if admin is willing to publish this post, here are some highlights that matter from my point of view, others will read the judgement and have different points of view,, that is democracy.
It also limits the number of hackney carriage licences it issues, as it is entitled to do under section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 because it is satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages within the city.
It was thus decided by Parliament, from the outset of the licensing of hackney carriages, that licensing should be dealt with locally rather than nationally. The right to ply for hire is limited, by the licence, to the immediate locality and no right to ply for hire is given for any wider area.
The 1976 Act was adoptive, that is it only applies in those parts of the country where the Act has been adopted. However most authorities have adopted the Act including Berwick and Newcastle.
“the grant of a hackney carriage licence may be refused for the purposes of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.”
Newcastle use section 16 to limit the number of hackney carriage licences granted but Berwick do not.
In my judgment the major purpose behind the 1847 Act, and indeed the 1976 Act, is the safety of the public by which I include both the travelling public as passengers and other road users. Thus the scheme of the legislation is directed towards having safe vehicles, fit and proper drivers and appropriate conditions of hire.
The fact that Berwick now has a large, but remote, fleet of hackney carriages has had the effect of persuading Berwick that they need to have testing stations over a wide area well removed from Berwick-on-Tweed. Mr. Holland, who appeared before me for Berwick, told me that due to the large number of licences being issued Berwick has a financial surplus which they use in part to pay to have a vehicle on the road in the Tyneside area to keep an eye on their hackney carriages.
MY VIEW IN CAPS, PMSL AT THIS COMMENT… “has a financial surplus which they use in part to etc.”
HERES THE NITTY GRITTY….It seems to me that it must be desirable for an authority issuing licences to hackney carriage to be able to restrict the issuing of those licences to proprietors and drivers which are intending to ply for hire in that authority’s area. Similarly it must be desirable to be able to refuse to issue licences to proprietors and drivers who do not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area of the licence grantor.
Roll on Xmas, i am skint !!!!
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
From reading this judgement,I would agree that what Judge Symons QC is saying,is what I have always been led to believe,that is..a hackney carriage license only applies in the area to which it is issued.
I have always been told,and I have been in the trade some 23 years as a hack,25 years if including PH,that my hackney license only covers me to ply for hire within the City of Newcastle,BUT,has the effect of a `private hire` license if working in another area on prebooked fares,mostly account work through the office.
I have also always operated on the basis,that should I pick up outside of my area,namely Newcastle,then in so doing I invalidate my insurance cover as I`m only licensed by Newcastle to ply for hire.
As Judge Symons has stated,licenses have always been issued on a local basis,in the interests of public safety,this I would have thought was the only logical way to go,as how else would the authorities be able to deal with enforcement matters.
I would just add,that I think Judge Symons has made a good judgement in this matter,confining himself to the interpretation of the law and not getting involved in the usual local politics surrounding this case.
My only regret is that 2 councils,which WE elect,couldn`t sort this out between themselves like 2 bodies of reasonably educated people,without having to incur the cost of court action.
Also,It is now my hope,that both sides with get on with the business of law enforcement in a proper manner,so that the legitimate drivers/operators in all areas can make a living.
Well said john dodds, you obviously know the score, thats what this site needs.
Mr Dodds
as you have correct said you carry out private hire work outside Newcastle to which you agree you then do this acting as a private hire car in your hackney carriage !!
again we could say the same about Gatehead cars doing private hire work this side of the bridge and again North Tyneside cars coming into town to cover private hire work etc etc!!
With Berwick becoming Northumberland and soon to be our neighbours are you saying they should not be able to come and do private hire work as do the other authorities and your self ? because as you well know in a number on months that is exactly the case !
@Ian Shanks,
and why not mr. shanks, after all, the judge said that in order for Ncle to have control over enforcment, vehciles, drivers and sftery of the public, another LA should not undermine them by issuing licences with the sole purpose of working from Ncle.
Maybe that is what all the councils will sit down and agree on, after all if you have gone to the lengths of getting a gateshead hackney carriage, why would you wish to ply your trade from a Newcastle PH Office. Are there none in Gateshead?
