Taxi Driver Online

Two Inches Costs Cabby Thousands

23rd August 2008

A taxi firm boss faces a massive legal bill after losing a court challenge against South Gloucestershire Council's hackney carriage licensing officials.

Paul White bought a £23,000 Renault Trafic mini bus last year after he saw it advertised in a taxi trade magazine as an eight-passenger vehicle.

Mr White said he was told over the phone by council officers that the authority would license the vehicle to carry eight passengers.

But when he made an official application to license it as a hackney cab with South Gloucestershire Council the authority refused.

Officers claimed only seven of the seats could be used because the middle front passenger seat was too cramped.

It refused to license and plate the vehicle as an eight-seater, despite Government advice to councils that they should be flexible when assessing applications.

Mr White took the authority to court and won his case, along with £10,000 in costs.

But the council still refused to license the vehicle, the case went back to court again and this time a judge ruled against Mr White – and ordered him to pay half of the authority's £12,350 legal bill.

Chris Jones, one of the council's licensing enforcement officers, said the seat was five centimetres (2 inches) too close to the front dashboard.

Mr Jones also said the a driver could inadvertently touch a passenger's leg when changing gear, which would not be appropriate.

When the vehicle was used to carry a wheelchair, then it could only carry the passenger in the wheelchair plus three other passengers because the rear three seats had to be folded down to accommodate the chair.

Mr White said: "I was given an assurance over the telephone by council officers that they would license the vehicle for eight passengers.
"I would not have spent £23,000 on buying the vehicle if there was any risk it would not be plated."
He said the council had licensed a similar Renault Trafic vehicle as an eight-seat hackney carriage about month before he bought his vehicle in October.

Barrister Alan Fuller, for the council, said this had been done in error.

Barrister Kerry Barker, representing Mr White, said the cabby had been badly treated by the authority which had refused to deviate from its inflexible ruling over the seating dimensions for hackney carriages even though a Government circular advised councils to show some flexibility.

At North Avon Magistrates' Court district Judge Hodgkinson threw out Mr White's case, saying the council had to take into account the safety and comfort of the public when licensing vehicles as taxis.

He also ordered Mr White to pay half of the council's £12,350 legal bill and Mr White will also have to pay his own legal costs for the second hearing.

Mr White declined to comment on the judge's ruling outside the court, but was understood to be considering applying for a licence to use the vehicle as a seven-seat cab.


Source; thisisbristol.co.uk

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Lost on the grounds of **safety.**

Didn't surprise me in the least but why are they on the market if they present a safety problem? Probably because there is a higher threshold of safety for fare paying passengers than for private use?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I'm a bit lost here.

If he won in court then that would have been in a mags court.

The appeal wouldn't have been back in a mags court but in a crown court with two mags and a proper judge, not a district judge.

_________________
IDFIMH

If he can prove the contents of the advert, he may well have a cause of action against the advertiser.

Otherwise, an extremely expensive episode for someone apparently relying on verbal representations.

A lesson for everyone here: Get it in writing before making the commitment!

Poor b*gger

And of course the Middle third seat in any saloon or estate car isnt cramped either....double standards here

It appears there were two separate issues, the first one relating to the rear seats the second relating to the front seats proximity to the dashboard and the gear stick in relation to the front passenger seat.

In the first case it wasn't stated if the vehicle had actually had a test, the second case it appears it had gone in for its test and failed on those points.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

He still has the right to appeal to a higher court

Anyone with any common sense would have taken the vehicle to the council before they purchased it..... that is what we do here....

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