Taxi Driver Online

Who amongst you can tell me what was behind the Wirral logic?

Here are the four points of law that Mr Cummins, Mr Royden et al thought was relative to keep a restriction on numbers.

(1) A failure to consult.
(2) A failure to obtain, or take account of, necessary relevant information as to the state of demand, bearing in mind Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR")
(3) An unlawful interference with the claimant's property rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ("ECHR")
(4) A failure to give adequate reasons.

It would appear the main body of the Wirral case was centred on the Human Rights act. One wonders who advocated such flawed thinking that Wirral council had a case to answer under EHRC?

Some might think it was desperation? Some might think it was pure greed?
And some like me may think it was ignorance of the law.

Whatever it was? Sir Christopher Bellamy QC gave Mr Cummins, Mr Royden and the other 91 Wirral cab drivers a dose of reality.

So why did Cummins get it sooooooooooooo wrong was it because he was belligerent or just ignorant of the law?

Let's see whom gets it right?

Best wishes

JD

It was all three. But at the end it was desperation.

I suspect the local T&G lads, supported by the likes of Mr T, raised the expectations of the local trade. More than likely they read the legal opinions one eyed, and missed the bits that said they could lose.

The local T&G marched the lads to the top of the hill, and left them there stranded.

But they are forever in my debt for going to court. Without doubt the Wirral judgement was the most damming, and anti quota, judgement that I have ever read.

_________________
IDFIMH

The consultation process in Wirral’s case was identical to the landmark case Liverpool Fleet Owners vs. Liverpool Corporation, in that the trade was put on notice that the council was considering removing the numerical limit (remember this was under the old section 37 TPCA 1847) however after a meeting with the fleet owners the city clerk promised further consultation, but instead took the decision to remove the limit. This decision was overturned on appeal with Lord Denning MR stating that a council cannot give an undertaking then go back on it.
Prior to the council meeting 18 March 2002, persistent rumours that the decision was a 'done deal’ this was because of a local problem that I won't elaborate on, but the reason why the decision was taken in Wirral was because of this problem.We wrote to the borough solicitor who wrote back assuring us that "this was only the 1st stage in the consultation process" a letter we received the morning after the unanimous decision was taken!

Moving on to the Human Rights aspect of the case, yes I suppose I am ignorant of the law that's why we(and people like us) pay £160 ph to hire lawyers! Our team was Richard Clayton QC an acknowledged Human Rights barrister and Steven Grosz, considered to be one of the finest administration solicitors in Britain, and our case revolved around whether a licence was considered personal property and therefore breached an individual’s rights under 1st protocol Article 1. There is a Swedish case Tre trektorer et al to support the case. In addition to this there is a decision by the High Court to sell the taxi LICENCES (not the cabs) of a convicted drug dealer at market value.

The fact we lost the case doesn't mean we shouldn't have fought it or that the decision was the right one. I must end by commenting that your obsession with plate value speaks volumes about the true nature of your argument/bile against anyone advocating anything other that market forces to find the equilibrium in taxi provision. As I’ve argued on this forum I’ve worked in 2 authorities with delimited policies; Liverpool & Wirral Liverpool reversed the decision and it looks like Wirral’s about to do the same. It isn’t the trade or the council that reverses the policy; it’s the police because of over ranking.

There’s a famous story (and remember it was the early 80’s) following the usual pattern of over ranking-police booking (and you were done for failing to proceed to the nearest available taxi rank, not for illegal parking, the difference? About £80)-confrontation-arrest-block the road protests- a senior traffic cop walked into the Town Hall put his face right into the face of the chair of the licensing committee and proceeded to scream at him for 15 minutes; he’d completely lost it and take it from me in that type of working environment even the most mild-mannered did on a regular basis.

So why do you want to import this type of environment to your area? That’s an easy one you want someone to hand you a free £20-50K, except you don’t want to say it so you argue that we need more cabs to service this area and the old standby we need more cabs on a Saturday night. Etc I’ve heard them all before and minute the person is handed his plate its stop the issue NOW!! And you’re no different- don’t read lips read body language.
In conclusion Mark Royden is a man in his mid-30’s with a young family and therefore will probably be a taxi driver for the next 30 years, therefore the plate value is of no concern, what is important to working cab drivers is the ability to make a decent living, to have adequate ranking spaces etc. Obviously from your outpourings, none of this matters to you, only what a plate sells for in Burnley or Brighton (what HAS that got to do with you?)

