It seems you aren't registered at Taxi-Driver.co.uk, Register now.
TDO Forums
Legislation
Case Law
Carlisle's Exclusive Taxi Rank
60% of Taxi Drivers Prohibited from Plying for Hire on Carlisle's Main Taxi Rank!
Report Date March 1 2007
In writing this account I have tried to be fair to all concerned in representing the facts. I hope those facts are not done an injustice. This article primarily concerns a well meaning gesture abrogated by legal constraints.
To get straight to the point, since November 1994 Carlisle Council has implemented a policy of only allowing wheelchair accessible vehicles to ply for hire on the main public taxi rank, namely Court Square. The Court of Appeal deemed that policy illegal in 2002 in the case of Maud v Castle Point BC. However Carlisle council are still enforcing that policy knowing its illegality.
Carlisle currently license two types of vehicles, Saloons and wheelchair accessible.
It became apparent to councillors that thirty-three public carriage vehicles were hardly enough to service a city the size of Carlisle and that the wholesale plying for hire at weekends by private hire vehicles bore testament to that fact. In order to give the public of Carlisle a better service, councillors were left with no option but to increase the number of hackney carriage vehicles allowed to ply for hire on the City's streets, however the dilemma for the council was how to implement change?
Unfortunately, so I'm told, along with many other reports, the reports appertaining to the Taxi delimitation exercise in 1994, were washed away in the Carlisle floods of 2005. But fortunately the 'minutes' of the committee meeting were salvaged.
Before making a decision on a change of policy, councils by law have to consult with those who might be affected by such change? In other words the Carlisle Taxi trade would have been consulted and their views placed before the committee for consideration. The local taxi trade were vehemently against any change of policy, if the council removed the limit on hackney carriage numbers it would mean increased competition and the removal of the scarcity value of their restricted license. The value of the restricted license at that particular time was 10 - 12 thousand pounds, in terms of today's value taking into account similar scarcity values in other restricted areas in 1994 it would equate to approximately 45 thousand pounds.
With their preferred policy options of removing restrictions on hackney carriage vehicles, the council then had to consult with those persons and organisations this policy change might affect? This meant consultation had to take place with the local hackney carriage trade.
In 1994 the Carlisle Taxi association was officiated by Mr. Wayne Casey acting as Secretary and Mr. George Earl advised me he was acting as Chairman, however Mr Casey has since indicated that Mr Earl was not Chairman in 1994. Negotiations ensued where the local Taxi association took the position that if change was to take place then it should be gradual change. The council's position was that they were not prepared to give the public a diet of what they saw as a public service. They believed that there was no public benefit derived by allowing a trickle of hackney carriage vehicles to be licensed year on year. Therefore as you can quite clearly see, there was a stalemate between the two parties on the opinion on policy? The local taxi trade wanted a gradual increase in numbers whereas the local council wanted instant removal of numbers? Somewhere in the middle lay the interests of the Carlisle public?
The councils preferred policy was to remove restrictions and allow the unlimited licensing of saloon cars. This meant that Carlisle's 220 private hire vehicles could exchange their private hire license for that of a hackney carriage allowing them to ply for hire along side incumbent hackney carriage drivers. This policy change did not go down too well with the local hackney carriage trade so they informed the local council that should this policy be implemented they would sell their purpose built vehicles and buy saloon vehicles. This then placed the ball firmly back in the council's court because the majority of these hackney vehicles were wheelchair accessible. The council was presented with a dilemma because they were left with the prospect of having no wheelchair accessible vehicles whatsoever?
This is where the illegality of the current situation was hatched and oddly enough both sides wish to claim credit for it.
The council obviously wanted to retain the 30 or so wheelchair accessible vehicles but they also wanted to remove restrictions and license saloon cars. The hackney carriage trade wanted a structured increase based on vehicles with the PCO standard of conditions. The telling factor in all this was the threat of the local taxi trade to change their purpose built vehicles to saloon cars. What then ensued was a compromise but as I previously stated both sides expressed a willingness to take credit for this compromise.
Mr. George Earl is adamant that it was his association that put forward the conditions of compromise, while a council official informed me it was the Council who offered the compromise?
Considering the compromise was and still is "illegal" I'm surprised either side wished to take credit for its creation?
The compromise is that which is stated in the minutes of the meeting that was designed to deregulated hackney carriage numbers in Carlisle on Tuesday 15th November 1994 at 2.30 p.m. It was a compromise outside the law and it should never have been allowed in that form. It had the affect of making new hackney carriage proprietors second class license holders. Whoever instigated the compromise is now irrelevant the very fact that both parties agreed to it, is relevant?
