FACT v FICTION: INDUSTRY
We started this annual review format last January, and it went down rather well; instead of just rehashing the year’s news items, to take a look at the most troublesome issues and the way some – if not all – licensing authorities approach those matters. Needless to say, the most controversial issue continues to be out-of-area drivers and vehicles, and the various ways that private hire companies are, shall we say, bend- ing the rules as we await some form of national standards. By the time you read this edition of PHTM, Boris Johnson has duly been elected Prime Minister… and Grant Shapps MP remains in post as Transport Minister, whose remit will be to oversee a mess of a taxi and PHV industry and try to resolve this issue in particular.
F F
ICTION ACT
The triple-licence ‘trinity’ means that a private hire driver can pick up and drop off anywhere in the country.
The concept being put forward now is that a driver has the right to roam; the operator does not. Therefore if that operator does not hold a
private hire operator licence in the area where his drivers and vehicles are working continually, or has not sub-con- tracted a booking to either his own satellite office or another operator, such activity is illegal. This has not stopped hun- dreds – even thousands – of drivers dropping off outside their district and then waiting for more business there, even illegally plying. See the Dereg Act entry below.
F ICTION F 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 Gov- ernment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976) deals with the sub-contracting of one private
hire booking from the operator that takes the 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 original 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 men- tion of hackney carriages in the Deregulation Act whatsoever.
40
F ICTION F ACT
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 windows 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 win-
dows 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 expen- sive exercise no matter how you look at it, and very challengeable.
We’ve heard of two rather dramatic, curious reasons this year as to why a council has stuck to its guns on banning tints in the rear windows: the first was a council whose spokesperson said they banned window tints because, if there was an emergency incident and they had to break the windows to access the rear of the vehicle, they were con- cerned there might be a baby in the back who would be harmed by the flying glass! With respect, the emergency services always cut through the roof to access rear seat pas- sengers following an incident; they’re extremely careful in this manoeuvre and never just crash through the windows.
The second example was a council that stated that one of their licensed drivers was done for drug dealing outside their district; the taxi had clear glass, and they maintain if it had had tinted windows they would not have been able to see this criminal activity taking place. With respect, that premise is pure supposition. In any event it was the driver who com- mitted the crime, not the vehicle; and the criminal activity took place outside the district… that driver should not have been issued a licence in the first place.
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 everybody will be safer – including the driver.
JANUARY 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
