Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jan 25, 2026 11:21 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:08 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56975
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Of course Taxi licences and the premium on them are "property"

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:14 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56975
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Wheelchair accessible vehicles are a complete red herring. 95% of registered disabled are not wheelchair bound, and they don't want or like wheelchair accessible vehicles.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Of course Taxi licences and the premium on them are "property"

Shame that Sir Christopher Bellamy disagrees.

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


Could you re read the first post?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
MarkRGuildford wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Under the CGSA, the licence/plate is at all times the property of the council which issued it.

The back door route via a corporate held plate only works if the licence was originally applied for in the name of a company.
That company continues to hold the plate, even if the ownership of the company changes.

The vast majority of Scottish plates are held by individuals in their own names and must be returned to the council when the plateholder dies or gives it up.

Your theory may apply in E&W but your assumption that the law here is the same is in error.

I suggest you look for examples in English & Welsh areas, which would be under the same legislation as you.

What a Scottish council or an Irish judge does, may not be relevant to English law.


I'm not assuming anything.


I'd call this an assumption:

MarkRGuildford wrote:
So plates are transferable, as long as they are attached to a vehicle, same as in England.


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?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56975
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:16 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56975
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Sussex wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Of course Taxi licences and the premium on them are "property"

Shame that Sir Christopher Bellamy disagrees.

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


Could you re read the first post?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
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.

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?


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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
gusmac wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Under the CGSA, the licence/plate is at all times the property of the council which issued it.

The back door route via a corporate held plate only works if the licence was originally applied for in the name of a company.
That company continues to hold the plate, even if the ownership of the company changes.

The vast majority of Scottish plates are held by individuals in their own names and must be returned to the council when the plateholder dies or gives it up.

Your theory may apply in E&W but your assumption that the law here is the same is in error.

I suggest you look for examples in English & Welsh areas, which would be under the same legislation as you.

What a Scottish council or an Irish judge does, may not be relevant to English law.


I'm not assuming anything.


I'd call this an assumption:

MarkRGuildford wrote:
So plates are transferable, as long as they are attached to a vehicle, same as in England.


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?


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Sussex wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
When the Irish Government paid out compensation to cab proprietors for loss of plate premium value, after they de-restricted nationally, I wonder whether it was through the kindness of their collective hearts in the Houses of the Oireachtas, or whether they were spooked by the European Human Rights legislation?

They said they would when they decided to delimit.

IMO they had no duty to do so.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Sussex wrote:
But they issue them for nothing, so what should they do? Start charging for plates?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:37 pm
Posts: 2406
Whover gave you the idea that customer service suffers in regulated areas ? What a weird idea,think youll find the opposite applies


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
MarkRGuildford wrote:
gusmac wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Under the CGSA, the licence/plate is at all times the property of the council which issued it.

The back door route via a corporate held plate only works if the licence was originally applied for in the name of a company.
That company continues to hold the plate, even if the ownership of the company changes.

The vast majority of Scottish plates are held by individuals in their own names and must be returned to the council when the plateholder dies or gives it up.

Your theory may apply in E&W but your assumption that the law here is the same is in error.

I suggest you look for examples in English & Welsh areas, which would be under the same legislation as you.

What a Scottish council or an Irish judge does, may not be relevant to English law.


I'm not assuming anything.


I'd call this an assumption:

MarkRGuildford wrote:
So plates are transferable, as long as they are attached to a vehicle, same as in England.


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?


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.


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 :roll:
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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
gusmac wrote:
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 :roll:
Buying shares is always a gamble - delimiting is just one of the risks when buying a taxi company.
.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
MarkRGuildford wrote:

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


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

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


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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group