Les Hoath (Chairman) London Suburban Taxi-drivers’ Coalition, Gives Updates On Sutton On Demand Buses And TfL's Lack Of Taxi Rank Enforcement

Taxi Leaks has been asked to post the following information as a follow up to two articles posted on Taxi Leaks. https://andersonshelter.blogspot.com/2019/10/a-pilot-of-gosutton-on-demand-bus.html?m=1

Th first update pertains to the vehicles being used as a 'bus service' in Sutton, which under legislation should have more than 9 seats, charge per person, and stick to a ridged route and time table.
So why are the vehicles and drivers licensed as PHV & PHD.

What is ‘hire or reward’?
Where minibuses are operated as a core business activity for personal or commercial profit, this is deemed to be for ‘hire or reward’. Hire or reward' encompasses any payment in cash or kind by (or on behalf of) passengers which gives them the right to be carried.

Some commercial businesses i.e private nursing homes and school nurseries etc, operate minibuses as a small part of their business activity. In these cases, because the business gets paid a fee by their clients to be residents of their home, or children in their care, which indirectly includes the use of the minibus, this would be classed as ‘hire or reward’. Other examples of ‘hire or reward’ include where petrol money has been taken for taking children to school every day; or where courtesy coaches have been provided by a hotel as part of their amenities.

If the minibus is to be used for 'Hire and Reward', then a Passenger Carrying Vehicle (PCV) - Category D Licence is required.


Driving a mini-bus with nine seats or more, for hire or reward
In most circumstances you will need to obtain passenger carrying vehicle entitlement (PCV) which will involve a requirement to meet higher medical standards and take a further driving test. You will need to apply to your appropriate Traffic Commissioner and fulfil the necessary legal requirements. If you are being paid to drive a minibus for hire or reward under a PCV Operator’s Licence, you can only do so if you have full Category D1 entitlement obtained through the passing of the theory and practical test for this class of vehicle irrespective of when you passed your driving test to drive a car.

However, up to two vehicles each carrying no more than sixteen passesngers can be used for hire or reward under a restricted PCV Operator’s licence by a person or company that is not in the business of carrying passengers in vehicles adapted to carry more than eight passengers i.e by a taxi firm, where use of this size vehicle is not ‘regular’.

If you drive a minibus for an organisation under the minibus or community bus permit scheme, you will not need to have the higher PCV entitlements. Application can be made to a voluntary organisation that is acting as an umbrella body or alternatively the Traffic Commissioner.

 PCV (PSV)
Getting a PCV driving licence (previously known as a PSV - Public Service Vehicle)

If you want a licence to drive a minibus,and you currently hold a valid full driving licence you will need to apply to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for a provisional entitlement to drive a PCV. You will need to complete the application form D2 and the medical report form D4. These are available from the DVLA form ordering service. The D4 has to be completed by a doctor (including a doctor’s fee of £50-£70) and you will need to meet the PCV eyesight requirements. There are also requirements ie. being of good character and over 21 years of age.

The UK driving theory test was introduced in July 1996 as a written examination and updated to a computer based test in 2000. The test is conducted by the DSA (Driving Standards Agency). The PCV (D1) driving test is similar to the test taken by coach drivers, only the vehicle you would drive is a minibus. The Driver CPC Module 1 PCV theory test costs £50.00 and.is divided into two separate parts; the Multiple Choice Test (100 questions) £35.00 and the Hazard Perception Test (19 interactive clips) £15.00.

The multiple choice questions are about a wide range of driving related topics such as  the HIghway Code, vehicle weights and dimensions, drivers' hours, the carriage of passengers, hazard perception, environmental issues plus other matters relating to passenger carrying vehicles and driving law. Mock theory tests can be found on the DSA website www.dvsa.gov.uk

The second part is the Hazard perception test which must be passed at the same time.  The pass mark for the multiple choice part of the theory test is now 51 out of 60 . Those taking LGV or PCV (lorry or bus) tests must also score at least 50 out of 75 in the hazard perception test. If you pass one part and fail the other you'll fail the whole test, and you'll need to take both parts again.

From 1 January 2012, new theory tests will be introduced using questions and answers that the candidates will not have had access to - a change to the Q&A banks that had previously been published by the Driving Standards Agency since theory tests began in 1996. 

From September 2008 new legislation will require drivers with vocational licences (PCV D or D1 categories obtained by a separate test) to undertake additional regular training and be required to undertake and pass an additional Driver CPC module containing case scenarios before you’re even allowed to take practical driving lessons in a minibus in order to keep their vocational licences valid. This training is to ensure that all bus and coach drivers understand their responsibilities and keep up to date with new laws and regulations.

The PCV minibus practical driving test lasts 90 minutes . During the driving test the examiner will give you directions which you should follow. Test routes are designed to be as uniform as possible and will include a range of typical road and traffic conditions. More information is available on the Transport Office website.


