A New Year Message... From Semtex

To all my colleagues and friends in the great London Cab Trade, may I wish you and your families a very healthy and lucky New Year.

I have met some fantastic mates in our profession, from all Unions/Clubs/Associations and Groups.
However, I would like to wish a special lucky 2012, to my close colleagues of the brilliant UCG, the mighty RMT and of course our very own LTDF, which allows us to converse with each other, without having to hold court at the front of a rank somewhere !

It has been a rocky ride for most of us during the global economic downturn, and our barometer like trade has dealt with it as best we could.

The financial analysts are still indifferent to their prognosis of the future, and I guess despite the huge salaries that they earn to predict the economy, nobody really knows what's in store.

Likewise, the London Cab Trade have a lot to contend with this coming New Year, and we have much work to do.
For me personally, and without doubt the most worrying of all, is the meddling and poking around of our 350 year old legacy, by the inexperienced and ill advised Law Commission Officers.

Despite their ignorance of the mechanics of our trade, their combined power of authority should never be undermined.
Although it is only Parliament itself that can turn a recommendation into law, advisories from this extremely high ranking panel, are more than likely turned into the laws of our land.

Naturally, the Commissioners themselves do not have a knowledge of everything, so instead rely on the evidence and advice from advisers within the various trades.

Looking at the advisers who represent us for example, doesn't actually fill me with optimism.

I shall be watching the movements of this brief with eagle eye, and our UCG and RMT already have their fingers firmly on the pulse.

As we all know, the STAN project turned out like we all knew it would. A load of old ill informed cobblers. Misleading, unworkable, deceitful, poorly policed and dreadfully ill advised.

With the City Police especially, taking a unhealthy and short sighted view of satellite venues, we are having difficulty holding back the tide. The rapes in mini cabs still take place, the touting still goes on and the piss poor enforcement is an International embarrassment.

Today, our Capital City is rolling along on a wing and a prayer. The weak link of the TFL chain is being stretched tighter and tighter and tighter. The welding has broken away,the link has widened and the chain is in imminent danger of breaking altogether.
Sadly and predictably, when it eventually breaks, people's lives will be taken, and their grieving loved ones who are left behind, will change forever.
Irrespective of this certainty, the financial revenue money making machine of Transport for London, chugs along in contemptible defiance.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds roll in to TFL's Toffee Apple business, selling mini cab roundels for their existence.

To my mind, it is akin to a gorgeous trainee barrister being unable to make the law grades in which she set out to achieve , and so turning to prostitution instead. And that is exactly what Transport for London are..........Prostitutes. Selling themselves for money, because they cannot do the job that they were put there for.

This year, has seen our trade seemingly fighting in every corner. Millwall may reckon that "no one like us " but London Cabbies must be a pretty close second !

It seems as though the whole of the bent, unworkable system is attacking our legacy.
It is outrageous of course.

For hundreds of years, our profession have dealt with billions of miles of London's traffic chaos, safely taking Londoners, professionals, foreign nationals, children, business people and royalty to their chosen destinations, with a platinum service that the whole world envies.

Our loyalty and commitment have been swept aside in ruthless disregard, by a new breed of multi-cultural idealists, uncaring and disinterested in tomorrow...........only today.

By the time they realise what they have done, it will all be too late.

Irrespective of our plight, our London Taxi Trade still have much to fight for, and plenty to win.
Despite the touts, despite the flawed and useless STAN, despite the City Police's cosy relationship with satellite mini cabs, despite a woeful and appallingly useless enforcement team, despite the Olympics and despite everything else that makes us believe that our time is up.................it really isn't !

There is enough of us in unity to fight these traitors. There is enough combined strength in our ranks to DEMAND WHAT WE ARE HAVING, NOT WHAT THE IMPOSTORS SAY THEY ARE GIVING US !

We cannot and WON'T lie back and take it anymore ! 
Oliver Cromwell The Protector gave us the rights to ply in the metropolis unhindered if we could demonstrate and prove our criteria to be fit and proper persons.
We are ! They ain't ! So bollocks to the lot of them !

God must have been looking down on our trade when we saw the creation of the UCG.

This group will undoubtedly go on to become the strongest London Taxi Trade Representation that we have ever seen.

I am extremely proud to be a founder member, and may I say, that the colleagues of ours who work so constantly hard to keep it alive are amongst the most honourable, professional and dedicated men that I HAVE EVER STOOD WITH.
Trust my judgement when I tell you this, as I have been privileged to be associated with some extraordinary special men in my past life.

With the tungsten teeth of our green lanyard pals of RMT Taxi Section, our trade will soon see a regroup of strength that we have never seen or witnessed.

Although 2012 will surely be a difficult balancing act, I am convinced that due to the two assault battalions already mentioned, our trade will be victorious in dealing with the battles that face us.

We haven't lasted hundreds of years because we are impostors, weak and clueless.

Our trade has survived through the centuries due to our professionalism, our gold service, our knowledge, our pride, our dignity, our camaraderie and our skill.

There is no way we are going to let a group of spineless pension guided civil servants or mealy mouthed bent politicians steer us into oblivion !

