Taxi Driver Online

Can a LA revoke or suspend a taxi license for alleged dangerous driving if the case hasn't reached court or even have a court date yet?

in short yes unfortunately

unless of course you take them to court and get fit and proper defined

thanks for quick reply

thread is now open for bickering and a thread lock

Yes, but can you up there go to court asking for that suspension/revoking to be put on hold until legal proceedings end?

_________________
IDFIMH

I've just received a document from Terence Higgins, Edinburgh's Legal Services Support officer which says:

"When a driver meets with the complaints officer and/or the cab inspector he/she is informed that a complaint has been made, that action can be taken in respect of complaints that can be proven or are admitted and that the officers do not have the authority to suspend his/her taxi Driver's licence."

The key here is "admitted or proven". In the case quoted nothing has been admitted or proven.

I would suggest the council concerned is acting illegally. Which of course they do, because you have to go to court to hold them to account.

Fact is, when you spoke to them you were not advised of, informed about, or accorded your fundamental rights, and those rights were never considered throughout the process you were subjected to.

You see, when councils are asked what a licence holder's rights are, they don't know and can't tell you. How can this be?

Tell us, have they contacted you?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

I suppose that begs the question of what powers of suspension the licensing committee themselves have, rather than the complaints officer or cab inspector?

And a definition of proven...

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Well spotted. And the powers of the Committee are without bounds.

They can do what they want, to any licence holder, whenever they want. They don't need any legally defined grounds, just enough to make the determination that an individual is not "fit and proper" (to be a member of their privilege club - they view licence holding as a privilege and not a right) and the licence is gone. Temporarily or forever.

They do this because the reasons for their decisions are a secret, decided in secret, and with not being encumbered by benchmarks, standards or precedents they can make it up as they go along. Which means that two individuals deemed guilty of the same misdemeanour can be given widely disparate punishment. Even to the point where the difference can be whether the committee likes you, despises you, or sees you as a political or other opponent.

Councillors are not accountable for the lives they wreck through their decisions. We don't know what they do, or how they do it, because no public record is kept.

And all this renders their committee hearings little more than a kangaroo court, redolent of what was the norm in fascist countries last century.

How is anyone getting a fair hearing under these conditions? And when public authorities are charged to protect individuals' rights, not breach them?

And, if you ask at the outset what your rights are in the council's process? Their answer doesn't amount to even one syllable of rights accorded to you.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"