Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Nov 02, 2024 12:53 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37338
Location: Wayneistan
If anyone can help

R -v- Manchester City Council ex p King 1991
R -v- Manchester City Council ex p Reid 1989

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37338
Location: Wayneistan
R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh 1989


Some authorities have gone further and have required not only an all-London-style cab fleet, but that the fleet itself should be comprised of all wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This was pioneered in the late 1980s by Manchester City Council and was challenged in the case of R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh.1989. In the mid-1980’s Manchester City Council was concerned about the provision of transport services for disabled people who used wheelchairs and, when they decided to increase the size of the hackney carriage fleet in Manchester by 100 vehicles, they imposed a condition upon those licences requiring the successful applicants to provide vehicles which were not only based on a London-style cab, but also either already converted for wheel-chair access or to be converted within a specified period of time at their own expense. This condition was challenged as being unreasonable.

The Court held that a facility for transporting the wheelchair-bound disabled is directly relating to the safe, comfortable and convenient functioning of the taxi.

Ultimately, it must always be a question of fact and degree whether a minority is so small or the advantage to them is so slight or the cost of complying with the provision is so great that the imposition of such a condition cannot be justified.

The phrase “reasonably necessary” is within the condition-making power. What is clearly desirable in the interests of safety and comfort can by the same token properly be regarded as reasonably necessary.

The Court also considered there was no objection to the Council having regard to the existence or lack of alternative facilities for the disabled when deciding how to exercise this condition-making power.

In fact subsequent developments prior to this hearing took the policy of Manchester City Council even further. They had by then imposed a condition requiring all existing licensed hackney carriages within the City to be converted to carry wheelchairs, or failing that, the replacement of the vehicles with purpose-built, wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The cost for this was to be recovered through an increase in fares and, as a consequence, by the beginning of 1992 Manchester had the first English fleet of hackney carriages which were all accessible for wheelchair-using travellers.

Similar policies have now been adopted by a number of local authorities throughout England and Wales and challenges rejected removing any doubts as to the legality of a policy and conditions subsequently attached to licences requiring wheelchair accessible hackney carriages

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37338
Location: Wayneistan
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Section 47(2) allows the local authority to impose conditions specifically in relation to the design or appearance of Hackney Carriages which they licence and this has been subject to a number of Court Cases.

R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association 1983

Notwithstanding subsequent cases, possibly the most important is the case of R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association as it forms the basis of the later decisions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council resolved that from a certain date, all hackney carriages licensed by the Council would have to be of a purpose-built type.

Originally, the resolution specifically stated ‘FX4’, but it was suggested, and accepted, that this might conflict with art 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The resolution was amended to become a specification, rather than a specific make or model of vehicle. One of the reasons for this policy was that it was important for the public to be able to distinguish between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. Another reason concerned the general suitability of that type of vehicle for hackney carriage work. The Wirral Licensed Taxi Drivers Association challenged the decision. In dismissing the application, Glidewell J said:

“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. That the last is a proper object is to my mind made clear by section 47(2) of the 1976 Act. I conclude, on the material before me, that the Council’s primary purpose was, indeed .to introduce a requirement which served to distinguish hackney carriage vehicles from private hire vehicles. But I cannot find that it was the sole purpose, nor can I find that in arriving at its decision, the Council did not take into account other factors. Putting it the other way round, I am satisfied on the material before me that the Council did take into account other factors: safety and convenience. It was not only entitled to do so, but was obliged to do so and it did so”.

R v Lincoln City Council, ex p King and Cook, R v Luton Borough Council, ex p Mirza 1995

This has been followed in the joined Court of Appeal cases of R v Lincoln City King and Cook, R v Luton Borough Council, ex p Mirza

Both were appeals against unsuccessful applications for judicial review which determined that requirements for wheelchair accessibility were not necessarily unreasonable or in conflict with EU law

Other cases followed the logic of the judgements given above and remove any doubt that may have lingered that an “all purpose built” hackney carriage policy is lawful.

The adoption by local authorities of such a policy of only granting hackney carriage proprietor’s licences to London-style cabs has become increasingly popular in urban areas and is often referred to as a ‘mandatory order’. This has no legal meaning, but is generally accepted to refer to a situation where an all-London-style cab policy is in force.

As was outlined in the Wirral case, such policies must be worded extremely carefully to avoid any change of anti-competitive behaviour under European Law. The Court of Appeal reinforced this by approving the policies of both Lincoln City Council and Luton Borough Council and reinforcing the fact that such policies did not infringe art 30 of the Treaty of Rome. Policies that refer to specific makes of vehicle are unlikely to succeed should such a challenge be mounted. The most successful way of wording the policy is by measurement of internal and external features, door openings, turning circle etc.

The specification adopted by the Public Carriage Office (PCO) in London appears to satisfy the most stringent criteria available, but does not allow Eurotaxis to be used as hackney carriages. Accordingly, if a local authority wished to allow MPVs and Eurotaxis to be licensed, some variation to the PCO specification would be required.

Such a policy must now be viewed in the light of the Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing:

Best Practice Guidance issued by the DfT in October 2006. Although not statutory guidance to which local authorities are duty bound to have regard to, it must be recognised as being a relevant consideration in Wednesbury terms which must be taken into account when considering matters it covers. One such area is the kind of vehicle that the local authority will licence as a hackney carriage.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2024 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 55064
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
If anyone can help
R -v- Manchester City Council ex p King 1991
R -v- Manchester City Council ex p Reid 1989

There is a PDF towards the end of the thread of v King, but for v Reid you will have to suffer Mr T's pasting.

viewtopic.php?t=13362

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2024 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37338
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
If anyone can help
R -v- Manchester City Council ex p King 1991
R -v- Manchester City Council ex p Reid 1989

There is a PDF towards the end of the thread of v King, but for v Reid you will have to suffer Mr T's pasting.

https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=13362



appreciated =D>

_________________
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  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 94 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