In order to appease the incumbent taxi trade it was agreed that only wheelchair accessible vehicles would ply for hire on the main taxi rank in the city of Carlisle, namely "Court square". Thus excluding saloon hackney carriage vehicles from plying for hire within a 50-metre radius of the Court square taxi rank. The minutes of the deregulation committee meeting read as follows.
"The court square rank is reserved for existing hackney carriage licences and is to be for wheelchair accessible vehicles and vehicles which are capable of being converted to be wheelchair accessible and also meet the Metropolitan police conditions of fitness. And also is to be confined to hackney carriage licences which were already issued on 15th November 1994."
"Waiting list of wheelchair accessible vehicles for which new licences have been issued will be retained by the council in the order of application and a vehicle from the top of the waiting list will be substituted for the vehicle which as been replaced and the condition prohibiting its use on the court square rank will be removed."
From those minutes it is fairly obvious that the council had struck a deal with incumbent Taxi drivers which allowed them and other proprietors with suitable vehicles to have exclusive rights to ply for hire on the City's main Taxi rank.
The unlawfulness of the condition will be highlighted later but it is easy to see why the compromise suited both sides?
Incumbent Taxi drivers and future wheelchair compliant vehicles were given exclusivity to the busiest Taxi rank in Town, which in turn allowed the council to retain its disabled access provision, therefore it was the perfect compromise. The only problem is that the compromise, was and still is illegal under current legislation.
Carlisle council took legal advice from their solicitors, who deemed the compromise lawful under "section 47.1 of the 1976 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions act". The Carlisle Taxi association were no doubt happy at this legal interpretation because even if some of them might have thought the terms of the compromise were questionable, it was in their best interest to say nothing. The problem for the local Carlisle Taxi association is that many of them were and still are heavily involved with the National Taxi association which has its headquarters in Carlisle. Both organisations conveniently share the same address. The question arises that if the local Carlisle taxi association knew the compromise was questionable should they not have divulged that fact?
Taxi Licenses are regulated by both "bylaws" and "conditions" principally set out in two main acts of parliament. Those being the 1847 Town Police Clauses act, which governs hackney carriages and the 1976 local Government miscellaneous Provisions act, which regulates Private hire vehicles, drivers and operators. The 1976 act also has certain sections dedicated to Hackney carriages and Section 47 is one such section, It reads.
Section 47 Licensing of hackney carriages
(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions, as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council
may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of
such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify
it as a hackney carriage.
(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to
a magistrates' court.
Carlisle council relied on section 47.1 to unlawfully implement the exclusion of what is now, 60% of the Carlisle Taxi trade. The mischief in this section is to apply conditions to hackney carriage's that specifically relate to design and appearance, fixtures and fittings or such distinguishing marks that identify it as a hackney carriage. At all times these conditions have to be reasonable. The condition placed by Carlisle council on hackney carriage owners was prejudicial to the act of 1847. The illegal condition which Carlisle council has in force reads as follows.
CITY OF CARLISLE
APPLICATION FOR A HACKNEY
CARRIAGE LICENCE
(Non wheelchair accessible)
DECLARATION
In accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875, the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976, I hereby make application for a licence for the above vehicle to be used as a Hackney Carriage.
I have read and understood the conditions under which the licence will be issued. The information above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby agree that my Hackney Carriage will not stand on the Court Square/Station Rank at any time or be used to ply for hire within 50 metres of this rank.
_________________________
There is no such condition for hackney carriage drivers because drivers must be regulated by bylaws under the 1847 Town police clauses act. Therefore any hackney carriage driver could quite legally ply for hire on the Court Square Taxi rank regardless of the condition placed on a hackney carriage vehicle?
Even if we assume both the local council and local Taxi association were oblivious to the law back in 1994, that position changed on Monday 18th February 2002 at the High Court of Justice in the Queen's Bench Division of the Administrative Court. In the case of Maud v Castle Point Borough Council, brought by way of judicial review.
Mr Maud, a hackney carriage owner/driver licensed by Castle Point Borough Council to ply for hire within their borough, which covers Benfleet and Canvey Island in Essex. Brought his application for judicial review with the support of the great majority of the 37 registered owners that were also licensed by Castle Point Borough Council.
