Saturday, June 11, 2016

St Pancras update from the Mayfair Mob(MM) & Dads Defending Daughters (DDD)...by Rayman


Camden have contacted me with an update on St Pancras.

The guy I met in early May has asked if drivers could show a little bit more patience as the design team are finalising their reports and have a couple more things to get signed off. We have a revised completion date of approx 4 weeks. I know this is frustrating but having met the guy personally he comes across as genuine and eager to get this resolved.

Apology

I would like to issue an apology on behalf of MM to Peter Rose and the LCDC for the strongly worded tweets they recieved last week. The tweets were in reaction to the article in Cab Trade News which we feel misinterpreted parking legislation, however this was no excuse to tweet in the manner in which we did especially as we are a multi org group.

Airport Style Drop Off

Myself and Walkbar along with a traffic consultant had looked into the plans for this during the consultation and were all of the opinion that the chances of getting it through to planning stages were very slim. We did not voice our opinions at the time and fully supported the plan as although the solution was flawed on several counts it was better than the status quo at the time.

DDD

Once this plan was rejected the chances of a solution looked bleak. This was where the DDD stepped in. Their brilliant action along with drivers from every org got Camden talking which led to a solution. Without this action and pressure from the RMT we would be looking at a solution around Christmas or beyond and not in approx 4 weeks.

COP OUT

I have seen on twitter people saying that the double yellow lines are a cop out. I have experience in Highways Planning and along with Walkbar assessed that double yellows was the most immediately practical solution we could find. This was also backed up by a Traffic Consultant we liased with. The 2 guys I met at Camden were also very knowledgeable in highways and parking laws. 
Once the 'airport' style plan was rejected they had come to the same conclusion as ourselves. To anyone in doubt I can 100% say that Camden have not copped out on this issue.

SUPPORT

Once the yellow lines are in place vehicles are no longer entitled to 10 minutes grace and are only entitled to drop of or set down. Camden will have marshalls present as much as they can and there will be help from TFL and the police to enforce the law. Whilst there will be occasions where the problem may creep back drivers are asked to call 101 and report it to the police. 
We would also ask TFL and the current UTG to fully support this solution for a period of 5 months to see if this solution works.
 As this is all being done on an experimental order if the lines do not work other solutions can be looked at. We would advise that if it is decided to go for the airport style solution again that major changes are made to avoid a repeat of last time and the MM are prepared to offer advice if needed.

M&S

No changes will be made outside M&S. There are only limited parking spaces here so in theory if these were full vehicles will be forced to move on. However this section should have no bearing on our ability to drop customers safely at the front end which was the problem for the Taxi trade. Camden are obliged to provide an area for pre booked Taxis and PHV but will have to deal with any abuse of this obligation.

Editorial Comment:

Newgate Street is to be closed to westbound traffic until 30th September. That should help TfLs plan to get London Moving.

A couple of weeks ago I reported to TfLTPH, the Taxi rank sign outside "Sketch" had been taken away. They said they would report it to licensing as stolen and get a replacement put back. 

Last night, I stopped on the rank behind a parked minicab. I approached the driver and ask him (politely) to move but he pointed to the new sign that says (in massive font) "Taxi rank suspended".



It was only when I checked out the sign to find why the rank was in  suspension, I noticed in minute red font at the bottom,


 the rank is actually still in operation to serve Sketch from 6:30pm until 7am. Again typical mismanagement from TfLTPH. 

So if your passing and there's space on the rank, don't be put off by this misleading sign. Put on and give Sketch a few minutes grace from the world's Gold Standard Taxi service.



Thursday, June 09, 2016

Latest From The Lords Regarding Rickshaw Pedicabs.


Lord Storey
Liberal Democrat Lords Principal Spokesperson for Education:

Asked.
Her Majesty’s Government what are the health and safety requirements for operators?

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Transport) (Jointly with the Home Office):

Replied.
In England and Wales, excluding London, rickshaws (in the form of pedal-powered vehicles for carrying passengers, often also referred to as pedicabs) are regulated as taxis. 

They are therefore required to meet a local licensing authority’s taxi licensing conditions and any applicable byelaws. Under the different legislation that applies to London, they fall outside the scope of taxi regulation. The police have some limited powers to address inappropriate behaviour such as obstructing footways or driving in a reckless manner. The Government has recently announced its intention to introduce legislation to enable Transport for London to regulate pedicabs in London.



Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Uber Pitch....Get Investors to back your brilliant idea.

It seems Uber have so much money, $3.5 billion in fact, they want to share some of it with their customers who may have brilliant business ideas.

 :.How about this one.: 

UBER BUSES, to run in direct competition with TfL's bus fleet. 

Half price but with no fix rout so you never know quite where will end up, or even if you'll arrive.

Stopping at any bus stop they like, asking passengers where they would like to go. 

Buses could be navigated by wonderful new technology of the Sat Nav.

Plenty of staff on hand at TfL to help organise and perhaps they could even use Oyster cards!

Or, how about Uber bus shuttle cars. 

As many as you can fit in a Prius at rush hour bus stops. 

   


Don't forget, Uber will be data harvesting your account details and movements, sharing with Her Majesty's government, as well as interested third parties. Much the same as they do in the USA. Selling your contact details on to anyone who'll pay. So if you're lonely, expect an avalanche of targeted text and emails. 

UBERPITCH.

Uber has launched a business pitching opportunity dubbed UberPITCH across three UK cities, which will provide entrepreneurs the opportunity to win over investors with their idea during a car ride, while the most popular will get to meet the on-demand car service’s founder Travis Kalanick in Germany.


The American business has teamed up with British investment partners including Atomico, EQT, Seedcamp, Elevate.VC, Hoxton Ventures, Flight Ventures, Backed, and more.

Meanwhile, the campaign will run across London, Edinburgh and Birmingham, with the in-car pitching to take place on Friday 3 June between 11am-3pm. Successful applicants will have ten minutes to pitch to an investor who will be waiting in the car, while they will then receive ten minutes of feedback.

“Every day Uber helps connect thousands of people to get around the UK. We want to celebrate these cities in which we live together with our growing community of riders and drivers. By making use of our technology we can bring people closer together and connect great ideas with the right audience,” the company said.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

The Question We'd All Like An Answer To ... by Tom Scullion.

I know we have a wide audience here from Tfl, MP's and others involved with the surface transport industry, what I cannot understand is why Tfl have not revoked Uber's operators license? 

Let's explore :


The reported alleged sexual assaults and rapes by one company.


The amount of crashes from one company.


The total lack of driver criminal checks from one company.


The complete lack of fleet management in terms of insurance from one company.

Question :
If Tfl are to be taken seriously, please explain why they allow "One company" to ignore the rules and ride roughshod over every regulation in the book?

Could it be the 40,000 license fees from this one company, blinkers their vision?
Is it £'s over principles?
Who knows, but one thing I am sure of, if any other PHV operator acted is this manner they would be closed down within 24 hours.

Why the favoritism ?

Be lucky

Tom Scullion

Space is available on this blog should TfL wish to explain their actions....or non-actions 

Undercover Cop Spied On RMT. Taxi Trade Not Surprised!

Nothing new to Taxi drivers, they've been spied on at virtually ever demo they've held. 

The first time I personally noticed we were being watched as individuals, was in Trafalgar Square November 2011. 


The young lady above, was seen taking photos of Taxi licence plates, then walking round and taking another photo of the drivers face. At first we just thought she was a member of the paparazzi, but after observing her for a while, we noticed these were the only photos she was taking, "Plates and Faces".

When we approached her to asked what she was doing, she walked towards two burley minders wearing hi-vis jackets with TfL logos and hurried towards the underground. But she surfaced again in Whitehall, a bit later.

ID spotters have now become a common sight a Taxi demos. The photos below are from the second Windsor House demo, where a number of what looked to be bus inspectors, walked amongst Taxis jotting down ID badge numbers and cab plate numbers.

Round the back of Windsor house seemed to be their rendezvous point, where these TfL operatives gathered to exchange notes. 

Probably to discount duplicated entries on their clip boards. 

We also saw groups of these clearly marked, TfL  employees, turning up day after day to Pancras Road, taking notes of drivers attending the St Pancras Station demos against Uber Cars illegally plying for hire. 

We never see these operatives at other times inquiring the nature of the Uber cars, sometimes two abreast, waiting in the drop off areas to become hired.


The strange thing is, when these officers are needed most, in Central London's West End, it's as if they don their cloaks of invisibility and disappear into the ether.