Someone planted a seed in my head that how would say, derwentside licencing know that Mr. X didnt use his vehicle up there weekends and at a newcastle PH office through the week. I put a bit of thought into this.
firstly if the hours worked in newcastle exceed the hours woked in derwentside then the driver is only P/time in his own LA. And according to judge symons that plate should not be renewed or revoked.
secondly how would they know Mr X works in newcastle? Well every office has to provide the details of all drivers at that office on a monthly basis to there LA. And the great thing about a modern office is one click of a button and all mr. x’s jobs come up on screen. and not so modern offices have to by law keep the auld booking sheets.
thirdly, say mr. x lies, thinking they’ll never catch me, well the judge pointed out that it is an offence to lie on an application form (although he said he couldnt see why someone would, doesnt know many taxi drivers eh?) and if it’s found that person lies the licence could be revoked.
please dont take this as a personal assault on blt, but this is my thoughts and opinions. As someone has already said everyone has an opionion on the judgement, and is reading into it what they want to see. I guess only time will tell how berwick, and other LA, see the judgement.
@Andy Warhol,
they will be hackneys so they will not be working offices when back in there own licensed area so how could someone judge if they had been there 10 mins or 10 hours !
Mr Shanks!
Newcastle are claiming victory…where I don’t know??,
But what are Newcastle going to do with some of THEIR hacks working for you….in Wallsend!…Out of Town is OUT OF TOWN, and what about the Charlies with NORTH TYNESIDE plates working in Newcastle??
You once said this scenario is complicated and you are right!
Stephen (FKA Central Enth.) You are a muck stirring little cockroach and you should quietly go away in Short, Sharp Sexual jerks.
Admin I hope that was clean enough for you.
Stephen FKA central
well this what i have asked !! in my recent reply to Mr Dodds ! who conducts himself as a private hire when he conducts bookings across the bridge in Gateshead and when Gateshead hack come into Newcastle and North Tyneside cars etc etc So my question is when Berwick becomes Northumberland and they become as close as neighbours as gateshead and north tyneside what happens next should we all be barred from each others areas ? is is if fine one Berwick are as close as Gateshead ?
I would also after speaking to a barrister put this !!!!!
do the new rules apply to the excisting plate holders from Berwick ?
as a barrister i have spoken to seems to think not it may only apply to new applications ?? if this is the case you will see these cars for a long time to come !
NTH!
If you put your name to things then I could put a good name together for you!, I take you must work “Out of Town”, to be so distressed about my above comment!!.
It’s a good Job you and some or your sad pathetic little friends never became Footballers!!, because if you did!, you would be the kind that would want every opposition player sent off, or the slightest Tackle, you would be whinging for a Penalty!!!
Sorry you could’nt be footballers, because can you imagine your Shirts, they would have silly initials and nicknames on the back LOL!!
SAD!!!!
NOW PUT YOUR HANDS BACK DOWN UNDER YOUR WAISTLINE….GET MY DRIFT!
STEPHEN
Please excuse me if i seem thick, but common sense says that to carry out a booking :-
The private hire operator, the vehicle and the driver should all be licensed by the local authority concerned, if this involves crossing into another local authority to collect the booking then so be it, providing the destination of the fare is within the operator/drivers own local area.
I think the judge would also agree with that statement, so why Mr Shanks do you keep twisting the spirit of law. If you want to expand your business into Newcastle, then open an office in Newcastle and obtain the necessary licenses.
when I am speaking to people on the ranks and out and about, yes bandits too, they all forget the most important aspect of this case. Berwicks whole argument centred around that they thought they were under the legal obligation, if they exercised no limitation policy, to issue to a licence to any fit and proper person irrellevant where they lived or where they were to use the licence.
now that the judge said that this was not the case, and they could if they so wished, perfectly legally, refuse licences if there was no unmet demand.
so for me the question is, IF berwick continue to try and issue licences to work elsewhere, it should be asked what exactly are there motives, after all they have no argument left!
hi im not really sure if this is the right thing to do, but i have tried everything from ringing the council to ringing up taxi firms , i think they think im some sort of weirdo ,believe me im not ,im trying to find KEVIN GIBSON dob,03/02/1963 he is a self employed taxi driver in nawcastle ,as ive found out this is like looking for a needle in a haystack,PLEASE if anyone knows kevin please pass this number to him 07505197996 i will be eternally grateful
with kind regards elaine hind
@elaine hind: Place an ad in the classifieds saying Kevin Ring Me!
