| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Stockport Appeal http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16162 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | tom2907 [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Stockport Appeal |
An appeal has been launched in Manchester Crown Court this week. It is the first predicted case involving the new Equality Bill 2010. I say predicted because I am sure Sussex and perhaps Skippy saw the unintended consequence of the bill. A Sockport Hacney Driver has made a formal request to swap his E7 wav and replace it with a standard estate car. The Licensing officer a Mr Elthorpe has refused the request out of hand stating the council has a fixed policy of only licensing wav vehicles as hackneys. In a carefully laid trap the driver has got the L.O to admit he has not put this matter before the committee. Mr Elthorpe is now in breach of several statutes and has fettered the discretion of the local authority. The driver has used the Liverpool decision Alma Lunt v Liverpool City Council (2009) as his authority in this. He claims the decision of the L.O is in breach of Section 21(d+e) of DDA 1995 Section 53 (1+2+3) Section 6.4 of The Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice Section 13(1) of the Equality Bill 2010, which states= Direct Discrimination Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, The Liverpool Taxi owners case 1972 where it was held that a council has a duty to consult before taking any decision. The papers were only put in yesterday, I have copies if anybody wants them. I will of course keep you posted. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
A few people will be following this with interest, IMO the chap needs to follow Lunt and get those folks to assist. However, I hope he has deep pockets. CC |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
tom2907 wrote: An appeal has been launched in Manchester Crown Court this week. It is the first predicted case involving the new Equality Bill 2010. I say predicted because I am sure Sussex and perhaps Skippy saw the unintended consequence of the bill. A Sockport Hacney Driver has made a formal request to swap his E7 wav and replace it with a standard estate car.
The Licensing officer a Mr Elthorpe has refused the request out of hand stating the council has a fixed policy of only licensing wav vehicles as hackneys. In a carefully laid trap the driver has got the L.O to admit he has not put this matter before the committee. Mr Elthorpe is now in breach of several statutes and has fettered the discretion of the local authority. If he is appealing against the refusal to grant a swap then surely it's Mags Court or High Court? Not convinced this trap will go down well with the court, whichever one it will be, as they don't like that type of thing. However even if they did I think he chances of success are remote. I hope he is being advised well. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think the gentleman in question has sprung /sprang his trap too soon and might very well find himself caught in the cage..... |
|
| Author: | Caledonian Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
tom2907 wrote: Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC,
So what's the protected characteristic then? |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
Caledonian Cabbie wrote: tom2907 wrote: Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, So what's the protected characteristic then? I would guess that it is the all WAV policy. |
|
| Author: | Caledonian Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
grandad wrote: Caledonian Cabbie wrote: tom2907 wrote: Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, So what's the protected characteristic then? I would guess that it is the all WAV policy. I thought the 'protected characteristic' is a person's attribute that it is claimed results in the discrimination, eg race, sex or disability? Ah, so he's claiming that an all WAV policy is discriminating against the disabled who can't access a WAV? So if he's allowed to run a saloon on that basis then it would beg the question, why shouldn't others as well? Which in turn begs the question, what about mixed fleets? Should be interesting.... |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
tom2907 wrote: An appeal has been launched in Manchester Crown Court this week. It is the first predicted case involving the new Equality Bill 2010. I say predicted because I am sure Sussex and perhaps Skippy saw the unintended consequence of the bill. A Sockport Hacney Driver has made a formal request to swap his E7 wav and replace it with a standard estate car.