I wish you'd get your facts right about the Wirral case, the T&G was not involved in it. The activists Mark Royden and I headed the fight because of our experience in organising campaigns. The action was taken by 96 drivers, some T&G, most not, under the umbrella name of COAD (cab drivers against delimitation) we received no help whatsoever from T&G head office

One final point, I'm not a licence holder(out of choice), and wasn't at the time of the delimitation so to call me greedy is being hard faced. And a note to sussex, obviously you haven't read Gt Yarmouth or Reading they are just as damming. In essence the ammendmant to Sec 37 TPCA 1847 removed the right of LA's to restrict the issue of licences, the only exception being if an authority takes the view that there is no unmet demand, with the onus of proof on the authority NOT the applicant. One further point, this particular clause was written in because of the situation in the then newly re-regulated Liverpool (in 1983 at the same time as the green paper for the Transport Act was being debated)

jd
knows all about the law, just knows nothing about cabs!

does not know the costs
does not know the workings
does not know how drivers are paid.
does not know how they think.

and if he does not like the law, he makes up other rules to negative it.

a solicitor through and through

There is a huge distinction in the two cases, regardless of the fact you have convinced yourself that there isn't.

In the Liverpool case the chairman of the relevant committee gave a public undertaking on August 4, 1971, that the number of licenses would not be increased beyond 300 until a private bill had been passed by Parliament and had come into effect. His undertaking was confirmed orally by himself, and by the town clerk in a letter sent out to two Taxi associations, representing the trade.

There is no similarity in the two cases in that respect but for some reason you want others to think there is. There is no doubt that you intentionally like to spin the truth but you won't get away with it on here.

In respect of Wirral there was no official statement from the council or council official, stating they would retain numbers control for whatever reason. There was no legitimate promise of further consultation and you were aware of the Councils position when they sent out the questionnaire in February stating they were reconsidering Taxi policy and in that respect were canvassing the views of relevant stakeholders.

That same questionnaire also invited any other comments, which would also be taken into account. According to the Trial Judge you were also aware that the questionnaire mentioned three options available to the council and one of those options was the removal on the restriction of numbers.

You are aware that in February a public announcement was placed in the local Newspaper setting out the council's position and invited views from the public.

Mark Royden received a letter from the Borough solicitor and secretary, sent out on the 15th March which Mr Royden states he didn't receive until the 18th March. That letter was to repudiate comments put forward by Mark Royden, who said amongst other things "the councils decision was a done deal"

The Text of the letter is as follows.

“I write with reference to your letter of 1 March 2002 addressed to the Council’s Chief Executive and copied to the list of people at the bottom of this letter. You first wrote to me on 14 February and we had a discussion in the Town Hall informally. I explained to you that the issue of restriction on the number of hackney carriages had to be considered by the members of the Authority, even if they decided to remain with the current policy. This will be required as part of a Best Value Review but it is also required because of the litigation we have faced and are facing and in view of our own survey on demand which now requires updating. I understand that you were not actually at the JCC meeting at which you say various different things were said. The situation is that the debate about the policy must take place.

I appreciate that having the debate alone may cause unrest amongst the trade but I am afraid that it must happen and in fact it is in the best interests of the whole of the trade and with the public and the Authority, for that debate to take place, whatever the outcome of that may be.

It is also vital that consultation has to take place and this is what we have done so far. It may well be that we need to consult further as this is only the first stage in reviewing this policy. I can assure you categorically that the policy decision about the level of demand for hackney carriages in the borough and when any limit should apply and indeed what that limit should be is a matter for the elected members of the Authority to decide. There is no “done deal” about what the future policy should be or, indeed, how many licences should be issued. I have spoken to all of the staff concerned and am satisfied that they all understand that that is the situation and that none of the comments that you allege have been made have actually happened. As I have said to you, the debate has to take place and you will see to that end a report to the Licensing Committee next week which I attach to this letter. As I have said to you, that does not seek to pre-judge the situation at all but it does encourage the debate to take place. I do not believe that stopping the debate or cancelling the very hard work that has been done so far by both officers and representatives of the trade would be of help in any way. I hope that this letter gives you reassurance. I can assure you that my commitment to making sure that true and effective consultation takes place with the trade and customers. I am copying this letter to those to whom you sent your letter of 1 March.”