What are the rules on drivers’ hours for minibuses?
 Further information on both the EU and Domestic Drivers’ Hours Rules is published by VOSA in (PSV 375) obtainable as above.  
A vehicle which is being used on a Section 19 permit is still a public service vehicle and is subject to domestic drivers’ hours rules when a person is driving in the course of his/her employment. Therefore if payment to the driver has taken place (unless it is out of pocket expenses) then domestic drivers’ hours rules apply.
Domestic drivers’ hours rules do not apply for the private use of a minibus or when permit vehicles are driven by volunteer (i.e. unpaid) drivers.
Obviously if a vehicle is being used as a PSV on a Regular Service (local/ non local) then the relevant domestic drivers’ hours rules apply (or in the case of a route exceeding 50 km, EU Hours’ Rules).
For PSV non-regular services when a minibus is being used for a non-regular national service, then domestic rules apply. For international services then the EU rules apply.
If a minibus is being used for international journeys (including private use) then EU drivers’ hours rules apply.

Minibus permits
Minibus and Community Bus Permits (Section 19 permits) are issued to organisations concerned with education, social welfare or other activities of benefit to the community. They allow certain organisations, including schools, to make a charge without having to comply with the full public service vehicle operator requirements and without the need for the driver to have a PCV (Category D1 or D) entitlement.

Certain organisations can apply for a Minibus Permit, (Section 19 -Transport Act 1985) for vehicles that can carry between nine and sixteen passengers. The Permit allows organistations like volunteer groups concerned with education, religion, social welfare, recreations and other activities that are beneficial to the community to make a charge without having to comply with the full passenger carrying vehicle entitlement (PCV) operator licensing requirements and without the need for their drivers to have PCV entitlement.

Many community transport organisations and charities now operate minibuses under a section 19 permit which, allows for the service provided to be for the organisations’ own members or for groups of people whom the organisation serves. Such organisations can charge or accept a form of remuneration for providing transport at a level to recover some or all of the costs of running the vehicle, and may even include an allowance for vehicle depreciation but the service must not be provided to members of the general public and the charges made must be on a non-profit basis. This non-profit requirement extends to cover any direct costs connected with a particular trip such as expenses incurred by volunteers, but not the wages of any staff involved.

A driver of a Section 19 permit minibus can either be paid or an unpaid volunteer.
It should be noted however, that volunteer minibus drivers who passed their car driving test after 1st January 1997 are restricted to drive minibuses which weigh no more that 3500kgs gross vehicle weight.

NB. Schools must hold a ‘Section 19 permit’ if minibus journeys are funded to any extent by outside sources such as parents or parent teacher associations. Schools and educational establishments who do not charge their pupils do not normally need a section 19 permit. See driving a school minibus.

Section 19 permits can be obtained from your local Traffic Area Network Office or visit the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency website: www.vosa.gov.uk.

Driving a school minibus abroad
The Section 19 permit arrangements apply only in the UK and you cannot take a permit minibus abroad, if it is used for hire or reward, unless you hold either PCV D1 or D entitlement. When a school minibus is taken abroad, a tachograph must be fitted and used throughout the journey , observing EC drivers’ hours regulations.


How can I tell if a minibus is being operated on a commercial operators licence (PCV) or under a section 19 permit?

Above the tax disk on the windscreen of the minibus should be another disk. If the minibus is being operated under a PCV licence the disk will be either blue or green. A white disk indicates that the minibus is being operated under a section 19 permit.



A Section 22 (Transport Act 1985) permit allows a minibus to be operated by bodies on a local bus service on a voluntary non-profit basis but only using unpaid volunteer drivers. Application needs to be made to the Traffic Commissioner for your area.

Section 19 and Section 22 permits are only applicable to the United Kingdom.

What are the rules on drivers’ hours for minibuses?
Further information on both the EU and Domestic Drivers’ Hours Rules is published by VOSA in (PSV 375) obtainable as above.

A vehicle which is being used on a Section 19 permit is still a public service vehicle and is subject to domestic drivers’ hours rules when a person is driving in the course of his/her employment. Therefore if payment to the driver has taken place (unless it is out of pocket expenses) then domestic drivers’ hours rules apply.

Domestic drivers’ hours rules do not apply for the private use of a minibus or when permit vehicles are driven by volunteer (i.e. unpaid) drivers.

Obviously if a vehicle is being used as a PSV on a Regular Service (local/ non local) then the relevant domestic drivers’ hours rules apply (or in the case of a route exceeding 50 km, EU Hours’ Rules).
For PSV non-regular services when a minibus is being used for a non-regular national service, then domestic rules apply. For international services then the EU rules apply.

If a minibus is being used for international journeys (including private use) then EU drivers’ hours rules apply.
This Guide is only intended for general help; it is not a legal document. Therefore you should seek your own legal advice if you have any doubts with these issues.


See also Renault Trafic LL30 9 Seat LWB, Ford Custom Tourneo Titanium 9 Seat, Lightweight minibuses for car licences


This Guide is only intended for general help; it is not a legal document. Therefore you should seek your own legal advice if you have any doubts with these issues.

