Source:The Institute of Licensing
On 8th October the High Court handed down the judgment in the case of Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Fidler, Hussain & Zamanian [2010] EWHC 2430 (Admin).
This is a long and involved judgment but it confirms very clearly that once a vehicle has been licensed as a hackney carriage by either a district council in England and Wales or by Transport for London (the Public Carriage Office) it is a hackney carriage for the duration of that licence, wherever it is currently located, and can therefore be used for pre-booked purposes in any district in England and Wales (but the judgment does not consider such use in Plymouth or Greater London).
It makes it clear that a hackney carriage can never be a private hire vehicle, and that its status as a hackney carriage remains irrespective of where it is and what it is being used for……………Read the rest here:
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Just because james button says something don’t make it so. He’s just another who has made a lot off the back of the taxi trade by interpreting laws differently. He says: …. “This judgment makes it clear that putting a condition on operators’ licenses that attempts to prevent that operator from using hackney carriages licensed by a different district from that which licenses the operator will be of no effect.”…..but that’s just his slant on things. A Local authority can put any ‘reasonable ‘ condition on an operators licence. A condition that disallows an unenforced hackney carriage, licenced many miles from where it wants to work,is not unreasonable. It doesn’t make much difference on Tyneside as any operator wanting to make use of Northumberland plates for example, would most likely obtain an operators licence from Northumberland and who is to argue that any vehicles seen running around on Tyneside were not running out of their Northumberland office.
You’re right Hackney Carriage Driver, just because James Button says something doesn’t make it right, but I’d have to say I agree with him (or maybe the reality is, he actually agrees with me).
When Newcastle took Berwick to the High Court in 2008, it was based on an argument and legal principle that a public body cannot act in a way that is contrary to, or undermines the intention of parliament.
Somewhat ironically, that very same principle now works against them, because Lord Justice Munby (not me or James Button) has now held that it was parliament’s intention to permit a hackney carriage or London Cab from anywhere in England and Wales to undertake “private hire” work anywhere in England and Wales (and I’d also say Scotland).
Do you think Newcastle will want to have another argument in the High Court, if it will be forced to argue against the legal principle it argued in support of the last time?
Isn’t it strange how things sometimes turn out?
David
{ 1 trackback }