RMT Spied On, By Deep Undercover Cop.

The "Blacklist Support Group" recently revealed hey had photographic evidence of undercover police spying on RMT union officials.

Photographic evidence shows that in October 2004 the spy cop was present at the industrial dispute following the sacking of the prominent union militant Steve Hedley (now elected as Senior Assistant General Secretary of the RMT union) at the Kings Cross terminal for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link .  

The presence of this particular spy from the Met's disgraced Special Demonstration Squad was actually captured himself on camera, by the freelance photographer Andrew Wiard.

 The photographs allegedly show the police spy standing behind an RMT banner with the slogan ‘Reinstate Steve Hedley’ while handing out leaflets to construction workers who had walked out in support of the victimised union activist.   

Steve Hedley commented:

"I am appalled that a secret police spy thought that it was justified to turn up on a peaceful RMT picket line in order to gather information. I had earlier housed this person rent free as he claimed he was being made homeless and feel shocked that taxpayers money could be used like this to betray the trust of people engaged in completely legitimate industrial action. We heard a lot growing up about police states in other countries whilst it turns out our state was doing exactly the same thing here".

The photographs were discovered by Dave Smith while researching for the updated version of the book Blacklisted and first made public at the GMB conference in Bournemouth on Sunday (5th June).


Monday, June 06, 2016

Uber Announce $3.5 Billion Investment From Saudi Public Investment Fund...by Sean Paul Day.


The Secretary of State and the Department of Transport ignore human rights violations in favour the market.

Whilst the political drive in the USA is forcing Uber to recognise labour rights, and resistance in Europe shows no sign of abating, Transport for London, at the behest of the U.K. Government are ploughing ahead to amend regulations to accommodate Uber in its entirety. 

Uber's history of violations and the protests knows no boundaries. For Uber, no money is bad money! 

Uber recently announced that it nabbed a $3.5 billion investment from the Saudi Public Investment Fund, the investing arm of the Saudi Arabian government. The Saudi fund will have a share of Uber's ownership — cashing out on Uber if it gets bought or goes public — and crucially,  the fund's manager will join Uber's board

Global domination: This is the most recent development in a long, soiled history of human rights issues Uber has faced, especially regarding women. 

Women have been regularly sexually assaulted by drivers who critics claim haven't been sufficiently background-checked. Uber's lost-and-found feature has been used to harass female drivers and Uber executives have threatened to stalk an expose female journalists' private information. 

UN Women cancelled a partnership with Uber that aimed to create jobs for women at the company after objections were raised about Uber’s safety record with women and treatment of its drivers. The UN claimed that Uber represented  “exactly the type of structural inequality within the labour market  that the women’s movement has been fighting for decades.”

This is to say nothing of the worldwide protests against Uber's exploitation of drivers and disregard for national democracies. 

It seems, everyone has their price, the U.K's being an immorally low one!

Sean Paul Day. 

It's Not Just Women Getting Sexually Assaulted And Raped By Uber Drivers......report from Marc Turner.


In the early hours Sunday 5th June 2016. A young man hailed me in  bustling Shaftesbury Avenue. He was slightly inebriated but not drunk. On our journey to Kings Road. He decided to unburden and talk 'Uber'. 

He spoke of comparisons between Taxis and Uber. Admitted  to benifiting from the latter's sometime lower prices, while suffering their language and directional frailties.

Of late he'd noticed, when worse for wear (hammered), they were prone to take advantage of him. Regards his asercion of Uber drivers demanding cash at the termination of pre determined card transactions, therefore being renumerated twice...."Why wasn't I surprised???".


The astounding revelation that knocked me sideways was that an Uber driver had offered to 'Suck him Off'...Under normal circumstances I wouldn't be so crass as to record a private conversation with a passenger. 

During my 26 year career,  what's been said in the cab has always stayed in the cab. I asked permission to record on the premise that his declaration was so shocking it had to be put in the public domain for the safety of others.

My response was, we (Taxi trade) are well aware of Ubers threat to women, with them being sexually harassed on a regular basis. The latest count being 32 allegations over the year for rape and sexual assault in London. In my naivety I had know idea this deplorable behaviour extended to men.