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT : Article Two

https://andersonshelter.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-are-tfl-waiting-for-why-did-uber.html?m=1

Taxi Ranks
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/taxi-drivers-abstract-of-laws.pdf

40. Appointment of and Regulations for taxi ranks (London Hackney Carriages Act of 1850 s4) TfL may appoint taxi ranks and make regulations as to the limits of the ranks, the number of taxis to be allowed to ply for hire there, the time during which they may ply for hire and also for enforcing order at the ranks, and removing any person unnecessarily loitering there.

It is TfL/T&PH (Gary Snewing – Rank & Infrastructure Manager) who appoints the ranks, therefore, it is their responsibility for enforcement and not down to the local councils.


Yours Sincerely


Les Hoath (Chairman)
London Suburban Taxi-drivers’ Coalition

Uber’s UK VAT liability confirmed

Earlier this week Uber London Ltd filed its full accounts up until December 2018 at Companies House. 

The big news wasn’t that the division made a relatively meagre profit of £5.1m. (The profit is hardly indicative of anything due to the group’s structural complexity.)

It was Note 13 which recounted the following about Uber London’s contingent liabilities: 

The most newsworthy part was arguably this one: “the Uber Group is involved in an ongoing dialog with HMRC, which is seeking to classify the Uber Group as a transportation provider. Being classified as a transportation provider would result in a VAT (20%) on Gross Bookings or on the service fee that the Company charges Drivers, both retroactively and prospectively.”

Uber London’s accounts do not provide any indication of the total sum being recorded as a contingent liability at Uber London’s parent, the Uber Group.

But various sources tell us the bill could be as large as £1bn, or more. These are not small sums.

But the statement is striking for other reasons too.

First, Uber says it’s in an “ongoing dialog” with HMRC which hints at a negotiation taking place to potentially lower Uber’s liability. But that’s a big no no for HMRC. The tax authorities are not supposed to cut deals with corporations on unpaid back taxes, not least because of the scale of public outrage associated with legacy sweetheart deals, which prompted far-ranging internal policy reviews. 

HMRC told FT Alphaville that on an ongoing basis it investigates about half of the UK’s large businesses at any one time. As part of that process companies are man-marked with HMRC officers whose job it is to speak to the financial people at the organisation. So it could be that Uber is treating this sort of relationship as a dialogue. 

But a source tells Alphaville the view at Uber seems to be that the company sees itself as in negotiations with HMRC, with a view to settling the case before the all-important outcome of its UK Supreme Court appeal regarding its employer status is determined.

The other issue is the nature of the exposure and HMRC’s overall responsibility to capture its full extent.

It’s worth noting Alphaville first alerted readers to Uber’s potential VAT tax exposure in December 2016. At that time it was well known that the tax exposure in question was contingent on Uber successfully defending a tribunal case regarding the employment status of the company’s drivers. A loss would see the company’s drivers classified as workers not contractors, which would incur costly employer liabilities upon Uber, among them a VAT liability.

This is a big deal because the threshold for UK businesses having to pay VAT at the time was a turnover of more than £81K (it’s now £85k).

Since Uber drivers mostly earn much less than that, most do not incur VAT liabilities. If Uber is deemed an employer, however, those revenues would then be deemed Uber’s rather than drivers’ — more than surpassing the VAT threshold and thus exposing the company to potentially huge VAT liabilities from then on.

But the ruling would also reveal how much tax revenue the state will have missed out on over the years because of Uber’s potentially incorrect insistence it is not an employer.

The problem for HMRC is that there is a statute of limitation that ensures the tax authority cannot claim unpaid sums beyond the past four years.

This poses a bit of a quandary for the revenue services. What is a tax authority to do if it suspects a company may be hugely underpaying tax liabilities because of an incorrect employer classification, but cannot claim those sums until a final court ruling about that classification is determined.

One course of action according to Jolyon Maugham QC, who fronts the Good Law project — a non-profit that seeks to support progressive law change in a way that reduces public distrust of the establishment — is for the tax authority to engage in something called a protective assessment as soon as possible. This would allow HMRC to protect its position by flagging that an effective inquiry has begun, in turn allowing it to seek back-taxes from four years before that point even as more time passes.

In Mr Maugham’s opinion it would be a failure of governance at HMRC for the authority not to have issued such an assessment as soon as it was made aware of the issues at stake, irrespective of the pending nature of the all important employer status appeal.

When Mr Maugham made this view known to HMRC back in March in a letter before action, however, the authority’s view seemed to be that it would need to wait until the case was determined to do so. And so, in bid to get to the bottom of the legalities of the situation, the Good Law Project announced on May 29 of this year that it would be suing HMRC via judicial review for failing “to stem losses due to Uber’s tax dodging.” 

It is Mr Maugham’s contention that up to £1.1bn of tax is at stake. You can read Mr Maugham’s witness statement, which offers more details on how that figure is arrived at, here. 

