Additional Driver help??

raskazz

paddedjohn wrote: »

i have read the act many times and i have also owned my own private hire firm in the past and driven my own car so i know what im talking about, it is all about interpratation, the act refers to private hire vehicles which are cars plated by the council for hire and reward, as soon as the plate is removed it can be driven perfectly legally by any other person as long as they have relevant insurance. without the plates on the car it is not satisfying the relevant requirements so doesnt come under the councils rules, it can even have the fire extinguisher and first aid kit removed if you so desired and the council couldnt do jack !!!!!!

This is simply not true. A vehicle does not cease to be a licensed vehicle just because the plates are removed he (unless they have been removed by the council themselves due to some breach).

It is an offence to use an unplated vehicle for hire and reward, but that matter is another matter entirely. You cannot reverse the logic to deduce that just because the vehicle is unplated that it is unlicensed, because that is not what the law says. The law says that it is a licensed vehicle with the plate removed.

I suspect that you have not read the Act at all. You could start by reading that Act and also the case law such as Benson v Boyce and Yates v Gates. From the judgment in the latter:

"In my judgment s 46 is perfectly plain. No person shall drive any vehicle which is licensed as a hackney carriage, whatever it may be doing at the particular moment unless he himself has a licence as required by s 46."

paddedjohn

46 Vehicle, drivers’ and operators’ licences.E+W
(1)Except as authorised by this Part of this Act—
(a)no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage [F93or London cab] in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;
(b)no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 51 of this Act;
(c)no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51;
(d)no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act;
(e)no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle—
(i)if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or
(ii)if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51


all srction 46 says is that you cant use a car as a private hire vehicle unless its plated and you cant drive a private hire vehicle without a taxi badge. it does state that you cant operate a vehicle as a private hire vehicle without a current licence it doesnt say you cant drive it as a private vehicle.

raskazz

paddedjohn wrote: »

46 Vehicle, drivers’ and operators’ licences.E+W
(1)Except as authorised by this Part of this Act—
(a)no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage [F93or London cab] in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act;
(b)no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 51 of this Act;
(c)no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51;
(d)no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act;
(e)no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle—
(i)if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or
(ii)if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51


all srction 46 says is that you cant use a car as a private hire vehicle unless its plated and you cant drive a private hire vehicle without a taxi badge. it does state that you cant operate a vehicle as a private hire vehicle without a current licence it doesnt say you cant drive it as a private vehicle.

You seem to be consistently missing the point. A private hire vehicle with the plate removed is still a private hire vehicle. It is just a private hire vehicle without its plate.

See also from the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers:

http://www.natphleo.org.uk/content/js872md98gk/news/benson_boyce.pdf

"In 1997, a prosecution was undertaken which involved a Private Hire Vehicle being driven by a person who was not authorised to do so by the Local Authority. The case has become famous as Benson v. Boyce and the judgement in that case had the effect of establishing in law that a Private Hire Vehicle had such status at all times."

"Vehicles licensed by the Local Authority for hire or reward (Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles) do not have any other use."

A vehicle does not cease to become a licensed vehicle just because the plate is removed by the owner.

"A vehicle which is licensed as a Private Hire Vehicle may only be driven by the holder of a Private Hire Drivers’ Licence issued by the Local Authority regardless of the purpose of the
journey."

The whole basis of the exemption for mechanics is because they could not simply remove the plate to legally drive the vehicle.

So do you really think that the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers are mistaken?

May I ask which local authority your vehicles were plated by? I might send them an email to ask their opinion.

paddedjohn

Im more and more leaning to your side on this but im yet to be convinced that the car is still classed as a plated private hire vehicle with the plates removed.

raskazz

paddedjohn wrote: »

im yet to be convinced that the car is still classed as a plated private hire vehicle with the plates removed.

That's the point. The car is a licensed vehicle until the council deems otherwise. Regardless of whether the plate is attached to the vehicle.

paddedjohn

raskazz wrote: »

That's the point. The car is a licensed vehicle until the council deems otherwise. Regardless of whether the plate is attached to the vehicle.

but the plate is the licence so without it the car is not licensed.:undecided

raskazz

paddedjohn wrote: »

but the plate is the licence so without it the car is not licensed.:undecided

No, the plate is not the licence - displaying the plate is part of the conditions of being a licensed vehicle.

For example, imagine a case where the council suspends the license for some breach but they cannot trace the vehicle in order to remove the plate. In that instance the vehicle may still be displaying the plate but it is not a licensed vehicle.

See also the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 48(5):

"Where a district council grant under this section a vehicle licence in respect of a private hire vehicle they shall issue a plate or disc identifying that vehicle as a private hire vehicle in respect of which a vehicle licence has been granted."

So the plate is not the license itself but is merely a means of identifying a licensed vehicle.

As I said earlier in the thread, if was as simple as removing the plate then mechanics would not have required the exemption - they would just have removed the plates for test drives.