I've twice in the past carried traumatised men who admitted to  being taken advantage of by other men. Both refused to be taken to hospital or Police, for fear of shame and embarrassment. Perhaps Uber drivers have twigged, there's less chance of facing the consequences if they target vulnerable drunk men for their depraved Kicks!!!

Below is the shocking sound recording made with full permission of the customer.

   

Sunday, June 05, 2016

Possibly The Best Article Ever Written "What is Plying For Hire....by Alan Fleming"

                   First published 2012 
            Coventry Street, minicab lined.

I  read  with interest in the last edition of United Cabbies News the proposals of  T&PH, for allowing PH ranks. 

Some ten years ago when at the Club I was informed that this was going to be the case in Kingston. I informed the other trade organisations but had no response. 

I did take it up with the then PCO but my observations fell on  deaf ears.  
I thought that your readers may wish to know what constitutes plying for hire.

What is plying for hire? That is a question that we all think we can answer, but can you? Since I first became a cab driver almost forty years ago I made it my business to understand the laws that we have to abide by. Further very early in my time as a driver I spent many hours reading all the stated cases involving plying for hire. Because I have done this many consider that I am an expert on the subject. Knowing what I do it has long been my opinion that the relevant  laws that govern both taxis and PHV are not fully understood by those, who regulate both trades. 

This also applies to those who make the laws and the solicitors who advise them.  Most will know that PHVs  have been licensed since 1976 under the Miscellaneous  Provisions Act. It was always said that London should not and did not need mini-cabs to be licensed as London was a special case. What ever was meant by that has always been a mystery. So now let us get on with the question of what constitutes plying for hire.


There has never been a definitive explanation for this particular part of a taxi drivers daily work. However, Butterworths legal dictionary states that the phrase is akin to waiting. Never the less we have to look at the many cases that have gone to the High Court to find the true definition. I will take you back to one of the earliest cases of unlawfully plying for hire this took place 140 years ago. The location was Harrow  Railway Station in 1871. The case in question is Clarke & Goodge v Stanford. The facts of this case are that a driver a Mr. F G Clarke took up a position on the station forecourt to await being hired. Clarke and the owner of the vehicle obviously felt they were safe as the forecourt of the station was private, but they were wrong. The driver Clarke was convicted of plying for hire and the owner Goodge convicted of owning an unlicensed hackney carriage, which both of them appealed against the conviction.


On April 29  1871 the case came before the Court of the Queens Bench in the High Court.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn presided over the case accompanied by Mr Justice Mellor and Mr Justice Lush. The conviction was upheld. The summing up of the Lord Chief  Justice is very interesting as you  will read. This was what the LCJ had to say about the activities of F G  Clarke. The carriage was on the private forecourt of the station and was available for anyone who wished to hire his carriage, it was plying for hire.  

Although the place is private property the public are entitled to travel by train, and has a right to pass over the premises of  the railway to get in or out.  Therefore if a man is standing on those premises with his carriage to take persons who are desirous of hiring said carriage, he is plying for hire.  So the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public at the time of hiring.    Mr. Justice Mellor stated in support the following.  


It is said there is no plying for hire as the carriage is admitted on the railway premises under certain regulations, that is it is only to carry persons who come by train. But what is the carriage there for? Though the driver makes no sign he is there to be hired by persons who arrive by train, and there is no restriction as to the persons who, arriving by train shall hire the carriage, therefore it is plying for hire.   


          Swallow Street Arch, minicab rank.

Now let me rephrase that comment and apply it to Leicester Square 2009, approaching  Xmas
The cars are in Whitcomb St under certain regulations are only to carry passengers who make a booking  at the ticket office in Leicester Sq.  
But what is the car there for? 

Though the driver makes no sign he is there to be hired by persons who apply to the ticket office, and there is no restriction as to the persons who apply to the office to hire the car, therefore it is plying for hire!

Further to this as you know there is a taxi rank in Whitcomb St outside the hotel were cabs ply for hire, by waiting to be hired. So what is the difference between the cabs on rank and the cars who wait to be hired on the opposite side of the street? The answer is obviously none at all.  So where does this leave PHVs who stand round London, and await to be hired by radio. If they are standing in a public place at the time of the hiring they must be on view to the public. Therefore they are unlawfully plying for hire.

