Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) Anthony Seculer has failed to make any ruling on the lawfulness of the small vehicle conditions/undertakings on PSV operator’s licences, after concluding that allegations that Burnley-based Althams Travel had failed to comply with the undertakings was not made out.
The firm, with a 20-vehicle international licence, had been called before the DTC over concerns that its use of small vehicles to carry passengers to airports and cruise ships did not fall within the conditions.
For the company, James Backhouse argued that it was a commercial business operating the vehicles at separate fares which were arranged by the company. That meant that a PSV O-Licence was required. Each vehicle often collected people from more than one booking. To use the service people had to have booked a holiday through the company.
After the DTC referred to a letter written to all operators in 2010 requiring them to meet the terms of the conditions, Mr Backhouse said that he did not accept that that letter was binding on operators.
In his decision, the DTC said that the particular undertaking requiring advertising to the public at large had not been imposed on this operator’s licence.
The letter of 2010 was sent to “all operators”, but there was no evidence to confirm its receipt by this particular operator. The firm had consistently demonstrated a commitment to work within the law rather than outside it. Clear evidence of shared journeys and separate fares had been kept and there had been no attempt to conceal the basis of the company’s business.
It was undoubtedly the case that the legislation which formed the basis of the conditions/undertakings was obscure.
Part I of Schedule 1 was headed “Sharing of Taxis and Hire-Cars”, Part III of Schedule 1 formed the basis for the OTC conditions and while the wording was broadly similar to Part I, he noted that the interpretation for PSVs had been given the opposite meaning, requiring arrangements to have been made by the operator/owner and general public advertising of the particular journey to be mandatory.
That might cause the interpretation to be challenged in a future case but, in the meantime, clarity and certainty for operators was achieved by the approach adopted by the OTC based on the 2010 letter and endorsed by the Upper Tribunal in the similar case of James Fleming in 2014 where it accepted the legal position as expressed by the TC.
