Blackpool Council v Blacktax Radio Taxis Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE BURNETT |
| Judgment Date | 17 October 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 2776 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 17 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | CO/2140/2007 |
[2008] EWHC 2776 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Burnett
CO/2140/2007
MR B WILLIAMS (instructed by Blackpool Borough Council) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR P MADDOX (instructed by National Private Hire Association) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Blacktax Radio Taxis Blackpool Limited, who are the respondents in this appeal, operate private hire vehicles in and around Blackpool. This is an appeal by way of case stated from a decision of Fylde Coast Magistrate's Court given on 13 December 2006. On that date, they allowed an appeal by Blacktax Radio Taxis Blackpool Limited against a decision of Blackpool Council's public protection sub-committee of 8 May 2006, refusing to impose a condition on the respondent's private hire licence in the following terms:
“The operator is entitled to accept block bookings from corporate clients.”
In allowing the appeal, the magistrates attached that so-called condition to the licence. In addition to that action, they ordered the council to pay costs of £5,100. This is the council's appeal by way of case stated against the magistrates' decision. The respondent is, as I understand it, a long-established and reputable private hire company, who is, as I have said, operating in and around Blackpool. For many years they provided a service to Blackpool Airport. Although it is no longer the position, the airport was in fact owned by the council until 2004. At that time, the council sold the airport, although I have been told that they retain a small interest in it. During the period of the ownership of the council, and certainly from 1983, the respondent had a contract with the council as owner of the airport, which enabled them to operate from the airport. The agreement was contained in a lengthy legal document called a licence, but it needs to be distinguished from the licence that the respondent needs under relevant legislation, to which I shall come in a moment. As part of the agreement, the respondent agreed to provide a number of private hire vehicles at the airport to service each incoming flight. The number of cars required was determined by the airport director, who notified the respondent of his individual requirements. There was a designated waiting area at the airport. Passengers would use the cabs which had been pre-arranged by the airport, and would, as one would expect, pay the fare or charge that was incurred. If there were too many cars, that is to say they were not used by the passengers, they went elsewhere. So the arrangement, at first blush, looks in some way similar to that which operates outside railway stations, where there may be a cab rank.
The respondents paid the airport operators —who as I have indicated at the time were the council —a fee for this arrangement.
Private hire vehicles are not allowed to ply for hire. That is a privilege afforded to Hackney carriages. The privilege brings with it obligations: for example, Hackney carriages are obliged to accept fares in many circumstances. Additionally, there is an intense degree of regulation attached to Hackney carriages, most notably over the fares they may charge.
Since the end of the contract in 2003 or 2004, Hackney carriages plied for hire at Blackpool Airport until the condition which is in issue in these proceedings was attached by the magistrates. I understand from what I have been told today that, since then, the respondents have entered into a contract with the current owners of the airport, in terms which are similar to the arrangements which existed hitherto.
Despite the council being the owner of the airport, and thus a party to the arrangement, a number of its officials wearing a different hat began to have doubts about the legality of the arrangement. Those officials were the team responsible for the licensing of private hire vehicles and Hackney carriages in Blackpool. The concerns appear to have emerged in about 1999, which I observe is four years, or perhaps a little more, before the council sold the airport. The concerns stemmed from a fear that it was at least likely that the arrangement that the council itself had put in place with the respondent involved the respondent's drivers plying for hire at the airport. That doubt developed into something of a certainty as the years passed. It was, for obvious reasons, a matter of great concern to the respondent, whose business no doubt to a significant extent depended on the fares that they were being paid by passengers of the airport. It was essentially in those circumstances that the respondent sought from the council what it described as a condition in the terms eventually granted by the magistrates. Initially, the respondent sought to achieve that end by inviting the council to vary the conditions that were attached to its licence. The council did not consider that it had power to do it by that mechanism, and so it was that the respondent sought to attach that condition when the time came for the renewal of their licence. Their purpose in seeking the condition was to put beyond doubt the legality of an arrangement whereby they accepted a block booking from the airport, which had the effect of their waiting at the airport to pick up customers whose identity was unknown to them, and who would pay the fare. As I have indicated, since the decision of the magistrates, that position has been restored. It is right to note that precisely the same sort of arrangement might exist with other commercial organisations, most obviously pubs and clubs or other commercial entertainment operations, who will often know that they have significant numbers of customers leaving their premises at given times who might well need transport. I observe that, as everyone will be aware, such block bookings are often made by those who organise private parties for the convenience of their guests. Be that as it may, the council refused to impose such a condition. The licence was renewed with a number of conditions attached, which were the same as before. They are what might be called nuts and bolts conditions, which include requirements that the private hire operator identify each booking by reference to a job number, that records are kept of the name of the hirer, the address of the hirer and the time at which the vehicle was booked.
By the time the licence came for renewal, it was the clear view of the licensing officers at Blackpool Council that the arrangement that had been operated at the airport was illegal. Essentially, that was because they believed that the arrangement amounted to plying for hire, and there was an additional concern about record keeping. The concern was not, in truth, whether block bookings from commercial organisations were necessarily lawful or unlawful. It is plain that block bookings may be lawful. The issue that was rumbling in the background, and had been rumbling for by then seven years at least, was whether this particular arrangement at Blackpool Airport was lawful. The committee recognised that the general question whether block bookings were lawful was covered by current legislation. In the letter that notified their decision, this was said:
“The basis of the decision was that the committee considered that it was not unlawful under the current conditions to make the block bookings of private hire vehicles by private clients. The committee noted that it was a requirement that a private hire operator is required, amongst other things, to record the name of the hirer. The committee took the view that it was not an onerous duty upon the private hire operator to take details of the name of the hirer, and that this would enable the local authority to ensure that private hire vehicles were pre-booked for enforcement purposes, and would allow particular bookings to be identified to enable the local authority to ensure that a booking was made for a particular journey, and that there would be a comprehensive record of bookings. The committee noted that it was illegal for a private hire vehicle to ply for hire, and that a private hire should respond to pre-bookings only.”
With that by way of factual introduction, I turn to the statutory provisions. Licensing of both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles outside London is governed by Part 2 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. The licensing arrangements cover vehicles, drivers and operators. The licensing scheme is designed to serve and protect the public. Sections 55 and 56 are material for the purposes of this appeal. Section 55, headed, “licensing of Operators of Private Hire Vehicles” is in the following terms:
“(1) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act, a district council shall, on the receipt of an application from any person for the grant to that person of a licence to operate private hire vehicles, grant to that person an operator's licence, provided that a district council shall not grant a licence unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an operator's licence.
“(2) Every licence granted under this section shall remain in force for such a period, not being longer than five years, as a district council may specify in the licence.
“(3) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary.
“(4) Any applicant aggrieved by the refusal of a district council to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sumption and Another v London Borough of Greenwich
...the setting of Hillside House. Between: The Queen On The Application Of Blackpool Council Claimant and Blacktax Taxis Ltd Defendant [2008] EWHC 2776 (Admin) Mr Justice Burnett CO/2140/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice S......