Samit Biswas v Transport for London

For the purposes of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998, whether transport is provided “for hire” and for the purpose of carrying passengers is fact-sensitive. Commercially rewarded transport supplied by a private provider may constitute hire, even where local authorities procure it to discharge educational duties. Specialist vehicles, wheelchair adaptations, oxygen and limited medical training do not by themselves make school transport medical or patient transport. The prosecution must prove the statutory elements; the defendant does not bear a burden to establish an exemption. On a Case Stated appeal, the court is confined to the facts stated, together with any judgment properly incorporated into the Case Stated.

The claimant appealed by way of Case Stated against convictions entered by District Judge Neeta Minhas at the City of London Magistrates’ Court on 14 June 2022. He had operated four vehicles transporting children with special educational needs to and from school under contracts with London local authorities. The vehicles were not licensed as private hire vehicles, and drivers of two vehicles lacked private hire driver’s licences.

The appeal concerned the burden of proof, the relevance of guidance and alleged ambulance or patient-transport characteristics, and whether the vehicles were made available for hire and used for carrying passengers under the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998.

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. Questions 1–4 in the Case Stated were answered in the negative and question 5 in the affirmative.
2. Case Stated jurisdiction. The court was confined to the facts set out in the Case Stated. The District Judge’s written judgment was properly incorporated and could therefore be considered. The court could not rely on additional facts advanced in argument.
3. Burden of proof and guidance. The District Judge did not reverse the burden of proof by considering whether the vehicles had a medical function outside the private hire regime. The prosecution retained the burden of proving each offence. The guidance did not establish any error of law or show that the appellant had been required to prove an exemption.
4. Hire. Whether a vehicle is made available “for hire” under section 1(1)(a) of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998 is a question depending on the facts. The finding that the vehicles were provided to local authorities for commercial reward supported the conclusion that they were provided for hire. The statutory language did not exclude school transport procured by local authorities.
5. Purpose of carrying passengers. Whether vehicles are used for the purpose of carrying passengers is also a question of fact. The children travelled to school for educational and social purposes, not as part of a medical process. Vehicle registration, road-tax exemption, wheelchair adaptations and limited medical training did not compel a different conclusion. The court applied the approach in Arun District Council v Spooner that the issue is purely factual. Section 508B(1) of the Education Act 1996 reinforced the educational purpose of the transport.
6. Convictions. The vehicles were private hire vehicles within section 1(1)(a), the appellant was their operator under section 1(1)(b), and the licensing contraventions under sections 6(1) and 12(1) were established. The “all due diligence” defences did not apply.

• City of London Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Neeta Minhas convicted the appellant on 14 June 2022 of offences under sections 6 and 12 of the Private Hire Vehicle (London) Act 1998.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed.