Birmingham Fight PH Touts in full Part 2.

Thank you for your recent email enquiring about the work of the licensing enforcement team in Birmingham. I apologise for the delay in responding.The enforcement team consists 14 officers,including a principal officer and team manager. Two officers are office based and deal with routine enquiries, accident notifications and the administration of Simple Cautions.
The remaining officers are field officers. We also have a police officer seconded to the team.As a team we enforce general licensing requirements,(such as the Licensing Act, Gambling Act, Street Collections, Door to Door collections , Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act relating to sex establishments, and Birmingham City Council Act which controls premises offering massage or other special treatments), and the requirements for hackney carriages and private hire.We currently have 1,439 licensed hackney carriage drivers and 6,043 licensed private hire drivers.
We also have 1,453 licensed hackney carriage vehicles and 5,550 licensed private hire vehicles.The majority of our enforcement operations involving private hire or hackney carriages are carried out with the cooperation of the police, either via the seconded officer or through partnership working with neighbourhood officers or traffic officers. The police officers in the majority of these activities with neighbourhood or traffic officers are not funded by the licensing service, although we have a small fund which will allow us to buy in additional police resources for larger operations.
Enforcement Officers are required to work one evening / late shift per week between 8pm and 2am. They may also be required to work one weekend shift per month for which they will receive overtime payments.
As far as complaints are concerned , this year these can be broken down asfollows:
HACKNEY CARRIAGEPRIVATE HIRE
ACCIDENT ACCIDENT3
BEHAVIOUR45BEHAVIOUR150
BREACH OF CONDITIONS/LEGISLATION48BREACH OF CONDITIONS/LEGISLATION375
DRIVING2DRIVING23
INSURANCE16INSURANCE244
LATE ARRIVAL LATE ARRIVAL1
NOISE1NOISE7
OVERCHARGE11OVERCHARGE20
PLYING/TOUTING PLYING/TOUTING85
UNLICENSED VEHICLE/DRIVER1UNLICENSED VEHICLE/DRIVER47
VEHICLE CONDITION VEHICLE CONDITION10
WHEELCHAIR/DISABLED15WHEELCHAIR/DISABLED3
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION231
NON SMOKING1NON SMOKING

The department is financed almost exclusively from fees, although I understand there is a small grant from the Centre which acts as a buffer.
Plying exercises are conducted in one of two ways.The first is where officers will approach vehicles suspected of plying for hire and request a journey. If the driver agrees to the journey and a fare agreed the officers will enter the vehicle and the journey will commence. Along the way the vehicle will be intercepted by a traffic police officer and brought to a stop site where the driver will be informed that his passengers are officers and he will be cautioned and reported for offence of plying for hire and driving without valid insurance.
The alternate method is used where we do not have police support. In this case officers will approach a driver and request a journey. If the driver agrees to take the officers and a fare is agreed the officers will enter the vehicle but will caution and report the driver for the offence of plying for hire only.As far as officers being covered by insurance, the view of Birmingham City Council is that as the officers are undertaking work activities they are covered by the councils employers liability insurance. We do however risk assess each operation and ensure that risks to officers safety is as low as reasonably practicable, in line with legal requirements.I hope this answers your enquiry. If you would like to discuss the issues further please do not hesitate to contact me.Kindest regardsGraeme BlakeyLicensing Enforcement Team ManagerBirmingham City Council

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

ABACUS LOSES OPERATORS LICENCE..

Danny Sullivan attended a meeting this morning at Palestra and was told that from today Diamond cars have lost their operators licence for Abacus.

So from tonight any cars parked outside are illegally plying for hire and should be nicked for plying for hire!!

So now we need to show LT&PH and the COL that we can offer Abacus a first class service, if we can’t we will find they will let another operator into Abacus and it will probably be a relation of Diamond Cars.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Reply

No Woman is safe in a minicab,says rape judge

by BEN TAYLOR, Daily Mail,2003

A judge issued an alarming warning to minicab passengers yesterday that they cannot expect to travel in safety.

Jailing an asylum seeker for eight years for raping a secretary, Recorder Michael Sayers, QC, said those hiring a private taxi simply had no way of knowing the driver’s background.

He called for compulsory licensing of all cab drivers after police checks on the firm where the rapist worked revealed that not one driver was being legally employed.

“It appears that nobody can travel in minicabs with any degree of assurance or safety, as demonstrated by the facts in this case,” said the judge.

“At the moment, when a member of the public takes a cab he has no assurance that the driver is who he claims to be or has got any insurance or driving licence. He has no way of knowing how the driver conducts his business.