Just like Carlisle council, Castle Point Council decided to lift restrictions on the number of Hackney carriage vehicles allowed to ply for public hire. I don't know if Mr Maud consulted with the National Taxi Association, which has its headquarters in Carlisle at the business address of Mr Wayne Casey but if he had he might have been informed of the situation in Carlisle where 60% of the local Taxi trade were excluded from the main public Taxi rank? Mr Casey is now the official administrator of the National Taxi Association and some get the impression he is also its acting secretary so he would be well placed to advise on such matters affecting drivers in Castle Point?
Regardless of where Mr Maud obtained his advice it proved totally misguided.
Restriction of Taxi numbers creates a them, and us situation, where those who enjoy the advantages of restriction such as in this case hackney carriage owners, feel they have a right to perpetual insulation from the elements of competition. This is why Hackney carriage owners in restricted authorities go to great lengths in order to protect their privileged position. This is what happened in Castle Point and many other authorities but none have been successful in accomplishing their aims of retaining restrictions through the courts.
Mr Maud based his case on three limbs, they were expressed by Mr Justice Wilson in the following way:
1. The claimant is the (licensed) driver of a vehicle licensed by the defendants to ply for hire as a hackney carriage (a “taxi”) within their borough, which covers Benfleet and Canvey Island in Essex. He is the driver of one of 37 such licensed taxis and he brings this application for judicial review with the support of the great majority of such drivers.
2. The claimant asks the court to quash the decision of the defendants dated 25 June 2001, which was to abandon their previously adopted policy of licensing no more than 37 vehicles as taxis and, in principle and subject of course to their criteria referable to suitability, to issue such licences without restriction as to number.
3. The claimant argues that in each of two respects the decision was founded upon irrelevant considerations. His third argument is of a fall-back character: he contends that the defendants failed to appreciate that they were entitled to make the grant of any additional licences subject to a particular condition.
The fall back character to which Mr. Justice Wilson refers is section 47.1 of the 1976 LGMPA, which Carlisle council rely on to exclude saloon car hackney carriages from plying for hire at Court Square.
One would assume that if Carlisle council ever needed confirmation of their illegal condition which prevents 60% of their licensed hackney carriage vehicles from plying for hire at a certain taxi rank, then this would be that case?
As history shows this certainly was that case. The sad news for Carlisle Council and the 40% of hackney carriage owners who have enjoyed the exclusivity of this main taxi rank since 1994, is that Mr Justice Wilson found the condition under section 47.1 illegal. He found that placing a condition on a hackney carriage vehicle license prohibiting it from plying for hire in any part of the licensed district was unlawful.
You don't have to take my word; read what Mr Justice Wilson said?
19. "It is Mr Wolfe's fall-back argument which has given me the most difficulty. It is clear that even prior to the publication of the Halcrow Fox report the defendants perceived the nub of the problem to be the undue congregation of taxis at Benfleet station and the corresponding lack of a proper service on the island.
This led to suggestions, included in the paper written by the claimant's solicitors and put before the Council at their meeting on 25 June 2001, that the grant of any extra licences should be subject to a condition prohibiting such vehicles from plying for hire at Benfleet station (and, so it was suggested, at one other rank).
The reference in the minutes of that meeting, quoted in paragraph 11 above, to “Counsel advice that the permit system could not be introduced” is a reference to the fact that the defendants had been advised that the attachment of any such "condition" would be "unlawful".
20. Mr Wolfe submits that in that respect the defendants acted on erroneous legal advice. He relies on section 47(1) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which provides that:
“A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.”
21. The parameters of section 47(1) have not been the subject of widespread judicial consideration. The source of guidance most helpful to me is the decision in R v Wirral MBC, ex parte The Wirral Licensed Taxi Owners Association [1983] 3 CMLR 150, in which Glidewell J upheld the validity of a condition which specified the type of vehicle covered by a licence. The judge
(a) noted at 159 that words of the section were very wide but that it had been agreed on all sides that there were some limits upon the discretion thereby conferred;
(b) cited at 160 Pyx Granite Co Ltd v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1958] 1 QB 554, in which it was held that the exercise of an analogous power given to planning authorities should fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development and not be in furtherance of an ulterior object, however desirable; and
(c) suggested at 161 that the Council's functions under the taxi licensing legislation were to achieve: “...the safety, convenience and comfort of passengers in hackney carriages, the safety of other road users and to ensure that there is some way in which those who wish to use either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles can readily distinguish the one type of vehicle from another.”
""22. I have significant doubt whether a condition can lawfully be imposed under section 47(1) which precludes a taxi from operating within part of the district.""
