![TooManyTaxis](http://toomanytaxis.com/wp-content/uploads"/bh-logo.png" "TooManyTaxis"){kind=logo}
The Northumberland Hackney Carriage Intended Use Policy has been agreed in principle by Northumberland’s licensing and regulatory committee. The policy should ensure that Hackney Carriage licences are only to be granted to drivers who intend to use them predominantly within the county (be sure DW will have feedback on this) The policy will not be endorsed by the full council until early 2010. Committee chairman Councillor Edward Heslop said: “I am pleased the policy has been agreed in principle, but also the committee has recognised the need to take more time to look at some of the issues involved to ensure the policy is fair,transparent and workable.” See the Policy below:
Northumberland County Council
___________________________________________________
Hackney Carriage Intended Use Policy
___________________________________________________
Development and Regulatory Services
Public Protection
May 2009
Introduction
1. Northumberland County Council (the Council) has a duty to carry out the licensing functions relating to Hackney Carriage Drivers and Vehicles as set out within legislation listed below:
• Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 (TPCA 1847)
• Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (LGMPA 1976)
• Transport Act 1985 (TA 1985)
2. The purpose of this policy is to set out how the Council will deal with the licensing and renewal of hackney carriage vehicle licences and other related matters following the re-organisation of local government in Northumberland and the recent High Court judgment – Newcastle City Council v Berwick upon Tweed [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin)..
3 For clarification, a hackney carriage is what most people would call a ‘taxi’. Its main features are: it carries passengers in return for payment; it may advertise itself to be for hire and be hailed in a street in the area of the council with which it is licensed; or it may be hired from a taxi-rank in the area of the council with which it is licensed. It is to be distinguished from a private hire vehicle (often referred to as a ‘minicab’), which also carries passengers for reward, but must be pre-booked with a private hire operator – it cannot be hailed in the street, or hired from a rank.
4. A hackney carriage may only ply for hire within the area of the relevant licensing authority. That is, the authority to which application was made for its licence, and which granted the licence. Within Northumberland, a consequence of local government re-organisation is the creation of six hackney carriage “zones”, which for the purposes of hackney carriage licensing, retain and replicate on the basis of the previous administrative areas of the former six district councils (Alnwick, Berwick, Blyth, Castle Morpeth, Tynedale and Wansbeck) of Northumberland the role of the original licensing authority. However, a hackney carriage in respect of which a hackney carriage licence is in force is specifically exempted from the private hire vehicles licensing requirement, and may accordingly be pre-booked to pick up and carry passengers for reward either within or outside the area of the relevant licensing authority.
5. The recent High Court judgment, has provided guidance as to the proper approach to be taken by a licensing authority when considering an application made to it for a hackney carriage licence by someone who does not intend to ply for hire in the area of the authority, but only applies to be granted such a licence in order to take advantage (elsewhere) of the statutory exemption from the requirements of private hire vehicle licensing. The following principles may be stated as established by the judgment in that case –
a. The scheme of the legislation is to provide a local control over hackney carriages and their drivers, for the protection of the public. This implies that in general the licensing system should operate in such a way that the authority licensing hackney carriages is the authority for the area in which those vehicles are principally used
b. A licensing authority is obliged to have regard to whether an applicant for a licence intends that the hackney carriage if licensed will be used to ply for hire within the area of that authority. It would be a lawful exercise of the authority’s discretion to refuse to grant a licence to an applicant who does not so intend.
c. A licensing authority is also obliged to have regard to whether an applicant for a licence intends that the hackney carriage will be used (either entirely or predominantly) for private hire remotely from the area of that authority. It would be a lawful exercise of the authority’s discretion to refuse to grant a licence to an applicant who does so intend.
d. It is generally desirable therefore that a licensing authority should only licence hackney carriages which it is intended will ply for hire within the area of that authority and should refuse licences to hackney carriages that do not intend to ply for hire, to a material extent, in the area.