But there’s another issue in play. As an interested party in the action, Uber has a right to legally represent its interests in the case if it wishes. One of those interests is that the case does not inadvertently expose its private tax affairs to the general public given that in the UK, all tax affairs are deemed private and confidential, including the issue of whether protective assessments have been initiated.

Uber has made it known to Mr Maugham that it will be engaging in the case to ensure any privileged information revealed by the process stays private and confidential and subject to an order that it is “protected from onward disclosure to third parties”. 

A hearing on the matter is due on November 6 at the High Court.

Of course, the fact that Uber London since filed a company account noting that a dialogue with HMRC over a VAT liability is ongoing implies some sort of protective assessment may already have been initiated. So to some extent the cat is already out of the bag.

Commenting on the case, Mr. Maugham told FT Alphaville:

It has taken three years for us to force HMRC to collect tax from Uber. Many hundreds of millions of pounds will have been lost because of its inaction. We will now turn our attention to ensuring that other big transport suppliers — such as Addison Lee — comply with the law. And to those, like Amazon, operating arrangements that seem to us to be similar in character.

In response Uber’s spokeswoman said: 

We can't comment on any discussions with HMRC but we will always fulfil the tax obligations in any country in which we operate.

Finally, HMRC told Alphaville:

We don’t comment on identifiable businesses. HMRC will always make sure that every business, no matter its size, pays all the taxes due under UK law and we don’t settle for less.

One thing’s for sure. It’s a tax case that could have a huge bearing on Uber’s profit-and-loss at some point, with equally important implications for Uber’s operations in Europe, which also bear similar VAT exposure.

High Court Quashes Wakefield Taxi Fees

Friday, 7 December, 2018

The High Court has quashed the licensing fees charged for private hire vehicle and Hackney carriage licences set by Wakefield City Council, following a claim for judicial review by the Wakefield District Private Hire and Hackney Association.
 
His Honour Judge Saffman, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held that the fees charged by Wakefield were unlawful. In particular, the Council had wrongly interpreted section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and had erroneously charged the costs of enforcement against drivers (for speeding, bad parking, dressing inappropriately and a miscellany of uncivil or illegal conduct) to the control and supervision of vehicles. Wakefield’s case had been that the costs were properly accounted for against vehicles because the errant drivers were driving vehicles. The learned judge described that as ‘stretching beyond breaking point’ the language of the section.
 
The case is of wider importance as it dispels any suggestion that there is a general principle of law that licensing regimes should be self-financing. The judge made it clear that a local authority’s entitlement to recover from the licence fee the costs of administering a licensing regime is governed by the words of the empowering statute. Where Parliament has awarded local authorities a broad discretion (e.g. “such fee as they think reasonable”) the courts have upheld policies of full cost recovery on the sole ground that the policies, being reasonable, are intra vires; but where, as in s 70 LGMPA 1976, the power to charge a fee is circumscribed by reference to specific heads of recovery, recovery is restricted to those specified heads. Licensing authorities are creatures of statute, and have no powers beyond those which statute has given them.
 
In the course of the High Court action it became apparent that Wakefield Council has overcharged private hire vehicle licence fees by an aggregate sum in excess of £1million, which will form the subject of a claim for restitution.
 
Gerald Gouriet QC and Charles Streeten acted for the successful claimant, with the assistance of A2Z licensing

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :

As the article states, the greater legal significance of the judgment was to recognise that there is no general principle of law that requires licensing regimes to be self-financing, but for members of the Wakefield trade, it might be the prospect of being able to bring a restitution claim for in excess of £1 million that was the most significant thing to come out of the case, which was heard by the High Court in Leeds last Wednesday (5 December 2018).

For the sake of completeness, I should advise that the Council was refused permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but does, of course, have 21 days in which to renew its application directly to the Court of Appeal.

David B Wilson

a2z Licensing 

And So It Begins....Visa Doubles Transaction Charges to 8%

£1bn assault on the High Street: Shopkeepers suffer as Visa hikes fees on card payments. Unfortunately, this will give the green light to increase transaction charges for Taxi drivers taking Card payments. 

It's estimated that shopkeepers will pay £1billion extra a year to payments giant Visa after it hiked fees.

The increase comes as the Taxi trade faced a boom in customers who want to pay by card.

But what many passengers don’t realise is that every transaction costs the driver, and Visa has been accused of cashing in, by hiking its fees.

Card sharks: Taxi drivers have seen a massive increase in customers who pay by card for even the cheapest journeys meaning that drivers with company's that charge the extra 20p on top of the transaction percentage, pay even more in fees

Experts warned that some will see their bills more than double. 

Obviously it's not just Taxis who will be affected, payments consultant CMSPI said that increased card costs will hit Europe’s shops for £2billion.

In the UK alone, which has embraced contactless cards and chip and pin, the bill will be £1billion.

Visa Europe has doubled charges since 2015 from an average 4p per transaction to 8p, says CMSPI. 

