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 vehicles in a controlled district without a current operator’s licence under section 55 of the 1976 Act contrary to section 46(1)(d) and (2). The council appealed by way of case stated dismissal of their prosecutions under the Act of Mr Gladen for providing pre-booked private hire. The prosecution claimed he needed a license as a private hire operator in addition to the license he had under the 1847 Act.
Held: The District Judge had been correct. Section 46(1)(d) is not breached where a licensed hackney carriage and a licensed hackney carriage driver is provided for the relevant conveyance of a passenger, albeit it is provided through an operator. In those circumstances, an operator’s licence under section 55 of the Act is not appropriate, since that section does not cover hackney carriages.
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2500 (Admin), Times 01-Nov-2004, [2005] RTR 12
Links:
Statutes:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 55, Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Heath 16-Oct-2000
It was submitted that the schemes relating to hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were two distinct schemes, and that the issues in that case had arisen because the Council had fallen into the trap of seeking to apply private hire statutory . .
Cited – Benson v Boyce Admn 20-Jan-1997
‘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 . .
Cited by:
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.
Licensing, Transport
Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219259