e. While it would not necessarily be unlawful per se to grant a licence to a proprietor who intends that the hackney carriage shall only be used remotely from the area of the licensing authority, it will rarely be rational for an authority to do so. It follows that it is only in wholly exceptional circumstances that a licence is likely to be granted where the proprietor intends that the hackney carriage shall only be used remotely from the area of the licensing authority.
f. The discretion whether to grant or refuse remains with the licensing authority; and whilst it must not be exercised so as to frustrate the purpose of the legislation, “there will be proprietors who wish to use their vehicles in a number of different authorities’ areas and in that case no doubt there will be flexibility in the exercising of the discretion”.
6. The Council when considering new applications for hackney carriage proprietors licences, more commonly referred to as hackney carriage vehicle licences, will determine those applications in accordance with the above principles and the overall conclusions contained within the Approved Judgment handed down by the High Court on the 5th November 2008. To than end:
(i) Applicants for new licences will be expected to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council a bona fide intention to ply to a material extent for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone under the terms of the licence for which application is being made. All applicants will be required to complete and submit a “Request for information – intended usage of a hackney carriage” form ((Appendix A)
(ii) There will be a presumption that applicants who do not intend to predominantly, or entirely ply for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone will not be granted a hackney carriage licence authorising them to do so.
(iii) The presumption mentioned in (ii) is capable of being rebutted in exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is neither possible nor prudent to draw up a list of what might amount to exceptional circumstances, an applicant who claims that exceptional circumstances exist will be expected to be able to satisfy the Council that a licence can be granted without frustrating the purposes of the legislation and/or compromising public safety.
(iv) In all cases, when considering applications for hackney carriage proprietors licences, the Council will place public safety above all other considerations
7. In light of the above, the Council has approved the following policies
• Applications for the renewal of a hackney carriage licence – Policy HC2
• Transfer of ownership – Policy HC3
• Change of vehicle – Policy HC4
8. For the avoidance of doubt, the individual policies will only apply to those areas where the Council, when carrying out the licensing function, is able to exercise discretion. In all other instances, the requirements of the individual relevant statutory provisions will be applied.
The Policies
Applications for the renewal of a hackney carriage licence – Policy HC1
(i) Section 41 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, provides that a hackney carriage licence shall only be in force for one year. Section 60 of Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 introduces the concept of “renewal” and gives the Council the power to refuse to renew a licence on both specific grounds and for any reasonable cause.
(ii) Applicants seeking to renew a licence will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council that they have a bona fide intention to ply to a material extent for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone under the terms of the licence for which application is being made. All applicants will be required to complete and submit “Request for information – intended usage of a hackney carriage” form.
(iii) There will be a presumption that applicants who do not intend to predominantly, or entirely ply for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone will not be granted a hackney carriage licence authorising them to continue to do so. Each application will be decided on its merits, however; and the presumption will be rebuttable in exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is neither possible nor prudent to draw up a list of what might amount to exceptional circumstances, an applicant who claims that exceptional circumstances exist will be expected to be able to satisfy the Council that a licence can be granted without frustrating the purposes of the legislation and/or compromising public safety.
(iv) The Council will determine each application on its merits, but the Council will place public safety above all other considerations.
Reasons for Policy HC1
1 The decision of the High Court in Newcastle City Council v Berwick upon Tweed Council [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) requires the Council to introduce policy to determine the way applications for the grant and renewal of hackney carriage licences are considered.
2. There will inevitably be a large number of licensees who have been granted licences prior to the High Court judgment, and who now earn their livings or have built up businesses in reliance on those licences. The Council recognises that there is potential that those licensees may not have their licences renewed, if the basis on which their licenses were originally granted to them were to be changed so as to disentitle them to renewal. Notwithstanding, the Council believes it has a duty to:
• Balance the human rights of both applicants and the public with the need to protect public safety through a system of local control.
• Balance the rights of individuals to seek licences and employment whether in Northumberland or otherwise.