There are some massive surprises cooking for our useless hierarchy coming any minute now. When they come, it will weaken the establishment severely.
It is at that point that we shall strike, and our great trade will live on for another 300 years.

Bring it on TFL, we are waiting for you.
To all my colleagues and friends, regardless of badge colour, skin colour or eye colour, may I wish you all a safe, happy and lucky New Year.

Look after your families, look after your health and look after your own.

2012 will see us re-establish in massive unity.

Just before closing, may I just say this.

During my time involved in this proud occupation, I have talked, stood and sat side by side with some wonderful men and women.

I could name dozens who I am so very very proud to be seen with, and they all know who they are.


8829 Semtex

A prediction of more to come... from a yellow badge driver

The truth is GB's wouldn't know a legal YB pick up when he saw one, and for that matter neither would a YB! For example......

Whilst plying for hire on the arndale (island) rank in Wandsworth one rainy Sunday afternoon I was allocated a job on Com-Cab which I accepted without checking the pickup since I was chatting and there was so little work around I didn't care what it was.


When I checked it was picking up at the Ismaili centre going to Ealing. I called in to the office to say that I was bidding up to three miles and the Ismail centre was about four or five miles away and was told it was three as the crow flies and the woman was prepared to wait the half hour I predicted to get there as there were no other cabs available.


So I went to pick her up on a legally acquired job starting in south Kensington. I was wearing my yellow badge as I got out to assist her with the low step and was suitably snarled at by a GB who saw it as I rounded the cab to get back in.


What the f**k do you think your up to? I believe was the exact phrase he used as he took note of my plate number and threatened to report me,
"My job"
was my less than convincing reply, but let's face it, who would have believed me short of the pco contacting comcab and finding out my location at the time of allocation?

Add to that, that most GBs would have thought I was illegal on the arndale to start with and you begin to see how many false accusations will start to be made once the identifiers are in.


I never take jobs I am not legally entitled to but I rarely work outside the all London area which although being totally legal is also fraught with angry GBs who can't wait to kill the YB scum as they see us!


Don't think it's our fault because we didn't do the green, it's your fault cos you never bothered to check the laws and accuse without facts or reason.


All the ids will do is highlight how many yellows work legally in town which will only serve to hack off the greens obsessed with picking on YBs rather than PHV!


There are a few rogues who will disappear with the IDs leaving us law abiders to take the flack for your prejudice (note spelling... barrister bastard).


If you see a YB getting hailed and stopping fair play, they deserve all they get, but any other action could easily be and probably is legal or accidental. (ie checking your takings on the meter whilst stuck in traffic and your light goes on. If you don't permit anyone to get in your cab or accept a fare, it's not illegal for your light to go on out of sector. What is illegal is plying for hire and a hire light illuminated on its own does not constitute this!!)


I'm not saying don't report wrong doing, just be sure it's wrong doing that you report. Imagine how exhausting it would be if you had to keep explaining yourself although you had done nothing wrong!!


Anyone want to buy a soap box?

Westminster put under pressure from Wood and Vale

Westminster Council has agreed to write to all motorists who were wrongly given £60,000 worth of parking tickets after pressure from local news paper, the Wood&Vale.

On Thursday the Wood&Vale reported the council would be making a profit of tens of thousands of pounds from its own mistake, after issuing £130 fines to 445 drivers on the Lisson Green Estate between April 4 and October 23.

Parking chiefs admitted all tickets issued during that time were unenforceable as it was a trial period.

But in in true Westminster fashion, true Westminster fashion, they said refunds would only be given out on receipt of a written request with details of when, where and why the parking ticket was issued.

However, the council has now agreed to change its policy by actively contacting every person who was wrongly issued a ticket to tell them they are eligible for a refund.

Parking boss Cllr Lee Rowley said: “Following a complaint a full investigation was carried out and we are confident this will not happen again.
“In line with our usual policy we will be offering refunds to customers who apply.
“We will also be issuing a letter to the Residents Association for inclusion in their newsletter and will add notes to the website as a way of communicating this.
“As a one-off, and because we take this very seriously, we will also be writing to every individual who has had a ticket and who we have details for.”

Travis B, A Christmas Message

As I sit here opening a tin of SPAM ready for Christmas Day.

I gave some thought as to the contents of my annual message to you the working cab driver, I thought of reviewing who did and, perhaps just as importantly who did not, defend the cab trade in 2011.
But no, that's been done many times over and if it was a court room the UTG would have already been banged up!

I thought about Mr Mason's LTPH and its continued bumbling, once again the prosecution has rested its case and the inevitable verdict has been passed.

Then, like the ghost of Christmas Past, it appeared, a vision of Mr Peter Hendy CBE, Commissioner of Transport for London,
Ah! thats the Captain of the Ship that carries our destiny.

Let's have a gander (sorry the goose has been cooked) at what his organisation has done for us, the taxpayer and the travelling public:

1. After instruction from Boris, finally removed his beloved Bendy Bus from clogging up the Metropolis. Soon to be replaced with another white elephant (or is it red?) costing who knows what?

