Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation

I spoke with this guy - the council are being utter ar*es.

Taxi test station boss to challenge West Norfolk Council email ban

The owner of a West Norfolk taxi testing station who accused a council of placing a ‘gagging order’ on him following a taxi complaint row is planning to appeal the decision.

But Simon Nash is concerned his appeal against West Norfolk Council’s decision to block his emails won’t be dealt with by an impartial officer.

As reported in Friday’s Lynn News, Mr Nash, who owns Selina Automotive, was made subject to the authority’s Persistent Complainant Policy after it received more than 50 emails from him since October. They relate to the issuing of taxi penalty points to a taxi driver who allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by a mechanic.

Mr Nash believes the council misinterpreted transport law, a point concurred by North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham, and questioned the actions of council staff and evidence used.

The council’s solicitor Emma Duncan said Mr Nash made “groundless complaints about staff” and repeatedly refused to accept the council’s decision on the complaint.

Chief executive Ray Harding also said dealing with Mr Nash’s emails “wasted public money” and placed an “unreasonable burden” on officers.

Mr Nash has been told to appeal in writing to Mr Harding, but he said this would demonstrate a “conflict of interest”.

A council spokesman said: “As the chief executive wasn’t involved in the decision to block Mr Nash’s emails he could deal with the appeal. However, he has had previous involvement with Mr Nash, so in all likelihood, if an appeal is submitted, it will be passed to another member of the senior management team to deal with.”

source: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... -1-6969089

I have known Simon for about 15 years , he is like a dog with a bone he wont let it go, he will take this all the way, It has turned from the council being found out on a lot of differnt things.All council Licensing work is being looked at in depth now.
here is one example
Having studied the local government (local provisions) Act 1976 on the direct.gov website with the provisions that the council have to adhere to when setting in this case our licence fees, here are a couple of pages that i based my objection to the licence fee increases letter on, i think you will as i did find the content contained in them very interesting indeed. Thanks Simon Nash for sending me the original link to the website for the page regarding the re location of taxi ranks.
Taken from Kings Lynn taxi facebook page

But alot of the trouble is that the council have moved the main taxi rank inside a car park, where passengers have to mix with cars coming and going in a un safe way. the drivers dont like sitting inside in a glommy smelly invirement. there is no proper signs tell passengers where the rank is either. Be trouble at mill.

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:23 am ]
Post subject:	West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation in taxi row The owner of a West Norfolk taxi testing station has accused a council of placing a “gagging order” on him after banning him from sending any emails to the authority. But West Norfolk Council says it has blocked all email correspondence from Simon Nash as repeatedly dealing with them has “wasted public money” and placed an “unreasonable burden” on officers. Lawyers for the authority have written to the owner of Setch-based Selina Automotive – one of only five council approved taxi testing stations – after it received more than 50 emails from him since October last year. They relate to the issuing of taxi penalty points to a local taxi driver who allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by a mechanic. Mr Nash believes the issuing of the points was wrong, claiming the council misinterpreted the relevant transport legislation. He also questioned the evidence used in the case and accused the council of failing to comply with its own taxi testing codes of practice. A letter from the council’s solicitor Emma Duncan said the authority was now imposing a Persistent Complainant Policy against Mr Nash due to his “groundless complaints about staff and publicising these allegations”. It also said he had adopted a “scattergun” approach to his complaints, and raised them with various officers and councillors, and also refused to accept the council’s decision on the complaint. As a result of the policy, council email addresses have now blocked all correspondence from Mr Nash’s address. Any correspondence with the council will need to be in writing and go through Ms Duncan, and anything regarding issues already raised will not be responded to. But Mr Nash claimed banning all email contact with council officers and elected councillors was a “massive disrespect to the whole democratic system”. “I’ve effectively been gagged,” he said. “They haven’t answered any of the questions I have asked them, and just led me down a garden path.” Mr Nash said he was now writing to all members of the council’s licensing and appeals board to raise his objections. “If I don’t get a satisfactory response, I will take the matter further and report it to the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate,” he said. Mr Nash has already raised the issue with North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham, who agreed that the council had misinterpreted transport law. In a letter, Mr Bellingham said: “I do believe that they (the council) have interpreted it wrongly but I do also believe that the law does need clarification so that it is no longer possible to interpret it incorrectly. “I feel strongly that we need to get the guidelines changed.” The council’s chief executive Ray Harding said the authority has blocked Mr Nash’s emails as it was “time to draw a line” under the matter. “The council has been bombarded with repeated emails from Mr Nash, which has not only wasted public money but officers have spent time having to deal with them, which could be better spent elsewhere in the community. He has asked the same question that has been responded to on numerous occasions.” source: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... -1-6956859

