‘Looking at the other subsections of section 46, the first applies to a proprietor of a vehicle who uses or permits it to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having a licence for it as such under section 48. The phrase ‘as a private hire vehicle’ appears, I accept, to indicate that a proprietor who used or permitted use in a controlled district without a licence under section 48, for purposes other than hiring falling within the Act, would not be committing an offence. Assuming that to be so, it does not appear to throw real light on the proper interpretation of paragraph (d) of subsection (1), dealing in different terms with the different questions of driving [pausing there, I think that should be (b) rather than (d), in context. That is a misprint in the Road Traffic Reports]. In the context of legislation designed to control the use of private hire vehicles, which (as the present case illustrates) may include vehicles of some bulk, the intention may still have been to restrict driving in controlled districts to licensed drivers in all the circumstances. When one turns to paragraph (c) of subsection (1), the words ‘for the purpose of any hiring’ are plainly directed at the specific purposes of the proprietor’s employment of a driver. Again, the wording is in contrast with paragraph (b) of subsection (1), where it would have been easy to express a similar restriction, if it had been intended. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (1) deal with persons operating vehicles as private hire vehicles. Under section 80(1) ‘operate’ is defined as meaning ‘in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle’. It does not seem to me either surprising, or significant in relation to the issue before us, that the offences introduced in respect of operators are, by the phrase ‘as a private hire vehicle’ related to the operation of the private hire vehicle as such.’
Judges:
Mance J
Citations:
[1997] EWHC Admin 35, [1997] RTR 226
Links:
Statutes:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 55
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brentwood Borough Council v Gladen Admn 28-Oct-2004
The defendant taxi operator was telephoned, and cabs were booked, and those bookings were fulfilled by providing licensed hackney carriages with licensed hackney carriage drivers. He was accused of knowingly operating the vehicles as private hire . .
Cited – Newcastle City Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council and others Admn 5-Nov-2008
The applicant council complained that the respondent council was issuing a disproportionately high number of taxi licences, believing that it should only refuse a licence where the driver appeared to be unfit.
Held: The purpose of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Road Traffic
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136980