"The legal foundation of the licence is section 37 of the Act of 1847" which refers to a licence to ply for hire “within the prescribed distance”. By section 171(4) of the Public Health Act 1875, that expression means “within any urban district”.
Prior to 1 April 1975 a local authority had power to resolve to disapply that meaning: see paragraphs 24, 25(1) and 25(2)(a) of schedule 14 to the Local Government Act 1972. But there was no such resolution in this case. In other words, there was in the past a facility for zones to be set up which would limit the geographical area of a taxi licence.
Although I accept that the law sometimes permits a result to be achieved by more than one route, I consider that it would be surprising if zoning could still be achieved by the attachment of a "condition". In particular I consider, on balance, that such would run counter to the founding statute, which provides for the grant of a licence “to ply for hire within the [borough]”. Would not the suggested condition limiting the licence to ply for hire to within a specified part of the borough derogate from the width of the licence in "statutory" contemplation?
23. As I canvassed with Mr Wolfe, there might have been a further argument that, even had it been lawful to attach the suggested condition to all extra licences, it would have been irrational for the defendants to do so. What would be the justification for making all newly licensed vehicles second-class, unable to ply for hire at the most profitable rank? Should not market forces be allowed to operate outside Benfleet station, as elsewhere? And if, as to which the defendants have clearly harboured concern, taxis waiting outside the station may create congestion, productive of danger for pedestrians and difficulty for private motorists, that problem might rationally be addressed by specifying the size of the rank, presently such as to cover 12 taxis, and actively obliging taxis unable to stand within the rank to proceed to another rank.
24. But Mr Muir has not clearly argued any such hypothetical irrationality. And Mr Wolfe has convincingly demonstrated that the defendants would have wished at least to consider making the grant of licences conditional in that respect if they had not been advised that such course was closed to them. I propose to leave that point open and it remains for me only to decide the bare point relating to the parameters of section 47(1).
25. Both admirable counsel will not mind my confessing to a sensation of unease that, relevant to my decision this afternoon, there may be more law, present and past, relating to the geographical ambit of taxi licences, which has not been brought to my attention. But, by a narrow margin, the doubt, considerations and question articulated in paragraph 22 above lead me to conclude that there is no power under section 47(1) of the Act of 1976 to limit by condition the area of the licensed vehicle's operation within the borough. The claimant should, however, if so advised, have permission to test that hesitant conclusion in the Court of Appeal.
26. It follows that the claimant's application is dismissed.
The ruling was appealed and subsequently heard on Wednesday, 2nd October 2002
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
ORDER OF MR JUSTICE WILSON
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
LORD JUSTICE BUXTON
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
The opening statement of Lord Justice Keene is as follows.
1. LORD JUSTICE KEENE: This appeal raises a number of issues about the licensing of hackney carriages, as the legislation describes them, although these days they would be more normally referred to as taxis. As far as possible I shall use the modern terminology in this judgment. It is brought by David Victor Maud on behalf of himself, the holder of such a licence issued by the respondent authority, and on behalf of Castle Point Hackney Carriage Association. He seeks to overturn the decision of Mr Justice Wilson in the Administrative Court on 18th February 2002 when an application by Mr Maud to quash a decision by the borough council made on 25th June 2001 was dismissed.
2. The council had until that time had a policy of licensing not more than 37 vehicles as taxis within its borough, that borough covering Benfleet and Canvey Island in South Essex. By its resolution of 25th June 2001 the council resolved "That the licensing authority removes any entry control to hackney carriage licences and allows free entry within our licensing conditions and regulations, but that implementation be delayed for two months from the date of this decision."
In short, the previous limit of 37 licensed taxis was to disappear under the new policy. It was that decision which the appellant sought to challenge by way of judicial review on the basis that it was unlawful.
3. It is necessary at the outset to deal with the somewhat complex statutory provisions relevant to this appeal. One begins with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ("the 1847 Act"). Section 45 makes it an offence to drive, stand or ply for hire without a hackney carriage licence. The granting of such licences is covered by Section 37 which in its original form provided as follows:
"The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance,) such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit."
In short the decision of Mr. Justice Wilson was upheld and here is what the Lord justices had to say in respect of section 47.
12 In the Administrative Court the borough council's decision was challenged on three grounds, none of which commended themselves to the judge, but all of which have to varying degrees been pursued before this court. The one which clearly gave the judge most difficulty and which has been put at the forefront of the appellant's case concerns the lawfulness or otherwise of a condition being attached to a hackney carriage licence preventing the taxi from plying for hire in part of the authority's district. The terms of Section 47 (1) of the 1976 Act set out earlier empower a district council to attach "such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary". That, as a matter of ordinary administrative law principles, is clearly not a wholly unrestricted discretion.