“This is something that should be investigated. If minicab drivers are driving around with false identities, it is something that should be looked into and investigated properly. I find it quite a worrying state of affairs.”

The case has highlighted a growing problem in our cities, where a burgeoning nightclub culture and lack of public transport has led to a boom in the use of minicabs.

These are separate from licensed black cabs and are supposed to be booked in advance over the telephone or in person at a central office.

There are around 100,000 private hire drivers in the UK. Powers to license them have been on the statute book since 1998 but the law’s enforcement depends heavily on the policy of the local authority.

In London, men and women desperate to get home have resorted to hailing unlicensed “taxi touts” who ply for trade by driving through the city’s entertainment areas.

Police figures show that 214 women were sexually assaulted in the capital last year after getting into illegal minicabs and 54 raped.

Razaq Assadullah, 31, who worked for Speedline Cars in Stratford, East London, was an asylum seeker who came to Britain from Afghanistan in 2000.

He was convicted last December

of raping the 28-year-old secretary and was sentenced at the Old Bailey yesterday.

In a reference to the rapist’s background, the judge told him: “You were certainly aware of the gravity of the crime of rape as it would be met by a sentence of death by stoning.”

The woman got into the cab after a night out in a wine bar in Stratford last July.

After dropping off her best friend, Assadullah parked the car and turned off the engine before attacking the woman in the back seat. He stopped only when disturbed by two cyclists.

The Old Bailey heard that Assadullah, from Plaistow, East London, set himself up as a cab driver by buying a false driving licence for £200 and using a false name. Police checks revealed he was driving without insurance.

Further inquiries into the rapist’s firm revealed that each of its 32 drivers was working illegally in some way – either through their immigration status or by claiming benefit while working.

The judge told Assadullah: “With a mixture of arrogance and cynical opportunism you abused your position of trust.

“She was placed in your cab by a friend who paid you to get her home safely.

“She was put through a terrifying ordeal and she faced the added trauma of not knowing whether you might be a murderer as well as a rapist.”

Assadullah, a father of three, was granted leave to remain last year after claiming he had been tortured by the Taliban. The judge recommended his deportation.

Detective Constable Malcolm Samuels, of the Metropolitan Police, said that because many minicab drivers work on a self-employed basis there is little incentive for the firm’s owner to check on them.

This case happened back in 2003, eight years on ask yourself as anything changed in the capital.
Ask any licensed Taxis driver in London and I think they will honesty say no, if you look at the figures back then, to these set of figures.

  • In the year 2009 140 sexual assaults were reported in “bogus” or unlicensed mini-cabs.
  • Of the 140 reported sexual assaults 24 were actual rapes.
  • When compared to 2008 figures this represents a rise of 53%

they have dropped but no to a level that you would want to shout from the roof tops, like TFL seem to do at every opportunity as if there boasting in some way that they have made a massive difference.

We have tried to obtain a more up to date Figures but are having trouble.

One rape is too much.

London Taxi & Private Hire (LT&PH) have only 4 compliance officers and 1 manager and 1 senior licensing officer working nights, a total of six, yes six they was spotted last week on Villiers St just off the strand.
On the night in question there was no clubs open it looked like they was playing hide and seek, what their actual job description is we’re not entirely sure.

WP_000282.jpg

Now if like Birmingham city council licensing team, they were out doing covert operations to arrest drivers for Plying for Hire.
The touts that we see outside the bars, clubs and restaurants every night in London, might think twice about taking an unbooked job off the street.
Unlike touting if a driver is approached by a member of public and asked to take them home they know they are not at risk as the tout squad cannot make an arrest of a tout in that way, because that is deemed as entrapment they can only nick someone for touting if the officer is touted.
BUT they can nick a Private Hire Driver for Plying for Hire!

Are LT&PH Failing to protect the Travelling Public in London ?

Once again are London Taxi & Private Hire(LT&PH) failing in their duty to protect the travelling public in London ?.
Manchester City council had concerns for the public safety back in 2008 when the Mercedes Vito Taxi was licensed to ply for Hire in Manchester. So worried about the introduction of the Vito Taxi working alongside the Vito six seater that is being used by Private Hire Drivers in Manchester that the council held a consultation.

