H.M.S. Bulwark recently paid a visit to the River Tyne and once again the Hackney Carriage v Private Hire argument has arisen.
A Local ,large private hire company had a free phone installed on the ship and put so called Taxi marshalls in place.
These ‘Taxi Marshalls’ keep passengers behind the dock gate until a private hire car can be called (PH cars are actually ranking in the car park) These ‘Taxi Marshalls’ have also approached Hackney Carriage drivers and told them they should not be there and I am told have been quite intimidating towards Bona fide Hackney Carriage drivers.
Since this argument PH vehicles have now been moved to the dockside behind the railings, where the passengers in the image are standing. These passengers are not given the opportunity to choose between Hackney Carriage or Private Hire.
When Taxi licensing was approached about this they brought up the argument about Private land. The following is an extract from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which clarifies the private land – public place argument.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_18
Taxi touts
167 Touting for hire car services
(1) Subject to the following provisions, it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not imply that the soliciting must refer to any particular vehicle nor is the mere display of a sign on a vehicle that the vehicle is for hire soliciting within that subsection.
(3) No offence is committed under this section where soliciting persons to hire licensed taxis is permitted by a scheme under section 10 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985 (schemes for shared taxis) whether or not supplemented by provision made under section 13 of that Act (modifications of the taxi code).
(4) It is a defence for the accused to show that he was soliciting for passengers for public service vehicles on behalf of the holder of a PSV operator’s licence for those vehicles whose authority he had at the time of the alleged offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(6) In this section—
*
“public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise); ”
*
“public service vehicle” and “PSV operator’s licence” have the same meaning as in Part II of the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
(7) In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (i) inserted by section 155 of this Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
“(j) an offence under section 167 of the [1994 c. 33.] Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (touting for hire car services).”.
General
168 Minor and consequential amendments and repeals
(1) The enactments mentioned in Schedule 9 to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified (being minor amendments).
(2) The enactments mentioned in Schedule 10 to this Act shall have effect with the amendments there specified (amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Act).
(3) The enactments mentioned in Schedule 11 to this Act (which include enactments which are spent) are repealed or revoked to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule.
There are free phones all over the place in this day and age supermarkets,shopping malls etc, yet no ‘Taxi Marshalls’ are needed in these places. Is the ‘Taxi Marshall’ just a way of making a Taxi Tout look respectable? or am I wrong and this is all OK? Somebody out there must see that this is all a bit off.
We are constantly having the law thrown at us but when this kind of thing goes on the law just doesn’t seem to matter to those who are in a place of power,those who are meant to enforce Taxi matters for the good of all Taxi & Private Hire drivers, because if people with money and power are continually allowed to just do what they want eventually every driver,PH or Hack, will be walked over aswell.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Whats the difference between Lee Hope and Bob Hope… Ones a dead singer the others a Prick with a clipboard!
The views expressed in this site do not necessarily reflect the views of TooManyTaxis or the general U.K. Hackney Carriage Trade
I have read with interest this article and the one thing that is kept being repeated in this post is the word TAXI.
Now the word Taxi is referenced in Parliament as a Hackney Carriage, because the word TAXI is the shortened version of the Equipment a Hackney Carriage Vehicle uses to calculate the fare for the distance travelled called a TAXI-OMETER.
This piece of equipment was designed around the turn of the 19oo`s and can be referenced on google for factual information, but in general the METER is the measuring part of the equipment used to calculate the fare charged & the TAXI is the Vehicle being used to transport the passenger in a Self-Employment Act of Parliament called the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
The Marshall`s down at the Port of Tyne Commission Quay Area stated within this article are not subject to being called Taxi Marshall`s, but are instead under the Employment Act called the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for Section 46(c) states;
“No person shall employ as a driver of a Section 48 vehicle any person who does not hold a Section 51 Private Hire Drivers Licence”
& clearly these Touts are Private Hire Vehicle Touts for North Tyneside Section 48 Private Hire Vehicles, who should hold a Section 55 Operator Proprietor Licence for the Private Land with Planning Permission being a basic requirement to be Lawful, as well as a letter from the Land Owner (Port of Tyne Authority) not the DFDS or the Shipping Agent, because the Shipping Agent is not the Land Owner.
Who do the Private Hire Company have the agreement with is the question that needs to be answered here, as there will be a signed contract stating, what are the terms of service provision at the Ferry Terminal, not the whole Tyne Commission Quay Area away from the Ferry Terminal Entrance apply to, where it is accepted there is a contract in operation, but is there Exclusive Planning Permission Granted stated on the Private Hire Operator Licence Application for the Actual Dock Area, where there is an Official North Tyneside Hackney Carriage Taxi Rank for the Public to Use and the Gates down at the Tyne Commission Quay open onto the North Tyneside Licensed Hackney Carriage Vehicles Only to use the Taxi Rank ?
