Mark Rostron v Guildford Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | John Howell |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 3141 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/5808/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 05 December 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 3141 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
John Howell QC
Case No: CO/5808/2016
Mr Charles Streeten (instructed on direct access) for the Claimant
Mr Philip Kolvin QC (instructed by solicitor to Guildford Borough Council) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 7 and 9 November 2017
John Howell QC:
This is a claim for judicial review of the decision of Guildford Borough Council to fix for 2016–2017 the maximum fares that may be charged for the hire of hackney carriages within the Borough. The decision, which involved a reduction in the fares previously chargeable, was to have had effect from November 16 th 2016.
THE CLAIM FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Claimant, Mr Mark Rostron, is the Secretary of the Guildford Hackney Association, an unincorporated association that seeks to represent the interests of taxi drivers in the Guildford area. It has about 100 members who are drivers and it claims to have the support of a number of private hire companies employing over 100 drivers. The Claimant has been authorised by the Association to bring this claim on their behalf.
The fares in issue were produced using a method of calculation which the Claimant has not impugned. But the decision setting the fares was impugned by the Claimant, in his claim filed on November 16 th 2016, on the basis that it "was irrational and unreasonable as the [fares were calculated] based on flawed and outdated data".
On the same day that this claim was filed Edis J ordered the Borough Council to suspend the new maximum fares coming into force as had been planned on that date. Permission to make this claim was eventually granted by Nicola Davies J in an order dated August 29 th 2017 but only on the grounds set out in the original Statement of Facts and Grounds. She refused the Claimant permission to rely on any of the additional grounds set out in a further, 29 page Statement of Facts and Grounds dated February 2 nd 2017. Nicola Davies J also expedited the hearing of this claim so that it would be heard as soon as possible after October 23rd 2017.
Shortly before the hearing, the Claimant applied to amend the grounds upon which it was made and to adduce in evidence a witness statement by him and the additional documents it exhibited. In the circumstances I refused him permission to adduce that witness statement and those documents. I also refused him permission to contend that the Borough Council had failed to acquaint themselves with all relevant information to fix fares appropriately and that they had failed to take into account conscientiously the product of the statutory consultation which they had held. I gave permission, however, for the Claimant to contend, on the basis of the material already before the Court, that the Borough Council had relied on a material error of fact; that they had reached a decision the effect of which was disproportionate or unreasonable, and that they had failed to promote the statutory purpose of section 65(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (" the 1976 Act"), the provision under which the maximum fares were set.
THE LEGAL BACKGROUND
Hackney carriages, that is to say vehicles used in standing or plying for hire in any street 1, are subject to regulation in each district outside London under the Town
Police Clauses Act 1847 (" the 1847 Act") 2 and under Part II of the 1976 Act (where the local authority have adopted it). The system of regulation is designed to protect the public in particular their customersHackney carriages and their drivers both require licences from the local authority: see sections 37, 45, 46 and 47 of the 1847 Act. These requirements are imposed to ensure inter alia that both are fit to be relied on by the public. The grant of a licence for a vehicle (which is normally for a year) may be refused for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the authority is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet 3. The authority may attach such conditions to the grant of any such vehicle licence as they consider reasonably necessary 4. If licensed, the vehicle may be inspected and tested for fitness by the authority at any time and, if it is unfit for use or there is any other reasonable cause, the licence may be suspended, revoked or not renewed 5. Where Part II of the 1976 Act applies, the authority may not grant a driver a licence (which is normally granted for up to three years) unless they are satisfied that he or she is a fit and proper person to hold it, is not disqualified by reason of their immigration status from driving a hackney carriage, and is at the date of the application, and has been for at least 12 months, authorised to drive a motor car 6. A driver's licence may be suspended, revoked or not renewed if, since its grant, the driver has been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence or for any other reasonable cause {** Footnote see section 61 of the 1976 Act.}.
The grant of such licences enables a vehicle to ply for hire. But it also brings obligations. The local authority may make bylaws for regulating the conduct of the proprietors and drivers of such vehicles in their several employments, the hours within which they may exercise their calling, and the number of persons to be carried by such vehicles; for fixing their stands, the distance to which they may be compelled to take passengers, and the rates or fares to be paid; and for securing the safe custody and re-delivery of any property accidentally left in them: see section 68 of the 1847 Act. Further the driver of a hackney carriage standing at an appointed stand or in any street must, unless he or she has reasonable excuse, drive to any place within the district to which they may be directed to drive by the hirer or the person intending to hire the vehicle and a driver may not refuse to carry the full complement of passengers if required to do so by the hirer 7.
The Borough Council also has power to fix the fares by virtue of section 65 of the 1976 Act. This section provides inter alia that:
"(1) A district council may fix the rates or fares within the district as well for time as distance, and all other charges in connection with the hire of a vehicle or with the arrangements for the hire of a vehicle, to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages by
means of a table (hereafter in this section referred to as a "table of fares") made or varied in accordance with the provisions of this section.(2)
(a) When a district council make or vary a table of fares they shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district a notice setting out the table of fares or the variation thereof and specifying the period, which shall not be less than fourteen days from the date of the first publication of the notice, within which and the manner in which objections to the table of fares or variation can be made.
….
(3) If no objection to a table of fares or variation is duly made within the period specified in the notice referred to in subsection (2) of this section, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the table of fares or variation shall come into operation on the date of the expiration of the period specified in the notice or the date of withdrawal of the objection or, if more than one, of the last objection, whichever date is the later.
(4) If objection is duly made as aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the district council shall set a further date, not later than two months after the first specified date, on which the table of fares, shall come into force with or without modifications as decided by them after consideration of the objections.
(5) A table of fares made or varied under this section shall have effect for the purposes of the Act of 1847 as if it were included in the hackney carriage bylaws made thereunder."
The table of fares also constrains the amount that can be charged for the use of a hackney carriage in the district under a contract for private hire 8 and, in the absence of any prior agreement, the amount that can be charged for a journey ending outside the district 9.
In March 2010 the Department of Transport published a revised version of " Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance" to assist local authorities that had responsibility for the regulation of such vehicles. In relation to setting fares, it stated that:
"52. Local licensing authorities have the power to set taxi fares for journeys within their area, and most do so. (There is no power to set PHV fares.) Fare scales should be designed with a view to
practicality. The Department sees it as good practice to review the fare scales at regular intervals, including any graduation of the fare scale by time of day or day of the week. Authorities may wish to consider adopting a simple formula for deciding on fare revisions as this will increase understanding and improve the transparency of the process. The Department also suggests that in reviewing fares authorities should pay particular regard to the needs of the travelling public, with reference both to what it is reasonable to expect people to pay but also to the need to give taxi drivers sufficient incentive to provide a service when it is needed. There may well be a case for higher fares at times of higher demand.
Taxi fares are a maximum, and in principle are open to downward negotiation between passenger and driver. It is not good practice to encourage such negotiations at ranks, or for on-street hailings; there would be risks of...
To continue reading
Request your trial