The Licensing officer a Mr Elthorpe has refused the request out of hand stating the council has a fixed policy of only licensing wav vehicles as hackneys. In a carefully laid trap the driver has got the L.O to admit he has not put this matter before the committee. Mr Elthorpe is now in breach of several statutes and has fettered the discretion of the local authority. The driver has used the Liverpool decision Alma Lunt v Liverpool City Council (2009) as his authority in this. He claims the decision of the L.O is in breach of Section 21(d+e) of DDA 1995 Section 53 (1+2+3) Section 6.4 of The Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice Section 13(1) of the Equality Bill 2010, which states= Direct Discrimination Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, The Liverpool Taxi owners case 1972 where it was held that a council has a duty to consult before taking any decision. The papers were only put in yesterday, I have copies if anybody wants them. I will of course keep you posted. The Equality Act 2010 repeals, in whole or in part, the following Acts of Parliament; Extract from Schedule 27, Section 211, REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS, PART 1, REPEALS on Page 234 of the Equality Act 2010 Equal Pay Act 1970 The whole Act. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 The whole Act. Race Relations Act 1976 The whole Act. Sex Discrimination Act 1986 The whole Act. Local Government Act 1988 Section 17(9), Section 18, Section 19(10). Employment Act 1989 Sections 1 to 7, Section 9. Social Security Act 1989 In Schedule 5, paragraph 5. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 The whole Act. Pensions Act 1995 Sections 62 to 65. Greater London Authority Act 1999 Section 404. Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 Section 1. Civil Partnership Act 2004 Section 6(1)(b) and (2). Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 In section 17(1) “to exercise the functions which are conferred on a Tribunal by virtue of this Act”. Equality Act 2006 Section 25, Section 26, Section 33, Section 43, Part 2 Section 81, Part 4 In section 94(3) “and 41 to 56” and “and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50)”. In Schedule 3—(a) paragraphs 6 to 35; (b) paragraphs 41 to 56. Why is it then that in this action at Manchester Crown Court the driver is alleging breach of Section 21(d+e) of DDA 1995, when the whole of The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was repealed by The Equality Act 2010? That does not sound as if he is being well advised!!! Admittedly, The Equality Act 2010 did encompass almost all of The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and enhanced provisions for the disabled, but quoting an Act that has been repealed is not going to look good in Court!! Although unlikely, it may even be that the sections of The DDA Act 1995 being quoted in the action have not been transferred into the new Equality Act 2010. All in all, the driver would have been better placed if he had looked for the relevant sections in the new Act and quoted those instead. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Stockport Appeal |
Caledonian Cabbie wrote: tom2907 wrote: Occurs when A gives a lesser service to B because of a PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC, So what's the protected characteristic then? PART 2, EQUALITY: KEY CONCEPTS, CHAPTER 1, PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS, Sections 4 to 12 of The Equality Act 2010 deals with Protected Characteristics. And IMHO this is going to be the ‘hinge’ on which the action will be decided. As you have posted later Mr Caledonian Cabbie it is about ALL disabled people who ALL have Protected Characteristics ALL being given the same service!! And as you will read below it is quite possible for a person to have MORE THAN ONE PROTECTED CHARACTERISTIC!! PART 2 EQUALITY: KEY CONCEPTS CHAPTER 1 PROTECTED CHARACTERISTICS 4 The protected characteristics The following characteristics are protected characteristics— age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation. 5 Age (1) In relation to the protected characteristic of age— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular age group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same age group. (2) A reference to an age group is a reference to a group of persons defined by reference to age, whether by reference to a particular age or to a range of ages. 6 Disability (1) A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. (2) A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability. (3) In relation to the protected characteristic of disability— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who has a particular disability; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who have the same disability. (4) This Act (except Part 12 and section 190) applies in relation to a person who has had a disability as it applies in relation to a person who has the disability; accordingly (except in that Part and that section)— (a) a reference (however expressed) to a person who has a disability includes a reference to a person who has had the disability, and (b) a reference (however expressed) to a person who does not have a disability includes a reference to a person who has not had the disability. (5) A Minister of the Crown may issue guidance about matters to be taken into account in deciding any question for the purposes of subsection (1). (6) Schedule 1 (disability: supplementary provision) has effect. 7 Gender reassignment (1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. (2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. (3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons. 8 Marriage and civil partnership (1) A person has the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership if the person is married or is a civil partner. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of marriage and civil partnership— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is married or is a civil partner; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are married or are civil partners. 9 Race (1) Race includes— (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of race— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular racial group; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same racial group. (3) A racial group is a group of persons defined by reference to race; and a reference to a person’s racial group is a reference to a racial group into which the person falls. (4) The fact that a racial group comprises two or more distinct racial groups does not prevent it from constituting a particular racial group. (5) A Minister of the Crown may by order— (a) amend this section so as to provide for caste to be an aspect of race; (b) amend this Act so as to provide for an exception to a provision of this Act to apply, or not to apply, to caste or to apply, or not to apply, to caste in specified circumstances. (6) The power under section 207(4)(b), in its application to subsection (5), includes power to amend this Act. 10 Religion or belief (1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion. (2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief. (3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief. 11 Sex In relation to the protected characteristic of sex— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex. 12 Sexual orientation (1) Sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards— (a) persons of the same sex, (b) persons of the opposite sex, or (c) persons of either sex. (2) In relation to the protected characteristic of sexual orientation— (a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person who is of a particular sexual orientation; (b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same sexual orientation. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: A few people will be following this with interest, IMO the chap needs to follow Lunt and get those folks to assist.
