Taxi Driver Online

LTI are taking Leicester to court, because . . . . . . . . . . their monopoly has been taken away!

They must be running high in the popularity stakes.

http://www.ltda.co.uk/taxi/issue_105/pg01.htm

And to think JD told me this wouldn't happen. If LTI will do this in Leicester, what would happen in London?

I think the issue at hand in Leicester is about consultation, as opposed to the u-turn criteria in London.

_________________
IDFIMH

I asked you on what grounds could LTI Take TFL to court. You stated words to the effect, because it would effect them Financially. I stated those are not legal grounds for a challenge. I then laid out the legal grounds and if you see why the Leicester injunction was granted you will know doubt see it was by way of one of those legal grounds which I had mentioned.

Now just for your information this is a joint challenge and the grounds for the injunction is that "Leicester city council changed their licensing policy without proper consultation". I don’t see any mention of financial loss do you? In fact they would not have been granted an injunction on prospective financial loss as you seem to think? Perhaps you now realise how stupid your original statement was.

Now let me tell you something else the only reason Leicester didn't go to court over this is because they were advised by their legal team that it would be quicker and much cheaper to go through the consultation exercise again rather than go to court. So at this moment in time Leicester are carrying out the consultation process and when they have finished they will come to the exact same result as they did previously. Therefore it is just a matter of time before the policy comes into force. So chew on that one my friend.

Just for the Record I and I assume likewise TDO will be backing Leicester city council, to whom I will be writing to offer my support. I suggest you watch this space because I can assure you categorically that LTI and the other joint party are in for one hell of an awakening.

The next headline you might see in LTDA is "TAXI DRIVER ONLINE THROWS WEIGHT BEHIND Leicester city Council".

I just hope we get some new genuine subscribers on TDO from Leicester, it would be good to debate this topic with them.

JD

Just a taster of what those who have injucted Leicester council can expect.

R. (on the application of Nemeth) v West Berkshire DC
(QBD (Admin)) Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
8 December 2000

2000 WL 33122488

Summary

Abstract: N challenged a decision of WBDC to alter its policy concerning the issuing of licences to Hackney carriage drivers. N had incurred expenditure on a motor vehicle in order to accommodate wheelchair bound travellers so that he would be granted a licence. After granting N a licence, WBDC had changed its policy so that it was no longer a prerequisite to the grant of a licence for vehicles to be accessible to wheelchairs. N contended that WBDC had failed to consider the impact of the changed policy on N and that he had had a legitimate expectation that the policy would not be altered without good reason.

Summary: Held, refusing the application for judicial review, that the local authority had considered the views of existing licence holders before reaching its decision and had not created any legitimate expectation that the policy would remain unchanged, R. v North and East Devon HA Ex p. Coughlan [2001] Q.B. 213 distinguished.


Judge: Hunt, J.

Counsel: For N: Peter Maddox. For WBDC: Peter Harrison

Solicitor: For N: Kearns & Co (Swansea). For WBDC: Council Solicitor


Cases Cited

R. v North and East Devon HA Ex p. Coughlan, [2001] Q.B. 213; [2000] 2 W.L.R. 622; [2000] 3 All E.R. 850; (2000) 2 L.G.L.R. 1; [1999] B.L.G.R. 703; (1999) 2 C.C.L. Rep. 285; [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 306; (2000) 51 B.M.L.R. 1; [1999] C.O.D. 340; (1999) 96(31) L.S.G. 39; (1999) 143 S.J.L.B. 213; Times, July 20, 1999 ; Independent, July 20, 1999 (CA (Civ Div))

LTI Vehicles wins Leicester taxi licensing appeal

10th November 2005

LTI Vehicles, manufacturers of the London Taxi together with taxi operators, Swift Yellow Cars of Leicester, have just won their appeal in the law courts against the introduction of alternative taxis to the city.

The appeal was launched after Leicester City Council decided to license taxis produced from converted vehicles instead of maintaining the use of purpose built London-style taxis. LTI Vehicles and Swift Yellow Cars argued the Council’s move went against the Council’s own Leicester Conditions of Fitness regulations for taxis.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is just confirming the injuction they got in October. I'm just waiting to see their reaction when Leicester is flooded with more conventional vehicles.

I can understand Swift Taxis jumping into bed with LTI because it was Swift who asked LTI to apply for the joint injuction in the first place.

Swift would have been better going it alone soley on the colour aspect, that is the only thing they are likely get out of this, if indeed they even get that?

Regards

JD

Say no more...

A court has ruled in favour of Leicester cab firm Swift Yellow Cars and LTI Vehicles, manufacturers of the London taxi, in a challenge to Leicester City Council over licensing procedures.

The hearing agreed that the licensing authority went against its own Conditions of Fitness for Taxicabs, which state that certain conditions have to be met for a vehicle to be allowed to ply for trade on the street. The licensing of two Peugeot E7s and changes in what colour vehicles must be appeared to go against these conditions.

The case was heard on 23 October 2005. The judge agreed that the council should have a proper consultation with all interested parties, including passengers, disabled groups, environmental groups, Cab Direct and LTI Vehicles before there can be a change of licensing conditions. In the meantime, the existing Conditions of Fitness need to be met.

Legal matters are still on-going as to who should incur the costs of the case.

Commenting on the Leicester case, Matthew Cheyne, Sales and Marketing Director for LTI Vehicles, said: "We believe in high standards in vehicles and service and we will defend any attempt that threatens to weaken those standards. We feel it is right and proper that any proposed changes should go through a comprehensive process of consultation and evaluation. That obviously did not happen in this instance.