2. Brought in a 15 Year Age Limit for Cabs that will do NOTHING to improve air quality as a 14 year old cab has the same Euro engine.
This will inevitablty lead to a lower age limit and 'we will remember them' who have agreed this on our behalf.

3. Used the statistics that were rubbished by his goodself only the week before as the product of 'A militant (that's you Editor!) Cab Drivers Blog' when it suited TfL to massage the appaling statistics on sexual assaults in PH/Non PH tout vehicles.

4. Will soon sign off on identifiers, tried to sign off on moving LTPH workers out of town, refused point blank to allow us ORN access and no doubt has many more 'benefits' in store for us in 2012.

Still as he said 'we need to get out more' or some of us are 'selfish arrogant fools'.
Perhaps we should conclude that this man's "achievements" indicate he ain't no friend of the cab trade and prepare accordingly.

If that was all there was, that would be bad enough, but we are big boys & girls (and I keep getting bigger!) and as we have proved outside Windsor House, Palestra, Woodfield Road and Trafalgar Square we can look after ourselves.

Pat yourself on the back all those that supported these actions in your own time without a penny in 'stand down pay'. No wonder the UTG mob was absent!

Also the magnificent efforts on Remembrance Sunday that again shamed TfL.

Unfortunately todays news raises somewhat more serious matters:

The failure to implement any of the Coroners instructions about First Aid Provision on the tube and much more following 7/7.
LU is under the command of Mr Hendy, Surely the rush to have driverless trains and cost cutting have no bearing on such public safety concerns can it?.
Well I can think of an immediate saving of £350K that would help..

An enormous increase in violence and assaults on Tube, Bus etc.
Its hard to tell about PH/Non PH stats. as TfL keep using different sources.

STaN in action? Stan Laurel more like!

So there we have it, Mr Hendy's TFL 2012 & beyond 'Olympic' London:

Less Safe, Less Cabs, Less Ranks, Less Work, Less Road Space, More Requirements (2 MOT's, & Taxi Compliance Test, Identifiers, Names on Websites Etc), More Touts, More PH. The Law Commission, The UTG. and there's more, much more, still lets not get depressed at this time of goodwill.

Merry Christmas One and All (well not quite all!).

EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Let's not forget that as these top TfL incompetents sit down with their families on Christmas day, to enjoy each others company and reflect on another wonderfully profitable year, there are another 120 families this year that have had their lives shattered by acts of sexual assault and rape, carried out on one of their love ones.

Hendy, Mason, Royle and Taylor, should be held totally responsible by their inaction and refusal to deal with the many lines of illegally ranked PH cars outside night venues.
All in the name of revenue, in the shape of "Satellite Office" license fees.

It will soon be time to elect a Mayor for another four years and as Boris wishes every taxi and PH driver a more PC Happy Holiday, instead of the traditional Merry Christmas, let's not forget that he, as Chair of TfL, by his inaction and inability to deal with our problems, is part of the problem, not the solution.
TtT.

And on that note, the Anderson Shelters editorial staff;
Jim Thomas (Thomas the Taxi),
Jason Byrne,
Travis B,
Semtex 8829
and Simco,
would like to wish all its readers
"A very Merry Christmas"

Three years for Addison Lee driver convicted of manslaughter

A minicab driver who left his passengers screaming in terror after running over a homeless man in the West End was convicted of manslaughter today.

Imran Raja, 37, was ferrying a married couple and two friends to a bar in November last year when Robert Scott, 58, splashed drink over his car and banged on the windscreen. Raja knocked down Mr Scott and drove over the body, the Old Bailey heard.

The driver, who worked for London's largest minicab firm Addison Lee, insisted he was unaware he had hit the victim until he was alerted by his passengers.

Raja, from Ilford, was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis he did not intend to cause serious harm. He was jailed for three years and nine months.

Prosecutor David Fisher QC said: “The passengers could hear and feel the bump as the tyres of the minicab went over Robert Scott.” They got out to see Mr Scott lying in the road with severe head injuries.
................................................................................................

The Anderson Shelter will remove any post found to be non-factual
Please submit any complaint to: 
Downtheoak@aol.com

Missing People Appeal from Colin Outhwaite.

Colin Outhwaite, Taxi driver and father of the famous actress Tamzin Outhwaite, was so moved after watching Gloria Hunnifold's piece about missing family members on ITV's "This Morning"  he decided he would do all he could to help. Within days he had organised posters which he and his friends are now displaying on the drop seats of their Taxi's.


This morning, he put out an appeal for more Taxi drivers to come forward and volunteer to display these posters on their drop seats to help find these missing friends and family members. 


This is something we can do, which will help to make such a big difference to so many families. Within minutes of the program being aired, the phones started ringing with sightings of lost friends and family members. 


Please help Colin and his friends with this fantastic idea, together we can help make a huge difference to some desperate peoples lives.

If you have a face book page, upload the video or just post this link to the appeal;
http://youtu.be/Dx30e1AiAfE


Please send a link to this video to everyone in your contact list by text.
Lets give Colin all the support we can muster.


If you can help by displaying posters on your drop seats please email;
pr@missingpeople.org.uk


or phone;
020 8392 4583

One day, these posters may contain the face of someone you love.