The outcome was that they decided to introduced colour coded Taxis and Private Hire vehicles, where all Taxis had to be black and Private Hire vehicle’s had to be all silver.
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/Item_5_Licensing_Policy_Mercedes_Vito_Taxi_FINAL.pdf
It is now become apparent that LT&PH don’t hold the same fears for the travelling public in London .
LT&PH had a golden opportunity when they held a Private Hire Consultation recently to address this serious situation and other major problems within the private hire industry.
Under vehicles proposal they included in the PH consultation paper.
It has been suggested that in order to maintain the distinction between private hire vehicles and taxis and avoid any confusion for the travelling public with regards to what vehicles can be used to ply for hire that TfL should introduce restrictions on the types of vehicles that can be licensed as private hire vehicles and/or introduce additional requirements or the colour of private hire vehicles and taxis.
In particular it is suggested that:
• Vehicles that are used in other licensing areas as taxis which are purpose built or adapted vehicles with permanent fitted partitions between the driver and passengers and ‘taxi style’ rear facing seating arrangements in the rear should not be licensed as private hire vehicles;
• Vehicles that are used as private hire vehicles (with exemptions for certain types such as limousines or specialised vehicles) are a single, standard colour or have a single standard colour scheme similar to requirements adopted in many other Local Authorities. It has been proposed that a single colour could be silver as this is the most marketable colour if the vehicle is being re-sold in future;
•Similar restrictions may be applied to the colours permitted for taxis.
These requirements could be introduced over a number of years to allow existing vehicles to be phased out of private hire use.
Respondents are asked to consider:
i. Whether they agree that the travelling public are currently confused with regards to what vehicles can ply for hire in London and any evidence they are able to provide to support this?
ii. Whether the possible licensing by TfL of vehicles as private hire vehicles that are used or adapted as taxis in London or in other areas of the UK will lead to increased confusion with passengers?
iii. What they believe passengers feel are the distinctive features of a licensed London taxi that clearly distinguishes it from a private hire vehicle and what evidence they may have to support this?
iv. Whether they believe it is appropriate for TfL to introduce further restrictions on the licensing of certain types and makes of vehicles that may resemble licensed London taxis both externally and internally?
v. Whether they believe it is appropriate for TfL to introduce restrictions/requirements on the colour of taxis and/or private hire vehicles. One example could be that all taxis must be black and that all private hire vehicles can be a particular colour such as silver or any colour other than black? What if any.

LT&PH could have taken a number of steps to insure public safety in London.
1. They could have introduced a colour coded scheme were all taxis are black and all PH vehicles become silver. This I belive would have been a massive upheaval for all concerned.

2. There is now roughly 1200 Vito’s and 800 Viano’s licensed for private hire use in London, they could have phased out 2000 vehicles over a couple of years without too much financial loss to those concerned.

With sexual assaults at a high in the capital, LT&PH should have used the PH Consultation more constructively, with their outcome with regards to the Vito Taxi in London we accept that the Vito Taxi as many different appearance’s to the Vito Ph but as the law state’s in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

That a Private hire minicab,Is not of such design and appearance as would lead any person to believe that the vehicle is a London cab;

but it certainly is of the same design because a VITO is a VITO be it a van a six seater or a Taxi.
There is more Vito Taxis licensed to ply for hire in London then the Vito six seater’s licensed for PH use in London.
When (LT&PH) was asked in a compliance meeting would they license a TX2 or a TX4 for Private Hire use if the hire light and the plate on the back had been removed, their response was definitely not because it is a Taxi, so why can’t these’s so-called intelligent people running our licensing department see the comparison’s between the two sets of vehicles licensed in the capital .

So what happens if the Vito taxi takes a bigger share of the taxi market, this is why I feel that the police should take back control of all licensing in the capital because, they will implement the Law and not make policies on trying to keep parties happy.
But once again like in the Private Hire Motorbike Consultation Farce (LT&PH) have adopted for the ( QUITE LIFE POLICY )
The London Cab Drivers Club will be requesting (LT&PH) to provide a detailed response, how they have come to this shocking outcome .

Bet this chaos doesn’t happen when the OLYMPICS comes to town!!

20110912-115354.jpg

TFL press release:

Thousands of people had their journey into London disrupted this morning after Upper Thames Street in London was reduced to one lane this morning following uncoordinated utility works by UK Power Network.

The emergency works began on Friday evening to repair a high voltage cable underneath Upper Thames Street in Central London. The company failed to notify TfL through the correct channels that the work was taking place, and to make matters worse, when TfL contacted UK Power Network over the weekend, relevant officials were uncontactable and their customer service department unaware of the works.

At the height of the morning peak, westbound traffic was queuing back to the Limehouse Link tunnel and causing further delays to traffic across both Southwark and Tower Bridge.

Leon Daniels, Managing Director of Surface Transport at TfL, said: “Once again, peoples’ commute into London has been thrown into utter chaos because a utility company can’t simply work out what its left and right hands are doing. The fact that management at the company were not aware of the major disruption that these works have caused this morning is both deeply frustrating and wholly unacceptable.