Firm’s crippling £26,750 card bill 

Hardware store owner Vin Vara says his firm is struggling because of huge bills from credit card companies.

Vara, 58, employs 38 people at 11 Tool Shop stores in London and lost £20,400 in fees last year as shoppers paid by credit card. 

Some 60 per cent of customers pay by card and he expects the bill to rise to £26,750 this year.

He said: ‘People don’t understand the damage this can do. I’m scared for others on the High St about what’s going to happen to them.’

It used to keep just 1.5p of this as profit but now takes 5p after cutting costs, the consultant said.

CMSPI chief executive Brendan Doyle said: ‘This is incredibly disappointing. Visa, a multinational that consistently reports profit margins in excess of 50 per cent on multi-billion-dollar revenues, is piling cost after cost onto retailers and the latest change will be particularly hard on struggling small businesses.’ 

He added that CMSPI will complain to the European Commission about the hike.

Visa has become more aggressive since it was bought by its US sister firm for £15billion in 2016.

Until then, Visa Europe had been owned by banks, including Lloyds and Royal Bank of Scotland, and they made billions from its sale to namesake Visa Inc. 

The American company’s chief executive Charles Scharf plotted to hugely increase fees – in 2015, he said he hoped to ‘expand yields in Europe’.

MPs and business groups called for regulators to step in.

SNP MP Stewart Hosie, of the Treasury Select Committee, said: ‘It’s a scandal card issuers’ fees have increased massively. I would hope and expect card issuers would think again before they impose these costs.’

Meanwhile, High Street retailers face average hikes for UK card fees of 75 per cent, and other European card costs will come close to trebling with an increase of 189 per cent.

James Lowman of the Association of Convenience Stores said: ‘We encourage the Payment Systems Regulator to look closely at these fees to ensure fairness.’

Andrew Cregan, at the British Retail Consortium, also backed intervention by the regulator.

Visa said: ‘The figures quoted are misleading and over-inflated. Our pricing means we can invest in world-leading cybersecurity and consumer protection, in innovation such as contactless and mobile payments, and in providing a global network which enables billions to make purchases safely, securely and reliably.’

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :

In the past, we've seen many retailers refuse to take Amex because of the time it takes them to pay up. 

We could now see the same exclusion notices regarding payment with Visa cards.

The London Taxi trade haven't been granted the right to choose how they are paid as our largest org says "it was a done deal'....and it was the drivers who were done!

The trade were promised a increase in bums on seats and a massive publicity campaign from TfL.....it just never happen. 

Mike Brown Apologises For ‘Ill-Judged’ Expansion Of Cycle Superhighway, Blamed For Gridlock And Increased Pollution

Farce of the cycle super highways: London transport chief apologises for ‘ill-judged’ expansion that’s blamed for gridlock and increased pollution

             Mike Brown                    Will Norman

Britain’s most powerful transport tsar has now admitted that the the speedy expansion of controversial cycle ‘superhighways’ has actually slowed traffic for motorists.

Mike Brown, the commissioner for Transport for London, criticised the cycle lane expansion in London as ‘ill judged’ and ‘ill thought through’.

He apologised to motorists who say that the segregated cycle lanes are exasperating traffic problems.

Mr Brown, who is a passionate supporter of cycle lanes, said that they had been hurried through under Boris Johnson during his eight-year tenure as London mayor.

Cycling groups, council chiefs and safety campaigners said that the lanes would reduce congestion and pollution - which causes thousands of premature deaths in Britain every year - and that they make the roads safer.

But in practise, the lanes have infuriated most drivers who claim they are stuck in traffic for longer because part of the road has been taken over by bikes. 

Now, Mr Brown's attack on one of Mr Johnson’s flagship policies will likely spark more contentious debate about the further roll out of cycle lanes around the country.

LBC Radio host Nick Ferrari – who claims cycle superhighways have caused the biggest slow down in traffic since the Luftwaffe bombed London in the Second World War - was hosting a debate in London where Mr Brown made his controversial comments. 

Mr Brown said: ‘I apologise absolutely for the way cycle lanes were delivered in the last mayor’s administration’ .

‘I think it was ill-judged, it was too fast and ill thought through in the speed in which it was done, which I’m afraid is the main downside of living in a democracy – people want to do things in their term

But Mr Brown also insisted that that the routes have helped save ‘many, many lives’ and made the roads safer for cyclists.  

Fourteen cyclists were killed in London in 2013 but this tragic number dropped to eight deaths in 2016.

Despite his clear concerns, TFL has now insisted that Mr Brown's negative comments about the cycle infrastructure actually referred to the disruption caused by roadworks as too many lanes were built at the same time - and not to any traffic after they were operational.

But the criticism will provide ammunition for those who believe that cycle lanes being built all over Britain are making the roads more congested by reducing space for motor traffic.

Critics claim that this may actually increase  air pollution as cars are stuck on the roads with their engines running for longer as they idle in traffic.

