Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 9:07 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Guildford's taxi drivers take their complaints to the courts

Taxi drivers have objected to new changes which will see their cars covered in a turquoise livery

Taxi drivers angered by a change in policy which will see a new livery for their cars have taken their battle to the courts.

Last year, Guildford Borough Council approved a new policy, which as well as introducing a new turquoise colour to identify the fleet of taxis from private hire vehicles, will also include drivers having to complete a new qualification to keep their job.

The council has justified the change by saying it will ensure public safety, and that the new requirements are based on the public’s views.

David Williams-­Wynn, who is chairman of the Guildford Hackney Association, has made a complaint through the South West Surrey Magistrates Court in Guildford, with a preliminary hearing to be heard on January 26.

Mark Rostron, taxi driver and secretary of the Guildford Hackney Association, said: “Taxi drivers are objecting to the proposals to have our taxis clad in impractical unattractive turquoise as it’ll be paid for by passengers and result in a poorer quality of vehicle being used.

“Similarly the council’s proposals to have garish colours and large lettering on the doors of private hire vehicles which will lead to even more widespread illegal hiring of them on the street.

“Also the council have proposed inadequate engine sizes and no minimum vehicle sizes which will also diminish passenger comfort and safety.

“A magistrates court hearing is set for January 26.

“Hopefully the council will not further waste public money and see sense.

“In the meantime, drivers are left not knowing what to do about vehicles which need replacing, and the council seem unable to give them any proper guidance.”

Previously Mr Rostron had claimed that the public will have to pay for the changes as taxi fees may increase in order for costs to be met by the drivers.

The borough council has said it would pay 25% of the costs for drivers to get the new turquoise wrap for their car.

Drivers complained, claiming the wrap could cause damage to their vehicles and that they also use them for private use and other work.

The new policy also requires that new and existing drivers complete a BTEC Level 2 Certificate, and removes the requirement of all new taxi vehicles to be wheelchair accessible.

Drivers will be encouraged to provide wheelchair-enabled vehicles through a 50% reduction in their licence fee.

A spokesman for Guildford Borough Council, said: “We have consulted for nearly two years on the policy changes, which showed public support for the concept of having clearly identifiable Guildford taxis.

“We recommended that the driver seek legal advice before making his complaint to the magistrates court.

“We will be writing to the driver advising him is that it is not possible to appeal to the magistrates court against the policy itself, only the decision to apply a policy.

“If a decision to apply the policy by refusing his licence or imposing conditions on it is taken at a later date, then he can appeal that decision as the licensee to the magistrates court at that time.

“In this case the council has adopted the new policy and drivers have two years to ensure their vehicles meet the livery requirements.

“If the driver proceeds with his claim we will be seeking legal costs, to ensure that these are not paid for by council taxpayers.”

source: http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey- ... s-10688826

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 06, 2016 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
“We will be writing to the driver advising him is that it is not possible to appeal to the magistrates court against the policy itself, only the decision to apply a policy.

For f*** f***ing sake. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

A driver has to be refused a license before he/she can appeal to the Mags Court.

If they wish to legally challenge the policy it must be via a Judicial Review.

Hats off to the council for advising the trade that, but why are drivers led (sometimes) so poorly? :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
“We will be writing to the driver advising him is that it is not possible to appeal to the magistrates court against the policy itself, only the decision to apply a policy.

For f*** f***ing sake. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

A driver has to be refused a license before he/she can appeal to the Mags Court.

If they wish to legally challenge the policy it must be via a Judicial Review.

Hats off to the council for advising the trade that, but why are drivers led (sometimes) so poorly? :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

Let's see maybe it's because they are tight fisted and stupib..........

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:58 pm
Posts: 3568
Location: Plymouth
I am fairly sure that you have 21 days to appeal to Magistrates from the date of a policy change having an effect on an existing licence (they would appear to have failed to get on that boat).

You also have 21 days to appeal when a change affects you personally (every proprietor denied renewal of an existing licence would have the chance to catch that sailing).

Miss those two windows and it is Judicial Review or nothing.

But I may be wrong.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Chris the Fish wrote:

But I may be wrong.


quite :D

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
captain cab wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:

But I may be wrong.


quite :D


Strong possibility, due to Plymouth still on the wrong rules, while the rest are a few miles ahead


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
Chris the Fish wrote:

But I may be wrong.


quite :D

An appeal against a license application is completely different to an appeal (not proper term but easier to explain) against a council decision.

That is done via a Judicial Review and the applicant has six months from the date of the decision.

I suggest the local trade concerned withdraws the application today and let's the Mags Court deal with the stuff they have actual powers to do so.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
And a Judicial Review will cost if they lose........40k +

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Posts: 6755
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
“We will be writing to the driver advising him is that it is not possible to appeal to the magistrates court against the policy itself, only the decision to apply a policy.

For f*** f***ing sake. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

A driver has to be refused a license before he/she can appeal to the Mags Court.

If they wish to legally challenge the policy it must be via a Judicial Review.

Hats off to the council for advising the trade that, but why are drivers led (sometimes) so poorly? :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

Let's see maybe it's because they are tight fisted and stupib..........


Obviously because their AMATEURS they should of course be UNIONISED and naturally the union would have resource to the relevant legal advice ONCE THE POLITICAL AND INDUSTRIAL ROUTES HAD BEEN EXHAUSTED ......................legal should always be the last resort #-o not that these pillocks in Tory Guildford would recognise that #-o

Cab drivers are wIthout doubt the thickest of all workers fekking braiN dead nah change that BRAINLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 528 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group