“I am writing to the utility company this morning to convey the frustrations of all road users about this mismanagement and wish to assure Londoners that the Mayor and TfL will not tolerate this behaviour. A consultation is now underway on a lane rental scheme that would charge utility companies according to the amount of time they disrupt London’s streets, and incidents like this show why such a system is essential.”

1962 Clipboard Johnnie 2011 No Change

Rose v Welbeck Motors Ltd and Another.

CRIMINAL; Road Traffic

QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
LORD PARKER CJ, WINN AND BRABIN JJ
30, 31 MAY 1962

Rood Traffic – Hackney carriage – Metroplitan police area – “Plying for hire” – Mini-cab parked in bus stand-by – Advertisements and telephone number on vehicle – Radio aerial on roof providing two-way communication – Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict c 115), s 7.

On 29 September 1961, at 12.45 pm the appellant, a taxi-driver, found a mini-cab parked in a bus stand-by where buses turn round. It was a bright red Renault Dauphine, with various advertisements on the sides and various inscriptions, the most important being a legend on each side of the vehicle “Welbeck Motors, Mini-cabs”. There was also a telephone number along the roof, and there was a radio aerial on the roof providing a two-way short-wave communication.

A bus later wished to pull in from a nearby road and the mini-cab moved out of the bus stand and stopped about ten yards from where it had been. A police officer asked the driver of the mini-cab why he was waiting there, and received the reply that he was waiting for any jobs that came up in the area, and that he had been there fifty minutes. He made it plain that he was to be informed of jobs over the radio.

At about 1.30 pm, the mini-cab drove off, but later came back and parked quite close to the corner from which it had driven away. The owners and the driver of the mini-cab were charged with plying an unlicensed hackney carriage for hire, contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869a. The justices upheld a submission that there was no case to answer and dismissed the informations. On appeal by the appellant,

Held – The distinctive appearance of the vehicle, its colour, its inscriptions and its equipment in the form of radio communication, coupled with the place where it was on view and its conduct during the relevant period, made a prima facie case that the vehicle conveyed an invitation to the public to use it, and, as it was on view to the public, there was a case to answer that the mini-cab was plying for hire; accordingly the proceedings would be remitted with a direction to the justices to continue the hearing.

Cogley v Sherwood; Car Hire Group (Skyport) Ltd v Sherwood ([1959] 2 All ER 313) applied.

Alker v Woodward (16 February 1962, “The Times”, 17 February 1962) followed.

Appeal allowed.

Notes
As to the meaning of plying for hire, see 33 Halsbury’s Laws (3rd Edn) 801, para 1372; and for cases on the subject, see 42 Digest 853–856, 77–94.
For the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, s 7, see 24 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn) 871.

Cases referred to in judgment

Alker v Woodward (16 February 1962), “The Times”, 17 February 1962.
Allen v Tunbridge (1871), LR 6 CP 481, 40 LJMC 197, 24 LT 796, sub nom Allen v Trowbridge, 35 JP 695, 42 Digest 853, 78.
Cogley v Sherwood, Car Hire Group (Skyport) Ltd v Sherwood, Howe v Kavanaugh, Car Hire Group (Skyport) Ltd v Kavanaugh, [1959] 2 All ER 313, [1959] 2 QB 311, 123 JP 377, [1959] 2 WLR 781, 3rd Digest Supp.
Foinett v Clarke (1877), 41 JP 359, 42 Digest 854, 80.
Gilbert v McKay [1946] 1 All ER 458, 174 LT 196, 110 JP 186, 2nd Digest Supp.

Case Stated.

This was a Case Stated by justices for the county of Essex in respect of their adjudication as a magistrates’ court sitting at Stratford, on 8 November, 1961. On 13 October 1961, the appellant, Emmanuel Rose, preferred informations against the respondents charging that (i) the first respondents, Welbeck Motors Ltd being the owners of an unlicensed hackney carriage which plied for hire at the junction of Forest Road and Beacontree Avenue, E 17, on 29 September 1961, contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, and (ii) that the second respondent, Frederick Stanley Jones, being the driver of the vehicle unlawfully plied for hire at the junction of Forest Road and Beacontree Avenue, E.17, on 29 September 1961, contrary to s 7 of the Act of 1869. The following facts are summarised from the evidence.

At about 12.45 pm on 29 September 1961, the appellant, a licensed metropolitan taxi-driver, was driving his cab near the junction of Beacontree Avenue and Forest Road, Walthamstow, when he saw a mini-cab parked in the bus stand-by where buses turn round. The mini-cab was a bright red Renault Dauphine with various advertisements and inscriptions on it, the most important being a legend on each side of the vehicle “Welbeck Motors, Mini-cabs”, and the telephone number “Welbeck 4440” along the roof. In addition, there was a radio aerial on the roof providing a two-way short-wave communication.