There is nothing in that letter which states the council "will" have further consultation, "only that they may require it".

What is more to the point is accountability and authority. Ms Miller did not have the authority to state that there would be further consultation. Council members or the chief executive did not instruct her to write that an offer of further investigation was a requirement.

In fact the Judge said.

Moreover Ms Miller, although the Borough Solicitor and Secretary, was not in a position to pre-judge or even foreshadow what decision the members of the Licensing Committee might come to at their meeting the following Monday, still less commit the defendant to a further round of consultation.

That might not be decisive if Mr Royden had acted to his detriment on the basis of Ms Miller’s letter of 15 March 2002. As far as I can see Mr Royden did not do or omit to do anything that he would not otherwise have done or not done, in reliance on Ms Miller’s letter.

For these reasons, in my view, the alleged breach of a legitimate expectation of further consultation, based on an alleged promise by Ms Miller, also fails.

The undertaking in the Liverpool case was given by a councillor who was in a position to honour that undertaking on behalf of the council. The letter from the Clerk was an extension of the public statement made by the councillor in question and was no doubt authorised by the relevant committee to inform the trade of the current position.

It is accepted that an expectation may be based upon some statement or undertaking by, or on behalf of a public authority, which has the duty of making the decision. Only if the authority has, through its officers, acted in a way that would make it unfair or inconsistent with good administration for him to be denied such an inquiry.

The Wirral scenario did not remotely fit into the above category. You know as well as I do the other methods of consultation which were undertaken and are mentioned in the Wirral transcript, I have no need to go into them here. I will however say this you yourself had been offering legal advice in your monthly magazine long before the Wirral case, so you must consider yourself to be some sort of legal aficionado. In that respect it is inconceivable that you didn't play a leading role in advising the other members of your group as to the chances of winning this case. If TDO had been up and running at the time, you could have got your legal advice from Mr Yorkie for free, I'm sure it would have stood you in good stead. As it is you persuaded your members that Wirral was an exact replica of the Liverpool case, when in fact you should have been aware that the circumstances were completely different.

You say you represent the professional Cab driver? Well perhaps you do but you also ably demonstrate a complete lack of legal interpretation when it comes to our common law. I shall refrain from calling you Mr Local TOA instead I'll just ask you how many councils still retain a restriction on numbers?

That should be an easy question for a man of your intelligence.

JD

Tune in tomorrow for part 2 of the Wirral revisited. By the way, you have a right of reply on TDO we don't mind anonymity, ask your buddy Mr T.

All I need to know about Wirral is that some mush who got a plate for f*** all, decided that his fellow drivers didn't deserve the same opportunity.

That chap just happened to be the top dog of the local T&G. One need say no more.

_________________
IDFIMH

JD What are you on about? or just what are you on, I am not trying to twist facts or give a spin what I am pointing out is what our case was fought on, and it wasn't my case, it was our legal team so if you have any complaints address them to; Fanshaw Porter & Hazelhurst 11-12 Hamilton Square Birkenhead CH41 6AX or for the latter stages Bindman & Partners info@bindmans.com. And we lost it's as simple as that. That’s the way of it 2 groups or individuals disagree on a given situation and go to court to settle their differences, have you got an alternative?

But I get extremely p*****d off when people who don't know the history of the Wirral delimitation make pronouncements on it. Incidentally we were promised further consultation at an informal meeting between the Licensing Chair, the borough solicitor but the accent being on the informal i.e. not minuted-moral of the story don’t meet people you thought you had a working relationship with without it being official.

And Bellemy also commented in the trial that the results of the consultation was not sufficient (off the top of my head the response was about 4%) to gauge the views of interested parties and it would be responsible decision (and remember I’m doing this from memory) for a council to undertake further consultation, a view that was missing in his decision (which incidentally took 2 months). But to say that Ms Millar offer of further consultation was effectively off her own bat is tantamount to saying the licensing section was running its own policy

What's this Mr Local TOA? a) I'm not a taxi owner b) Wirral hasn't got a local TOA c) I'm T&G. And while I've got your attention somewhere else on the forum you pulled me up for under-valuing a Manchester plate; why should I know or why should I care what the value of a plate is outside my area, who gives a toss how much a plate is in Manchester or Plymouth. Obviously you do; why?