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
I spoke with this guy - the council are being utter ar*es.

Author:	trotskys twin [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
captain cab wrote: I spoke with this guy - the council are being utter ar*es. GET A CAB DRIVER ON THE COUNCIL AS A COUNCILLOR .......................................................IDEA

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
captain cab wrote: I spoke with this guy - the council are being utter ar*es. The law allows mechanics to road test cabs, nothing unclear about that at all.

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
Taxi test station boss to challenge West Norfolk Council email ban The owner of a West Norfolk taxi testing station who accused a council of placing a ‘gagging order’ on him following a taxi complaint row is planning to appeal the decision. But Simon Nash is concerned his appeal against West Norfolk Council’s decision to block his emails won’t be dealt with by an impartial officer. As reported in Friday’s Lynn News, Mr Nash, who owns Selina Automotive, was made subject to the authority’s Persistent Complainant Policy after it received more than 50 emails from him since October. They relate to the issuing of taxi penalty points to a taxi driver who allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by a mechanic. Mr Nash believes the council misinterpreted transport law, a point concurred by North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham, and questioned the actions of council staff and evidence used. The council’s solicitor Emma Duncan said Mr Nash made “groundless complaints about staff” and repeatedly refused to accept the council’s decision on the complaint. Chief executive Ray Harding also said dealing with Mr Nash’s emails “wasted public money” and placed an “unreasonable burden” on officers. Mr Nash has been told to appeal in writing to Mr Harding, but he said this would demonstrate a “conflict of interest”. A council spokesman said: “As the chief executive wasn’t involved in the decision to block Mr Nash’s emails he could deal with the appeal. However, he has had previous involvement with Mr Nash, so in all likelihood, if an appeal is submitted, it will be passed to another member of the senior management team to deal with.” source: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... -1-6969089

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

West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27577	Page 1 of 2

Author:	MR T [ Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
captain cab wrote: Taxi test station boss to challenge West Norfolk Council email ban The owner of a West Norfolk taxi testing station who accused a council of placing a ‘gagging order’ on him following a taxi complaint row is planning to appeal the decision. But Simon Nash is concerned his appeal against West Norfolk Council’s decision to block his emails won’t be dealt with by an impartial officer. As reported in Friday’s Lynn News, Mr Nash, who owns Selina Automotive, was made subject to the authority’s Persistent Complainant Policy after it received more than 50 emails from him since October. They relate to the issuing of taxi penalty points to a taxi driver who allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by a mechanic. Mr Nash believes the council misinterpreted transport law, a point concurred by North West Norfolk MP Henry Bellingham, and questioned the actions of council staff and evidence used. The council’s solicitor Emma Duncan said Mr Nash made “groundless complaints about staff” and repeatedly refused to accept the council’s decision on the complaint. Chief executive Ray Harding also said dealing with Mr Nash’s emails “wasted public money” and placed an “unreasonable burden” on officers. Mr Nash has been told to appeal in writing to Mr Harding, but he said this would demonstrate a “conflict of interest”. A council spokesman said: “As the chief executive wasn’t involved in the decision to block Mr Nash’s emails he could deal with the appeal. However, he has had previous involvement with Mr Nash, so in all likelihood, if an appeal is submitted, it will be passed to another member of the senior management team to deal with.” source: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... -1-6969089 CC Can you find the thread we have on this...I gave up...please....