The second respondent was sitting behind the wheel. A conversation between the appellant and the second respondent took place, as a result of which the appellant called the police. Some time later a bus wanted to pull in from Forest Road and the mini-cab pulled out from the bus stand and stopped on the corner of Beacontree Avenue about ten yards from where it had been before. At about 1.15 pm a police officer arrived and asked the second respondent if he was a taxi, to which the latter replied in the negative.

The second respondent was then asked why he was waiting there, to which he replied: “I am waiting for any jobs that come up in this area”. There were no passengers in the mini-cab at the time. The police officer pointed out to the second respondent that he was unlawfully plying for hire, to which the second respondent replied, “I have been here fifty minutes waiting for a job”.

He also said that his control had told him he could stand where he liked provided he did not cause an obstruction, and made it clear that he was to be informed of “jobs” over the radio. At about 1.30 pm, the mini-cab drove away, and, according to the appellant, it came back again and parked quite close to the corner from which it had driven away.

The respondents submitted that there was no case to answer. It was contended by the appellant that (a) for a vehicle to ply for hire, there must be a solicitation of the public or invitation to the public to hire the vehicle by the driver or person in control of the vehicle which might be either express or implied; (b) the vehicle must be exhibited to the public as a vehicle which was available802 for hire, and readily available for hire, although it need not be capable of being booked from the driver; (c) on the facts, the vehicle was readily available for hire, and by its character and appearance invited the public to use it or the services provided by the first respondents; (d) the description of the vehicle as a “Welbeck Motors Mini-cab” together with the telephone number from which presumably it could be hired constituted a solicitation or invitation to the public to hire it, (e) the vehicle was exhibited to the public by being parked in a public place for at least fifty minutes and, accordingly, all the elements of a plying for hire were present and a prima facie case was made out.

It was contended by the respondents that (i) there was no evidence of solicitation or invitation to the public; (ii) there was nothing stating that the vehicle was for hire; (iii) the vehicle must be exhibited with an open offer to the public to use that vehicle, and there was no evidence of that, and (iv) the driver was just sitting waiting for directions by radio.

The justices dismissed the informations without calling on the respondents to answer the case, and the appellant now appealed.

The direction and case mentioned below were cited in argument in addition to those in the judgmentb.
________________________________________
b Ie, Practice Note [1962] 1 All ER 448, White v Cubitt, [1930] 1 KB 443
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Neil Lawson QC and J M Williams for the appellant.
Malcolm Morris QC and John K Wood for the respondents.

31 May 1962. The following judgments were delivered.

LORD PARKER CJ stated the facts and continued: The sole question for this court is whether the prosecution raised a case which required an answer. In order to decide that, it is necessary to consider first the essential elements that the prosecution would have to prove, and then go on to ascertain on the facts given in evidence whether those elements were prima facie proved. The prosecution was for an offence contrary to s 7 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869. Section 4 of that Act provides, so far as it is material:

“In this Act ‘stage carriage’ shall mean any carriage for the conveyance of passengers which plies for hire in any public street, road, or place within the limits of this Act … ”

Section 7 provides:

“If any unlicensed hackney or stage carriage plies for hire, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for every day during which such unlicensed carriage plies. And if any unlicensed hackney carriage is found on any stand within the limits of this Act, the owner of such carriage shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5 for each time it is so found. The driver also shall in every such case be liable to a like penalty unless he proves that he was ignorant of the fact of the carriage being an unlicensed carriage … ”

In the recent case of Cogley v Sherwood; Car Hire Group (Skyport) Ltd v Sherwood, etc, what is sometimes referred to as the “airport case”, this court had to consider that section of the Act, and, in the course of doing so, reviewed a number of the earlier cases. The court there emphasised that the approach to the matter was to ask oneself the question whether the vehicle itself was plying for hire as opposed to the case of a man going to the owner of a car hire establishment and hiring one of his cars. That was the question posed in the earlier cases, a particular illustration of it being in Allen v Tunbridge, where Montague Smith J said ((1871), LR 6 CP at p 485) in reference to a previous case (Clarke v Stanford, (1871), LR 6 QB 357).

“It appears to have been held there, that, if the proprietor of a carriage sends it to a place for the purpose of picking up passengers, that is a plying for hire within the Act. That is very different from a customer going to a job-master to hire a carriage.”

Again, in Cogley’s case, this court held that it was essential before one could say that a vehicle was plying for hire, first, that it should be exhibited, be on view to the public, and secondly, that it should, while on view, expressly or impliedly solicit custom in the sense of inviting the public to use it. The fact that if those conditions are proved a ticket had to be obtained from an office or a booking made other than through the driver was immaterial.

