Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - CG(S)A 1982

To: Donald Macleod
Solicitor
City of Edinburgh Council

9th December 2010

Dear Mr Macleod

Re:- Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982

I refer to three matters concerning the above and the interpretations of the Law by the council and Convener Cllr Keir’s application of them to the cases now highlighted.

I refer to the Licensing sub-committee of the Regulatory Committee meeting of November 10th – “B” agenda items 8 & 9.

A) This involves two drivers whose cases were heard, the committee considered them and as a consequence suspended both drivers’ licences for one week. In the public interest, please explain the following to me:-

1) What power is given to the council in terms of the CG(S)A 1982 to temporarily suspend a licence holder?
2) Specifically, which Schedule, Section and subsection of the Act was Cllr Keir relying on to support the power he wielded in these cases?
3) My understanding is that a licensing authority only has the power to determine whether a licence holder is fit and proper to hold such licence. This being the case, how can a licence holder be deemed unfit, yet become fit and proper again within one week to hold such licence again?

B) At the same meeting, item 15, a case was heard of an application by a PHC driver’s licence holder for a Taxi driver’s licence. The committee held that the application was not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver’s licence, but was allowed to retain his PHC driver’s licence.

In the public interest, it is essential that as both roles require the licence holder to make contact with the public, and to convey them in a closed vehicle, that both licence holder types are fit and proper persons. Please explain to me:-

4) How can a public hire driver not be a fit and proper person to convey a potentially vulnerable member of the public driving a taxi, which at least has the security for the passenger of a bulkhead separating passenger and driver, yet be fit and proper to convey the same passenger in a private saloon type vehicle which does not have the protection of the separation by bulkhead?

C) At the licensing meeting of 8th December, item B4 on the “B” agenda was consideration by the committee of an application for the grant of a taxi licence. I understand that this application was refused. In view of this can you advise me of the following:-

5) Please confirm whether this licence application was for a taxi operator’s licence or a taxi driver’s licence?
6) What power granted to the council by the Act was being used to consider this application in camera by the Committee?
7) In such applications there is a right of objection to any such application. In order to comply with the Law, what steps were taken to advertise this application and what objections were received in this case?

Mr Macleod, I thank you for your attention to these matters and look forward to your timeous reply.

Yours

Jim Taylor

Author:	Jasbar [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:	CG(S)A 1982 - CEC making it up again!
To: Donald Macleod Solicitor City of Edinburgh Council 9th December 2010 Dear Mr Macleod Re:- Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 I refer to three matters concerning the above and the interpretations of the Law by the council and Convener Cllr Keir’s application of them to the cases now highlighted. I refer to the Licensing sub-committee of the Regulatory Committee meeting of November 10th – “B” agenda items 8 & 9. A) This involves two drivers whose cases were heard, the committee considered them and as a consequence suspended both drivers’ licences for one week. In the public interest, please explain the following to me:- 1) What power is given to the council in terms of the CG(S)A 1982 to temporarily suspend a licence holder? 2) Specifically, which Schedule, Section and subsection of the Act was Cllr Keir relying on to support the power he wielded in these cases? 3) My understanding is that a licensing authority only has the power to determine whether a licence holder is fit and proper to hold such licence. This being the case, how can a licence holder be deemed unfit, yet become fit and proper again within one week to hold such licence again? B) At the same meeting, item 15, a case was heard of an application by a PHC driver’s licence holder for a Taxi driver’s licence. The committee held that the application was not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver’s licence, but was allowed to retain his PHC driver’s licence. In the public interest, it is essential that as both roles require the licence holder to make contact with the public, and to convey them in a closed vehicle, that both licence holder types are fit and proper persons. Please explain to me:- 4) How can a public hire driver not be a fit and proper person to convey a potentially vulnerable member of the public driving a taxi, which at least has the security for the passenger of a bulkhead separating passenger and driver, yet be fit and proper to convey the same passenger in a private saloon type vehicle which does not have the protection of the separation by bulkhead? C) At the licensing meeting of 8th December, item B4 on the “B” agenda was consideration by the committee of an application for the grant of a taxi licence. I understand that this application was refused. In view of this can you advise me of the following:- 5) Please confirm whether this licence application was for a taxi operator’s licence or a taxi driver’s licence? 6) What power granted to the council by the Act was being used to consider this application in camera by the Committee? 7) In such applications there is a right of objection to any such application. In order to comply with the Law, what steps were taken to advertise this application and what objections were received in this case? Mr Macleod, I thank you for your attention to these matters and look forward to your timeous reply. Yours Jim Taylor

Author:	grumpy [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:
I'm away for a lie down. I understood and agreed with the above.