During that same year of 1871 there was another case came before the courts. This was Allen V Tonbridge. The case was about a Mr. Tonbridge who owned a carriage and was allowed to stand on the property of  Cannon Street railway station.  He had permission to do this by the railway company. Tonbridge had placed his carriage a Brougham on the arrivals platform and waited for the train to arrive. 

The sole purpose of this was so that his carriage could be hired, which it was. However, a Met police inspector Robert Allen saw the carriage hired and Tonbridge was summoned. He was convicted of plying for hire in the magistrates court and consequently appealed against, the conviction. The appeal came before what was then known as, The Court of Common Pleas. This was where three Chief Justices sat in Judgement. Counsel for Tonbridge argued that there was no plying for hire as the station was private property.  The senior Chief Justice summed up and delivered this judgement.

Mr. Justice Willes made the following judgement.
The carriage was in the station and was intentionally exposed so as to be hired by any person.  Moreover it was proved that actual application was made to two persons who arrived by train to hire the carriage. And the decision of the magistrates court to convict must stand. As you can see the conviction was based on the fact that the carriage was on view to the public at the appropriate time. 

Mr Justice Smith in support agreed with the judgement stating the following.

I base my judgement on the case in the Queens Bench referring  to the case of  Clarke and Stanford V Allen.  This was his judgement. It was held that if a person exposes his carriage where every body passing by may be willing to hire it, that is plying for hire.

I now come to the case of White V  Cubitt 1929 LCJ Hewart presiding in the Kings Bench Division of the High Court. This little escapade occurred in the private yard at the side of The Railway Tavern public house at the junction of, Rocks lane and  Upper  Richmond  road. The owner of the vehicle rented the space in the yard from the publican to carry out his business.  Two ladies walked into the yard from the street and hired the car to go to Richmond Park  Golf Club.  The owner of the car a Mr. Charles Cubitt was seen by Sgt White  of the Met police accepting the hiring, and  Cubitt was summoned to appear in the magistrates Court, where he was convicted.  He appealed against the conviction and the case came before the High Court.

The argument put forward by his defence counsel was that he did not ply for hire in a public place as, the yard was private property. Counsel further laboured the point that the public did not have access to the yard. However the Lord Chief Justice stated the following facts.

Although the car was on private property and the public did not have access to the yard, the vehicle was plying for hire. Again his comments in summing up are very interesting for the following reasons. The Lord Chief Justice made the following Statement. The car may have been on private property but it had been placed  in such a way in the yard and with the gates to the yard wide open, it was on full view to the public. And the conviction in the lower court was upheld. Again I have to say this puts PHVs in a position of breaking the laws of plying for hire. This for the simple fact they are on view to the public at all material times.

Lets us now come  forward a few years to 1946 this is the case of Gilbert V McKay.
McKay had an office in Rupert St. with a sign over the shop window showing that cars were for hire. Several  cars belonging to McKay were standing in the street outside of  the office.
Several people were seen to enter the office for the purpose of paying for the hire of anyone of the cars, in which they were driven away. McKay was charged with being the owner of unlicensed hackney carriages. He was convicted and fined by the Magistrates court and lodged an appeal, the appeal was dismissed. 

The  Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard had the following to say. In my opinion even if the cars had been standing in a private yard and could not be seen by the public, there could still have been a plying for hire if they had been appropriated for immediate hiring. The important thing here is the reference to a private yard and not on view to the public at the time of hiring. Even more important is his reference to an immediate hiring. This is what was happening in Leicester Sq. As you can see the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public. Is this the position of the PHV or not?

We now come forward in time to 1962 to the case of Rose V  Welbeck  Welbeck motors being the first minicabs to hit the streets in London. This was brought to court by a London cab driver, Emanuel Rose. The car was standing in the street at Stratford Broadway obviously waiting to be hired. The police were summoned to the scene by Mr. Rose and the upshot was that the driver of the car was summoned to appear in court, for plying for hire.

When the case was heard the magistrates court dismissed the case so an appeal against the decision was entered. The case came before LCJ  Parker in the Queens  Bench division of the High Court. The car had Welbeck motors emblazoned on the side of the vehicle and a telephone number.  It had been argued by counsel for Welbeck motors that the advertising on and the appearance of the car  were incapable of conveying to the public an invitation that the vehicle was for hire. The following is the judgement of LCJ  Parker. 

