re ‘on duty’) or not.


The seat belt rule is different for hackney carriage drivers to that of PHV drivers. The latest information from GOV.UK – which hasn’t changed since 1993 – states that you do not have to wear a seat belt “if [you


are] a licensed taxi driver who is ‘plying for hire’ or carrying passen- gers” – in simple terms, on duty. However, a private hire driver is exempted from wearing a seat belt only when he’s got a passenger on board. It would be helpful, and it would save a lot of wasted time in arguments and incorrectly doled out penalties over this issue, if more police officers were familiar with these rules.


F  F 


ICTION ACT 26


Tinted windows on all licensed vehicles must allow light penetration of 75 per cent through the front windscreen, and 70 per cent through all other win- dows in the vehicle.


The 70 per cent light requirement only applies to the side (ie. driver and passenger) windows to the front of the door pillars. All other windows including the rear windscreen are totally exempt from any light restriction


requirement. This was set out in section 32 subsection (10) of the Construction and Use Regulations in 1986 and has never changed. Most of today’s vehicles are manufactured with a degree of tint,


which again should be allowed according to the C and U regs. If only all licensing authorities would abide by these parameters, instead of making vehicle proprietors take tinted glass out and replace it with clear glass – an expensive exercise no matter how you look at it. If your council’s licensing department is that concerned about what might happen in the back of the taxis/PHVs in the district, then let them provide all licensed vehicles with a CCTV system! Then every- body will be safer – including the driver.


F  F 


ICTION ACT


Licensed drivers should have a medical examination every three years during the whole of the time they hold a taxi/PHV licence.


The DVLA guidance document “Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive” sets out the correct intervals for med- icals:


initial medical upon first application for the licence; then the next medical at 45 years old; then fur-


ther medicals at five-year intervals until age 65, then a medical every year. Of course if a medical condition develops, the licence holder must notify the council and would most likely be required to undergo further medicals to confirm his/her continuing recovery to good health – and safety to drive. The trouble with this medical issue is that the DVLA “Fitness to Drive” document is guidance – not statute. So large numbers of councils have continued to “do their own thing” on the basis that they can set their own periodicy for driver medicals. Once again, we could really do with statutory guidelines from the government on this matter.


F  ICTION F  ACT


For carrying passengers in licensed multi-seat MPVs in which the middle row of seats has to tip forward, it is necessary to either limit the seating capacity or take one of the middle seats out, in order for the emergen-


cy services to access passengers in the back row following a road incident.


If we had a fiver for each licensing authority that has set this kind of restriction, we’d be quids in! All told, there have been something like ten cases of challenge against this licensing condition (that we know of; you


know where to get in touch if there are more) over the past two decades, and we’ve successfully challenged nine of them both in and out of court. The remaining one was imposed before the DfT Best Practice guidance came out, so there was little (at that time) to fall back on in the way of legal stance. The National Association was involved in one case in Wales in 2009, for example, when the Magistrates threw the condition out complete- ly. This was largely based on evidence provided by a fire officer, who stated categorically that in any emergency situation in which passen- gers may be trapped inside the vehicle, at no time do the emergency services (fire, police, ambulance) attempt to remove passengers through the doors by way of manoeuvring seats. They cut through the roof and remove the passengers that way. Thus the seating con- dition was deemed to be “not reasonably necessary”. Besides, all three Magistrates on the Bench actually boarded the vehicle and said, “What’s the problem with these seats?” A distinct problem may arise with these seats either if one of them is removed from the vehicle, or – as has been suggested by many licensing authorities over the years – one of the rows of seats is turned round to face backwards, thus allowing more leg room and manoeuvrability. These are the insurance implications: by removing a seat, this (a) changes the original specification of the vehicle, and (b) can change the weight distribution within the vehicle, both of which can negate the insurance. Further, we know of at least one major insurer that would not insure any child under 14 (ie. for school contracts) who was seated in the row of seats that had been modi- fied to face backwards. All in all a tricky business, this bums-on-seats scenario. Would that proposed national standards could tackle this – and many other local – issue(s)… please.


JANUARY 2019


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