Will Norman, Sadiq Khan's new cycling tsar wants to diversify cycling  to stop London's cycling routes being overwhelmed by middle class men

And so-called 'mamils' (middle-aged men in lycra) were another target for criticism of a burgeoning British cycle culture.

Mamils are dominating the cycling scene in London, leading to a false perception that cycling is not for everyone, Will Norman, Sadiq Khan's new cycling tsar claimed.

Too few females and people from ethnic minority backgrounds are taking to two wheels around the capital and the Mayor's office could introduce 'diversity targets' to combat the figures.

Despite millions being pumped into the cycling infrastructure in London the majority of those making use of it are middle aged men.

At present, black, Asian and minority ethnic groups account for about 15 per cent of cycled journeys in London – around two-thirds less than Transport for London (TfL) estimates it could be. 

Mr Norman told The Independent: 'There is a problem with cycling and the way it is perceived of getting middle-aged men cycling faster around the city, which is not the objective at all.

'It touches on something which is a real challenge for London cycling, which is diversity.'

Too many cyclists in London are middle-aged men according to the city's new cycling chief

London mayor Sadiq Khan said he would make cycling safer around London.

However, members of the London Assembly said it is not being done quickly enough.

Now Mr Norman said more groups should be benefitting from the changes made.

He added: 'Even when we have seen the growth in the number of cyclists, we haven't seen that diversity.

'There are a number of reasons for that. One is that safety is paramount for getting different people from different walks of life cycling: older people, younger people, those from different backgrounds.'

The way in which the gap will be filled, Mr Norman says, is through projects such as promoting electric bikes, cycling courses and grants for community groups who do not typically cycle.

Schemes could be rolled out across London to diversify the cycling scene. (Pictured: One woman cycles among a pack of men)

There was a six per cent recorded rise in female cyclists after the opening of Quietway 1, which links Waterloo with Greenwich, from 29 per cent to 35 per cent.

Mr Khan promised an average of £169m annually for cycling schemes over the next five years.

'Is it ambitious enough in the longer term? I think we need a higher level of change,' Mr Norman told The Independent.

'The target that we have set out in the mayor's transport strategy is over that 25 years we want to shift to 80 per cent of journeys to be walking, cycling or by public transport.

'That is a much more ambitious target and really is fundamentally rethinking the way that we move around our city.

Return to main blog, click Taxi Leaks button above under page title...or click link below

http://taxileaks.blogspot.com/

Cross Border Hiring By Gerald Gouriet QC

Summary: cross border hiring & localism

“Cross border hiring” is a portmanteau expression covering a miscellany of different activities, some of which are lawfully undertaken, others unlawfully. There is no case law to the general effect that cross border hiring of PHV drivers is per se lawful; and PHV licences may be conditioned so as to prevent cross border hiring from undermining local licensing control.

The ‘Right to Roam’

The licensing requirements of PHV drivers and their vehicles, and the exemptions therefrom, are different from those made of PHV operators. The so-called ‘right to roam’ (insofar as it is a right) applies to PHV drivers and vehicles – not operators.

PHV drivers and vehicles

Outside Greater London the owner of a vehicle may not use it as a private hire vehicle in a controlled district unless the vehicle is licensed under section 48 LGMPA 1976: section 46(1)(a). Nor may the vehicle be driven otherwise than by someone licensed under section 51: section 46(1)(b). It is also an offence for the owner of a vehicle to employ as a driver someone who is not so licensed: 46(1)(c).

No offence under sections 46(1)(a), (b) or (c) is committed in respect of the use of a vehicle in controlled district A  if a driver’s licence and a vehicle licence issued in controlled district B are in force: section 75(2).  All three licences, however, (operator’s, driver’s and vehicle), must be issued by the same authority: Dittah v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356.

The so-called “right to roam” of PHV drivers and vehicles derives from section 75(2). The right is not unqualified: PHV drivers and vehicles may not ply for hire, and may only fulfil a booking accepted by an operator licensed by the same authority as licensed them: Dittah.

PHV operators

Section 80(1) LGMPA 1976 provides:

“operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle.

An operator may only make provision for the invitation or acceptance of PHV bookings in the controlled district in which he is licensed: LGMPA section 46(1)(d), applying section 80, subsections (1) & (2).

Section 75 of the LGMPA 1976 does not provide an exemption for operators (from section 46(1)(d)), equivalent to that which it provides for drivers and vehicles (from sections 46(1)(a), (b) & (c)). Thus, whilst drivers and vehicles may lawfully undertake journeys “which ultimately have no connection with the area in which they are licensed” (per Latham LJ in Shanks v North Tyneside BC [2001] LLR 706), lawful provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings is anchored to the controlled district in which the operator is licensed.