It is, I think, right to say that a further possible question, namely, what was to be the result if the obtaining of a ticket or a booking involved a vehicle other than that on view, was left open. Reference, however, was made to Gilbert v McKay, and in the argument to Foinett v Clarke, which cases suggest that, at any rate in certain circumstances, that fact would not of itself prevent a finding that the vehicle in question was plying for hire.

That the vehicle in the present case was on exhibition in the sense that it was on view to the public is undoubted. The real question, as it seems to me, is whether a prima facie case was made out that the vehicle was impliedly inviting the public to use it. Whether in any case such a prima facie case is made out must, of course, depend on the exact circumstances, and I certainly do not intend anything that I say in this judgment to apply to any facts other than those in this case.

What were those facts? As I have already said, one starts with the fact that this vehicle was of a distinctive appearance, its colour, its inscriptions, its equiplment in the form of radio communication, and its type. Secondly, and this is equally important, it stood with the driver at the steering wheel for some fifty minutes in a public place on public view and at a place where buses made a turn round, in other words, at a place where many members of the public would be getting off the buses and where many members of the public would forgather to board the buses. Moreover, when requested to leave, the driver drove away only to return immediately to almost the same place.

It has been urged by counsel for the respondents, that the inscriptions and appearance of this vehicle were incapable of conveying an invitation to the public: “I am for hire”. It is said that the vehicle was merely advertising the owners of the vehicle and was not saying in the way I put it: “I am for hire”. It is perfectly true, of course, that the inscriptions were advertising the owners, Welbeck Motors Ltd and also saying, “and if you ring up Welbeck 4440 you can have one of the vehicles that they hire known as mini-cab”.

In my judgment, however, the inscriptions on, and appearance of, the vehicle, coupled with the place where it was on view and its conduct during the relevant period, was saying more than that. It was saying: “Not only do I”, if I may personify the vehicle, “recommend you to Welbeck Motors Ltd where you can hire a mini-cab, but, further, I am one of those mini-cabs and I am for hire”. I think in that connexion that the reference to mini-cabs is important.

A cab does convey the notion of a vehicle plying for hire. It may be that “taxi” is the more common word today, but “cab” as an abbreviation of “taxi-cab” is well known to everybody, and the legislation covering this matter is dealt with by the London Cab Order, 1934. Suppose it had been exhibited to the public with the word “taxi” on it or “Welbeck Motors Ltd Taxi proprietors”, it seems to me perfectly clear that such a vehicle would be conveying to the public not only “I am one of those vehicles”, but “I am as a taxi or as a cab available and for hire”. Indeed, this court has really gone so far as that already in Alker v Woodwardc where a vehicle was found at Liverpool bearing the inscription “Radio Taxis”, and the telephone number, “North 3071”.

It is true that there was the added fact that it was said to be standing at a licensed hackney carriage stand, but there was no physical lay-out of the stand which could be identified and the court attached no importance to that consideration, the only importance being that it was standing in a public place, and outside an hotel at half-past twelve at night. In that case the learned recorder of the Crown Court at Liverpool had upheld the submission of no case, and this court sent the case back for the hearing to be continued.
________________________________________
c “The Times”, 17 February 1962. In that case the court (Lord Parker CJ Ashworth and Fenton Atkinson JJ) held that a licensed hackney carriage driver in a car displaying a card including the words “Radio Taxis, North 3071” standing at or near a hackney carriage stand was plying for hire
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
In my judgment, there is no real difference between the expression “taxi” and “cab” and, in the circumstances of this case, it seems to me that any tribunal would be bound to hold that this vehicle in the particular circumstances of this case was exhibiting itself as a vehicle for hire. In my judgment, therefore, this case ought to be remitted to the justices with the direction that there was a case to answer and to continue the hearing of the case. I deliberately refrain from saying what, in my judgment, might amount to a defence. I would only say that it must not be taken that what I am reported to have said towards the end of my judgment in the newspaper report of Alker v Woodward is correct in fact or in lawd.
________________________________________
d Lord Parker CJ was reported to have said: “The evidence was that the defendant had said: ‘i’m waiting for a call’, and it was said that the defendant’s firm were known to operate, like mini-cabs, by radio. That, if believed, was a good defence, but the recorder need not have believed it. He should therefore have heard the evidence … ”
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
WINN J. I agree, and would add only one very short point of my own, because all that I would wish to have said has been said so lucidly already by Lord Parker CJ. It seems to me that the essence of this case is what interpretation must be put on the appearance and the behaviour of the vehicle in the circumstances established prima facie by the evidence.