3. The existing legislative provisions relating to the licensing of private hire vehicles, drivers and operators (LGMPA 1976) do not permit a licensing authority to restrict the number of licences that may be granted. It is therefore possible for an applicant seeking a licence who intends to use a vehicle for private hire remotely from the area of the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone to seek a licence from the relevant licensing authority.
4. The High Court was not asked to consider the position on the renewal of licences already granted, and did not do so. Moreover, the Declaration made by the Court identified a discretion to refuse in the given circumstances, not an obligation to do so.
5. In light of the above, the Council considers that there may be applications for renewal in which it may be appropriate to consider exceptional circumstances when it may not be right, or consistent with an existing licensee’s legitimate expectations, to determine the application by reference to criteria that are wholly different from those pertaining at the time of the first application and grant. In considering those expectations, the Council is aware that judicial review and high court proceedings were known to the trade in advance of the High Court judgment being handed down on the 5 November 2008.
.
6. The Council will determine each application on its merits, but the Council will place public safety above all other considerations
Notification of the ‘transfer’ of hackney carriage licences
7. No statutory provision is made for the transfer of hackney carriage licences. What are commonly regarded as transfers of licences, however, regularly take place – as when a proprietor replaces a licensed vehicle, or when the “ownership” of a licensed vehicle changes, and the new owner wishes to continue to operate the vehicle as a hackney carriage under the terms of the existing licence. . In the latter situation Section 49 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 requires that the proprietor of the licensed vehicle who “transfers” his interest to another must, within 14 days of the transfer, give written notice to the Council of the name and address of the transferee of the hackney carriage. The Council has no power to refuse to register the new proprietor: see R v Weymouth Borough Council, ex p Teletax (Weymouth) Ltd [1947] KB 583.
8. Policies have been adopted to address each of the above-mentioned situations.
Transfer of ownership – Policy HC2
(i) The transferee of a licensed hackney carriage will be requested to inform the Council under the provisions of Section 73 of the LGMPA 1976 whether he has a bona fide intention to use the vehicle to ply to a material extent for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone.
(ii) The Council, where there is a failure to provide the requested information, will give serious consideration to exercising its powers of suspension of the licence under section 60 of the LGMPA 1976 Act until such information is forthcoming.
(iii) Transferees of existing licences will be expected to have a bona fide intention to ply to a material extent for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone under the terms of the licence in respect of the vehicle being transferred.
(iv) Where the transferee of a licensed hackney carriage is found not to intend to predominantly, or entirely ply for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone, there will be a presumption (either at renewal or earlier) that the suspension or revocation of the licence under section 60 of the 1976 Act may follow. All information requested following a transfer will be considered on its merits, however; and the presumption will be rebuttable in exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is neither possible nor prudent to draw up a list of what might amount to exceptional circumstances, an applicant who claims that exceptional circumstances exist will be expected to be able to satisfy the Council that it would not frustrate the purposes of the legislation or compromise public safety if the licence were renewed (or if were not suspended or revoked as the case may be).
Reasons for Policy HC2
9. The Weymouth decision requires the Council to register the name of the new proprietor of the vehicle. It seems to the Council also to open up an obvious route to circumvent the recent decision of the High Court, unless precautionary steps are taken. This policy is intended to put the Council in a position to respond responsibly to the transfer of a Berwick hackney carriage into the name of someone who operates outside the Borough or (more importantly) remotely from it.
10. The Council has a duty to:
• Balance the human rights of both applicants and the public with the need to protect public safety through a system of local control.
Change of vehicle – Policy HC3
(i) Applicants seeking the grant of hackney carriage licence for a vehicle intended to replace another licensed vehicle will be asked to inform the Council of any material change to the intended use of that hackney carriage vehicle licence from that which was expressed to the Council (if any was) when application was made for the licence sought to be replaced. There will be a presumption that applicants who no longer intend to ply either predominantly or entirely within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone will not have the new hackney carriage licence granted.