Unlawful provision for invitation of bookings by PHV drivers

Whether or not provision has been made in breach of section 46(1)(d) is a question of fact. The following guidance emerges from the cases –

• “It is simply a question of asking, in common sense terms, whether there has been provision made in the controlled district for invitation or acceptance of bookings”: Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Wilson(1995) WL 1082181, per Buxton J.
• “There could well be provision for invitation of bookings in one place and for acceptance in another”: East Staffordshire BC v Rendell (1995) WL 1084118, per Simon Brown LJ.
• “As the authorities clearly show, the main question is not where the act of accepting any particular booking or bookings take place, but where the provision is made”: idem
• “The determining factor is not whether any individual booking was accepted, let alone where it was accepted, but whether the person accused has in the area in question made provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings in general”: Windsor and Maidenhead v Khan [1994] RTR 87, per McCullough J.

If a PHV operator makes arrangements for drivers in his fleet to go to remote areas (i.e. other than the area of the authority that licensed the operator/drivers/vehicles) it may well be that, on the facts of a particular case, he is unlawfully making provision for the invitation of PHV bookings. If he has organised dedicated parking areas and pick up points for his drivers, and the means to let the public know they are waiting there and available for hire, it may be difficult to conclude otherwise.

Undermining local licensing control: revocation or refusal to renew licence

Section 62(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives a licensing authority power to refuse to renew (or revoke) an operator’s licence on the grounds that –

(a) he has committed an offence under the 1976 Act (or an immigration offence);

(b) he is otherwise not fit and proper to hold the licence;

(c) there is a material change of circumstances: or

(d) any other reasonable cause.

Even in circumstances that are otherwise lawful, a PHV operator who knowingly sends drivers in his fleet to work (exclusively or predominantly) in remote areas where they are not licensed, is vulnerable to having his operator’s licence revoked or refused renewal under section 62(1)(d) of the 1976 Act on the ground that he undermines local licensing control.  The threat to public safety (let alone the affront to local control) in the growing use of drivers who ‘shop’ to be licensed by authorities that demand only the lowest standards, so that they can work in an area where standards are higher but licences more difficult to obtain, is ample demonstration of “reasonable cause”. At least one PHV operator has been known to steer potential drivers to licensing authorities with minimal licensing criteria and low licensing fees.

Erosion of localism: licence conditions

The Courts have said that “the hallmark of the licensing regulatory regime is localism”[1], and that “that the authorities responsible for granting licences should have the authority to exercise full control” over “all vehicles and drivers being operated … within its area.” [2]

In The Queen on the application of Delta Merseyside Limited and Uber Britannia Limited v Knowsley BC [2018] EWHC 757, Kerr J said –

“I refrain from expressing any view on the point, but I am fortified in my conclusion in this case by the consideration that, in principle, a condition on a licence could be imposed which, if otherwise lawful, would require a fit and proper person who is a licence holder to abide by whatever restrictions are contained within a condition that are considered reasonably necessary to meet any perceived erosion of localism in the governance of PHV licensing.”

Conclusions

Although correction of the abuses of what may lawfully be done by way of cross border hiring may, as has frequently been said, require national legislative change, it is only necessary to enforce existing law to address some of the widespread concerns about unlawful cross border operations and the erosion of localism by some minicab firms and their drivers.

Gerald Gouriet QC

Worboys - What went wrong? : Crimeline.info ..... By Andrew Keogh, Barrister

One newspaper questioned how justice had been served after reporting that convicted sex offender John Worboys was to be released from prison following a decision by the Parole Board.

The headline, one of many similar ones, read:

'Black Cab rapist John Worboys to be freed after eight years – that’s just TWO WEEKS for each of 200 victims'

On the face of it, eight years imprisonment for 200 sexual crimes does appear remarkably lenient, and it is no wonder that members of the public not appraised of the full facts should express outrage on social media and elsewhere.

The facts reveal a very different story.

Was Worboys convicted of 200 offences?

The simple answer to that is no. Worboys was tried in 2009 on an indictment containing 23 allegations. In March 2009 he was convicted of 19 offences, including one charge of rape, the other charges related to sexual assaults and the administration of drugs to his victims. At the time of the offending Worboys worked as a taxi-driver and used that position of trust to take advantage of his victims.

The trial Judge, Mr Justice Penry-Davey sentenced Worboys to Imprisonment for Public Protection' ('IPP), with a minimum term before any possible release of 8 years.

Eight years reflects the sentence he would have received had an IPP sentence not been imposed (more on that below) and is based on a determinate prison sentence equivalent to 16 years (because he would have served half of that 16-year term before release).

So, why is the press reporting that he has committed more offences?

A substantial number of victims of sexual assault have come forward. It is apparent from evidence given at his trial that although 105 victims came forward, and are accepted by the police as having been subjected to assault by Worboys, these may represent only a small proportion of those assaulted.

In the words of prosecuting counsel at the trial:

"As you will see from the time span on the indictment the Defendant was able to cruise the nightclub areas of London identifying and picking up girls upon which to carry out his assaults for some time. Each girl felt concerned at the very least when she awoke the next morning, feeling that something was wrong but many did not make a complaint to the police at the time. It is perhaps easy to see why. Each of them could remember getting into the Defendant's cab. Many could describe the cab driver. Each could remember the conversation in the cab and the offer of alcohol. But many who had consumed that alcohol could remember very little of what had happened thereafter. They could remember little about which to complain. Many spoke to friends and family about the matter but left it there".