RMT joins the ID Badge and Database fiasco.

The RMT London Taxi Branch has had many enquiries about names being placed on TfL's website and the upcoming 'identifiers'.


We ask TfL the following:


1. What purpose does it serve?
Surely all anyone needs to know is if the badge number or cab plate is valid. Why does anyone need our name?


2. TfL state that 'Private Hire has had this facility for sometime now, with no problem'.
Well not quite accurate, all an enquirer can find out is the name of the operator.


3. How much is this costing and who was consulted?
We require to see any minutes, so the cab trade can note who agreed to this.


4. Concerning the identifiers about to be imposed, again how much did this cost?
Who agreed it?


5. If an identifier is lost or stolen, can a driver continue to work and will it necessitate a new bill and badge?


6. If as stated by TfL the identifiers are just to aid their enforcement staff rather than cause issues between cab drivers then just a small barcode label would have sufficed. Was this an option considered and again who was consulted and who agreed it?


The RMT are taking legal opinion on the Data Protection aspects of this and will also be raising the issue of wasting licensees and tax payer's money with TfL, the Mayor, Audit authorities and the GLA. We will also be exposing who agreed to what, without asking YOU the working cab driver. You have an absolute right to know what has been agreed in your name.


The RMT will defend its members and the whole cab trade without fear or favour.


Once again the Cab Trade has yet another requirement to needlessly follow whilst touting by PH and non PH vehicles carries on with minimal effective enforcement.


Director of LTPH John Mason, has replied in part with regards to question 5:

Dear Stan


I do not know where these ridiculous rumours come from but they never help and we have never stated this would be the case.


We would, of course, not stop anyone working as a result of such instances. We will, however, insist on immediate reporting to us of such (along with crime reference numbers if reporting as stolen) and we expect taxi drivers to treat the identifiers with the same level of respect and importance as their own badge.


Clearly anyone who continually "loses" their identifiers would need to be warned to be more careful and could be subject to action if this was more deliberate rather than accidental.


All will become clearer when drivers get the identifiers and the guidance notes and we will issue some more notices as well.


I hope this answers your question and allays your members concerns.


John Mason
Director - Taxi & Private Hire
4th Floor Yellow
Palestra
197 Blackfriars Road. London. SE1 8NJ


EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Still not clear if a driver will have to be issued with a brand new badge number!
So far, in our opinion, this new ID requirement is far from ready to implement.


Source; RMT London Taxi Blog http://t.co/SOvYLj0

Government to review ban on enhanced CRB checks for all taxi and private hire drivers

Lord Henley, Minister for Crime Prevention, has announced that the Government will reconsider its view that enhanced criminal records checks are not needed for taxi and minicab drivers. The Criminal Records Bureau informed councils earlier this year that it was ending the 10-year practise of checking drivers through the enhanced check.

Lord Henley made the announcement during the Lords debate of the Protection of Freedoms Bill following a proposed amendment to reintroduce the checks by Baroness Doocey.

Baroness Doocey stated that, in London alone, 10% of all licence applications were refused as a result of discoveries made through an enhanced check, demonstrating the check’s clear contribution to passenger safety.

Both Transport for London and the LGA have been lobbying for Government, along side with an increasing number of local licensing districts, to reconsider its position and welcome the announcement.

TFL worked closely with Baroness Doocey over the tabling of the amendment. The amendment was withdrawn, but Government committed to taking this forward through other methods. The changes can be made using an amendment through the 1997 Police Act and could come into force as early as February 2012.

Lords Taxi/PH CRB check debate

............................................................

Stop Press:

LTPH take down controversial Taxi driver badge/names check page on TfL website. 

Well done to all who helped by complaining.

United we stand but divided we will fall.

Tweeting Drivers Force LTPH Rethink Over ID Badge and Data Base

On Saturday drivers finally came to terms with the danger of personal details being given out freely on-line on the TfL website. After it was revealed on Twitter that drivers full names could be obtained by simply entering badge numbers, or badge numbers could be obtained by entering names, all hell broke lose. Many tweets and emails were fired off, complaining to MPs, MEPs, the Mayor, Assembly Members, local councillors and trade representatives.


While fury swept the screens of drivers smart phones, LTPH desperately tried to console the angry mob by making an announcement, that from early next week the service would be temporarily disabled, while further legal advise was taken and to give trade representatives a chance to consult further on the subject.


I was told by a spokesperson that the reason drivers details were available on-line was because they (TfL/LTPH) have a duty under the London cab act to supply drivers details to members of the public on request and that this service has been available for private hire for some time. LTPH have been informed by their legal department that this would not be a breach of the data protection act.

But an on-line data base, openly available to anyone is surely going too far and not quite what the London cab act meant by available on request...
I believe this is not only a breach of the data protection act, but also (as stated in previous post) the "European Human Rights Charter".


To prove my point about how dangerous this situation is, using software freely available on-line I found out the badge numbers, home addresses, number of people in the residence, names of neighbours and took photos from "Google street view" of the front doors of most of the UTC committee members.  These details however will not be published, as this was purely an academic exercise. 