(ii) Each application will be decided on its merits, however; and the presumption will be rebuttable in exceptional circumstances. Whilst it is neither possible nor prudent to draw up a list of what might amount to exceptional circumstances, an applicant who claims that exceptional circumstances exist will be expected to be able to satisfy the Council that a licence can be granted without frustrating the purposes of the legislation and/or compromising public safety.
Reasons for Policy HC3
11. It is assumed that if the proprietor has a legal entitlement to hold a licence that, unless there has been a change in his intentions with regard to plying to a material extent for hire within the relevant hackney carriage licensing zone, there should be no reason why he should not be granted a licence for a replacement vehicle.
12. An applicant who obtained his first licence on the expressed intention of plying for hire within the relevant zone, and who on application to replace that vehicle with another discloses that he no longer so intends, effectively engages the presumption against grant that is mentioned in the earlier policies. That presumption, however, admits of exceptions in the usual way; and the fundamental principle that each application will be determined on its merits will apply.
Download:Hackney Carriage Intended Use Policy
LICENSING AND REGULATORY COMMITTEE
5th June2009
REPORT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT MANAGER
Hackney Carriage – Intended Use Policy
1. SYNOPSIS
Under the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 Northumberland County Council are responsible for the granting of “hackney carriage proprietors licences” which are more commonly referred to as a hackney carriage vehicle licences.
A recent High Court judgment (Newcastle City Council v Berwick upon Tweed {2008} EWHC 2369 (Admin)) demonstrates the need for licensing authorities to establish the “intended use” of a vehicle as part of the decision making process when considering an application for the grant or renewal of a hackney carriage licence.
The Regulatory Committee are asked to give consideration to the attached policy and are recommended to endorse its adoption by the Council when it meets on the 1st July 2009.
2. IMPLICATIONS (include references to budget and policy framework)
Policy: The proposal advocates the introduction of a new Northumberland wide policy.
Financial and
Value for money There is a risk that the proposed policy or decisions made there under, may be subject to legal challenge and thereby expose the council to financial risk. Should the policy not be progressed, there is a similar risk that the council may be subject to legal challenge if, following the recent High Court Judgment, the council were to continue to grant licences to proprietors of hackney carriages who did not intend to a material extent to operate the vehicle within the zone to which the licence relates.
Personnel: None
Property: None
Crime and Disorder: The proposed policy seeks to ensure that licences and the operation of hackney carriages can be monitored through a system of local control.
Equalities: None
Customer Considerations The proposed policy seeks to ensure that licences and the operation of hackney carriages can be monitored through a system of local control.
3. RISK ASSESSMENT (include references to which of the 4 levels of risk apply and any matrix, Workshop, Panel meetings)
Not appropriate
4. CONSULTATIONS
Following publication of the High Court judgment on the 5th November 2008, Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council elected to develop an intended use policy. As part of this process, extensive consultation was undertaken with the trade, trade organisations and local licensing authorities. Whilst a draft policy was produced and revised following the consultation exercise, a final policy was not adopted prior to the abolition of the Council on the 31st March 2009. The revised policy is attached as Appendix A and consultation responses at Appendix B.
No additional consultation has been undertaken. The proposed policy has been developed as a response to the High Court Judgment and seeks to set out how the Council will, where it is permitted to do so when carrying out its statutory duties, exercise discretion so as to ensure local control of licensed hackney carriages and protection of the public which must be uppermost when undertaking the licensing duties.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Regulatory Committee is recommended to:
Endorse the attached Northumberland County Council Hackney Carriage Intended Use Policy (Appendix C) and recommend adoption of the policy by the Council.
6. BACKGROUND (include options, reasons and effect on performance)
Under the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, Section 37, councils are responsible for the granting of hackney carriage proprietors licences which must, subject to very few exceptions, be driven by a person who holds a hackney carriage drivers licence. The issuing authority for both licences should be the council in the area in which the proprietor of the vehicle intends to undertake his business by either plying for hire or waiting at a taxi rank located within the administrative area of the council.
