Monday, October 10, 2016

Letter to Taxi Leaks : Plying For Hire Does Not Need Defining....by Laurence Green.


Plying for hire does not need defining. 

There’s a plethora of case law where high court judges have made rulings citing Plying for Hire when summing up.
F.G.Clarke is just one example.

Plying for Hire laws are as good today as they were in 1871 when a horse drawn carriage entered Cannon Street Station forecourt looking to be immediately hired.

Khan and Shawcross are going to attempt to legitimise Uber through Parliament. 

FACT!
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY!
It’s what the driver is doing with their vehicle.

This is why the St Pancras Station set down video was of vital importance – it proved Uber drivers were plying for hire through the app.

TFL claim the Uber drivers using the set down point were not Plying for Hire. !!!


I have been in correspondence with TFL for months asking them how they arrived at their legal opinion and what case law if any was used to form their opinion.

I am still waiting for a reply.
THEY CAN’T REPLY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE CASE LAW IS TOO SOLID.
Hence Khan wanting Plying for Hire to be defined in Statute.

Khan and Shawcross are going to attempt to legitimise Uber through Parliament. FACT!

Khan obviously doesn’t want to use existing case law as it doesn’t suit TFL’s agenda.

He doesn’t want to act on the Law as it is today; he wants to act on the law when it has been changed by Statute when the law suits the cause.

Khan is trying to circumnavigate around repealing laws to accommodate Uber by requesting central government define Plying for Hire in Statute... 
Which means defining Plying for Hire in Statute will legitimise "Instant Hailing apps" and Uber overnight and make existing case law redundant.
END GAME FOR US!

For those who don't know, a statute is an Act of Parliament.

After legislation has been proposed it begins life as a bill, passes various readings in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law. 

As with cases, acts can be found in both printed and electronic form.

By summer next year there will be well over 115,000 PH drivers licensed by TFL.

Logistically it will be a mammoth task to set up and put 115,000 PH drivers through an advanced driving test including Highway Code.
IT JUST ISN’T GOING TO HAPPEN.

Khan has a track record on going back on his word. He Khan’t be trusted.
Can the cab trade trust politicians ? NO!

Anyone that want’s to put our future in the hands of politicians need their brains examined.

Constant pressure needs to be ladled on the mayor, Shawcross and TFL, the cracks will spread rapidly if the pressure is maintained.


Editorial Comment : 
Why not use democracy to be your point across.
Tweet your MP, copy them in to every tweet you make to TfLTPH.

Don't know your MP's Twitter address ?

Try this link


5 comments:

Malcolm Whitton said...

Well said! With so much evidence in our favour it makes you wonder why not one single org is taking TFL to court. Surely we couldn't possibly lose this fight. I wish the Orgs would explain why they aren't going down the legal route, or, if they are, why are we not being informed about it?

I'm Spartacus said...

With all respect you may have chosen the wrong tack, defining it would make an enormous difference, mores Ines than I can remember the authorities have stated 'well it's all too vague', We can all jump and shout and demand TfL act on current law but those who have taken legal advice who have been told it's not likely to succeed, that means if your on a rules based union etc you can't movr.

You are right in that TfL could be instructed to take a case by the Mayor, you can bet TfL has said the same to him.its not a big ask to use current case law as the basis of a definition and parliament tack it ion to a bill.

So it's probably not a case of don't define but until that happens demand TfL view E hailing as PFH until it's set in stone by definition.

We are both right in the regulator is inactive either by incompetence or worse design!

Anonymous said...


After reading Spartacus, I'm reminding myself why I left the LTDF forum never to return.

P. White said...

The term ‘plying for hire’ is used essentially to distinguish between the regulatory requirements which apply to taxis (which can be hired in the street), and those which apply to PHVs (which must be pre-booked).

The exact definition of the term and what constitutes ‘plying for hire’ is not always clear.

The Law Commission explains:

Their exclusive right to ply for hire is thus made the defining characteristic of taxis under the current law, although the term is not defined in the legislation. Picking up passengers at ranks and in response to hailing is generally understood to be at the core of plying for hire, but these activities do not feature in the legislation.

Instead, the case law refers to factors such as the “exhibition” of the vehicle, which may indicate plying for hire, its availability to the general public and the “immediacy” of its availability. Parking a vehicle in a public place may or may not amount to plying for hire, depending on an assessment of these factors.

The case law is often inconsistent and unclear.

P. White said...

It is important to distinguish between the everyday usage of the term “touting”, where what is really meant is illegal plying for hire, and the criminal offence which has a narrower and more specific meaning. The criminal offence of taxi touting consists of soliciting persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers. It is designed to tackle behaviour such as drivers shouting to prospective passengers and approaching people on the street, in particular outside transport hubs and entertainment venues.

It can apply to licensed and unlicensed vehicles.

Touting does not include the mere display of a sign stating that a vehicle is for hire. It is not enough that a vehicle is available for hire; there must be some form of invitation to a prospective hirer. Prior to 2003, local authorities brought prosecutions for touting to tackle problems of illegal plying for hire, but this ceased when the Administrative Court held that the scope of the offence was narrower. Although soliciting for business can be evidence of plying for hire, the two are not the same, and soliciting requires more than a vehicle simply waiting in the street.
The essential difference is that, whilst illegally plying for hire is reactive, touting is proactive.