I must thank Deputy Director of TPH Helen Chapman, who, as the fuss reach fever pitch, immediately contacted John Mason and together they agreed to disable the facility later this week until further notice.


I have been informed the reason badge numbers are to be displayed in such a large font on these controversial ID badges, is to assist licensing officers who as non warranted officers have no right to stop a Taxi for Badge and Bill or compliance checks if a driver refuses to stop.

But my argument is, private hire drivers are not compelled to have there badge number emblazoned on their windscreen in large format and in fact are allowed to hide their license details with tinted glass.


So how do Licensing/Compliance officers currently stop and check private hire drivers???


So again it would seem there is one rule for us and just guild-lines for them.  


I am not totally opposed to some form of distinction between London central and suburban drivers if that's what the trade in general wants, but the ID badge that are intended to be issued this week are an insult to ever London licensed driver.


I believe a new design of ID badge with the drivers badge number not so prevalent would be a better compromise.

Unacceptable............................................More acceptable

TfL Database to compromise your families safety.... By Thomas the Taxi.

LTPH have announced that Licensed Taxi drivers details are now available to anyone who goes on-line to the TfL web page. They say the reason for this is to bring the Taxi trade in line with details already available on Private Hire drivers.

We decided to check out the new Database for ourselves and were quite literally horrified.


In regards to the Private Hire Database, most complainants would only be able to observe either the vehicle registration number, or the vehicle LTPH license number from the vehicles roundel. That's if you can get close enough to read the very small print and the vehicle doesn't have heavy tinted windows! 
Inserting these numbers will tell you only if the Vehicle is registered as a PH vehicle and which mini cab firm it is currently registered to.


With the Taxi driver page, we found entering the drivers badge number, which will shortly be compulsory for every green badge driver to display on front and rear windscreens, will give you the drivers current status and also his full name.
Also if you know a drivers name, say someone who is high profile such as a trade leader or trade journalist, entering this name gives you that drivers badge number. 


Now, with other Internet software freely available on-line, unless that driver is ex-directory you can find his/her address. But even if you are ex-directory there is other software available, plus checks for CCJ's and credit rating. Its amazing what's kept on-line!


This Database does not bring the trade in-line with PH as the PH drivers personal number is only available on demand from the driver and not to the casual observers.


Anderson Shelter Comment:
We strongly feel this Database is a breach of article 8 section 1 of the EU charter on the human right of privacy for individuals and their families. This Database compromises every Licensed Taxi drivers safety and that of his/her family.


The ability to acquire a drivers name from his/her badge number, must be removed from the TfL database, as there is no reason why casual observers should need this information.


We would advise every concerned Taxi driver, who is worried about their families safety, to contact their MP, MEP and if you live in London your Assembly Member. Use the box below to find your local and national representatives, don't wait for the UTG to do this as they are in favour of this Database.
I believe the RMT and the UCG are the only groups currently taking legal advice on this matter

Contact Your Politician

Enter your Postcode below:

Until such time that this safety issue is dealt with, I personally will be refusing to display the ID badges in my vehicle and invite other concerned drivers to join my passive disobedience.

Minicab Driver Rapist Jailed.

Police today renewed a Christmas warning to women about the dangers of unbooked minicabs after a driver was jailed for nine years for raping a teenage partygoer.

Marcos De Souza, 32, was trapped because his DNA was held on file even though he had no criminal record. The Brazilian had lured the drunken 19-year-old into his car as she left a house party in Camden in February.

The victim was so drunk the sex predator believed she would never remember what was about to happen to her, Inner London crown court heard. But when she arrived home dishevelled, her boyfriend encouraged her to call police and De Souza's DNA was found after tests. The sex predator was traced because police had taken his DNA when he was arrested after a previous girlfriend claimed he had assaulted her. The case was discontinued but his profile was retained on the national database.

De Souza was arrested two months after the rape when he went to report a car break-in. Investigators put his name into the database and were stunned to discover he was a wanted man and arrested him.

Jurors found him guilty at a retrial after a previous jury had been unable to agree a verdict. As a result De Souza, who had denied rape and claimed the young woman was a willing participant, forced her to relive her ordeal twice.

On his release he will face deportation and has to sign the sex offender register indefinitely. Outside court detective constable Richard Huggins, of Lambeth's Sapphire Unit, said: "Mr De Souza's conviction, particularly in the run-up to the Christmas party season when people are enjoying a drink, highlights the dangers of getting into unlicensed minicabs. Always book a cab using a licensed company as it is not worth the risk"

Identifiers, brought to you by the people who gave you; Age Limits, Law Commission, Olympic Zil Lanes, Satellite Offices and Illegal Plying for Hire.

On Thursday last week, certain interested drivers received notification by text, that the ID stickers for all London's Green badge drivers would be delivered to Palestra by the end of December, with Yellow Badge identifiers arriving no later than the end of January.

We are informed the ID badges will have to be displayed in both front and rear windows of every Taxi, although we have not been informed what is to happen with Taxis containing full rear screen adverts. 

No view for identifiers 

This has to be seen as fair for all London Taxis not just the ones that are not part of corporate sponsorship. Mind you, this has never stopped PH from hiding their green roundels completely from view with heavily blacked out windows.

