GMB PERSPECTIVE INTENDED USE POLICY – PHV INSURANCE CANCELLED!
As I sit here and write this, my cab is parked in my drive (when it should be on a rank)
having not moved for about a month now and it’s very tough... and I know this is exact- ly the same throughout the trade nationally... and all down to that damn ‘virus’.
However... that ‘virus’ feels like it is actually the second ‘virus’ wave to hit the trade, with the first one being in 2016 with Uber bring- ing the plague of ‘OOT’s ‘(Out-of-Towner’s) that has decimated ‘local council control’ with Uber being the ‘Super Spreader’.
Some may criticise me for comparing Uber to a ‘virus’. Well keep reading because I am also about to upset quite a few of you, and having been in the trade for some 37 years I have upset a few people on the way. But I am quite happy that some people ‘swear by me’ and some people ‘swear at me’ because all my experiences have shown me that it does no good to be silent and worry about what others may think. In the end though most people come around to my way of thinking - even if takes a few years.
At this point I must make it categorically clear that the views I express here may not be the view of the GMB. These are my views. However, I do know that these views are supported by others in the trade down here in the south, including Sean Ridley, the Sec- retary of Unite South East Cab Section, who also writes for PHTM, and also Ian Hall of Southampton Hackney and Private Hire Association, to name just two.
So here we go. The ‘All Party Task and Finish’ report on taxis and PHV must now be con- sidered to be dead and buried so any hope in changes to exploitation of ‘Cross Border Hiring’ is out of the window. I must make the point that cross border hiring has always been part of the trade and must continue, and in most cases has not been an issue until the explosion of Uber arriving effectively telling its drivers they can work anywhere they want under the ‘Triple Lock’ and a cer- tain QC declaring the ‘Right to Roam!” So in my mind the ‘ABBA’ concept (a job begin- ning or ending within the licensing area of the PHV servicing the job) was flawed.
Other people in the trade who are far more knowledgeable than me have looked at cur- rent legislation in detail, namely Section 46 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as already being there
90
tion as to whether the vehicle will be used in another area. And of course if the answer is yes then the licence is drawn into question. The declaration is required to ensure that the proprietor is fully aware so there is no comeback on the council.
Two years ago and I persuaded Lewes DC to do the same and I now believe that East- bourne, which shares licensing officers with Lewes, is also looking at this. Mid-Sussex is in favour of introducing it following our complaints of many of its HCs predominant- ly working in Brighton & Hove under Uber.
for local councils to use and have made an excellent visualisation of how this should be working. This has shown that local councils can take action, but to date nothing has come of this and I doubt whether any coun- cil has an appetite at the moment to act on this unless there is something in the pipeline that I do not know about.
And quite frankly I think we are all well and truly peed off!
So I am going back to what I have advocat- ed for a long time and that is having an ‘Intended Use Policy’ (IUP) applied to not only the PHV but also to an operator licence in the same way this has always been avail- able to be applied to a HC. But definitely not to the driver licence where Knowsley MBC effectively screwed the national trade up by attempting to do just that.
‘Nooooooo!’ I hear some of you shouting. ‘Yeeees!’ I shout back because it is the only clear and totally unambiguous way forward which allows natural cross-border hiring but stops licensed vehicles being licensed in one area and predominantly working in another.
I have discussed this with many people in the trade over the last three or so years and to date I have never been offered any counter argument as to why this should not be the norm. Although of course I have not had a face to face discussion with any Uber representative who could probably think of a few reasons.
Brighton & Hove Council used to have an ‘IUP’ and it was only due to not having enough room on the HC application/renew- al form for the proprietor to sign a declaration that it was taken out.
However three years ago I got the council to reinstate the ‘IUP’ which is now on the form where the proprietor has to make a declara-
We all know that a hackney can legally undertake PH work in another area. But if it predominantly works outside of its area the owner risks revocation of the licence. An ‘IUP’ should in fact not be an option that a council can use but instead it should be standard and set in legislation.
So why not have an ‘IUP’ applied to both the PHV and especially the operator because it is the operator that has the ulti- mate responsibility for the vehicle. Yes - make the likes of Uber responsible to ensure that the correct insurance is in place.
A statement by a certain QC has claimed “Right to Roam!” but we must look at this in context with: The Queen on the application of Delta Merseyside Limited and Uber Bri- tannia Limited v Knowsley BC [2018] EWHC 757, Kerr J said:
“....a condition on a licence could be imposed which, if otherwise lawful, would require a fit and proper person who is a licence holder to abide by whatever restric- tions are contained within a condition that are considered reasonably necessary to meet any perceived erosion of localism in the governance of PHV licensing.”
So we all know that existing legislation can (and I say should) be used but to date noth- ing has happened and to be frank it would take every single licensing authority to attach a condition on the vehicle licence to be effec- tive. And that ain’t gonna happen soon!
LICENSED VEHICLE INSURANCE
This brings me on to the next subject of PHV insurance - which can include HC insur- ance as well but let’s just stick to PHV’s at the moment because of the massive explo- sion of such licences with the biggest culprit being Wolverhampton.
MAY 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 |
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
