MISCONCEPTIONS LAID BARE F F
ICTION
Very often neither the council nor the police will take action against bilking – fares doing a run- ner – as they maintain it is only a civil matter.
ACT
This issue obviously raises its head more fre- quently during the festive season than at any other time. If a passenger deliberately sets out
to take a taxi or PHV journey with no intention of paying the fare, and indeed runs off at the end of the journey without paying, that is a criminal offence – it’s tantamount to fraud. The “fifty shades of grey” kick in when other cir- cumstances are considered, such as disputes over the fare; the passenger making a part-payment; the passenger pay- ing the fare but not paying the fouling charge, things like that.
Those grey areas most often fall into the category of a civil offence, which would indeed not be acted upon by the police. However, we’d be more than made up if the police would take more notice of our drivers’ complaints against criminal offenders…
F F
ICTION ACT
Licensed drivers should have a medical exami- nation every three years during the whole of the time they hold a taxi/PHV licence.
The DVLA guidance document “Assessing Fit- ness to Drive” sets out the correct intervals for medicals: initial medical upon first application
for the licence; then the next medical at 45 years old; then further medicals at five-year intervals until age 65, then a medical every year. Of course if a medical condition devel- ops, the licence holder must notify the council and would most likely be required to undergo further medicals to con- firm his/her continuing recovery to good health – and safety to drive.
The trouble with this medical issue is that the DVLA “Assessing 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 intervals for driver medicals. Once again, we could really do with statutory guidelines from the government on this mat- ter… hint hint.
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 seat- ing capacity or take one of the middle seats out,
in order for the emergency 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 over the past two decades, and we’ve successfully challenged nine of them both in and out of court.
JANUARY 2020
The National Association was involved in one case in Wales in 2009, for example, when the Magistrates threw the condi- tion out completely. This was largely based on evidence provided by a fire officer, who stated categorically that in any emergency situation in which passengers 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 seat- ing condition 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 suggest- ed by many licensing authorities over the years – one of the rows of seats is turned round to face backwards, thus allow- ing 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 modified 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.
F ICTION F ACT
Some local councils maintain that they can test licensed vehicles as many times as they wish dur- ing the year: three, four, five times in addition to
and above any section 68 roadside enforcement exercises.
Existing legislation limits the number of sched- uled tests that can be carried out on taxis and PHVs. Here we go with the legalese: LGMPA Sec-
tion 50(1) states: “… the proprietor of any hackney carriage or of any private hire vehicle licensed by a district council shall present such… vehicle for inspection and testing by or on behalf of the council within such period and at such place within the area of the council as they may by notice reason- ably require:
Continued on page 42 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