In addition to operating in the manner described above, a hackney carriage may undertake work on a pre-booked basis either within or outside of the administrative area of the licensing authority, which is not subject to any additional controls or licences.
Under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, a further licensing regime is provided for work which is undertaken solely on a pre-booked basis. This requires that any person who wishes to operate a private hire vehicle must hold three licences, each of which must be granted by the same licensing authority. The licences in question are an operators’ licence, a private hire vehicle licence and a private hire driver’s licence. Those businesses that operate on the basis of private hire are not permitted at any time to ply for hire or wait at a taxi rank.
This therefore creates a situation where a hackney carriage may be used to fulfil a pre-booked hiring even though the hackney carriage in question may be licensed in a different area. Where this happens, the authority in whose area the hiring takes place has no automatic enforcement powers over those vehicles, which in turn are unlikely to be subject to the same conditions as that authority.
Prior to the 5th November 2008, Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council had taken the view that they were unable to refuse to issue licences to hackney carriage proprietors unless either the vehicle or the driver were unfit. The outcome of this approach and as a consequence of local licensing arrangements was that over a period from April 2006 to August 2008 the number of licences increased from 46 to 672.
Newcastle City Council, concerned at the number of hackney carriages licensed by Berwick that were being used within their area to fulfil private hire bookings, challenged the view of Berwick via judicial review.
This matter was subject to a hearing in the High Court before Mr Christopher Symons QC on the 15th, 16th, 17th of September and the 5th November 2008. The overall conclusion of the court in response to Newcastle City Councils’ claim was:
(i) In the proper exercise of its statutory discretion under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 a licensing authority is obliged to have regard (a) to whether the applicant intends that the hackney carriage if licensed will be used to ply for hire within the area of that authority, and (b) whether the applicant intends that the hackney carriage will be used (either entirely or predominantly) for private hire remotely from the area of that authority.
(ii) A licensing authority may in the proper exercise of its discretion under the said section 37 refuse to grant a licence in respect of a hackney carriage that is intended to be used to ply for hire within its area and/or is intended to be used (either entirely or predominantly) for private hire remotely from the area of that authority.
(iii) In determining whether to grant a licence under the said section 37 a licensing authority may require an applicant to submit information pursuant to section 57 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in order to ascertain the intended usage of the vehicle.
A copy of the Approved Judgment is attached as Appendix D
In dealing with the claim of Newcastle City Council, the Court concentrated on the granting of new licences and did not specifically comment upon the renewal of licences. A proprietor’s licence in accordance with Section 43 of the Town Police Clauses Act it is stated “shall be in force for one year only from the day of the date of such licence or until the next general licensing meeting”. The Act makes no reference to the “renewal” of licences and therefore it was expected that each licence shall be granted as a new licence.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 Section 60 makes reference, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, that a district council may suspend or revoke, or refuse to renew a vehicle licence on both specific grounds and for any other reasonable cause.
Whilst the High Court Judgment makes no reference to the renewal of licences, it would seem appropriate to apply the same overall approach when dealing with such applications so as to provide a system of local control and protection of the public.
Furthermore, the policy as drafted whilst recognising that the basis on which the original hackney carriage proprietors licence were granted, may in the future, under the terms of the policy be subject to different considerations does, where exceptional circumstances exist enable the council to consider and grant licences where it would be appropriate to do so.
7. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Appendix A – Berwick Revised Policy
Appendix B – Berwick – Response to consultation
Appendix C – Draft Northumberland Hackney Carriage Intended Use Policy
Appendix D – Newcastle City Council v Berwick upon Tweed {2008} EWHC 2369
(Admin)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Transport Act 1985
8. CONTACT OFFICER(S)
This report has been prepared by:
Mr Philip Soderquest, Public Safety and Enforcement Manager
For further information please contact Mr Philip Soderquest – 01434 652458 Philip.Soderquest@northumberland.gov.uk
Download:REPORT OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT MANAGER
Possibly Related Posts:
- Consultation:Conditions of Licence for NT PH Operators & Drivers
- Cambridge Taxi Share + New York Taxi Share
- North Tyneside Consultation on HC & PH Policy
- Blackburn with Darwen two-tier system for cabs is axed
- List of councils most effected by the new taxi WAV provisions of the Equalities Bill 2010.
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
taxi and private hire mots and interum tests are there for a reason the passengers safety yet certain councils only testing once a year on older cars is a big joke for passenger safety just to save a few quid and been able to test there own cars is a liscence to a accident to happen the normal mot stations for normal cars have been known to be dodgy for years whos to say it wont happen with these taxi non council run mot stations
STOP PRESS… READ ALL ABOUT IT!
Sitting in my taxi on Tuesday and somebody knocks on the window. I roll the window down and instead of a passenger I get a load of political rhetoric from a Scouser of all people. Now I was happy to listen to him but by the same token, I thought he should have listened to me and answered any questions I wanted to ask. Instead, as soon as I began to talk, a form was shoved through the window and I was told “just sign this”. I took the form and rolled the window back up.
When I got time I read the form, it was from the union UNITE who have only now decided to jump on the bandwagon and tell us something we already know which is about the problem of ‘cross border hiring’. I wondered if anyone else has been given this form to sign because what they seem to be saying is that the Union is going to start a petition for a change in the law. They also have an additional agenda which wasn’t made apparent and that is they are also campaigning for a ‘one tier’ system for the taxi trade. Why don’t they ask the drivers first whether they are in agreement with this and then explain what level of tariff everybody should be operating on?
The way things are at the moment is that the private hire operators are making a killing undercutting the Hackney Carriage Trade. So with a one tier system do they expect the Hackney’s to lower their tariff to that of private hire or for the private hire to increase their tariff so it’s all the same?
Why it is that meddling Unions always think they know what is best for the taxi trade without ever taking the time to talk to the drivers at the grass roots level?
Lady Eleanor
where is your new newcastle office going to be Ian? hope it all goes well .
Mr Money bags if your are a genine person and not someone who simply wants to re ignite some comments to this site there is many operators out there who would be interested in talking to you.
Blue Line is soon to open its new Newcastle Office and will soon be recruiting cars for this office if you are interestd.
Thank you very much for your advice, I was actually thinking if buying maybe 10-20 brand new mondeo type vehicles, training potential new taxis drivers to gain a licence and hiring these cars to them long term, I’ll put them all on at Blueline as they ae the best!
Admin, I am angry and appalled that you have allowed actual drug taking in the middle of a comment.
What next?
They’ll be giving taxi licenses to people who have never sat a locality test and can’t speak a word of bloody English, like cockneys, mackems and smoggies etc.
Churchill would turn in his grave.
@Mr Money Bags,You can find the Phone numbers of Local Taxi Licensing offices on the following page: http://www.toomanytaxis.com/complaints/
I want to become a taxi driver in North Tyneside/Newcastle What is the easiest way to obtain a licence?
Top and bottom of it is? If your plater at berwick you should work the area of berwick. If your plated Newcastle you should work newcastle. And polish drivers who have just come to the country could not possibly have an idea of the area they are working. I am afraid it is al about the money Mr Blueline.
@John Smith, Name it John… You only get 1 free advert!