Some of these complainants won a civil action against the Metropolitan Police, although that is subject to an appeal, with the Supreme Court expected to give judgment later this year.

The quite horrific extent of police failures to properly investigate Worboys can be read here.

So, although there is a body of evidence to suggest that Worboys committed a very large number of crimes, the simple fact is that he was tried and convicted of only 19.

What about the sentence length?

There are some things to note about the sentence.

The first is that despite the number of convictions (19), some of the allegations (i.e. the drugging) are part and parcel of the main sexual offending. While properly charged separately, the sheer number of offences is not always a good indicator of the length of sentence that might follow.

The most serious offence for which Worboys was convicted was the single count of rape, although that is not to suggest the other offences were in any way insignificant.

Sentencing for sexual offences in 2009 is not the same as it is today.

Beyond any doubt, the treatment of those convicted of serious sexual offences today is very different from even a few years ago.

And finally, an IPP sentence is itself a particularly stringent form of punishment, stripping the offender of the privilege of automatic release, ensuring Parole Board scrutiny before any release, and also leaving the offender under supervision, potentially for life.

But overall, when you look at a sentence equivalent to 16 years, with no automatic release, it does not strike me as lenient, or at least not to any extent that it looks appealable.

Could the sentence have been appealed?

Yes, it could. The Attorney General had the right to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal, and argue that it was 'unduly lenient'.

We know that the sentence was referred to Baroness Patricia Scotland, the Attorney General at the time. The AGs office issued a statement saying:

“John Worboys’ sentence was considered by the attorney-general at the time. There are sentencing guidelines that judges must adhere to and, in this case, the sentence given fell within the guidelines available for this offence at that time.”

So, the sentence was the correct one?

Yes, the sentence was in accordance with the law. Judges can only sentence offenders for the offences that they have been convicted of.

People may feel in any event that the sentence was lenient, and they may well have a valid point of view. But so far as the law is concerned there appears to be little of concern here.

Why weren't there more charges brought?

The CPS has issued a statement dealing with that point, read it here.

The legal principle of 'totality of sentence' is of importance here and very much explains the thinking of the CPS at the time.

At its simplest, if an offender commits one crime deserving of (say) a three year sentence of imprisonment, and another offender commits (say) 10 crimes each deserving of 3 years imprisonment, the second offender would not receive a sentence of 30 years.

There comes the point when loading the indictment with further offences is largely pointless, and it was not the practice at the time to pursue further prosecutions that could (in some cases) and perhaps should, have been pursued at the time.

It is interesting that despite the stance of the CPS, the police did, in fact, refer at least one further case of sexual assault.

Again, it is worth contrasting the view in 2009 with that now, we have seen in more recent years a much different practice emerge, the case of Rolf Harris is a good example of that, with new allegations being pursued after his initial conviction.

Is there any chance of new criminal allegations being pursued now?

If there is evidence to support any new prosecutions, then I think it highly likely Worboys may face further proceedings.

Why has the Parole Board ordered his release?

The Parole Board is under a statutory duty to consider Worboys release once the minimum term of 8 years has expired.

A release must be ordered unless detention remains necessary for the protection of the public.

So, what we know is that the Parole Board has concluded that Worboys is a manageable risk if released.

That's Bonkers!

It seems a lot of people think so. The Parole Board has however evaluated all of the evidence and thinks differently. Due to secrecy rules passed by parliament, the reasons for the Parole Board's decision cannot be published, so we have no means of evaluating the decision made.

Can the decision be appealed?

The only possible challenge is by way of judicial review - where it could be argued that there was something procedurally wrong with the decision making progress, or that the decision to release was so wrong that it cannot stand (in legal terms often referred to as 'Wednesbury unreasonable').

The courts will, however, be slow to interfere with the expert assessment of the Parole Board, so a successful challenge is not likely.

We know that the victims were not notified of the Parole Board hearing or release decision and no doubt lawyers will be looking at whether that might form a basis for a challenge. It is unlikely in my view.

Who could bring the judicial review?

There is no doubt that the Secretary of State could challenge the decision, and some lawyers suggest that victims could as well, although I am doubtful as to whether victims would have the required 'standing' in law to bring a challenge. However, it is highly likely that this move is being contemplated.

So, he is free then?

He will be later this month unless further charges are brought, and he is remanded in custody (which is unlikely in that very short timeframe).

He will remain under supervision (on licence) for the remainder of his life. He can apply for that licence to be revoked, but given what is known about Worboys that seems unlikely to happen.

So, to sum it up

Worboys is a violent and prolific sexual offender, but the failings, in this case, appear to lie at the door of the Metropolitan Police Service, not the courts and Parole Board.