But council legal chiefs argued that Southampton Magistrates’ Court could not hear the appeal as it was against a statement detailing a change in policy, rather than the licensing condition requiring a camera be fitted, which only came into play when a new licence was granted or an existing one renewed after one year.

The Daily Echo reported last week how a taxi driver was trying to sell his vehicle licence, or plate, together with a new seven-seater taxi for £55,000, just weeks after it had been virtually given away in a lottery style council draw.

A BID by two cabbies to challenge compulsory cameras in Southampton taxis has been struck out before their case could be heard. Southampton City Council persuaded a judge that it should go no further as the pair were effectively appealing against a change of policy not a licensing condition requiring the controversial cameras.

I thought Hackney Carriages were regulated by Byelaws & not Conditions of Licence.

And if the 'condition' is not in the Byelaws, can the council legally enforce CCTVs in Hackney Carrages?

I wager the rule is attached to the proprietors license, which of course isnt subject to byelaws.

CC

I beg to differ again;

47 Licensing of hackney carriages.

(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage..

(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates’ court.

CC

From what I hear Southampton Council have had this posted up the back door!

I doubt very much if the appeal papers are in the post...more likely stuck in a back passage somewhere!