@Northumberland hack, Not many would argue with you on here mate,you have the same problem as us! The only difference is you havn’t got a website about it. As far as I know there is no outright animosity toward Northumberland drivers and we all know the difference between a bona fide N’land hack and one that is working here as PH. Some of us even know these drivers personally and get along with them, we would just like to see an end to the mess as you put it. It’s a waiting game, we have waited for a long time and now we wait for N’land Council to agree the Policy early next year,then we will wait again whilst all the drivers lodge their appeals. We’re used to waiting but I assure you that while we wait we are not going to the trouble of collecting bucket loads of Cowshit to drop on N’land Taxis in the dead of night. What’s yer problem anyway? coming here having a go! Nobody here is interested in you unless you work from Blueline or East Coast or any other NT or N’cle office. Like I said before we both have the same problem and when your Council get’s it’s act together maybe every area will settle down to using it’s own Taxis.
@blueline driver,Where do I sign? I only took 30 quid today!
Has anyone seen the New TV Ad for Nintendo?
It’s advertising the “Brain Training Game” for the DS Console, it stars Ant & Dec and two London Cabbies!
You would have thought two Geordie Stars may have used our Lads, but there again does Ant & Dec want Southerners thinking they are from Berwick, Poland, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Berwick Caravan park!!
mr shanks,when diesel topped 129 per litre you were interviewed on radio and you said and i quote ” the taxi business is no longer an attractive business to be in ” may i ask you your stance now as further down the line business is even worse. yet you seem to pretend that all in the garden is rosy ..
@ian.shanks, If you,for example, wanted to plate a Ford Tourneo, in North Tyneside I’m sure Ford would be only too happy to take up the case and prove that NT, or whoever, were wrong about their vehicle and that it would make a fine Taxi. and it would be a lot cheaper and less messy than what we have had for the last couple of years. I tend to think that what we have gone through is more about pissing the Council off and making as big a mess as possible in the hope that it would become too expensive for Councils to keep fighting and eventually just open the trade up. Even if I am wrong it’s a likely scenario.
@ian shanks, why weren’t the other 3,000, or so, of us driven out?
Since this great Website has started we have shouted at each other, called each other names, Legal Action has been even threatened, all because of one topic “Berwick”.
Now if I were a Bandit I would have now migrated to a proper Council, not because I respected the “proper Drivers”, if i did that I would not be a Bandit in the first place!, NO!, I would have done it because of all the uncertainty around the issue.
So as a North Tyneside Driver, I can only think the worst that the Drivers who are still at Berwick are unsuitable for NT or Newcastle Council, does anyone agree???
Why is there still Bandits at large???
Newcastle’s test cannot be hard when you look at those Ethnic Drivers at the Central Station, they can’t speak the Lingo at all in some cases, if they can pass anyone can!
NT’s is multiple choice, an experienced Bandit working in NT should be able to do it!
I think a lot of Bandits are undesirables!!!, that’s why they have given themselves and the trade a bad name!
All North Tyneside and Newcastle drivers should get their “heads together” to think of a way to oust them before they slip into Blue and White Plates!
No one answered a single question, that i posed in the first post.
why not? afterall we have berwick plate owners and ‘experts’ present here, why dont they answer the following:
can i just ask as to why we still have a number of berwick plated vehicles running around, some with expired dates, and some with no expiry date whatsoever.
why have these guys not got northumberland plates?
if they are appealing to keep there plates, who is dealing with them and when is there likely to be a verdict.
who are responsible for these berwick plates left now that berwick no longer exists?
are these the guys that David calims may live in berwick caravan park?
Again ian, its not having a go, its wanting to know what the present situation is.
also i’ve been beaten to it, but just WHO is responsible for the actions and enforcement of these ‘berwick’ vehicles?
I am chuffed to bits that on a dead night tonight (Monday), I witnessed a NORTHUMBERLAND Hackney Carriage Flimp in Tynemouth!!, just next to Kinder Castle Nursery, a young Couple flagged the Flimper down, and off he went, don’t know what Office he was from!
It was a nice change to see a BLUE and white plate opposed to the legendary GREEN and white plates.
On a serious note the little buggers are still at it!!!!!
David Wilson!