However, I hope he has deep pockets. CC No he doesn't!! Lunt has a Protected Characteristic that is now well catered for!! She has an adequate provision, but the ambulant disabled do not in Liverpool as many are unable to get into a Hackney Carriage because there are no saloon Hackneys in Liverpool. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
IMO this thread ought to be made a 'Sticky': until the outcome is decided as it is so important to the trade. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Brummie Cabbie wrote: captain cab wrote: A few people will be following this with interest, IMO the chap needs to follow Lunt and get those folks to assist. However, I hope he has deep pockets. CC No he doesn't!! Lunt has a Protected Characteristic that is now well catered for!! She has an adequate provision, but the ambulant disabled do not in Liverpool as many are unable to get into a Hackney Carriage because there are no saloon Hackneys in Liverpool. I dont follow your logic at all. CC |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
He could follow the ruling of Judge Vos in the Spelman case. That aside, I think he has gone about it the wrong way, in Lunt, she made the complaint and she didnt own taxis, she was the customer. He seems to be saying he is unable to cater for his customers, with his current vehicle, which if its correct, makes me wonder how they can be his customers if they can't get in his cab? CC |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: Brummie Cabbie wrote: captain cab wrote: A few people will be following this with interest, IMO the chap needs to follow Lunt and get those folks to assist. However, I hope he has deep pockets. CC No he doesn't!! Lunt has a Protected Characteristic that is now well catered for!! She has an adequate provision, but the ambulant disabled do not in Liverpool as many are unable to get into a Hackney Carriage because there are no saloon Hackneys in Liverpool. I dont follow your logic at all. CC Lunt, who is a wheelchair user, wanted the E7 because she could not travel with friends or in comfort in a TX. She now has a judgment that Liverpool must license the E7. As I understand it, the driver at Manchester Magistrates Court is saying that he can't and neither can the trade in Manchester provide adequately for the ambulate disabled, who are unable to get into black cabs and need a saloon Hackney to be able to use Hackneys. And the ambulate disabled as well as wheelchair users all have a 'Protected Characteristic' under The Equality Act 2010. |
|
| Author: | Brummie Cabbie [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
captain cab wrote: He could follow the ruling of Judge Vos in the Spelman case.
That aside, I think he has gone about it the wrong way, in Lunt, she made the complaint and she didnt own taxis, she was the customer. He seems to be saying he is unable to cater for his customers, with his current vehicle, which if its correct, makes me wonder how they can be his customers if they can't get in his cab? CC IMO, he is saying that although he is able and so are all the Hackney Carraiges in Manchester to provide adequately for wheelchair users, neither he, nor any of the Hackney Carriages in Manchester can provide adequately for the ambulate disabled, which is correct. In fact it could. and he will, argue that there is no provision within the Hackney Carriage fleet in Manchester for the ambulate disabled. Mixed fleets here we go!! |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|