Author:	Jinky [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 9:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: CG(S)A 1982 - CEC making it up again!
Jasbar wrote: To: Donald Macleod Solicitor City of Edinburgh Council 9th December 2010 Dear Mr Macleod Re:- Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 I refer to three matters concerning the above and the interpretations of the Law by the council and Convener Cllr Keir’s application of them to the cases now highlighted. I refer to the Licensing sub-committee of the Regulatory Committee meeting of November 10th – “B” agenda items 8 & 9. A) This involves two drivers whose cases were heard, the committee considered them and as a consequence suspended both drivers’ licences for one week. In the public interest, please explain the following to me:- 1) What power is given to the council in terms of the CG(S)A 1982 to temporarily suspend a licence holder? 2) Specifically, which Schedule, Section and subsection of the Act was Cllr Keir relying on to support the power he wielded in these cases? 3) My understanding is that a licensing authority only has the power to determine whether a licence holder is fit and proper to hold such licence. This being the case, how can a licence holder be deemed unfit, yet become fit and proper again within one week to hold such licence again? B) At the same meeting, item 15, a case was heard of an application by a PHC driver’s licence holder for a Taxi driver’s licence. The committee held that the application was not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver’s licence, but was allowed to retain his PHC driver’s licence. In the public interest, it is essential that as both roles require the licence holder to make contact with the public, and to convey them in a closed vehicle, that both licence holder types are fit and proper persons. Please explain to me:- 4) How can a public hire driver not be a fit and proper person to convey a potentially vulnerable member of the public driving a taxi, which at least has the security for the passenger of a bulkhead separating passenger and driver, yet be fit and proper to convey the same passenger in a private saloon type vehicle which does not have the protection of the separation by bulkhead? C) At the licensing meeting of 8th December, item B4 on the “B” agenda was consideration by the committee of an application for the grant of a taxi licence. I understand that this application was refused. In view of this can you advise me of the following:- 5) Please confirm whether this licence application was for a taxi operator’s licence or a taxi driver’s licence? 6) What power granted to the council by the Act was being used to consider this application in camera by the Committee? 7) In such applications there is a right of objection to any such application. In order to comply with the Law, what steps were taken to advertise this application and what objections were received in this case? Mr Macleod, I thank you for your attention to these matters and look forward to your timeous reply. Yours Jim Taylor Spot on Jasbar, but will Mr Mcleod reply to you in the tmeous way he did with your 'Statement of Reasons' letter???

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: CG(S)A 1982 - CEC making it up again!
Jasbar wrote: B) At the same meeting, item 15, a case was heard of an application by a PHC driver’s licence holder for a Taxi driver’s licence. The committee held that the application was not a fit and proper person to be granted a taxi driver’s licence, but was allowed to retain his PHC driver’s licence.

Author:	captain cab [ Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:
grumpy wrote: I'm away for a lie down. I understood and agreed with the above. I dont think you read it, did the bears eat the porridge? CC

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

CG(S)A 1982 - CEC making it up again! http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15527	Page 1 of 1

Author:	sunset [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:17 am ]
Post subject:
Keep at them jasbar, but could it not be the case that keir and r.c. could have revoked thier liecence instead of a one week suspension therefore it has been in thr drivers favour to have a week suspension

Author:	grumpy [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:42 am ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: grumpy wrote: I'm away for a lie down. I understood and agreed with the above. I dont think you read it, did the bears eat the porridge? CC are you alleging there may be a touch of jackanory surrounding jasbar's post/letter?

Author:	Jasbar [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:
sunset wrote: Keep at them jasbar, but could it not be the case that keir and r.c. could have revoked thier liecence instead of a one week suspension therefore it has been in thr drivers favour to have a week suspension Clearly whatever the misdemeanour was held to be it didn't warrant removal of licence. or else Keir would have done it. Remember how he took Rab Smith's licence away from him, taking his livelihood away just before Christmas. That's the measure of Keir. Keir's head is still in the playground. Like the petulant schoolteacher he wanted to play the bully and just slap these guys down. So he "sentenced" them to one week's detention. £500 buckss fine to them, the owner fined his rental and Keir's ego rises in the deeper recesses of his own mind. But the slapdown wasn't just for these guys. It's to remind you lot to knuckle down and be subservient to Keir. He's the boss, the head honcho, and don't you lot ever forget it. Breathtaking! However, Keir's problem, like Frank Smith, is that we see through their game. And we know what they do in the line of "duty" is fundamentally wrong, outwith their power and an affront to the dignity of Human Rights. And that's why any time we're before the committee it will be on the "A" agenda, in the full glare of publicity, with the accuser and complainer present to be questioned and Human Rights at the forefront of the process. We know the council is looking for just such an occasion, we've been warned as much, and Frankie boy too. They've had unlucky near misses recently where the cops were only prevented because the Law was broken by the authorities, but we know they will keep their powder dry for the next occasion. We're looking forward to just such an occasion.

Author:	Jasbar [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:
BTW, take this on board. These actions by Keir, and this is where he will claim immunity, are sanctioned by the legal team he "depends" on for advice. That advice is wrong, then Keir thinks he's off the hook. So, who are the legal experts guiding these interpretations of the Act? And, given they are obviously fundamentally flawed, the truth is that the responsibility for the quality of service from this council department lies at the door of none other than Chief Executive, Sue Bruce. When we get Donald's reply, that's where this is heading. Get ready Sue. Corporate Services has been an uncontrollable shambles throughout Jim Inch's tenure. There's ample evidence to show skulduggery. We've got 7 years of Inch's machinations and deviousness to draw on, all fully documented. It's time for a root and branch review. And, if you don't do accede to this reasonable request, then we demand a public inquiry. And if the politician's close ranks, as we expect thm to, and such inquiry is denied, then the whole will become the basis of the Human Rights case, which we're advised will attract Legal Aid, to ensure the matter is finally resolved.

Author:	captain cab [ Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:06 am ]
Post subject:
grumpy wrote: are you alleging there may be a touch of jackanory surrounding jasbar's post/letter? As if I'd stoop to such levels Unless part B is different in Scotland to it is in England. CC

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/