Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:25 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 9:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
Hemming (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd) & Ors v Westminster City Council [2012] EWHC 1260 (Admin) (16 May 2012)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /1260.html

A landmark decision confirming that it was unlawful for a local authority to charge lawful licensees for the cost of enforcement action against unlicensed operators.

Although the licensees in the case were operators of sex shops in Soho, the decision applies equally to any industry for which a licence to trade is required from the local authority.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45470
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
(i) declare that, when determining under para. 19 of Schedule 3 to the 1982 Act, what is a reasonable fee for the grant or renewal of a licence to operate a sex establishment, the Council has not, since 28 December 2009, been permitted to take into account the cost of investigating and prosecuting persons, firms or companies who operate sex establishments within the Council's area without a licence,

The above quote from that judgement is interesting.

With the Law Commission proposing LOs inspecting and enforcing non-local vehicles, I wonder who will pay for their time. :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45470
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
Although the licensees in the case were operators of sex shops in Soho, the decision applies equally to any industry for which a licence to trade is required from the local authority.

I'm being told, but don't necessarily agree with, that because 'transport' was exempted from the 2009 Directive, it will not effect us. :?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Although the licensees in the case were operators of sex shops in Soho, the decision applies equally to any industry for which a licence to trade is required from the local authority.

I'm being told, but don't necessarily agree with, that because 'transport' was exempted from the 2009 Directive, it will not effect us. :?


Really :roll:

Which 2009 directive?

The charging power is in the 1976 act isnt it?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45470
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
Really :roll:

Which 2009 directive?

The charging power is in the 1976 act isnt it?

But doesn't the 2009 Directive (did you read the judgement? :? ) say that councils can only charge for admin and controls on existing license holders?

The 1976 act says any reasonable costs, or similar.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Really :roll:

Which 2009 directive?

The charging power is in the 1976 act isnt it?

But doesn't the 2009 Directive (did you read the judgement? :? ) say that councils can only charge for admin and controls on existing license holders?

The 1976 act says any reasonable costs, or similar.


I didnt read it entirely, been a tad busy :wink:

So if the 2009 directive states that....then that surely backs up the initial point?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Without reading the case, it seems it concerns a 2006 European Directive, implemented by UK regulations in 2009.

The regulations seem to exclude transport at 2(1)(c).

Indeed the directive is even more specific, and paragraph 21 of the preamble (if that's the right word) states:

DIRECTIVE 2006/123/EC wrote:
Transport services, including urban transport, taxis and ambulances as well as port services, should be excluded from the scope of this Directive.


Thus the case seems to have no direct relevance to the taxi/PH trades.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 068:en:PDF

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2999/made


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
Dusty Bin wrote:
Without reading the case, it seems it concerns a 2006 European Directive, implemented by UK regulations in 2009.

The regulations seem to exclude transport at 2(1)(c).

Indeed the directive is even more specific, and paragraph 21 of the preamble (if that's the right word) states:

DIRECTIVE 2006/123/EC wrote:
Transport services, including urban transport, taxis and ambulances as well as port services, should be excluded from the scope of this Directive.


Thus the case seems to have no direct relevance to the taxi/PH trades.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 068:en:PDF

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2999/made



I see, so the email was sent by ambulance chasing solicitors.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 45470
Location: 1066 Country
My point of issue relates to the fact that council licensing really doesn't deal with transport, they deal with licensees.

It's us licensees that deal with transport.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
My point of issue relates to the fact that council licensing really doesn't deal with transport, they deal with licensees.

It's us licensees that deal with transport.



I think I'll wait for my nta solicitors comment!

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36972
Location: Wayneistan
http://cornerstonebarristers.com/news/w ... sex-shops/

In brief summary, the case established the important principles:

(1) that where a Council profits from licence fees in that its expenditure is exceeded by its fee income, it must carry the surplus forward in determining the fee for future years;

(2) that in authorisation schemes covered by the Provision of Services Regulations, enforcement costs may not be recharged to licensed operators.


:shock: :shock: :shock:

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group