 It is perfectly true that the inscriptions were advertising Welbeck motors and if you ring Welbeck 4440 you can have one of the vehicles that they hire, known as a minicab.  He went on to say that the inscription was saying more. What it was saying was the following. I am one of those minicabs and I am for hire, I think in that connection that the reference to minicabs is important as it is saying I am one of those vehicles and I am for hire. And referred the case back to the lower court where Welbeck motors were convicted for plying for hire. Again the conviction was due to the fact the vehicle was on view to the public.

Just a few days later the case of Vincent V Newman came before LCJ Parker the circumstances were similar. The vehicle had been stood in Addison Crescent were it was observed by a police officer and was summoned to appear before the Magistrates court, for unlawfully plying for hire. The magistrates dismissed the case and the Met police appealed.

The appeal was upheld and referred  back to the Magistrates, where the driver was convicted. Once again due to the fact that the car was standing in a public place.

I now come to the most recent case which occurred in Eastbourne in 2000. This case came before Lord Justice Pill and Mr. Justice Bell. This was in the Queens Bench division of the High Court. The case had been brought to court by Eastbourne Borough Council against two PHV drivers. They had been found on the rank of the forecourt of Eastbourne station.  And were summoned under sect.37 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 of plying for hire without a licence. The magistrates dismissed the case on the grounds that the forecourt was not a public place.  Lord Justice Pill quoted the case of White V Cubitt  where a vehicle parked in a private yard was plying for hire, as it could be seen from the street. He went on to say applying the principle in White V Cubbit since a vehicle parked in the station forecourt was likely to attract custom from members of the public using the adjoining street, the defendants were plying for hire. Again we have the situation of being on view to the public.

This now brings me to the situation  in Leicester square where the theatre ticket booking office has been licensed as a Licensed PHV Operator centre. Not only has it been licensed it advertises the following by a revolving neon sign, the following message.  Need a safe journey home fully licensed private hire minicab service available here. 

That in itself is unlawful as it is soliciting business and is tantamount to touting, under sect 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994.  The cars are parked up like a taxi rank in Whitcomb street and are waiting to be hired, and are on full view to the public.  A person goes to the booking office hires a car and is taken by a marshal to the waiting car. This is a repeat of Gilbert V McKay 1946 which was judged by LCJ Goddard to be plying for hire.  

Now Westminster City councils director of transportation Martin Low states this is not plying for hire. Well I have news for Mr. Low he is 100% wrong.  For his enlightenment and for the PCO I will tell you why.  Sect 35 of the London hackney carriage act of 1831 states the following.  Every hackney carriage which shall be found  standing in any street or place, unless actually hired, shall be deemed to be plying for hire, this is what the cars were doing in Whitcomb St.  The powers that be would of course argue that the cars are not hackney carriages. Well the 1907  London Cab and Stage Carriage Act sect. (6) is laid out like this.

It Is hereby declared that for the purposes of any Act relating to hackney carriages, stage carriages, metropolitan stage carriages, or cabs,  in London, the expressions “ hackney carriage,”   “stage carriage”  “metropolitan stage carriage,”  “or Cab,” shall include any such vehicle, whether drawn or propelled by animal or mechanical power.
As you will have observed a hackney carriage is a vehicle that is not necessarily a taxi, although a  taxi is a form of hackney carriage.   What this means is that any vehicle that carries passengers is a  hackney carriage. 

As you all know a hackney carriage to be able to carry passengers for hire, has to be licensed under sect 6 of the Metropolitan  Public Carriage Act 1869. The offence that was being perpetrated here is that we had a situation where unlicensed hackney carriages were plying for hire.  The cars in Whitcomb St may have had a PHV licence,  however, they were  in fact unlicensed hackney carriages.  Therefore as the vehicles were unlicensed all persons who entered one of these cars were a passenger in an uninsured vehicle. And this with the approval of the police and TFL/ PCO.  

Sect  4 of the 1831 Act states that  every  carriage with two or more wheels which shall be used for the purpose of  standing or plying  for hire in any street road or public street  or road at any place within 5 miles now 12, from  the  General  Post Office  in the City of London,  whatever  may be the form or construction of such carriage,  or the number of persons which it shall be calculated to convey, shall be  deemed and taken to be a “  Hackney  Carriage” within the meaning of this act.