But as we know from the past, there is one rule for them and another one for us.


Easily Removable!
The identifiers will be contained in plastic wallets that will attach to the glass, so the ID badges can be easily removed. We're also informed that should a driver lose his identifiers or if they are stolen from the vehicle, the driver will have to apply for a new badge number and cannot work until it is issued. As PCO/LTPH have no counter services, this will have to be done by post and going on past experience (renewing bill) could take many weeks. 
Many weeks where the driver will be unable to work and earn a living.


***Worrying and Dangerous***
The most worrying aspect of these identifiers is, they carry the drivers badge number in big bold print. At present, these is no reason why an interested passenger or enquiring enforcement officer should not be given access to a drivers badge number, but why should any pedestrian, cyclist or angry nut job be given this information.


More worrying, is the fact that LTPH are currently collating drivers details to use on a database, which will be accessible to any member of the general public with a drivers badge number.


We already have a registration number and a PCO plate numbers on full view to the public. Why would anyone need a drivers personal details?


The Anderson Shelter, along with the UCG and the RMT believe this is going to compromise the safety of every Licensed Taxi driver and their family.


It seem officers at TfL have no conscience over peoples well-being or safety. We have already seen the death of one of their own, compliments of "Project Horizon". Just what will be the consequence of this data base, I dread to think.


Last week at a democratic branch meeting, the London Taxi branch of the RMT voted 29-1 to oppose the introduction of these stickers based on these principles.

1. Drivers already wear Yellow and Green Badges that are available to passenger and enforcement officers alike.
2. Private hire is not required to have any new stickers or badges exclaiming they cannot be booked without being pre-booked.
3. If an ID badge is stolen from the back by a passenger, then the driver has to stop working completely until a new badge number is issued. This we understand could take several weeks.
4. A database, currently being compiled by TfL will allow members of the public to look up the details of a badge number and be able to identify the driver.

Cover-Up
The Anderson Shelter now believes this whole issue of ID badges has been a cover-up for the scandalous, ineffectual handling of the stolen Bills from Penton Street. 
It has also been used to keep the trade fragmented and defuse the issue of non enforcement of illegal plying for hire by licensed PHVs outside so called operational centres (satellite offices), seen as a major revenue source to TfL.
The editor of the LCDC publication "The Badge" has allowed LTPH to continually publish untrue scare tactics and lies about the current Yellow badge/Green badge issue.

Editorial Comment by Travis B.


So where are we now folks?

• Cloned Bills of unknown quantity on the streets with TfL panicked into Bill & Badge Checks that may or may not catch a few. Too little, too late yet again.
• Money spent on identifiers that have been divisive, will cause us all grief if taken from the cab,dressed up as a GB/YB issue when it was clones all along as the reason. yet no 'pre booked only' for PH, why?
• PHV's out of control and touting getting worse, due to TfL's denial of reality and its inability to take the decisions necessary to beef up the enforcement or regulations. The PH consultation was laughable and a non event.
• A 'United' Trade Group obsessed with 'keeping in' with TfL rather than defending the trade in any real way. The fight is being taken by others, join them today.
• Olympic Lanes, Age Limits, Law Commission, all threats and disadvantages to be faced for the world's No.1 Cab Trade. (please note FYI TfL, the surveys have never included either your 'splendid' organisation or private hire).

Many of us heard the usual PR Script from John Mason on Eddie Nestor last week and that Mr Mason expects his bonus and the avoidance of anything challenging.

Well all I can say, if Mr Mason is performance related, he owes the council tax payers and the cab trade a rebate!

Be Lucky, (we are all gonna need it!)


Editorial Comment from Thomas the Taxi.


The Anderson Shelter in no way condones the practice of suburban drivers working out of sector and feel they should be dealt with by the official channels. Had we known about the real problem with the stolen bills earlier, we would have shown more favour to the increased badge and bill checks. 

How Many Cloned Bills Are Out There?

Just How Many Cloned Bills Are Out There?
Drivers are now complaining that they are being inundated with Badge and Bill requests all over Central London. Last week saw enforcement officers at many different locations, in and around the West End. I for one was ranting about the continued harassing of Licensed Taxi drivers when illegal ranking by PHV's is being completely ignored.

I have now been informed these B/B exercises are for a very good reason.


Earlier this year, a member of the RMT approached Chairman Paul Walsh after being called to attend a police station in the City of London, over discrepancies in the details recorded on his Taxi drivers licence (Bill).
It transpired, or so we were led to believe, that the "Bill" which had been presented to the station was in fact not the genuine article, (but was good enough to fool the examining officer). The driver whose name was on the bill had no knowledge of an offence, or the presentation to the police station. The driver was subsequently released and told that the City of London police would carry out an investigation.


RMT Meet With Mason.
Not satisfied to let the matter be buried, the RMT contacted John Mason, director of LTPH, and although he had repeatedly refused to meet with an RMT committee in the past, a meeting was hurriedly arranged. Mason assured the assembled contingent that this was no more then a one off. In fact he insisted the Bill was just a bad photocopy. 
He seemed uninterested in reports that someone in his department was offering bills for open sale and said the rumours were unfounded. He added "if this were the case, then LTPH at Palestra would go into "Lock Down" mode".




