Download Update on Law C - Phoenix Taxis Liverpool

Sorry Guys bit late doing the update on the law commission. Been a very busy time for Phoenix Taxis
with new and exciting times for drivers and customers!!!!!!!!
The Law Commission’s long awaited report on the taxi trade has finally been published but don’t
forget at present they are only recommendations that may or may not see the light of day, and in
any case certainly not before the next election.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc347_taxi-and-private-hire-services.pdf
There are 84 separate recommendations and obviously we aren’t going to go through them one-byone, and a lot of the recommendations are as-you-were.
We’ll list them into ‘Like’, ‘Not like’ and ‘Jury’s out’
Retention of the two-tier system, which means that taxis retain
the sole right to ply for hire and rank up.
The definition of plying for hire be replaced with ‘there and then’
hire-Not sure how this will work, because just like illegally plying
for hire, what constitutes ‘there and then’?
‘Hackney Carriage’ to be replaced by the term taxi and ONLY taxis
should be able to use the word ‘taxi’ to advertise their servicesAbout time too
‘Private Hire bookings (whether taxi or Private Hire) will have a
duty to provide a price or an estimate of the fare, will mean that
every booking will have to be quoted- Sounds unworkable
especially at peak loading times
A new power that will allow licensing officers the power to move a
PH if they believe that the vehicle is plying for hire, also the power
to seize (and presumably crush) a PH caught plying for hire-If put
into practice a great idea, but other recommendations will make it
harder to establish if the vehicle is plying for hire.
The legal requirement for a taxi driver to undertake a fare unless
they have ‘reasonable cause’ to be augmented with a requirement
to stop when hailed-Impossible to police but drivers could end up
in trouble if they are reported for driving past a fare.
Councils compelled to consult on ranks and they must have full
consultation before removal or moving a rank-good provision, but
they should have gone further a based rank space of number of
taxis in the area
The term operator to be replaced by dispatcher-We do not like
this at all, currently anyone accepting a booking for a PH falls
under ‘operator’ and it is an offence to accept a booking without a
licence. This has kept the touts on their toes, now it seems that
‘representatives’ of a PH firm will be able to stand on the street
and accept a booking.
Stretched limos and novelty vehicles to be licensed as PH but wedding
and funeral cars will still be exempt-Good idea
.
PH vehicles be allowed to be driven by non-badged drivers when
not working-without the requirement to remove all signage, a
truly nutty idea and we see trouble ahead.
National standards to be applied to drivers and vehicles-good
proposal; as it stands the standards vary from authority to
authority, and it will prevent councils from insisting on silly
condition i.e. bonnets or boots being yellow or all vehicles must be
white etc.
PH firms to be allowed to sub-contract work to other PH firms and
the requirement for a PH firm to have the three licences (operator,
vehicle & badge) from the same authority will be removed-This is a
serious threat to the licensed taxi trade and must be resisted at all
costs. There is a move to introduce it before the LC report is
approved, which illustrates how desperate the big PH companies
are to see it happen and if it does happen it will go the same way
as bus deregulation with a handful of PH firms (with serious
money behind them, for instance the multinational PH firm Uber
is financed by Goldman Sachs and Google)
The proposal makes nonsense of a tougher enforcement regime,
as PH vehicles from anywhere undertake bookings where they
land. Recipe or chaos; a five star thumbs down
Licensing revenues to be pooled nationally as opposed to collected
locally and used for local enforcement –a truly nutty idea and it
shows that the LC are grasping at straws; if we take Rossendale as
an example which is a small town with a large PH fleet that work
almost exclusively in Manchester, with the control and supervision
falling on Manchester licensing officers who are funded by the
licensed trade in Manchester. So not only are Manchester taxi and
PH seeing out of town PH pinching their work, they’re paying for
the privilege.
Apart from that the proposal in unworkable and would create a
bureaucratic nightmare –an example of putting the ideology first
and common sense a distant second. Another five star thumbs
down
Council to have the right to remove or create taxi zones within the
borough-A common sense proposal; over the years there has been
a number of authorities that have merged to create a now
authority. Sometimes this is been at the expense of taxi cover in
the less vibrant areas. Can you imagine if a Greater Liverpool
(already being mooted) was created, that incorporated Knowsley,
Wirral & Sefton into the city, there would be no prizes for guessing
where the cabs would end up. This is a solution to prevent this
happening.
Councils to retain the power to limit the amount of taxis in the
area-At last recognition that the market isn’t always right and that
deregulations can end up being seriously over-subscribed. As the
law stands a council can only refuse the issue of a plate if it takes
the view that there is no unmet demand for taxis in the area-and
they’ve got to provide proof (in the way of a costly survey). The LC
have proposed that a ‘public interest’ criteria be introduce to
.cover aspects such as rank space and traffic management
problems etc.-Excellent suggestion by the LC
Disability training to be compulsory for both taxi & PH drivers-Well
meaning proposal but without putting any meat on the bones how
relevant or intensive the training will be remains to be seen.
All licensing officer to be trained and accredited and should have
the authority to stop any licensed vehicle irrespective of where the
vehicle is licensed- As stated earlier unless they scrap cross border
hiring this will be totally meaningless because officers from the
honey pot areas will be overwhelmed
The offence of touting to be retained, but will allow a council to
setup designated areas to allow soliciting-What DOES this mean,
are they going to allow a PH firm to put a representative on the
streets at peak loading, or at special events (e.g. concerts, football
matches, festivals etc) and tout for work? They may as well give
them the right to ply for hire at certain times.
Appeals to be simplified and all appeals to be heard in the
Magistrates’ Court and the unsuccessful applicant given the right
to appeal straight to the Magistrates’ court in they chose-Good
proposal; the refusal to issue an applicant with a taxi plate starts in
the Crown Court, and is therefore quite costly. The right of an
applicant to bypass a local licensing panel hearing and elect to go
to the Magistrates’ Court is long overdue
Judicial Reviews against a council policy to be heard in the County
Court as opposed to the High Court-Great idea, judicial reviews in
the High Court are costly and dissuades individuals from
challenging a council’s policy.
Conclusion
This is like looking at the Titanic without mentioning the iceberg. A lot of the proposals make sense and
streamline laws that have been with us for more than 150 years. But the proposals to allow cross border
hiring and PH touting in designated areas smacks of undue influence by a few major PH companies that
obviously want to control the PH (and by default the taxi market) For example in Merseyside both taxi
and private hire rates are tied to a large Sefton PH company.
In addition if it is true that large PH operators are buying laws through Parliament, as appears to be the
case with the current deregulation Bill, where will it end?
Every taxi driver should take up the fight against the Deregulation Bill while there’s still a taxi trade to
fight for.
Judicial Reviews against a council policy to be heard in the County Court as opposed to the High
Court-Great idea, judicial reviews in the High Court are costly and dissuades individuals from
challenging a council’s policy.