“We are not against competition, in fact we welcome it, but that competition should meet the agreed standards.

“Without regulation that is adhered to, the industry is opened up to lower standards and safety levels for the public. It can lead to confusion over what is and what isn’t a taxi with London being a clear example with Pedi cabs and Tuk Tuks trying to present themselves as taxis. It will also lead to a loss of work for licensed drivers to the taxi touts.

.....................................................................................................

When Leicester changes its policy in a few weeks time the matter will be history and the losers will undoubtedly be LTI.

JD

Unbelievable.

I wonder if the ever photogenic Cheyne will ever get into politics?

He talks enough sheite to qualify.

Naturaly the public will be confused between a TX / E7 and a pedicab, as to which ones the Taxi?

More . . . .

Well if you think that is ubelievable I have to tell you that you might be just as surprised at the document posted below.

I have been keeping this one back because of an article I'm currently writing but perhaps the time is right to post it on TDO. I have kept the address details intact because this email is now a public document, the only thing I have not disclosed is a mobile phone number.
................................................................................................

RE: Request for Deputation - Executive Committee Mtg, Tuesday 4 May 2004, l0 am?

Further to the Regulatory Committee's decision yesterday, on the casting vote of the Vice Convenor (the committee was split 3 v 3 on this issue), to recommend to the Executive Committee that Edinburgh City Council remove the current requirement for taxis in Edinburgh to be able turn within 25 ft,

(condition 18 1) set out in the City's licensing conditions published in June 2002. This email is to confirm our request for a deputation at the Executive meeting where this application by Allied Vehcles is to be discussed.

Could you andor Henry Scullion and/or Rhona Sinclair also ensure I am sent all the relevant papers ahead of the meeting? Many thanks in advance.

My contactdetails are set out at the foot of tbis email. I believe this meeting is scheduled for Tuesday 4 May 2004 at 1O am at City Chambers? Could you confirm the date (particularly with the Bank Holiday) and venue for me? Many thanks in advance.

If it is not this date, please could this deputation request stand for whenever the next meeting of the Executive Committee takes place to discuss this important matter and let me know when this meeting will be?

Many thanks in advance. Brief summary of our case:

As you know there is much at stake with this decision not least the future on an Edinburgh symbol, public safety and public interest. We are not sure why, given the Edinburgh taxi trade do not want the Allied Vehicle licensed as a taxi (in a recent Central Taxis poll 75% of dnvers were against it and 25% in favour) AND the people of Edinburgh do not want it (YouGov survey of a representative sample of people who live and work Edinburgh in early April 2004: "93% agreed the shape of Edinburgh taxis allows me to distinguish between taxis and other types of vehicle" - copy attached), the Regulatory Committee voted, on the casting vote of the Chair, to recommend to the Exec that Edinburgh's rules are changed to suit this vehicle.

The key issue seems to be that of public safety; that is if the turning circle is abolished then a vehicle type (Peugeot Expert Combi base vehicle) that is already licensed in Edinburgh as a Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) will be licensed as a taxi as well; creating confusion among the public about what is and what isn't a taxi and what they can and cannot hail - particularly on a dark winter's night after a couple of alcoholic drinks!

At the moment no such confusion exists because of the distinctive shape of the purpose built taxi.

It seems that if condition 181 is removed then 46A will have to be removed also, If the same type of vehicle is licensed as a taxi AND PHV then we might be forced to remove the 'for hire' from our vehicle and sell it as a PHV as, frankly, we need the sales to ensure the continued viability of our business.

We think U-turns are safer than 3-point turns. The RAC Foundation I British School of Motoring (BSM) view is that: "If it is vital ... and is done with care and observation all round, then a u-turn is less dangerous than a 3-point turn because it is done in one movement." This turning circle also allows the taxi to manoeuvre better in heavy traffic and in city streets, and allows it to enter hotel entrances and Waverley Station with greater ability than other vehicles. It also allows a passenger to be picked up from the opposite side of the street with minimal traffic disruption, as one of the reasons for the incorporation of the turning circle into the conditions, is to help prevent accidents by obviating the need for the passenger to cross the road when hailing an oncoming taxi.

As discussed, if the matter is discussed on Tuesday 4 May 2004 I will not be able to attend in person as I will be on honeymoon. Therefore the LTI deputation will be made up of Matthew Cheyne, LTI Sales and Marketing Director; Andrew Overton, Market Development Consultant; and John Loudon, Consultant at Dundas & Wilson CS.

Many thanks in advance for your help in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards
Chris Kelsey

Chnstopher Kelsey
Government Affairs Director
London Taxis International
7 Quayside Lodge
William Morris Way
London
SW6 2UZ
TelO20 7731 6385
Fax02073719481

Sell the TX2 as a PHV!!!???

They must be joking, no one from the PH side would touch it with a bargepole, we only buy it because we have to.

You could do the trade in London a favour and send a copy of the report / document your currently compiling to either Stuart Pessock or Bob Oddy at the LTDA in Woodfield Road W9.

They've got some front, i'll give them that.

I suspect most councils wouldn't license them as private hire. He is not thinking too clearly. They would also have to half the purchase price to make the vehicle attractive to P/H.

Its a sorry state of affairs when LTI have to put pressure on councils to keep other vehicle manufacturers from supplying adequate vehicles as Taxis. They really don't like competition do they, as can be seen by the information published here?

Regards

JD

So Ollie will be able to drive the Icon.

_________________
IDFIMH