gusmac wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Sussex wrote:
jasbar wrote:
But not if your application is incorporated in an LLP or PLC.
Legal aid is for individuals only.
Can only firms apply for plates then?

You miss the point....if they do it Jims way they wont lose they're house if they lose a case, they'll just call in administrators.
The only people it costs are the tax payers.....which is quite fair
CC
Actually you are both missing the point.
Scottish plates are non-transferable. The plate market gets round this by applying for the plate in the name of a company. The company then gets sold with the plate.
The salient point here is that plates are non-transferable.
Incorporation means that a licence can be applied for by a limited liability partnership or company. This brings the protections against outstanding legal costs incurred.
However, in the case of existing single owned licences, the council charged the full licence fee to allow these to be altered to incorporated licences.
This involved a transfer from the single to the incorporated. And the Act states clearly that the licences are not transferable, a clear contravention and therefore illegal.
The council explains this by stating that they terminate a licence and issue a new one, it is not the same licence and therefore not transferred.
But, the same licence plate is used and they allocated the new licences without any reference to the interested parties list where, according to their own policy, any new licences should be issued from.
The council just made it up as they went along. However, it would take a court proceeding, probably all the way to the court of session to settle it. Although, a judicial review could be framed to include this aspect, along with other aspects of the council's administration of taxi licencsing. Funding would be the problem for this, as it would take legal representation, probably QC, to make the case.
If the numbers come up on saturday we will be off and running without a doubt.
*********
Incidentally, in the recent case of the application that was allowed to fall by Macdonald, I understand from him that the legal advice given him was that he would be subject to considerable legal costs if he lost his case. I understand that the advice given to him from his legal team was that the LLP would not protect him against these.
I contend that this is patently wrong, the 3maxblack case being the proof, where the council did not recover any of the court costs from the failed applicant (Incidentally, the parallel cases went on to win their licences, as would 3maxblack had it pursued the matter through the appeal process).
Doesn't this beg the question what the motives of his legal team were, and who were they really serving?
So, in the face of such advice Macdonald withdrew and reapplied 2 days later.
(It remains to be seen whether he was acting on advice from his lawyers, whether they knew something Macdonald is not divulging. This would serve to explain some extraordinary behaviour and action in this matter.)