Author:	no tips [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
I have known Simon for about 15 years , he is like a dog with a bone he wont let it go, he will take this all the way, It has turned from the council being found out on a lot of differnt things.All council Licensing work is being looked at in depth now. here is one example Having studied the local government (local provisions) Act 1976 on the direct.gov website with the provisions that the council have to adhere to when setting in this case our licence fees, here are a couple of pages that i based my objection to the licence fee increases letter on, i think you will as i did find the content contained in them very interesting indeed. Thanks Simon Nash for sending me the original link to the website for the page regarding the re location of taxi ranks. Taken from Kings Lynn taxi facebook page But alot of the trouble is that the council have moved the main taxi rank inside a car park, where passengers have to mix with cars coming and going in a un safe way. the drivers dont like sitting inside in a glommy smelly invirement. there is no proper signs tell passengers where the rank is either. Be trouble at mill.

Author:	MR T [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
no tips wrote: I have known Simon for about 15 years , he is like a dog with a bone he wont let it go, he will take this all the way, It has turned from the council being found out on a lot of differnt things.All council Licensing work is being looked at in depth now. here is one example Having studied the local government (local provisions) Act 1976 on the direct.gov website with the provisions that the council have to adhere to when setting in this case our licence fees, here are a couple of pages that i based my objection to the licence fee increases letter on, i think you will as i did find the content contained in them very interesting indeed. Thanks Simon Nash for sending me the original link to the website for the page regarding the re location of taxi ranks. Taken from Kings Lynn taxi facebook page But alot of the trouble is that the council have moved the main taxi rank inside a car park, where passengers have to mix with cars coming and going in a un safe way. the drivers dont like sitting inside in a glommy smelly invirement. there is no proper signs tell passengers where the rank is either. Be trouble at mill. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6207 This will help..

Author:	MR T [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/KeithHilll ... -Boyce.pdf CC where has it gone...??

Author:	captain cab [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
looks like you haven't put the full link on the post

Author:	captain cab [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
cant see the letter when I complete the address - one for another mod

Author:	MR T [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
TDO Post subject: PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 11:01 pm Offline User avatar Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm Posts: 5795 Location: The Internet Here's the Keith Hill letter: http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/KeithHilll ... -Boyce.pdf _________________ Taxi Driver Online www.taxi-driver.co.uk Report this post Top

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
This is the thread with a lot of stuff in, including the letter from Rupert at the DfT. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6207 Can't find the letter on the database any more, but Rupert's letter might help.