It seems quite obvious that a pedicab is a form of hackney carriage as it  has 3  wheels, and is propelled by mechanical power, that being the pedals.   Further as  they wait to be hired they  are plying for hire. The Pedicab comes within the scope and definition  of a hackney carriage. Any hackney carriage that takes passengers for hire has to comply with the Metropolitan Conditions of fitness (MCF)  This is covered by the  1934  London Cab Order, Statutory Instrument 1634. Therefore as Pedicabs  do not comply with the MCF  they cannot wait to be hired.  As I have said earlier the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public at the time of hiring.
Further as has been stated in many cases if the vehicle is waiting to be hired, it is plying for hire.

So as you will observe the brain dead at TFL/ T&PH  do not know what they are doing, or do they?  For hear we have a group of people who do not  know the laws that they are charged with enforcing. The phrase, “Not  Fit  For Purpose” comes to mind.



MORE COURT CASES
During that same year of 1871 there was another case came before the courts.   This was Allen V Tonbridge.  The case was about a Mr. Tonbridge who owned  a carriage and was allowed to stand on the property of Cannon Street railway  station.  He had permission to do this by the railway company. Tonbridge had  placed his carriage a Brougham on the arrivals platform and waited for the  train to arrive. The sole purpose of this was so that his carriage could be hired,  which it was. However, a Met police inspector Robert Allen saw the carriage  hired and Tonbridge was summoned.  He was convicted of plying for hire in  the magistrates court and consequently appealed against, the conviction. 

The appeal came before what was then known as The Court of Common Pleas.   This was where three Chief Justices sat in Judgement. Counsel for Tonbridge argued that there was no plying for hire as the station was private property.  The senior Chief Justice summed up and delivered this judgement. Mr. Justice Willes said: “The carriage was in the station and was intentionally exposed so as to be hired by any person.  Moreover it was proved that actual application was made to two persons who arrived by train to hire the carriage. And the decision of the Magistrates Court to convict must stand. As you can see the conviction was based on the fact that the carriage was on view to the public at the appropriate time.”

Mr Justice Smith in support agreed with the judgement stating the following.
“I base my judgement on the case in the Queens Bench referring to the case of Clarke and Stanford V Allen.  This was his judgement.  It was held that if a person exposes his carriage where every body passing by may be willing to hire it, that is plying for hire.”

I now come to the case of White V Cubitt 1929 LCJ Hewart presiding in the Kings Bench Division of the High Court.  This little escapade occurred in the private yard at the side of The Railway Tavern public house at the junction of, Rocks lane and Upper Richmond Road. The owner of the vehicle rented the space in the yard from the publican to carry out his business.  Two ladies walked into the yard from the street and hired the car to go to Richmond Park Golf Club.  The owner of the car a Mr. Charles Cubitt was seen by Sgt White of the Met police accepting the hiring, and Cubitt was summoned to appear in the magistrates Court, where he was convicted.  He appealed against the conviction and the case came before the High Court.

The argument put forward by his defence counsel was that he did not ply for hire in a public place as, the yard was private property. Counsel further laboured the point that the public did not have access to the yard. However the Lord Chief Justice stated the following facts. Although the car was on private property and the public did not have access to the yard, the vehicle was plying for hire. Again his comments in summing up are very interesting for the following reasons.

The Lord Chief Justice made the following Statement.  “The car may have been on private property but it had been placed in such a way in the yard and with the gates to the yard wide open, it was on full view to the public”. And the conviction in the lower court was upheld. Again I have to say this puts PHVs in a position of breaking the laws of plying for hire. This for the simple fact they are on view to the public at all material times.

Let us now come forward a few years to 1946 this is the case of Gilbert V McKay.
McKay had an office in Rupert St. with a sign over the shop window showing that cars were for hire.  Several cars belonging to McKay were standing in the street outside of the office.
Several people were seen to enter the office for the purpose of paying for the hire of anyone of the cars, in which they were driven away.  McKay was charged with being the owner of unlicensed hackney carriages.  He was convicted and fined by the Magistrates court and lodged an appeal, the appeal was dismissed. 

The Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard had the following to say. “In my opinion even if the cars had been standing in a private yard and could not be seen by the public, there could still have been a plying for hire if they had been appropriated
for immediate hiring”.  The important thing here is the reference to a private yard and not on view to the public at the time of hiring. Even more important is his reference to an immediate hiring.