Fuel of the Flames

Just a few months earlier an incident (still unexplained) took place at Victoria Station. 
Reports of a major collision between a Toyota PHV and a Black Taxi were published on twitter by a number of Taxi drivers. I attended the scene personally, and was told by the officer in charge that the driver of the Taxi had absconded.  The officer was visibly upset, as a number of elderly American passengers were taken to hospital in quite a serious condition after the roof had to be removed from the Taxi. I made enquiries to LTPH on a number of occasions and have been informed that, so far, the police have been unable to trace the Taxi driver. The condition of the passengers remains undisclosed as the police investigation is still ongoing.


How did this driver manage to disappear without a trace?
How did he manage to hire a Taxi in the first place?
Until today, no answers have been issued.


It is believed that the licence used to hire the Taxi was in fact another cloned Bill. Garages are now being advised by LTPH to ask to see the drivers badge as well as holding the Bill copy.


Now We Have Cloned Bills, Turning Up Again.
It is alleged that cases involving cloned Bills are regularly turning up in court. Apparently fines of £80 are being dished out along with 60 hours community service. I have been informed of one knowledge student, who paid £5000 for the fake Bill and after being fined, as he did not disclose where the fake was purchased, was given a complementary one and is now back behind the wheel of a Taxi.


Knowledge Students Targeted.
Targets are selected carefully from amongst Knowledge students that have completed over a years training to give them a reasonable chance of blending in unnoticed.


Unconfirmed reports
There have been unconfirmed reports that a large number of genuine Bill blanks disappeared when the PCO moved from Penton Street to Palestra. Could this be the reason behind the sudden change from the old styled bill to the new issue?


This would explain the increase in on street badge and bill checks of late as PCO enforcement would be in possession of all the numbers of the stolen Bills.


LTPH say, the increase in on-street Badge and bill checks are a result of too many yellow badges working out of sector. Many green badge drivers say they won't display these ID badges in their present form as, if stolen by passengers from the rear windscreen, the driver has to apply for a new badge number and cant work until it has been issued. As there are no counter services at Palestra, this could take several weeks.

LTPH have been unable to back up the supposed mass exodus from the suburban sectors with statistics of revocation or suspension of Yellow badge licenses.


Perhaps LTPH think these drivers who are in possession of stolen or counterfeit Bills are suddenly going to disappear if/when ID badges are bought in. The people behind the fraud will just add fake ID's to their illegal transactions.

200 licences at £5k a pop, a cool million pounds! We're not talking about peanuts here.

Suddenly they find a couple of dozen foot soldiers to look for stolen Bills...

Where have these PCO enforcement officers been for the last two years, when over 270 serious sexual assaults have taken place in Licensed Private Hire vehicles???Not unlicensed minicabs!!!! but licensed Private Hire vehicles. How do the officers in charge of policing the Taxi and Private Hire trades sleep at night?

Joe Royle (now removed from his position) Sultan Taylor, John Ryland, John Mason, Helen Chapman, Peter Hendy and Boris Johnson...It is your incompetence that has kept this number so high. Your inability to deal with illegal plying for hire has meant that 270 young lives have been shattered.

How do you sleep at night? 

A friend of mine has just come back from New York, where they have 13,000 licensed Taxis. The tour guide told him they have 400 enforcement officers to deal with illegal plying for hire and plenty of rank spaces.

What are they doing with our licence fees?

Why have they suddenly not got the budget for enforcement?

Where has the money gone?

Thomas the Taxi.

Reply to email from John Mason, Director of LTPH.

Regarding the earlier post ;

More Scandal from LTPH

I received an email from the director of LTPH, John Mason, who obviously hasn't read the post properly, or understood the legal implications of said article.

• John Mason accuses the Anderson Shelter of posting before any facts had truly been established.


• He also states that according to records held by LTHP there are no instances of any Taxi or Private Hire vehicle being registered in Spain or any other Country for that matter other than the United Kingdom.

In Reply:

First of all, the Anderson Shelter was happy to consult with LTPH and supplied all relevant information in our possession, to Deputy Director Helen Chapman.

Secondly, the details of this incident are to be subject to a Police investigation, therefore the exact details of the vehicle and driver will be held by the RMT who are currently dealing with the case. The Anderson Shelter merely reported the story, as given by the RMT. It is not our job to investigate but to report. It is LTPH/TfL's job to investigate.
If you want to know the full facts, then I suggest you arrange a formal meeting with the secretary of the RMT and not just the odd text on such an important matter.


Thirdly, at no time did the article state the vehicle was registered in Spain.
The post says quite clearly that the registered keeper of the vehicle is listed as living in Spain. We have also been informed since the article was posted that the PHV is insured with a Spanish company. 


John, I was disappointed to say the least (although not surprised) by the belligerent and aggressive tone of your emails and find your behaviour unbecoming for someone who holds the office of Director of LTPH.


I suggest you read the EU directorate on freedom of movement of workers which guarantees its citizens freedom to move and reside freely, the right to establish services and the right to take up employment within the member territories.


