McNutt v Transport for London

For the purposes of Equality Act 2010, s 165(4)(b), a driver makes an additional charge when a financial liability or commitment is imposed on a wheelchair user, not only when payment is demanded. In a taxi using a taximeter, that point is no later than when the meter is switched on before the passenger and wheelchair are loaded. An inflated fare indication may also be a contingent additional charge, even if the passenger rejects it. The provision must be construed in light of its protective purpose: disabled passengers must be able to use taxi services on terms no less favourable than other passengers. The same approach applies to taxis and private hire vehicles inside and outside London.

The appellant appealed by way of case stated against his conviction by Hendon Magistrates Court for breaching the duty in Equality Act 2010, s 165(4)(b), contrary to s 165(7). He had switched on his London taxi’s taximeter before unlocking the ramp and before a wheelchair user entered. She and her assistant used another taxi, no fare was demanded, and no money changed hands.

The magistrates concluded that the charging process began when the meter was switched on. The central issue was whether that act constituted making an additional charge, despite the absence of a completed journey or demand for payment.

The appeal was dismissed. The questions posed by the magistrates were answered “yes” and “no” respectively.

1. Construction of “charge”. The word “charge” in Equality Act 2010, s 165(4)(b), is used as a noun. In context it means a financial liability or commitment, rather than merely the price demanded at the end of a journey. Statutory language had to be construed in its full context and in light of the objective legislative intention.
2. Taximeter. Under the London taxi legislation, the passenger is contractually obliged to pay the metered fare, subject to the driver accepting a lesser amount. Failure to pay may also engage criminal offences. Switching on the taximeter therefore imposes the relevant financial liability no later than that point. If this occurs before a wheelchair user and the wheelchair have been loaded, an additional charge is made, contrary to s 165(4)(b), even if the fare is never demanded.
3. Purpose and consequences. The statutory purpose is to secure access to taxi services on terms not disadvantageous because of disability. The contrary construction would allow drivers to deter wheelchair users by quoting inflated fares or by adding time to the meter, while avoiding liability if payment was never demanded. That would produce absurd and purposively inconsistent results.
4. Wider application. An inflated fare indication may itself be a contingent additional charge. The same reasoning applies to London private hire vehicles, taxis outside London and private hire vehicles outside London, whether the fare is calculated by a taximeter or indicated in advance.

High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated against the conviction and sentence imposed by Hendon Magistrates Court on 23 May 2018. The appeal was dismissed.