As I understood counsel for the respondents’ most helpful and lucid presentation of his case, he would be constrained to accept the fact that it makes no difference in law whether the vehicle was to be taken to be saying: “I am here available for you to step into and hire me as a cab”, or whether it must be taken to say: “I am here available to be hired by you conditional on my owner’s approval and ordering me to take you where you want to go”.

His case is that neither of those representations or invitations or offers can properly be spelled out on the evidence as it stood when the case was stopped. As I see the matter, leaving aside any possible technicality about whether goods displayed in a shop window are offered for sale, such goods when so displayed at least amount to an invitation to open negotiations for the purchase of those goods, and, where only one item of the kind is displayed, an invitation to negotiate for the purchase of that article assuming it to be of a rare kind or rare in the relevant circumstances.

I think that, at the very lowest, the evidence given discloses behaviour and appearance on the part of this vehicle which amounted to an invitation, “Get in touch one way or another with my owner and see whether he is willing for me to take you as a vehicle which you are hiring”. For the reasons I have added, and for all those Lord Parker CJ has given, I agree.

BRABIN J. I agree with what has been said and have nothing to add.

Appeal allowed: Case remitted.

Solicitors: Wegg-Prosser & Co (for the appellant); Amery-Parkes & Co (for the respondents).

Last edited by JD on Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:05 pm; edited 2 times in total

Brimingham Council Understand Plying for Hire LAWS!!

At their meeting in May 2005 the Licensing Committee agreed to publicise cases taken by the City Council in sof ar as these relate to offences committed in respect of the Licensing Service. The list below identifies cases taken between November 2010 – May 2011 and this will be updated on a monthly basis following consideration of the report on this matter by the Licensing Committee each month.

Only cases taken over a six month period will remain on this web page. The page will be reviewed regularly with older cases being deleted on this basis.

Mohammed Nazural Eron
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £500– no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £250 (£450 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Qamar Shezad
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £235 – plying & £350 – no ins
+ 3 penalty points & disqualified from driving for 9 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Tanvir Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th November 2010 to three offences: one of failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge, one of operating private hire vehicles from a motor vehicle using a mobile phone and one offence of failing to ensure that bookings were
recorded correctly.
Fined £250 x 3
Prosecution Costs £1,242.30 (£1,242.30 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Tariq Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £120 – plying & £240 – no ins
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Irfhan Heyder Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th November 2010 to seven offences: two relating to the use of a false insurance document to gain employment with Blueline Cars, one of failing to display the private hire identity plate externally on the rear of the vehicle, one of failing to provide a current insurance certificate for the vehicle and three of
consequently having invalid insurance
Fined £500 – Fraud Act, £500 – Forgery & Counterfeiting Act, £100 x 3 – no ins,
No separate penalty for LGMPA x 2
Prosection Costs £1,061 (£1,061 req)
Fraud Act 2006, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, Road Traffic Act 1988 & Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Umar Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th November 2010to one offence of failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge.
Fined £130
Prosection Costs £100 (£150 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Mohammed Mohammed
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £150 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Arshad Mohammed
Pleaded guilty at Sutton Coldfield Magistrates on 23rd November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £235 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 8 penalty points
Prosection Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Abdullah Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 26th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire
Fined £160
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Mohammed Junaid
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 26th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £340 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Saleem Chohan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 10th December 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £450 (£300 – no ins & £150– plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Latif
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 10th December 2010 to failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge.
Fined £40
Prosecution Costs £35 (£150 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Ghulam Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 13th December 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £360 (£180 – no ins & £180 – plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Faisal Nassar
Pleaded not guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 20th December 2010 to three offences, 1 of failing to keep a record of the insurance for a private hire driver and two of failing to keep a record of the particulars of journeys. Pleaded guilty to one offence of failing to keep a record of the insurance for a private hire driver. Case Proved
Fined £400 £200 – insurance cert, No separate penalty for 2nd offence of failing to have a
copy of insurance & £200 – failing to keep journey records
Prosecution Costs £550 (£550 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Mohammed Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £165 (£65 – plying & £100– no ins) & + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Amar Aftab
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£200 – plying & £250 – no ins) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Inamullah Saleem
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£100 – plying & £350 – no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Zulifqur Asghar
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, of 3 offences; one of using a vehicle without a current licence, one of acting as a private hire driver without a licence and one offence of driving without
valid insurance.
Fined total £875 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, No sep pen – unlicensed driver & £525 – no ins)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £165 (£65 – plying & £100– no ins) & + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Amar Aftab
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£200 – plying & £250 – no ins) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Inamullah Saleem
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£100 – plying & £350 – no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Zulifqur Asghar
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, of 3 offences; one of using a vehicle without a current licence, one of acting as a private hire driver without a licence and one offence of driving without
valid insurance.
Fined total £875 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, No sep pen – unlicensed driver & £525 – no ins)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Jamir Hussain
Found guilty in his absence of at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, 4 offences; two of knowingly operating a private hire vehicle when both the vehicle and the driver, Zulifqur Asghar, were unlicensed, one of failing to keep
vehicle /driver records as required by the conditions attached to his operator’s licence and one offence of failing to produce documentation to an authorised officer.
Fined total £935 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, £350 – unlicensed driver, No sep pen – failing to keep records & £235 – failing
to produce documents
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Arshad Mahmood
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 25th February 2011, to 1 offence of plying for hire.
Fined £300
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Jahangir Alom
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 25th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £300 (£200 – ply & £100 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Rezaul Kharim
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th March 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £700 (£350 – ply & £350 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Aamir Khan
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th March 2011, of two offences; one of failing to produce a premises licence in respect of Mega Bite, 1052 Pershore Road, Selly Park and one offence of breaching a condition of the licence as the CCTV was not working.
Fined total £500 (£100 – fail to produce & £400 – fail to comply)
Prosecution Costs £434.95 (£434.95 requested)
Licensing Act 2003