North Tyneside Council Licensing Public Protection Officer,who shall remain nameless but we all know who he is, clearly does not know his job and should be sacked for Gross Misconduct in relation to not Protecting the Public, because Health and Safety is being breached, as well as the Section 55 Operator Licence Proprietor possibly “Plying for Hire” Illegally, because the Applicant has to state exactly where they have submitted they trade from on the Operator Licence Application Form, to be able to hold a North Tyneside Council Section 55 Operational Licence to make the provisions for hirings within North Tyneside under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Employment Act of Parliament.
There have been two Court Cases in recent years, I am not going to state either cases title numbers, but one was in 2010 involving the HMRC and the other was in 2011 clarifying the NMWA & the WTD “Workers” status, that clearly clarify, what I am saying about Employment Act Status for the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in relation to the Private Hire Industry, that is totally different to the Self-Employment Act of Parliament Town Police Clause Act 1847, that was made an Act of Parliament by being incorporated within Section 171 of the Public Health Act 1875 firstly, but has since been incorporated within the Transport Acts in more recent times.
I hope that Admin does not remove this Observation by me about what has happened here, as I have posted many times on TooManyTaxis factual matters, that for some reason Admin has decided to remove.
Thanks
Transport Manager
The views expressed in this site do not necessarily reflect the views of TooManyTaxis or the general U.K. Hackney Carriage Trade
This site gives a voice to Taxi drivers who wish to state their grievances and/or information they may think useful to other members of the trade. Please do not jeopardise your ability to use this platform to voice your opinions by bad mouthing people whether they be other taxi drivers,licensing officers or anyone for that matter. Admin will remove any comments which are deemed to be offensive in any way.
The views expressed in this site do not necessarily reflect the views of TooManyTaxis or the general U.K. Hackney Carriage Trade
Hello Admin,
It is clear to me, as the removed post was one written by me, that the Licensing Department Staff seem to think when a Qualified Professional Transport Manager, who has the expert knowledge of how to expose the Council Employed Staff, who are clearly not carrying out their duties, under the North Tyneside Councils own set of rules, it would appear those breaches cannot name and shame the Officer concerned who is to blame, you say?
I am now going to turn the heat up on North Tyneside Council at this point, because after the problems in 2004, that saw 40 plus Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles licensed as Hackney Carriage Taxi Vehicles, many of which went to the Private Hire Operators, who were pushing the issue at the time, there was a recommendation from the Regulation and Review Committee Councillors, to refer the matter to the Overviews and Scrutiny Committee Councillors, that later produced a Report to Councillors on the Regulation and Review Committee, that then stated the Head of the Environmental Services Department, who I will not name to ensure this post is not removed!!!!
Should any further problems occur within the Licensing Department, this person will be held accountable for their Council Department Staffs failing, by paying for the failing with loosing their job!!! was the intention within the Report made?
I therefore state that, if the named and shamed Officer I quoted is not “Suspended”, then the Head of Environmental Services should be “Suspended”, as recommended by the Overviews and Scrutiny Panel of Councillors Report, that was suggested in June 2005 or 2006 Date I seem to remember off the top of my head, because the Council Private Hire Application Form details should not be ignored, and the Contract Detail about the Ferry Terminal Entrance Area also need to be investigated, because that was the only Area of the Terminal/Place, where the old Hackney Carriage 1847 Taxi Rank were allowed to use to operate from outside the Main Ferry Terminal Entrance Area Only, not the Dockside that is inside the Customs Area for advanced checking, where this Navy Ship was docked, that has Gates that open clearly on to the Free to any North Tyneside Hackney Carriage Licensed Taxi Vehicle, that is available for use at the North Tyneside Taxi Rank Facility. on the Tyne Commission Quay.
This Tyne Commission Quay Taxi Rank is the same as any of the other North Tyneside Taxi Ranks positioned within North Tyneside, as it is not on Private Land.
The Town Police Clauses Act 1847, even states it is unlawful for a person to deprive a Hackney Carriage Taxi standing at a Official Rank Position provided under the Act from being able to Access Fare Paying Passengers under Section 64 of the 1847 Act, because the Act also allows Section 68 to apply and there is a Bye Law that states you cannot use the Services of another Person to Importune a hiring and that is what the Private Hire Touts were doing for the Out of Town Hackney Carriages working Private Hire, even thought North Tyneside Council since 17 September 2011 have a Condition attached to all North Tyneside Council Licensed Private Hire Operator Licence Applications, that was approved by the Regulation and Review Committee Councillors on 17 September 2010, therefore giving every Operator 12 months notice to comply with the order, that they can now only use North Tyneside Licensed Vehicles and Drivers Only !!!!
Now why should the Head of Environmental Services, not be held accountable for the failings of his Licensing Department Public Protection Officers, Neglect of Duty, who has at least 20 years in the same job, just a different Job Title now?
Come on Bolly Knickers, as the Ashes to Ashes Cop played by Philip Glinister, would have said to his Co-star Keally Hawes, the Legal Qualified Person in the show, give it your best shot now?
ha ha ha
Transport Manager
The views expressed in this site do not necessarily reflect the views of TooManyTaxis or the general U.K. Hackney Carriage Trade