To Tout or Not to Tout! That is the Question

Has anybody got any views on the carry on at the DFDS and Albert Edward Dock,North Shields. RE: The Private Hire Firms that currently have control down there. Are they breaking the Law by stopping passengers and taking their names then calling it a booking? Are they breaking the Law when they deter people from Hiring a Hackney Carriage? This is important, if you think they are breaking the Law then you should make your voices heard, Port of Tyne Today, Tomorrow....who knows!!

bobdinnero wrote: Are they breaking the Law by stopping passengers and taking their names then calling it a booking?

I would say yes they are breaking the law...the only person who can accept a booking for a PHV is a PH Operator.

Stopping the passenger is very probably touting.

bobdinnero wrote: Are they breaking the Law when they deter people from Hiring a Hackney Carriage?

It depends what you mean by deter?

If you mean advising the passenger HC's are more expensive....then probably not.

If physically getting in the way of a HC then perhaps.

CC

No! I mean taking the passenger by the arm and saying 'You don't want this car you can wait over here for our Taxi' and even by saying 'that taxi is dearer' is a form of importuning!

bobdinnero wrote:No! I mean taking the passenger by the arm and saying 'You don't want this car you can wait over here for our Taxi' and even by saying 'that taxi is dearer' is a form of importuning!

Then thats touting...I suppose you know paragraph and verse but I'll make myself out to be a smart arse and tell you its section 167 of the 1994 Criminal Justice & Public Order Act;

Taxi touts

167 Touting for hire car services

(1) Subject to the following provisions, it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not imply that the soliciting must refer to any particular vehicle nor is the mere display of a sign on a vehicle that the vehicle is for hire soliciting within that subsection.

(3) No offence is committed under this section where soliciting persons to hire licensed taxis is permitted by a scheme under section 10 of the [1985 c. 67.] Transport Act 1985 (schemes for shared taxis) whether or not supplemented by provision made under section 13 of that Act (modifications of the taxi code).

(4) It is a defence for the accused to show that he was soliciting for passengers for public service vehicles on behalf of the holder of a PSV operator’s licence for those vehicles whose authority he had at the time of the alleged offence.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(6) In this section—

“public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise); and

“public service vehicle” and “PSV operator’s licence” have the same meaning as in Part II of the [1981 c. 14.] Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

(7) In section 24(2) of the [1984 c. 60.] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (i) inserted by section 155 of this Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

“(j) an offence under section 167 of the [1994 c. 33.] Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (touting for hire car services).”.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1994/ukpga_19940033_en_18

This is my favourite bit:
(6) In this section—

“public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise);
This bit is for all those people who say Hacks can't pick up because it's 'PRIVATE LAND' I'm referring to the DFDS terminal which is where this happened to me and so many people have tried to say I was in the wrong for even being there as it was Private land. I was there dropping off there and a couple asked if I was available when they were led away from my car.

bobdinnero wrote:This is my favourite bit:
(6) In this section—

“public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise);
This bit is for all those people who say Hacks can't pick up because it's 'PRIVATE LAND' I'm referring to the DFDS terminal which is where this happened to me and so many people have tried to say I was in the wrong for even being there as it was Private land. I was there dropping off there and a couple asked if I was available when they were led away from my car.

We have a DFS store across here but no DFDS

There is caselaw on picking up at rail stations, which are usually private land and subject to railway byelaws, I wonder if the ferry terminal has its own byelaws?

I'll try and find the case.

CC

I think it was the Eastbourne Case

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2000/410.html&query=plying&method=boolean

It's quite interesting that since the above case the growing practice of PH is to install a booking office in places like rail stations when they 'win' the rights for stations, this invariably means the PHV's are not standing waiting for immediate hire and are summonsed by the office as and when required...from memory Blackpool Airport and Watford Station operate like this.

CC

Sorry been away for a while. The situation at the DFDS Terminal North shields is this: Two large companies clubbed together and paid for a 5 year franchise,the deal was that they install a freephone & kiosk etc and cars are called as and when required. In practice passengers are herded and kept away from the road and private hire cars which are ranked up outside are brought forward as each set of passengers are let out.If any manage to escape and try to approach a hackney carriage they are quickly rounded up and returned to the waiting P/H cars.
Thanks for the High Court Link By the way.

Courtesy of NALEO

THOUGHTS ON THE DEFINITION OF “STREET” AND “PUBLIC PLACE”

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

1) The Town Police Clauses Acts 1847-1889 are construed as one with the Public Health Act 1875 (Section 171 of the PHA 1875);

2) Section 4 of the PHA 1875 [the definitions section] defines “street” as any highway… and public bridge… and any road, lane, footway, square, court, alley or passage whether a thoroughfare or not:

3) Section 4 of the PHA 1875 [the definitions section] defines “road” as a road to which the public have access and which has houses at either side of it;

4) Section 4 of the PHA 1875 [the definitions section] defines “house” as including buildings where persons are employed;

5) Section 3 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 defines “street” as extending to and include ANY road, square court alley or thoroughfare, or public passage within the limits of the special Act.

6) Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [the interpretation section] defines “road” as in relation to England and Wales means any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes.

7) Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 [the interpretation section] defines both “bridleway” and “footpath” by reference to a public right of way albeit a restricted one.

Section 167 of the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994 [Touting for taxis and hire cars] defines a “public place” as anywhere to which the public have access whether by payment or not.