@elaine hind: i know there is a kevin gibson who works for dean taxis in gateshead but its not exactly a unique name is it ,so chances are there are many people with the same name .
@ Ian Shanks, having spoken to a licensing officer I’ve been told that you have had your Newcastle licence suspended because you won’t play by the rules, and that you are only still operating because you have an appeal in? Were you going to tell the drivers at any point? Or will it be a case of “sorry you can’t work for us now, see ya!” if you don’t win the appeal? Maybe we should start looking for a new office?
@Newcaslte BLT Driver: are you really that suprised to hear that?
CAN”T WAIT TILL IT HAPPENS SOONER THE BETTER !!!!!!
@Newcaslte BLT Driver: That has never been in question ! what is it you want to know, all you have to do is ask.
But if it helps the council have attempted to revoke our licence as they want their condition of licence to be above the law which was cleared by Lord Justice Munby on Oct 2010. I belive the law courts are more meaningfull than local authoritys unlawfull conditions.
So what is it i do wrong but defend myself from councils making their own rules? ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ASK
you should never have been allowed in to newcastle in the first place. newcastle city council have sold all newcastle drivers for 20 pieces of silver . an incredible decision thay are no doubt regretting. talk about sleeping with the enemy !
@Ian Shanks, Unless I am mistaken Lord Justice Munby never passed judgment upon Newcastles rules about advertising on a PH car? I was told one of the rules that BLT have been pulled up for is the advertising of a phone number that is not registered as the BLT newcasltles phone number i.e. 0191 262 6666? Looks like Newcastle may have found that loophole to pull the licence? its a sh*tter when people use a loophole and try and wreck your business from under you isnt it!
Newcastle Driver, you have not been told the full facts by Newcastle (and I doubt whether they should be disclosing any to anyone at this time), so I’d suggest you don’t place too much reliance on what they have said and what you assume might be the outcome!
The truth is that there are, as ever, two opposing views in this case as to the meaning of the conditions, the true facts of the situation, and the interpretation of the law. Contributors to TooManyTaxis are not a jury, so what you or anyone else may think the position to be, based solely upon self-serving snippets given to them by Newcastle City Council do not amount to anything!
As for your post of 18 April, suggesting that BLT had not told drivers of the challenge, you are mistaken or have been misinformed. The truth is that a written announcement was issued to drivers by BLT very shortly after the Committee hearing, advising them of the position, including the fact that BLT had challenged Newcastle to take them to court, if they really believed their interpretation of the law and facts of the case to be right.
Whilst only a personal view, I don’t expect the Divisional Court to give judgment in this case until mid to late 2012, because at present the case remains before the magistrates’ court.
In the circumstances, whilst there will undoubtedly be much debate here and elsewhere about the case pending the decision of the Divisional Court, the only views that count at the end of the day are those of the judges of the Divisional Court.
David
@David Wilson: This whole situation wouldn’t be so bad if there was proper enforcement, whilst checking badges,insurance & kicking tyres does come under the label ‘enforcement’ it is only lip service. Drivers are unafraid to park or cruise wherever they want because no one in authority challenges them. I work in North Tyneside and used to get asked by enforcement or the police what I was doing when waiting in Newcastle but that was many years ago and if I was of a mind to I could work the Toon all night on a saturday now without fear. There was actually a time when I would’ve got chased by the toon hacks if I was seen too often even if I wasn’t actually flimping. What do enforcement actually get paid for ? Fillin forms in …in triplicate and checkin the occasional badge!