13 Mr Wolfe, on behalf of the appellant, submits that those principles would permit a condition of the type suggested. He relies, in particular, on the decision and passages in the judgment of Mr Justice Glidewell, as he then was, in R v Metropolitan Borough Council of Wirral, ex p The Wirral Licensed Taxi Owners Association [1983] 3 CMLR 150, where the authority had resolved only to grant licences to taxis which met a particular vehicular specification, such that they would have to be akin to a London taxi. In the course of his judgment Mr Justice Glidewell held that the limits to the authority's discretion were to be found in the well known passage from the judgment of Lord Greene MR in Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 at 233. The principles there set out are too familiar to require quotation in this judgment. Mr Justice Glidewell also referred to the planning cases of Pyx Granite v Ministry of Housing and Local Government [1958] 1 QB 554 and Fawcett Properties v Buckinghamshire County Council [1959] 1 Ch D 543, from which he derived the now uncontentious proposition that a condition must not be imposed for an ulterior objective but only for a purpose for which the statutory powers have been enacted. His judgment continues at page 161:
"What are the council's functions under this legislation in relation to the licensing of taxi cabs? As I see it they are to achieve, so far as they can, the safety, convenience and comfort of passengers in hackney carriages, the safety of other road users and to ensure that there is some way in which those who wish to use either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles can readily distinguish the one type of vehicle from another."
14 Mr Wolfe submits that those are indeed the appropriate principles but that an equally appropriate purpose of this legislative power to impose conditions would be to achieve a proper distribution of taxis throughout the borough. It is argued that a condition imposed on a hackney carriage licence which prohibited plying for hire at a particular rank or in a particular street in order to try to ensure proper availability of taxis at other ranks in other streets is lawful. In particular, it is submitted that that would clearly relate to the licence and its use. It would, says Mr Wolfe, plainly not be imposed for some ulterior purpose and it would be consistent with the legislative purpose of ensuring the safety of other road users and the convenience of passengers. In addition, he says that it would not be perverse.
15 The judge below had taken the view that section 37 of the 1847 Act, by its language, only permitted the licence to be granted for a taxi to ply for hire across the whole of an authority's area. That was based on the words in that section, as amended by the 1875 Act, "a licence to ply for hire within any urban district". It is submitted by Mr Wolfe that those words do not have the meaning adopted by the judge but merely denote the area of the licensing authority's jurisdiction. In other words, they define the geographical extent of that jurisdiction.
They do not, contends Mr Wolfe, require the licence to be granted for the whole of the district in question. Therefore, one should simply apply the conventional administrative law principles. Here, the purpose of the condition would have been within the legislative object of the powers under Section 47 of the 1976 Act, and emphasis is placed on the broad wording, as it is described, of that empowering section which deals with conditions.
16 For my part, I prefer the judge's construction of Section 37, particularly bearing in mind the history of the phrase now under consideration. In its original form the words read that the commissioners might "from time to time license to ply for hire within the prescribed distance"; I emphasise the last four words. An alternative to the prescribed distance was then given. It seems to me that those words "within the prescribed distance" did not relate - or certainly did not relate solely - to the jurisdictional area of the commissioners. They denoted where the hackney carriages, as they truly were at that time, could ply for hire. Those words were later replaced by the words "within any urban district", as Mr Wolfe emphasises. But I cannot accept that that alteration was intended to render the phrase solely a jurisdictional one rather than one dealing with the area where the vehicle could ply for hire.
17 There is to my mind an even stronger point against Mr Wolfe's contention. If he were right, it would enable an authority to create by its licensing system two classes of taxis: one unrestricted as to where a taxi could ply for hire and the other restricted. The latter would patently be a second class type of taxi which could not operate from all the stands or perhaps all the streets in the borough or district. That seems to me to be contrary to the whole legislative approach adopted more recently by Parliament in this area of activity, the approach being to allow, as far as possible, open competition in the trade. As Lord Justice Woolf said in R v Great Yarmouth Borough Council ex p Sawyer [1989] RTR 297 at 298, the policy of the Transport Act 1985 is -
"to remove restraints and allow market forces to take their course in a way which did not exist before Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 came into effect."
In the same case Lord Justice Bingham (at page 303) referred to the Act of 1985 substituting "a free market policy" so long as the authority was not satisfied that there was no unmet demand. To bring into being a two-tier structure of licensed taxis within a district would fly in the face of that legislative approach.
18 In my view a condition preventing a taxi from plying for hire from a particular taxi stand or stands, or in a particular street or streets, would fall outside the scope of the powers granted by Parliament.
19 Despite Mr Wolfe's attractive submissions, I conclude that the authority was right to adopt the advice it had been given by counsel on this particular point.
28. It follows that, in my judgment, Mr Justice Wilson was right in the decision to which he came. Despite the persuasive manner in which Mr Wolfe has advanced his various grounds, at the end of the day I can see no merit in any of them and I would dismiss this appeal.
29. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: I agree. I have nothing I wish to add.
30. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I also agree.
Order: Appeal dismissed with the costs subject to detailed assessment
The appeal failed and the law is now established.
Under the circumstances if we allowed Carlisle council a little latitude before this verdict, I cannot see how we can extend that latitude after this verdict? Therefore the people of Carlisle and especially those Taxi drivers who have been unlawfully excluded from the Court square Taxi rank must ask themselves "to what extent have they been deceived" if they have been deceived at all?
If this court ruling was known to the council we then have to ask if the perpetuation of the unlawful condition of section 47 was knowingly intentional and designed to unlawfully restrict 60% of the Taxi trade from plying for hire on or near the main Taxi rank at Court square?
Mr Wayne Casey Administrator of the National Taxi association was most certainly aware of the court ruling because he quoted the case in Taxi Talk magazine in 2004, he also posted a reference to the case on the popular website forum of Taxi Driver Online. On Friday December 10th 2004 he said
"how the hell did the local association expect to win this case"
Therefore we know at least someone in Carlisle knew that the Council Condition was unlawful? Was it in Mr Casey's best interest to inform the local Taxi trade as a whole or even the council that the condition was ultra vires and they did not have the power to make such a condition? That is a question that only Mr Casey of the National Taxi Association can answer? Another Important factor is the involvement of the National Taxi association. If the Administrator of the National Taxi Association knew about the court ruling then why not the Executive? If we assume the Executive did know then did they have a duty to inform Carlisle council that their condition of exclusion in relation to the Court square Taxi rank is illegal? Did the NTA have an obligation or duty of care to inform the council of the illegality on behalf of the 60% of owners who were being excluded? Owners pay £20 per year for the privilege of being a member of the National Taxi association, which is by way of affiliation from the local Taxi Association. Mr Casey is on record as saying the Carlisle taxi association has 50% membership of all local hackney carriage owners. This would therefore mean that approximately 10% of the 60% of owners currently excluded from the Taxi rank at Court Square were affiliated members of the National Taxi Association.
Did the National Taxi Association or indeed the local Carlisle Taxi association owe those 10% of members an obligation to inform them that their exclusion from the Court Square Taxi rank was unlawful?
Did the National Taxi Association or indeed the local Carlisle Taxi association owe those 10% of members an obligation to inform the local Council that their condition to exclude them is unlawful?
As for Carlisle council, they now know the condition is illegal. The people of Carlisle and those Taxi drivers who have been excluded from this Taxi rank for over twelve years, need to ask the question, when did Carlisle Council first know that the condition was illegal and did they perpetuate its existence knowing it was illegal?
Mr Wayne Casey is a dedicated individual who works hard for the Taxi trade in his own area. The fact that I've exposed an illegal practice in Carlisle which Mr Casey knew about, at least since 2004 does not detract from the service he has given the Taxi trade both past and present.
The main question that arises is this. When did Carlisle council know their condition to exclude a hackney carriage vehicle from a Taxi rank under section 47.1 was illegal? Knowing full well that the highest Appeal court in the land excepting the House of Lords had deemed section 47.1 of the LGMPA unlawful for the purpose of excluding any hackney carriage from plying for hire on a public Taxi rank, in the area for which it is licensed.
The implications of this council decision to exclude at least 60% of the hackney carriage trade from this main taxi rank, which one assumes is the major source of income for most Carlisle Taxi drivers, could be far reaching. If it is found that the council knew the condition was illegal and yet intentionally applied the condition knowing it was illegal, then there could well be financial implications for them, if those who were excluded from this Taxi rank decided to take legal action for restraint of trade. End JD
Link not Active
Latest News
This section consists of our latest news updates. TDO provides the fastest real time Taxi news service in the United Kingdom. We have JD to thank for his dedication and tireless efforts in keeping members and visitors informed of important current events, legislation and case law. See the News Menu for the latest news updates.
Forum Admin
View ForumsRegister with TDO