Taxi Driver Online

See that's how councils get away with it, because it's not their money, it's the good people of Plymouth's money.

By the time all this mess is sorted out, different councillors will be on the licensing committee, maybe even a different party in power. But what you will hear time and time again is "that it's nothing to do with me, I'm new".

_________________
IDFIMH

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133478&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133186&home=yes&contentPK=11371787

COUNCIL MAY SETTLE WITH MINICAB BOSS

STUART ABEL

12:00 - 24 November 2004
Plymouth councillors are considering abandoning their long-running and costly legal battle with a city minicab boss and striking a deal. The authority could ditch its appeal to the High Court in London challenging a Plymouth Crown Court ruling over the operator's licence of Silverline owner Lawrence Brown.

Any U-turn could mark the end of a legal wrangle which has gone on for nearly two years and could still land the council with an estimated £400,000 legal bill. It would mean Mr Brown would be free to run Silverline.

The council's licensing committee, after considering reports from several senior officers, has recommended that the cabinet member for transport, Cllr Sue Dann, should approve a settlement of the dispute.

Members want her to work with the committee's co-chairmen 'to seek to negotiate a settlement of the sum of costs ordered to be made and the damages sought'.

The council was today staying tight-lipped over the size of any settlement.

Silverline's latest Crown court victory left the council facing an estimatedlegal bill of up to £400,000.

The company was planning to take further legal action for £250,000 in damages for lost business and legal fees totalling £60,000-£70,000. At one stage the council publicly suggested that anyone travelling in a Silverline cab might not be covered by insurance in the event of an accident.

The committee wants the council to reserve the right to go to an appeal if the two sides cannot agree a figure.

A council spokeswoman said that Cllr Dann had yet to make a decision.

Mr Brown's solicitor Michael Hayman said the prospect of a settlement was 'absolutely delightful'.

In September Silverline won an appeal at Plymouth Crown Court against a decision by the council's licensing committee not to award Mr Brown a licence.

The council had refused Mr Brown a licence on the grounds they believed he was acting as a frontman for Leslie Palmer, who was refused a licence in 1997. That decision was backed by Plymouth magistrates when Mr Brown appealed.

Mr Brown appealed again, this time to the Crown court, and in an emphatic rejection of the city council's case Judge Francis Gilbert ruled in favour of Mr Brown and said the city council had not produced any evidence to suggest he was not a fit and proper person to run Silverline.

Legal experts believe that if the council goes to a High Court appeal, it could add a further £50,000 for each side to the legal bill.

A city council spokesman earlier added that the council 'seriously questioned' some of the 'high figures' quoted in connection with the costs of the case and any potential compensation claim.

In his ruling in September, Judge Gilbert said there was no evidence, since Mr Brown had become the owner of Silverline, that any members of the public had been harmed or jeopardised in any way, there was no evidence that he had ever failed to keep any records required by law and there was no evidence of any defect in his record-keeping or in the records which he had kept.

........................

when will it ever end?

The more grief this costs the council, the easier it will be for Mr Preece in his legal actions.

Plymouth Council acted like buffoons over the Silverline issue, methinks they will think twice when taking on Mr Preece.

_________________
IDFIMH

front page news again.....

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133478&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133186&home=yes&contentPK=11614786

CITY PAYS £120,000 IN SECRET TAXI DEAL
More News | Back to home page

12:00 - 07 January 2005
Plymouth City Council has struck a secret six-figure deal to pay off a cab firm following a failed legal bid to shut it down.

The Herald can exclusively reveal today that the council has paid minicab company Silverline about £120,000 of taxpayers' money in a confidential agreement. The deal was done in December following a long-running legal battle with the firm over its operating licence which the council eventually lost at Plymouth Crown Court.

It has now been forced to settle with Silverline, paying both the firm's costs and damages. The £120,000 does not include the council's own legal costs which could run into tens of thousands of pounds.

The costly legal battle revolved around who ran the firm, with the council claiming boss Lawrence Brown was just a frontman for another person, Leslie Palmer, who was refused an operator's licence in 1996. As a result, when Mr Brown applied for the renewal of the firm's private hire licence in February 2003 it was refused by the council, which claimed he was not a 'fit and proper person'.

The council fought off an appeal by Mr Brown, held at Plymouth Magistrates' Court, but a second appeal before Crown court Judge Francis Gilbert saw Mr Brown score an emphatic victory, with the judge telling the council it had failed to make its case and ruling there was no evidence Mr Brown had done anything wrong. After the ruling Mr Brown said he would be seeking to recover his legal costs, plus compensation for the damage done to his business.

The council considered spending more cash taking the case to the High Court before deciding to settle with Mr Brown and Silverline.

Well it just goes to show that your own personal prejudices can cost you dearly, especially if you are a council who are not spending their own money. If they were in business they would be out on their ear. They new the case against Mr Brown was mostly inuendo and yet they went ahead with it. Plymouth is just typical of a great many other Authorities so it doesn't surprise me in the least that they got their fingers burnt.

Best wishes

JD

I wonder how many of the Licensing Committee will be standing down?

I wonder if any of the council's legal team will be reviewing their positions.

I wonder if someone will report that council to the Audit Commission.

But you have to wonder who are the biggest fools, those that got elected, or those that elected them?

_________________
IDFIMH

back tracking a bit now:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133188&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133171&contentPK=11617392&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=taxi&formname=sidebarsearch

COUNCIL LEADER DEFENDS TAXI DEAL


12:00 - 08 January 2005
Plymouth City Council leader Tudor Evans today denied taxpayers' money had been used to settle a long running legal wrangle with a minicab firm. In a statement to the Herald, Cllr Evans said the cost of the £120,000 deal with city cab firm Silverline would come from 'ring fenced' funds.

He was speaking after the Herald revealed that the secret deal had been struck in December after a city council bid to shut down Silverline was thrown out at Crown Court.

Silverline boss Lawrence Brown won his appeal after the city council had refused to renew his private hire operators licence deeming him 'not a fit and proper person' to run a cab firm. In a statement Cllr Evans said he wanted to 'set the record straight'.

He said: "It will not be taxpayers who will have to pay the settlement figure agreed with Mr Brown because that will be funded by ring-fenced income generated from licensing business in the city.

"It is common practice, in view of commercial sensitivities, for out of court settlements to be wrapped in confidentiality which was mutually agreed in this instance by the council and Mr Brown."

Cllr Evans added: "The legal privilege which means the terms and conditions of the settlement with Mr Brown cannot be disclosed is exempt from the new Freedom of Information Act. I couldn't comment on a legal agreement I had not been directly involved in.

"Your leader column failed to acknowledge that the council was mindful of the potential for escalating legal costs and public interest which was why the council decided to reach agreement with Mr Brown and not take further legal action."

The city council's head of legal services, David Shepperd, defended the council's decision to agree a confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement with Silverline.

"The settlement figure was one element of a complex agreement negotiated between the council and Mr Brown," he said. "Both parties agreed to the terms of the agreement being confidential.

"Confidentiality over a settlement figure is routine legal privilege because of commercial sensitivities and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The council took the decision to negotiate a settlement with public interest in mind because the outcome of a further legal challenge was not guaranteed and could have incurred further costs to the public purse."

Tory opposition leader Vivien Pengelly has said the council should have made public details of the deal.

So is he saying the cab trade are going to have to front up the costs?

If that was the case, and I was a license holder in Plymouth, then I would be straight to the Ombudsman, the Audit Commission, the Standards Committee and anyone else that would show this pathetic joke of a council up.

_________________
IDFIMH

Mr Evans should get his facts right, the only person who will decide what is right in this disclosure is the Freedom of Information appeals adjudicator.

The council or any other body can only withhold information, if the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

I would have thought the public interest in disclosing the information far outweighs the need for secrecy. The rate payers and license payers have a right to know why over 100 grand was squandered in a futile case such as this and why they have to foot the bill. The Council says it is not in the public interest but I'm afraid keeping something secret just because a council might be embarrassed is a think of the past. I just hope someone down there is interested enough to make a request. Perhaps MR Taxifast might help us out.

Best wishes

JD

Plymouth must be candidates for having the highest legals bill for Taxi licensing litigation in the country.

Regards

JD

I ressurected this case because of the recent advice sought on the status of "Fit and Proper". This case was terminated because the council could offer no evidence that the person who's license they had revoked was indeed unfit to carry on the business of Private hire operator. It therefore goes without saying that in order to revoke or suspend a license a council must show reasonable cause for doing so. In this particualr case there was no reasonable cause, only innuendo and a decision to revoke on innuendo alone, is obviously unreasonable.

The point for consideration in cases where a license has been revoked on two counts is this, can a person who has had his drivers license revoked in order to stop him coming into contact with fare paying passengers, have a second license revoked that doesn't allow him to come into contact with fare paying passengers?

That is a decision a court may well have to take in the near future, if it hasn't already done so?

Regards

JD