AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

PARCELS BY TAXI

20th June 1958, Page 60
20th June 1958
Page 60
Page 65
Page 60, 20th June 1958 — PARCELS BY TAXI
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

WHAT is the law on the carriage of parcels in hackney carriages, and is it legal to carry parcels in a shooting brake registered as a goods vehicle? These questions come from a London reader who also asks what driving licence

would be required. .

If a vehicle is not constructed or adapted for the conveyance of goods, it may be used to carry goods or personal effects of a genuine hirer while taxed at the hackney rate of duty. Bearing in mind that it is a condition of hackney carriages that the vehicle is to stand or ply for hire, if in fact there was merely a contract between the hirer and the' licensee without there having been a hiring of a particular vehicle, it would not be regarded as a hackney carriage. In that event it would have to be taxed at the private rate of duty (£12 10s. a year), if that rate was higher than the appropriate hackney rate.

Taxation Rates

The minimum hackney rate is £10 a year, where the seating capacity does not exceed four, and £12 a year above that capacity and not exceeding eight. The next category ranges from above eight to 26. ' The annual rate here is based on £12 a year plus £2 per seat in excess of eight. It will be seen, therefore, that where the• hackney carriage has eight seats, of fewer, the annual rate of duty is lower than for a private car.

Should the hirer travel in the vehicle with his goods, or effects, it could then be held that there was hiring of that particular vehicle, which would then become taxable at the hackney rate. .

If, however, a vehicle such as the shooting brake suggested by the reader were constructed or adapted, and, used, to carry goods for hire or reward, or in connection. witha trade or

business, it would become liable for duty at the goods rate if that were higher than the hackney rate. As, however, the minimum goods rate is £10 for vehicles not exceeding 12 cwt. unladen and £12 10s, for the next category-12-16 cwt.—and £15 from 16 cwt. to 1 ton, it follows that the goods rate of duty is the one that usually has to be paid.

In addition to the probable payment of a higher rate of duty, it will be necessary for the vehicle also to have a carrier's licence.

If this London reader finally decided to license his vehicle as a hackney carriage and intended operating within the Metropolitan Traffic Area, application for a hackney carriage driver's licence would have to be made to the Commissioner of Police, :109 Lambeth Road, London, S.E.1. Outside this area application would have to be made to the appropriate local authority.' If, however, the vehicle was not to be licensed as a hackney, only a normal driving licence would be required.

ASHORT request comes from a reader ,inquiring whether or not a person under 21 years may drive a light articulated lorry, adding that he understood there had been a test case

on this point. .

In legal phraseology, the line of demarkation between "motor cars" and " heavy motor cars" is that the, former category is limited to vehicles of not more than .3 tons unladen: It is also stipulated that no person under 17 years of age may drive a 'motorcar, whilst for heavy motorcars, the minimum age limit is 21.

I will' assume' that the reader has in mind by the term "light

articulated lorry," a tractor unit under 3 tons unladen, but exceeding 3 tons when coupled to its semi-trailer. The point of issue in the test case to which he refers was -whether, or not the driver (who was under 21) was, legally considered to be driving the tractor unit and that the semi-trailer should be treated separately.

The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that there was difficulty because the Road Traffic Act, 1930, did not define an articulated lorry. Although the conviction for driving an articulated lorry under age was quashed, because the charge had not been properly made, no indication was given as to what decision would have been made if the charge had been correctly worded.

ACOMPANY operating a number of small C-licensed estate cars inquires whether it is necessary for the drivers to keep records when visiting shops as salesmen and running completely empty, and when buyers visit markets under similar

conditions. •

-A current record, commonly referred to as a log sheet, must he compiled by the driver of every vehicle running under' an A, 'B or C licence, excluding certain occasions, such as when a vehicle is used in the business of agriculture or travelling showmen. There is no exception to this regulation, however short the journey may be.

With genuine dual-purpose vehicles as supplied by the manufacturer, and if no goods were carried in them, it would be possible to license them as private cars. • Then, without a C licence the keeping t)f records would be no longer necessary.

but the moment any goods, other than strictly personal effects, were carried, it would be illegal to operate without licensing them as goods vehicles. Presumably in this instance it is only because this may occasionally happen that the company have taken the trouble to obtain C licences.

Althou,gh the increasing popularity of the dual-purpose vehicle is proof that it has satisfied a demand, there are occasions when its use maybe a disadvantage. If this company, for example, had provided salesmen and buyers with standard saloon cars, the problem would not have arisen, because such vehicles, being primarily constructed for passenger-carrying, are legally allowed to carry goods without the restriction of licensing and keeping records.

Admittedly there would be the physical limitation of restricted accommodation for goods or effects in most modern cars, but as it has been admitted that the need would be only spasmodic, this would in fact prove of little disadvantage. Neither would it be necessary to draw a distinction as to whether personal effects, samples or goodsfor sale may be carried. Moreover, on the score of purchase tax, the dual-purpose vehicle does not provide any economy, being rated on the whole vehicle, along with private cars, at 60 per cent. 'The

genuine van bears purchase tax of 30 per cent, on the chassis only.

Operators in similar circumstances would derive great benefit when considering the three courses of providing cars, dualpurpose vehicles or vans, if it could be clearly determined at the outset whether or not goods of consequence were to be carried. If not, the private car would provide the maximum freedom from restriction imposed by regulations applying to other types of vehicle.

If the goods were to be carried regularly and in such quantities as could not be handled in a private car, the standard type of van would be subject to no more restriction than the dual-purpose vehicle, as regards completion of drivers'-records, although admittedly, in addition, it would be restricted to 30 m.p.h. On the other hand, it would have the initial advan

DRIVERS' hours are the subject of another inquiry. In this instance, after a 10-hour journey (with presumably the minimum legal half-hour break after 5i hours) a driver puts his vehicle into the warehouse, where it remains for 24 hours. Thereafter the driver often remains to help the warehouse staff in reloading vehicles and his total hours' work for the day may add up to 12. The reader asks whether this is legal.

Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relative to drivers' hours, stipulates that any time spent by a driver on work in connection with the vehicle or its load is counted as driving time. However (as reported in The Commercial Motor on August 3, 1951), a decision on this matter was given in the King's Bench Divisional Court. In similar circumstances a driver had completed his driving for the day and was subsequently. employed as porter on work in no way connected with any vehicle he had been driving during the day.

Giving judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said the object of Section 19 was to protect the public against the risk of a driver suffering from excessive fatigue, whilst another section provided that any time spent by a driver on other work in connection with a vehicle, or the load carried, should be reckoned as time spent in travelling.

In this case, however,' it was considered that after the man had handed over his vehicle, he had completed actual driving for the day and then proceeded to act as a porter and not as a driver. There was no provision in the Act to say that a driver must not do other work. S.B.

Tags

Locations: London

comments powered by Disqus