Not only has there been no enforcement since April by Hill Billy Councils united, but when we report your kn*ckers (the Caravan Park Cabs)) they are still using the words “it’s in hand”, so who do we shout at there then?
If you’re going to quote me, please quote me accurately!
What I said was that over a 12-month period, only four section 68 suspension notices were issued in relation to unroadworthy vehicles. As that was a discussion about “enforcement”, my statement related only to suspensions issued as a result of enforcement.
When referring to unroadworthiness, I was (and am) referring to a vehicle not meeting MOT standards.
I would like to say how many section 68 suspension notices were issued as a result of vehicles failing the annual test, but I’d only be guessing. What I can say is that the figure was small and represented only a very small percentage of the vehicles tested. Again, that is not to say that there were not issues relating to non-compliance with conditions of licence, but they were not routinely dealt with by a section 68 suspension notice.
A failure to correctly display a plate or roof sign, to carry a fire extinguisher or to comply with some other condition of licence was generally dealt with in another way.
At the end of the day, so far as “enforcement” was concerned, I was endeavouring to ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that: (i) vehicles were roadworthy, (ii) vehicles were being driven by appropriately licensed, fit and proper people, and (iii) that vehicles and drivers complied with the conditions of their licences. To my mind, they ranked in that order of importance in the “enforcement” context. Other criteria apply to licensing.
Coincidentally, I never said I did the checks and, as a matter of fact, probably only did so on two or three occasions in 12 months. The checks were generally undertaken by one of my two licensing officers, together with an authorised MOT tester.
It is a fact that checks were undertaken in Berwick and Northumberland, at Newcastle Airport, and in Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Stockton / Middlesbrough, Darlington and Newton Aycliffe. In don’t think we ever ventured into Gateshead or Sunderland for enforcement purposes; and I admit we never went to mid-Wales or to East Riding.
We did, however, also check vehicles at proprietors’ homes. As a result of one such check, a section 68 suspension notice was issued.
As our enforcement was “high vis”, it was seen by many people. The fact that you nevr saw it does not mean it didn’t happen! I think you’ll find that North Tyneside Council liked Berwick’s “hig vis enforcement vehicle” so much that they introduced their own!
I regret we never managed more than one day’s enforcement a week, for three out of every four or five weeks, but that is what we managed.
On occasions, joint operations were undertaken with the police, VOSA and HM Customs & Excise.
Until today, I have always said I didn’t know which approach to ensuring compliance was best: regular interim tests or frequent (but irregular) high visibility, random roadside testing. In view of the results disclosed by North Tyneside today, I can only conclude that frequent random roadside tests seem to produce the highest levels of compliance.
Ultimately, however, what is really important is that there is compliance, not how it is achieved.
Finally, I’ll accept there hasn’t been any (or any significant) enforcement undertaken by Northumberland since it became responsible for taxi licensing on 1 April 2009. As I left the Council on 17 April 2009, that failure is not down to me!
A comment by david wilson “out of the 750 berwick plated vehicles licensed only 4 were ever issued with suspension notices due to poor maintenance when given a roadside check by berwick enforcement officers” utter twaddle not once have i ever clapped eyes on that man checking vehicles in north tyneside/newcastle/south tyneside/ or any other borough they work and judging by the state of half the vehicles that were mot’d by “authorised test stations” i find that very hard if not impossible to swallow having worked on some of these vehicles in my line of work.
No mate that’s why they’re having difficulty finding a virgin for that Nativity play, there’s hardly a driver left who hasn’t been shafted by him.
Have you noticed that every time Shanksy opens his mouth without being told what to say by David Wilson he always comes across like a complete nugget?
can i just ask as to why we still have a number of berwick plated vehicles running around, some with expired dates, and some with no expiry date whatsoever.
why have these guys not got northumberland plates?
if they are appealing to keep there plates, who is dealing with them and when is there likely to be a verdict.
who are responsible for these berwick plates left now that berwick no longer exists?
are these the guys that David calims may live in berwick caravan park?