Sussex wrote:
I had a little bit of sympathy with the Reading lads, in agreeing with them about the way the councillors picked the number of new licenses out of the hat.
But that sympathy ended with the statement;
Sussex wrote:
But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.
And unless the council have messed up by acting illegally in getting to their views, then the drivers will lose a shed load of money.
Illegally? I take it you mean if they arrived at their decision in an unreasonable way. For instance, did the council reach their decision by considering information which was irrational, or did they exclude information which was rational? Do we know anything about this case other than what has been written in the press?
Case Law dictates a council can increase the number of Cabs as and when they think fit. A council is obliged to issue licences up to at least the level of demand which is unmet. It is not restricted in issuing licences above that level, if it so wishes.
If the council do lose this case on a technicality, they could if they had the mind to, go back and do it correctly, perhaps next time the number of licenses may exede 30 or perhaps they might have a mind to Deregulate numbers completely.
But I suppose the Reading lads know all this, they have been through it all before back in 1987, they got it wrong then and it's my educated guess they will get it wrong in 2004.
Back in 1987 Reading had 50 Hackneys. I suppose Some of these owners who are complaining now might even be by-products of the 1987 fiasco.
In 1987 Lord Nolan told Reading council they had to issue licenses to any fit and proper person who wanted one, Simply because they hadn't measured demand.
It won't be the first time that people who have been issued with free plates, have tried to deny others the same privilige.
Best wishes
John Davies.
Login
Register
FAQ