9) Statutory Instrument 2000, No. 726 is as follows:

Council Directive 72/166/EEC (OJ No. L103, 2.5.72, p. 2), as modified by Council Directives 84/5/EEC (OJ No. L8, 11.1.84, p. 17) and 90/232/EEC (OJ No. L129, 19.5.90, p. 33) requires a Member State to take all appropriate measures to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles normally based in its territory is covered by insurance.

Under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act") it is an offence to use, or to cause or permit someone to use, a motor vehicle on a road unless its use is covered by an appropriate policy of insurance or security ("the insurance requirement"). "Road" is defined in section 192(1) of the 1988 Act, in relation to England and Wales, as any highway or other road to which the public has access and, in relation to Scotland, as any road or other way to which the public has access. In the case of Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, [1998] 4 All ER 417, it was held by the House of Lords that the expression did not include a car park or similar public place.

For the purpose of complying with the directives these Regulations amend the 1988 Act first by extending the insurance requirement to the use of vehicles in public places other than roads and, secondly, by making provision for the reporting of accidents and the production of insurance

Hackney Carriages Page 1

30/11/2004


documents where an accident occurs in a public place.

PERTINENT CASE LAW

1) Young v Scampion [1988] RTR 95 and references contained therein;
2) Strettle v Knowsley MBC
3) Cutter v. Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, [1998] 4 All ER 417;


SKELETON POINTS TO CONSIDER

1) The purpose of the Act-to protect the public at large by licensing controls;
2) The enforcement authority is the Council for the District;
3) The date of the Young decision and the changes brought about by the new requirements to give EEC legislation effect within national law;
4) The latest parliamentary definition of “road” and;
5) The mischief rule of statutory interpretation.

ARGUMENT FOR CONSIDERATION

1) The RTA 1988, S192 defines “road” without reference to public right of access [unlike the definition of bridleway and footpath] but by reference merely to public access.

2) The TPCA 1847, S3 defines “street” as including ANY ROAD……;

3) The PHA 1875, S4 defines “street” again as ANY ROAD……;

4) SI 2000, 726 gives effect to the requirement on all member states to ensure civil liability is covered by insurance whether on a road or other public place.

In Young and Scampion [107B-E] the learned judges cited Curtis v Embery [1872] as requiring proof that the street must be a public street. It should be noted Curtis v Embery concerned a railway property case and the position on that type of site was specifically amended by S76 of the Public Health Act 1925. It is my contention that that case can be distinguished from the Strettle v Knowsley MBC decision of recent date.

In Strettle the carriage was on a road to which the public were permitted access albeit that this was by licence and not a right. I am informed that, in the absence of obstruction or misbehaviour, no traveller along the road would be prevented from going wherever he wished on the roads within the hospital grounds by anyone at any hour of the day or night. No barriers are installed on the roads. I am informed it is possible for persons to use the grounds as a short cut without ever attending any part of the hospital and so I submit it falls both within the definition of thoroughfare and also road.

As an aside until 1966 the House of Lords held that it could not over rule its previous decisions. The Practice Direction of that year changed that to allow for changes in circumstances in Society and practice. It now can in exceptional circumstances over rule itself and has done so. The law of 100 years ago is open to challenge.

CONCLUSION

In 2001 in reality any person may enter the grounds of Whiston Hospital with a car and drive upon those roads. The law now requires such use to be covered by insurance. Since 1988 the

Hackney Carriages Page 2

30/11/2004


main definition of a road is “a place to which the public have access” and not a place to which the public have a right of access.

Street is defined in the 1847 and 1875 Acts as a total of 15 types of place of which only 2 are connected to the word “public”. The learned judges in Young, I respectfully submit, stand to be over ruled or at least distinguished.

Any vehicle used or standing for hire in a street, where the public may be found, [privately owned or otherwise] should therefore fall within the S45 TPCA 1847 offence. I submit that the decision of the Crown Court, if challenged, could be over turned and distinguished from Young & Scampion in the circumstances of the Strettle case

Investigating Powers Act used 56 times by council




Special powers for covert surveillance have been used 56 times by Reading council since the law allowed it to carry out such investigations.

The full council was questioned by member of the public James Cox on Tuesday and he wanted to know how often it had used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) for what kinds of investigations and how many had led to conviction and prosecution of other action.

Leader of the council, Councillor Jo Lovelock, revealed there had been 13 investigations into illegal trading, four into illegal private hire and Hackney carriage vehicles, 18 probes into anti-social behaviour, one into a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act, five into the sale of counterfeit goods, two into unlicensed activity by off-licences, two investigations into overcrowding in houses in multiple occupation, nine into the sale of unfit food and two on the sale of food contrary to a prohibition notice.

She said in all cases the video and photographic evidence were used to prevent or detect crime or to prevent disorder.

Since RIPA came into force 19 successful prosecutions have been brought resulting in fines, deportation of illegal immigrants, seizure of illegal goods and the revocation of licences.
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2037573_investigating_powers_act_used_56_times_by_council

This act was brought in to help in the fight against terrorism. The way councils mis-use it is a disgrace. The government are now pushing ahead with a bill to create a huge database of everyones phone calls (mobile and landline), emails, websites visited etc. and no doubt some jacked up jobsworth at the council will have access to this data as well as many other agencies. and how long will it be before they lose the data ?

Joe King wrote:This act was brought in to help in the fight against terrorism. The way councils mis-use it is a disgrace. The government are now pushing ahead with a bill to create a huge database of everyones phone calls (mobile and landline), emails, websites visited etc. and no doubt some jacked up jobsworth at the council will have access to this data as well as many other agencies. and how long will it be before they lose the data ?

I dont disagree, how long till its used to catch HC's over ranking or PHV's illegally plying?

CC