Author:	MR T [ Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
no tips wrote: I have known Simon for about 15 years , he is like a dog with a bone he wont let it go, he will take this all the way, It has turned from the council being found out on a lot of differnt things.All council Licensing work is being looked at in depth now. here is one example Having studied the local government (local provisions) Act 1976 on the direct.gov website with the provisions that the council have to adhere to when setting in this case our licence fees, here are a couple of pages that i based my objection to the licence fee increases letter on, i think you will as i did find the content contained in them very interesting indeed. Thanks Simon Nash for sending me the original link to the website for the page regarding the re location of taxi ranks. Taken from Kings Lynn taxi facebook page But alot of the trouble is that the council have moved the main taxi rank inside a car park, where passengers have to mix with cars coming and going in a un safe way. the drivers dont like sitting inside in a glommy smelly invirement. there is no proper signs tell passengers where the rank is either. Be trouble at mill. RUPERT COPE HEAD OF TAXI BRANCH BUSES AND TAXIS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS INTEGRATED AND LOCAL TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE 3/12 GREAT MINSTER HOUSE Peter Perkins Esq 76 MARSHAM STREET Chairman LONDON NATPHLEO SW1P 4DR 2643A Stratford Road DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 2291 Hockley Heath DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 020 7944 2293 FAX: 020 7944 2279 SOLIHULL GTN CODE: 3533 2291 B94 5NH E-MAIL: e-mail: rupert_cope@detr.gsi.gov.uk WEB SITE: http://www.detr.gov.uk OUR REF: PT2 10/25/13 YOUR REF: 7 NOVEMBER 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976: ELIGIBILITY TO DRIVE A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE IN ENGLAND AND WALES OUTSIDE LONDON I refer to our conversation last week at Telford in which I said I would include you in the letters I was sending out about eligibility to drive a private hire vehicle (PHV) in England and Wales outside London. The need for the letters was, of course, prompted by a parliamentary answer Keith Hill MP, the Minister for Local Transport, gave to Jeffrey Ennis MP on 26 July. As you know, the matter stems from a court case in 1997 which essentially stated that the only people who could drive licensed PHVs in England and Wales outside London were those who held PHV driver licences. In the light of this judgement, the Department carried out a consultation exercise to seek views on whether we should make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to broaden the range of people eligible to drive licensed PHVs. The conclusion that the Minister announced in July was that only people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver, should be eligible to drive licensed PHVs without themselves holding a PHV driver licence. For reasons which are set out in the remainder of this letter, he concluded that a deregulation order was not necessary for this purpose. The decision took into account that an exemption for testing licensed taxis and would-be taxi drivers is included in Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 and that we consulted on the basis that a deregulation order would be necessary to effect the options for change proposed. Against that background, many have sought clarification of why the Minister reached this conclusion. This letter sets out the Department's view of the law, but ultimately interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. If anyone is in doubt about whether or not they are entitled to drive a licensed PHV in any particular circumstances, it is of course open to them to obtain their own legal advice. There is no express statutory provision which exempts those carrying out legally necessary tests of, or in, licensed PHVs from holding a PHV driver licence. But we consider that it is necessary to look at the wider legal picture. The 'MOT' testing scheme for motor vehicles other than goods vehicles is established under sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. By section 47(1) of that Act a person who uses on a road a motor vehicle to which the section applies will commit an offence if a test certificate has not been issued within the appropriate period. The only way of obtaining an 'MOT' certificate is by having the vehicle tested by someone who is authorised to do so. Closely linked to this are sections 41 and 42 of the 1988 Act which make provision for the general regulation of the construction and use of vehicles. The principal regulations are the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Again, most people have to rely on motor mechanics to ensure that they do not commit construction and use offences. Almost inevitably in relation to an 'MOT' test, and in many instances in relation to motor vehicle maintenance and repair, examiners or motor mechanics will need to road-test a vehicle. If they were not able to do so in relation to PHVs, then they would probably be unable to carry out the test or the work in the first place and the owners of the vehicles would find it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the statutory requirements. Under sections 48 and 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the licensing authority is under a specific statutory obligation not to grant a PHV licence unless it is satisfied that the vehicle is safe and in a suitable mechanical condition nor to grant a PHV driver's licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Inevitably, these obligations will involve an element of testing, during which a person who does not hold a PHV driver's licence will have to drive a licensed PHV. If this were not the case, then it would be extremely difficult to comply with the obligations. In relation to the examples set out above, the view that in no circumstances can a licensed PHV be driven in a controlled district by a person who does not hold a PHV driver licence produces an apparent conflict not only between different provisions in the same Act but also between different provisions in different Acts. If such a conflict were to arise in practice, it would be a matter for a court to resolve; but we take the view that, despite Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 in relation to taxis, it could never have been the intention that the strict interpretation should have the effect of precluding the statutory testing and general maintenance of PHVs or of preventing a licensing authority from complying with its statutory obligations. Such an interpretation would produce an absurd result. We are therefore of the view that should a court have to resolve such a conflict it would not find that an offence had been committed where a person was driving a PHV in connection with the testing of the vehicle for statutory purposes or for the purpose of work necessary to keep the vehicle in good order. We take the same view in relation to the driving of a PHV in connection with the performance of statutory obligations by a licensing authority. The purpose of the order-making power contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is to reduce or alleviate a burden imposed by legislation but, having come to the conclusion that the existing legislation would not be interpreted so as to impose a burden in relation to statutory testing procedures or the compliance with statutory obligations, it followed that no such order was necessary. When we next write to the chief executives of all taxi and PHV licensing authorities in England and Wales on various taxi/PHV matters, we shall include a similar clarification of the Minister's announcement. R F COPE Send this to him..

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	no tips [ Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: West Norfolk Council rejects ‘gagging’ accusation
Thanks have sent it on to him....