Surinder Pal
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th March 2011, to one offence of plying for hire.
Fined £60
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Imran Zahid
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th March 2011, to one offence of plying for hire.
Penalty 2 year conditional discharge
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Abad Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 21st March 2011, to five offences: four of driving without valid insurance and one offence of failing to disclose to the licensed operator that he did not have valid insurance so that he
could continue to work as a private hire driver.
Fined total £600 (£200 – Fraud & £100 x 4 – no ins) + 24 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 28 days
Prosecution Costs £200 (£485 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988 & Fraud Act 2006

Ashariq Zafar Salis
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £135 (£100 – no ins & £35 – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £50 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Narinder Singh
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £200 (£140 – no ins & £60 – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ajmal Ali
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£450 – no ins & No separate penalty – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Alam
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 3 offences of driving without valid insurance.
Fined total £300 (£300 – 3rd offence & No separate penalty – remaining 2 offences) + 18 penalty points &
Disqualified from driving for 12 months
Prosecution Costs £329.70 (£329.70 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988

Shakeel Arshad
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £210 (£210 – no ins & No separate penalty – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosection Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mahmood Perwaiz
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £350 (£350 – no ins & No separate penalty – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ise Samow
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £350 (£350 – no ins & No separate penalty – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosectuion Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ala Ud din
guiltyPleaded Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 1 offence of failing to wear a private hire driver’s badge in a position as to be plainly and distinctly visible
Fined £115
Prosecution Costs £150 (£150 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Yvonne Lowndes
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 1 offence of carrying on an establishment for massage at Glow, 8a Chipperfield Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham without a current licence.
Fined £200
Prosecution Costs £313.20 (£313.20 requested)
Birmingham City Council Act 1990

Jama Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £525 (£200 – plying & £325 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosection Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mrban Khan
ePleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 14th April 2011 to 6 offences. 4 of driving without valid insurance, 1 offence of using a vehicle as a private hire vehicle without a current private hire vehicle licence and 1 offence of
giving a false home address on a licence application form.
Fined Total £250 (£250 – no ins & No separate penalty – licence & false information offences) + 24 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £135 (£921.37 requested)
Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Tabraiz Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 21st April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £245 (£70 – plying & £175 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (requested £675)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Waseem Iqbal
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th May 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £200 (£200 – plying & no separate penalty for no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Shakeel Kayani
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th May 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £160 (£160 – plying & no separate penalty for no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Marban Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 6th May 2011, to four offences: three of driving without valid insurance and one offence of giving false information to an authorised officer
Fined total £400 (£100 x 4) + 18 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988 & Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Ziaur Rahman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 16th May 2011 to one offence of plying for hire.
Fined £140
Proseuction Costs £150 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Anilkumar Shah
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th May 2011, to two offences; one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £500 (£500 – plying & no separate for no insurance) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 18 months
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Bhutta
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th May 2011, to two offences; one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £500 (£500– plying & no separate financial penalty for no insurance) & + 6 penalty points
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Why is it London Taxi & Private Hire and Safer Transport Command, have not made one single arrest of Private Hire Drivers and their operators for Plying for hire in the Capital, Birmingham council have achieved so much on a shoe string budget, maybe we should send them to Birmingham for training, or just sack the lot for incompetence.

I THINK THE FIGURES SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES !!