JD wrote:
The outcome of the committee meeting was predictable. The report commissioned by the two Edinburgh Taxi companies contained nothing more than outdated recycled misinformation which could have been copied from any previous offering in respect of similar reports aimed at restricting numbers by any one of the current crop of Taxi Trade organisations such as the Vested interest NTA or TGWU. Quite frankly I was amazed at the poor quality of the report. Having said that those who commissioned the report were no doubt aware as were the rest of us, that it wouldn't be needed because the decision was a foregone conclusion.
However, we shall see what transpires?
Regards
JD
Yes JD, the outcome was predictable, as was evidenced by the title of Inch's report "The implications of retaining the policy of restriction".
Inch did recycle most the information his report contained. And included a lot of material which, with the best will in the world, most councillors wouldn't have bothered to take the time to read.
However, I have read receipts from a number of councillors who received my refultal of the radio companies deputation BEFORE the meeting, albeit only a short time before.
And I venture that nothing in that refutation was properly drawn to the attention of councillors making the decision.
So, I suspect they paid no attention to the continued existence of the interested parties list which the council can't go to in isolation. Nor the current applications. Nor the impending appeals. Nor the licence applications which will be fothcoming. Nor the poor quality of the the demand surveys with the missing demand indicators. Nor the conflict of interest bewteen the council's ownership of buses, taxbuses and trams, while restricting the competition it has with taxis - aided and abetted by three of the last four RC conveners having bus or private hire interests. Nor the tension between the right to a fair hearing when your licence is being considered and the prejudice placed on the process by a policy which is designed to deny you the licence from the outset, even from the text of the letter initially acknowledging the application.
The key to section 10 (3) is that councillors may refuse the application "if, and only if, it is satisfied there is no significant unmet demand for taxis services in the area".
What this council forgets, and what Jim Inch failed to mention in his report, is that it is not incumbent for applicants to prove that such a demand exists, only to prove that the council couldn't possibly be satisfied that they know for certain that there is currently no significant unmet demand.
No taxis for six years. A burgeoning economy. The increase in all other transport groups. The increase in private hire. The introduction of taxi marshalls to manage demand which the council tells us doesn't exist.
The updated writ will be somewhat different from the previous one. It is designed to ensure that the matter is fully rehearsed before a Sheriff.
The next stage will involve the council, its restriction policy and the way it conducts itself in defence of that policy going on trial. Wanna bet there is no way that Jim Inch ventured this little gem to councillors verbally at the full council meeting when councillors backed his plan?
As such, Inch is now perillously close to a vulnerable position. By not disclosing the full story, he may just have put his own neck in the noose.
As for us. We're quite relaxed. We knew the council intended to deny a second time. A point I would have made personally to the Sheriff at the time. We could have appealed the decision, but we're in a stronger position now, because the council has disadvantaged itself before the court. But, here's the laugh, and the rock on which they are floundering.
At the meeting there was a debate about the terms of 10 (3). Millar reckoned it was incumbent on applicants to refute the council's demand information.
(Note we had already done so with the Jacobs critique and various points showing how the interim survey, the stakeholders survey and the taxi company figures were flawed, but the council feels entitled to reject such information because it didn't come from their interpretation of an "expert")
Anyway I disputed this and suggested Millar read out the section from the Act. Millar jumped up, made towards Susan Clark, who was already up in motion a copy of the Act in her hand and moving towards Millar, she thrust it into his hands and he sat back down andprepared to read. Lo and behold, he could not twist the words in the section to possibly elucidate that the section stipulated that it was incumbent on applicants to refute the council's information. He looked a complete pratt. However, undeterred he announced that he would need to take legal advice and the meeting was deferred (Who?).
When it reconvened, Keir asked if we had any evidence to refute the council's information, ignoring what we had said, then subsequently refused the applications.
Now, this was clearly part of the original strategy to bring the licence back before the committee. While the council clearly felt they had every legal justification to deny on their premise, I can't wait to see what a Sheriff makes of this. Perhaps JD could give us an opinion.
The short of it is, the council, Jim Inch responsible, is digging an ever bigger hole for itself. I believe it's one it can already not climb out of.
Login
Register
FAQ
