Taxi Driver Online

If there's one quote that sums up York Council's attitude it's maybe this one, culminating in the recent judgement.

And, as Sussex has said in the thread in the Licensing and Legal section, has cost the council (or maybe taxpayers, if not licence holders) a shedload of money, not to mention reputational damage

But, and correct me if I'm wrong, there's still a question mark over whether a council can impose onerous conditions on all cars used by operators and thus effectively ban cross-border working, because the case was decided on procedural grounds rather than examining the actual conditions.

So if a council followed the correct procedures, could it effectively ban operators using cross-border cars, or at least make it considerably more difficult?

(As per usual, I didn't actually read the full case )

I think they can't.

An Authority cannot make a condition that flies in the face of Parliamentary legislation.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I forgot to resurrect this thread as it plays an important part in the recent court hearing that York Council lost big time.

Mr Iqbal lost his license because the council viewed him to be operating unlawfully. He then appealed to the court.

Before the appeal hearing Mr Iqbal and the council came to an arrangement/compromise and he accepted the additional conditions on his license.

The council then, no doubt giving themselves a big pat on the back, added those conditions to Mr Hall's operator's license.

Despite the fact Mr Hall had done nothing wrong.

_________________
IDFIMH

I suppose it depends on what one deems to be onerous, but more importantly, any new policy, onerous or otherwise, has to be consulted on and agreed upon by committee.

But I think in the case of Mr Hall the council didn't give him any reasons for those new conditions, other than at court when they merely said 'safety'.

The decision is only 12 pages and worth a read if anyone is bored waiting for a job.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not sure I necessarily agree, Chris - maybe it breaches the spirit of the law, if not the letter - the Deregulation Act simply expanded on the right-to-roam already allowed by permitting sub-contracting, but didn't explicitly stop local authorities imposing conditions on the use of cross-border cars.

So there's still a degree of localism in the legislation - if that wasn't intended, why didn't Parliament simply introduce a national licence and abolish local PHV licensing?

And, I mean, even if Anywhere Council imposed a vehicle age-rule, a CCTV requirement or driving assessment for drivers that would stop Anywhere Council operators using cars and drivers plated and badged in Wolverhampton (which is arguably consistent with localism), it still wouldn't stop the likes of Delta on Merseyside (old school) or Uber nationally (app-only) working in other areas as long as the triple lock is in place. And, by the same token, even if York's more onerous conditions imposed on cross-border cars had actually survived a legal challenge, that would presumably only have affected York-licenced operators - Uber would still be able to cover York with cars licensed elsewhere

But, to that extent, does it even breach the spirit of the law? Even at face value, there was never any intention to completely remove a local dimension to private hire licensing, while the right-to-roam was in place even before the Deregulation Act 2015. The Act simply facilitated the right to roam, while retaining a local angle.

And, as I think the barrister who wrote the article in the Licensing and Legal section is saying, because the case was decided simply on the basis that York Council didn't follow the correct procedures it's still not clear whether a local authority can impose back door conditions on local operators using cross-border cars.