I’ve checked out the legal position regarding the Interested Parties List (IPL) and the lawyer agreed wholeheartedly with JD. The IPL is nonsense and has no provision in law.

The lawyer stated that “the C.E.C cannot refuse on the grounds of “no significant unmet demand” and then grant from the list in isolation while stating “there is a significant demand”. It’s that simple.

If anyone has any doubt you can check this out with your own lawyer. I would choose one with Council Licensing experience.

In short, the C.E.C doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

You asked your lawyer the wrong question then.
The IPL is not nonsense. Whilst there is no provision in law for it neither is there any provision which prevents a council fron using ANY list as an aid in its deliberations.
Why would any council tell one group that no demand existed whilst telling another that there was unmet demand?
It is well established that a council cannot grant from the list in isolation BUT it can use any additional information to help it in deciding which applicants may be granted a licence and that could include information from a list. And knowing your short attention span, I know, from previous court cases, omission from the list cannot be used as a reason for refusing a licence but equally applications do not require to be decided in chronolological order. (Just for you Skull that means it isn't first come, first served).
Let's assume that 20 licences were to be issued and there were 40 applicants, how does a council decide who gets and who doesn't? They discuss and judge each individual case on its merits. What the deciding factors are may be arguable but it won't be you that does the arguing!!
I would imagine it will also be perfectly legal thus rendering it safe from legal challenge.

The C.E.C under normal circumstances (the exception being a person's fitness) can only refuse a licence on the grounds of “no significant unmet demand”.

The fact that a “significant demand” is recognised, it then applies to everyone with a live application. It doesn’t say only for those on the IPL. Not being on the IPL is NOT grounds for refusal.

They would be contradicting their own information by claiming on one hand there is a demand but on the other, there isn’t.

As for your “chronological order”; you cannot have one application falling before another and the demand at the time being different i.e. this is why applications are dealt with on a first come first serve bases. The demand doesn’t change depending on the applicant - this would be discrimination.

Tell me John T. are you really that stupid or is it just an act?


BTW, the IPL is not a waiting list but a list of those who MIGHT be interested - you don't have to be on the IPL to show you are interested, you do that by applying.

That'll be the end of John T. then?
what a numpty

Am I missing a point here, I have read somewhere that a council cannot refuse to grant a licence as long as there criteria of fit and proper is met.
so why are councils still trying to limit the number of cabs

You asked your lawyer the wrong question then.
The IPL is not nonsense. Whilst there is no provision in law for it neither is there any provision which prevents a council fron using ANY list as an aid in its deliberations.
Why would any council tell one group that no demand existed whilst telling another that there was unmet demand?
It is well established that a council cannot grant from the list in isolation BUT it can use any additional information to help it in deciding which applicants may be granted a licence and that could include information from a list. And knowing your short attention span, I know, from previous court cases, omission from the list cannot be used as a reason for refusing a licence but equally applications do not require to be decided in chronolological order. (Just for you Skull that means it isn't first come, first served).
Let's assume that 20 licences were to be issued and there were 40 applicants, how does a council decide who gets and who doesn't? They discuss and judge each individual case on its merits. What the deciding factors are may be arguable but it won't be you that does the arguing!!
I would imagine it will also be perfectly legal thus rendering it safe from legal challenge.

Seems you haven't quite grasped it yet. Applications are decided at Council meetings, where, as I said, any issue of licences that is oversubscribed requires some to be refused and some to be accepted.

Get it now? I am not suggesting that applications be rejected whilst unmet demand exists.

any issue of licences that is oversubscribed requires some to be refused and some to be accepted.

Let's assume that 20 licences were to be issued and there were 40 applicants, how does a council decide who gets and who doesn't? They discuss and judge each individual case on its merits. What the deciding factors are may be arguable but it won't be you that does the arguing!!
I would imagine it will also be perfectly legal thus rendering it safe from legal challenge.