Taxi Driver Online

Shame that Sir Christopher Bellamy disagrees.

Who just happens to be one of the foremost, if not the foremost, EU Competition Law expert(s).

_________________
IDFIMH

You might be right, but that doesn't answer the point I put.

Are the property rights of taxi drivers (even though I say premiums aren't property) greater than those folks in wheelchairs?

And even if you say they are, I can tell you for nothing, a court will not agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

Property rights of taxi drivers are established in law. Wheelchair folks don't seem to have property rights.

Neither you nor I know for certain what a Court would decide, that's why it's best to get a Counsel's opinion and then let a proper Judge decide.

Could you re read the first post?

I'd call this an assumption:



Scottish plates are not transferable. Your assumption is wrong. The only thing which changes is the directorships of a company.
The plate is still held by that company and remains the property of the council which issued it.

BTW Does a non-human entity such as a limited company even posses human rights?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I agree we don't know how courts decide things, well actually I have a good idea, however if you believe a court will side with a taxi scarcity value accrued in a grey market over transport requirements for folks in wheelchairs, then you are in a gang of one.

And I still disagree, as did QC Chris over you assumption that the scarcity value is a property, and even it is was, is it a property that it is proportionate to keep over everything else?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ok then, do you think Sir Christopher Bellamy, who at one time chaired the European Court of 1st Instance, didn't consider the human rights of those Wirral plate holders when he considered his judgement in the Royden case?

_________________
IDFIMH

This has got nothing to do with wheelchairs. The Human Rights Act applies to any property. It's not about how you acquired it. Scarcity value is the result of the operation of a free market. If you read the case you will see that Counsel for Royden one of whom is now a QC asked for leave to appeal because they thought the Judge was wrong. That is why we have Appeal Courts, so that wrong decisions can be reversed.

You say "is it a property that it is proportionate to keep over everything else", what does that mean exactly?

Companies are owned by shareholders who have Human Rights. The right to operate the taxi is transferable, in this case by means of change of ownership of the company. That is what the premium is for.

Are you sure?

I was of the opinion that they were pressed into compensation after delimiting.

_________________
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.

Another good, no great, no fantastic idea from Mr Sussex!!!!

_________________
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.

Whover gave you the idea that customer service suffers in regulated areas ? What a weird idea,think youll find the opposite applies

Scottish law states that the plate is not transferable and indeed it is not transferred.
Corporate plates are a legal loophole to facilitate what would otherwise be illegal.
The price paid is for shares in the company, not possession of the plate - which is always council property.
Facts which should be patently obvious to anyone buying in.
If someone pays £50K for a company which amounts to a £500 cab, a £10 plastic plate and tuppence worth of paper, that is their choice.
The licence was not transferable and had no value when it was first issued and the same was still true when they bought their shares and is still the case now.
What they assumed it was worth is irrelevant.

Are you saying that the value of a company should be the subject of compensation if the investors loose their money due to government action?
That will please all of those who lost money on the stock market during in the recession
Buying shares is always a gamble - delimiting is just one of the risks when buying a taxi company.
Why should the national purse be used to underwrite the losses of gamblers?

I think you are a desperate man, you have already decided you are right and are clutching at any straw you can find to prove it.

English law allows the sale of licences, Scottish law does not.
If you are going to prove your case, you'd be best advised to stick to English law.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

The people who pay the premium, what do they get after they paid that they didn't have before?

Human rights means anyone who suffers a loss as a result of wrongful or disproportionate action by the authorities can claim compensation.

They don't pay a premium up here. They buy shares.
What they get is the company, whatever it consists of.



I wish you luck in proving that any action is wrongful or disproportionate.
I still feel you have more chance of doing that with English law, where you could at least point to a system which is legal.
I also think it will take many years and deep pockets to do it.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/