If you haven't got the nerve to prosecute PHV's for illegally plying for hire in case you lose, assumed by your evasion of my question to you on the Eddie Nestor Show (sent two hours before the program started, as requested), then I wouldn't advise going down the EU free movement of workers road.    


The Anderson Shelter have always stood by its policy of removing posts that are proven inaccurate. In this case the editorial board feel that no evidence has been submitted to prove the article inaccurate and therefore the post will stand.

Jim Thomas

Editor, The Anderson Shelter.

New Landmark Court Ruling Acts As Warning To Taxi Drivers

Taxi driver runs foul of the law as he imprisons passengers over fare dispute – new court case should act as a warning

Taxi law experts Howards Solicitors are warning taxi drivers not to take the law into their own hands, even if they believe they are being provoked, after a new landmark ruling.

The case of Eve Lamb v Equity Red Star has set a new precedent for the duty of care demanded of taxi drivers towards their passengers and other road users.

The taxi driver who was insured Equity Red Star had been found liable of false imprisonment after he refused to let his passengers leave his vehicle over a fare dispute.

In the ensuing confrontation between the driver and Ms Lamb’s partner, she suffered a broken hip requiring 6 weeks in hospital after the driver lost control of his vehicle.

The taxi driver had decided to take the couple to a police station despite repeated requests to be allowed to exit – an action that was deemed false imprisonment by the Court. 

This has led to a key ruling that the driver had a strict liability, which makes him legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his acts regardless of fault – Ms Lamb was awarded £13,250 in damages. 

Deputy District Judge Jones also commented in his judgement that the driver had the option to stop his vehicle but continued and so posed a significant danger to other road users as well as his passengers.

Howards Solicitors, which works closely with the taxi trade, represented Ms Lamb, believes that taxi drivers must take away key lessons away from this case.

False imprisonment over fare dispute leads to taxi driver held responcable for serious accident

Gavyn Atkinson, head of personal injury and civil litigation, who worked on the case at Howards Solicitors, advises: “If you are a taxi driver that believes that they have been wronged do not take the law into your own hands, pursue other options.

If you find yourself in a difficult position call the Police if possible, drop off passengers outside their homes or places of work and note the address, install cameras in your cab.”

Atkinson continues: “Only in cases of self-defence where you honestly believe that there is a threat to your physical well-being would we acknowledge that there might not be any reasonable alternative.  However, cases that go to Court are often not clear cut in regards to self-defence.”  

Oliver Gardner managing partner of Howards Solicitors, which specialises in criminal and motoring law comments: “The law is still far from satisfactory for taxi drivers.  There are few, if any, cases that give much needed guidance to taxi drivers in this area. 

Moreover, Gavyn’s research showed that no approved guidelines are in place, from councils or colleges offering NVQs for taxi drivers.  It is a situation that needs to be resolved quickly to protect taxi drivers and their passengers.” 

Notes:

The above release is of a new court ruling which has ramifications for taxi drivers who take the law into their own hands, despite however provoked they might feel. 
The case centres on false imprisonment after a dispute over a fee. 
The resulting accident and the liability, which was attributed to the taxi driver, for the injuries sustained shows that should an incident happen, such as refusal to pay a fare, then alternatives legal ways must be sought.  The consequences in this case over a fare dispute amounting to £3 should act as a warning now that the Law has further clarified this issue

Rob
Artisan Marketing Communications
07957611834
Twitter: robartisan
Blog: www.artisanmc.co.uk
rob@artisanmc.co.uk

More Scandal from LTPH......Thomas the Taxi

We have been informed that the RMT are to represent a driver who unfortunately, has been involved in a set with a licensed private hire vehicle.

The driver of the Taxi, who is a member of the RMT, explained that he tried to get his cab repaired by one of the companies that offer a no-fault service, as he was clearly not responsible for the accident. He gave details over the phone to the company and arrange for his Taxi to be picked up and the drop off a replacement vehicle.



But later the same day, the company rang back to inform him that although the vehicle had British registration plates, the private hire vehicle's registered keeper was listed as living in Spain. Therefore the repair company said there was no way they could touch this case on a no fault contract.

The question has to be asked, how can a vehicle who's registered owner,
live in another country, be licensed as a London private hire vehicle?

The implication is that this vehicle's driver's details can not be acquired by LTPH should any offence be committed (Speeding, Parking, Moving Traffic Offence, Zig Zag lines etc.).

Is this one of the reasons why so little is being done about the epidemic of licensed private hire drivers breaking laws?

How many of these minicabs with owners who live abroad, are driving round with no way of finding out who is driving them?



What will happen if/when a rape victim gives details of a vehicle registered to a foreign owner?

Perhaps someone from LTPH would like to tell us why they are licensing vehicles for use as private hire mini-cabs which are owned by non residents and how they intend to prosecute driver of such vehicles?

TO PLY OR NOT TO PLY, THAT IS THE QUESTION.... By Alan Fleming.

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.   


Now let me rephrase that comment and apply it to Leicester Square as it was at  Xmas
The cars are in Whitcomb St under certain regulations and 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.