TAXI LAW EXPLAINED


In her judgement she said: “The fact that Mr Ali’s vehicle had no distinctive markings, was not at a stand and was not available to pick up passengers on the street combined with the fact that the whole transaction was conducted via an App where the booking process starts, is recorded and the fare estimated, leads me to find that Mr Ali was not plying for hire.


“I find the App follows from the job-master, then the telephone booking system and is the most up-to-date way of booking a mini- cab. I have no doubt that the technology will move forward and be susceptible to chal- lenge in the future. So far as the App based booking system in this case I do not find that I can be sure that Mr Ali was plying for hire in those circumstances.”


Uber Britannia Limited (UBL) V Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC)


This is the appeal against BHCC refusing Uber’s operating licence there. Whilst the case was determined on its individual merits, the judgement makes some helpful com- ments and a agrees with many of the conclusions of Reading v Ali.


In the BHCC case, both parties accepted that there is nothing unlawful in “cross-border hir- ing”. Uber went further by arguing that cross-border hiring is a “a statutory right” therefore and they cannot be restricted from exercising that right.


The District Judge in the case concluded in her judgement: “The licensing ‘triple lock’ and ‘right to roam’ are clearly embodied within this statutory regime and endorsed by the case law as set out above. The spirit of this legislative framework as further deregu- lated in 2015 supports an open market.”


I again stress that this was a Magistrates’ Court decision and therefore not binding but nonetheless useful for the purpose of this article.


LEGISLATION


Section 46 LGMPA 1976 outlines clearly what licences are required to operate a pri- vate hire vehicle:


• S.46(1)(a) - no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney car- riage, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehi- cle a current licence


• S.46(1)(b) - no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence


JANUARY 2019


PHV journeys should start and/or end within the area for which the driver, vehicle and operator are licensed. Appropriate measures should be in place to allow specialist services such as chauffeur and disability transport services to continue to operate cross-bor- der.”


A very similar recommendation was put for- ward by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taxis.


• S.46(1)(c) - no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence


• S.46(1)(d) - no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence


S.75(2) of the LGMPA 1976 makes provision for PHV “roaming” where their licences have been issued by a “…council whose area con- sists of or includes another controlled district…”. This right however is limited to PHVs and drivers not operators and the Dittah principle applies, i.e. operators, drivers and vehicle must be issued by the same authority.


TASK AND FINISH GROUP REPORT


A brief mention of the recent Task and Finish Group report is appropriate. The report specifically sought to address the issue of cross-border hiring in order to find a statuto- ry solution.


The report said: “A number of submissions to the Group supported a proposed restriction that taxi and PHV journeys should only be permitted where the start and/or end point are within the licensing area of the driver, vehicle and (for PHVs) operator. This was pri- marily proposed to address concerns over the drivers operating predominantly or exclu- sively outside of the area in which they are licensed.


“That proposal is the most effective on the table. There would be a need to carefully consider any flexibilities that may be needed to allow for specific destinations to continue to be served without disruption (e.g. air- ports), business models to continue (e.g.in the chauffeur / executive hire sector), or spe- cific services for the disabled to not be disrupted.”


The group consequently made the following recommendation to the Government: “Government should legislate that all taxi and


However, the outcome in Reading v Ali – allowing that it was only a Magistrates’ case – concluded that the argument above is wrong because, again briefly stated, the transaction is wholly between the passenger and the licensed operator (i.e. via an app, phone etc.) and where the PHV is located at the time is not relevant.


CONCLUDING REMARKS Return to base or right or roam?


The current position seems to be favouring the right to roam argument. This is evident in the outcomes of the recent court cases on the matter. Furthermore, the fact that the Task and Finish Group suggested a change in law to address the issue of PHVs and taxis returning to base suggests there is a general view that there is no current leg- islative requirement.


There is however an emerging argument that the right to roam is arguably making provision for the invitation of bookings thereby offending s.46(1)(d)). This argu- ment however is judicially untested at present but it is only a matter of time before this is brought before the courts for a judgement.


51


ARGUMENTS BOTH WAYS – A BRIEF OVERVIEW


It is generally accepted that as far as PHVs and drivers are concerned, there exists a right to roam (Knowsley and others).


The crux of the ongoing legal argument has centred on the role of licensed operators, who have no such right attached to them. To operate means to “make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle.” (s.80 LGMPA 1976) Operating PHVs is limited to the relevant controlled district (s.46(1)(d)). There is therefore an argument that, briefly stated, PHVs and drivers presenting themselves (i.e. parking up, roaming) wholly or predomi- nantly in areas where they are not licensed is making provision for the invitation of bookings thereby offending s.46(1)(d)).


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