Secondly, you criticized an article I did in Taxi talk, nothing wrong with that except that the fact you see my interpretation as ‘warped’ is laughable. You might disagree with me but law is down to interpretation, that’s why we have law courts. I had a conversation with 3 SLO’s about this and two of them took the view it was impossible to enforce, but all agreed that it was still active, but none of them knew of a case going to court. Just a debating point really. But for the benefit of all the ‘gullible’ members of the forum how would you interpret it

Section 64 Town Police Clauses Act(1847), Improperly standing with carriage; refusing to give way to, or obstructing, any other driver or depriving him of his fare. Any driver of any hackney carriage who suffers the same to stand for hire across any street or alongside of any other hackney carriage, or who refuses to give way, if he conveniently can, to any other carriage, or who obstructs or hinders the driver of any other carriage in taking up or setting down any person into or from such other carriage, or who wrongfully in a forcible manner prevents or endeavours to prevent the driver of any other hackney carriage from being hired, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding level 1.


But for all you invective, you’ve side-stepped my main accusation of you, TDO Sussex (that’s if you’re not the same entity) that what you’re about is getting a free plate knowing that one day the issue will be stopped leaving you with something worth whatever amount the going rate is. The reason I know this is I’ve been in 2 authorities delimited and know or know of hundreds of JD’s or TDO’s who change their tune the minute they are issued with a plate. In Wirral there have been demonstrations (I didn’t attend by the way) by drivers wanting to block roads tunnels etc to stop the issue, the demonstrations are almost exclusively made up of new licence holders. Ain’t human nature funny!

In conclusion, listening to you, TDO, Essex etc, is akin to watching a formulaic straight-to-video cop movie, Channel 5 specialise in, you can suss the plot out in 5 minutes you’ve heard the dialogue a thousand times, only the faces change (or in your case the faceless) Keep up the average work boys, you can fool some of the people all of the time
Oh and I’m glad you’ve dropped the pseudo-intellectual approach in favour of insults and abuse, it’s much more amusing

Mark Royden was issued his plate under a managed growth system, something that both of us are in favour of and is in line with T&G policy, and we are working to reverse the policy to managed growth NOT a complete block on plate issue

With all due respect to you, I go on facts, not innuendo, or indeed indirect promises that can't be substantiated. You said the Wirral case was identical to the Liverpool case, it wasn't, you being a responsible person probably new it wasn't or at least you should have known it wasn't. I clearly pointed out to you, why it wasn't.

You said you were promised further consultation yet you produced no evidence in court that any such consultation was offered. To this day, you pontificate that the Wirral case is a mirror image of the Liverpool case when you know full well that the legal circumstances are completely different.

Liverpool was "publicly" promised that no licenses would be issued beyond the 300 that already existed.

Was that the case in Wirral? No it wasn't. Therefore how can you claim the circumstances are exactly the same?

I don't take any enjoyment out of putting your own house in order but the correct facts should be on record. It is widely known that your magazine has a habit of misrepresenting the facts, we can see why when you yourself try and misrepresent the facts.



I don't profess to have been a party to what transpired leading up to the council decision but the evidence whether you like it or not is in the public domain and I will tell you this, I have practically all of that evidence.

There is no public record that you were offered further consultation. Although I do have an open mind on that subject. The fact remains, that there is no public record and that is the pivotal difference between the Wirral case and the Liverpool case.



There is nothing in the transcript which states Bellamy offered an opinion on the results of the consultation being insuffiecent. In fact he says the reverse.

At the Committee meeting, various representatives of the trade were given the opportunity to make representations to members. Accordingly, I do not accept that consultation has in any way been inadequate or insufficient and am satisfied that there is nothing unlawful or irrational about the Committee’s decision. In addition to these representations, you will note from the report the factors that were considered and taken into account by members.

I might remind you that when you debate on TDO it is advisable to be in complete command of the facts. I know that doesn't apply in your magazine but on here we have certain standards to uphold. I'll tell you this for nothing, you won't get any bullchit from me but what you will get is fact backed up with evidence. If you can't handle the facts that then I suggest you concentrate on what you do best.

I haven't had time to complete part two of the Wirral saga but when I do I hope you read it with an open mind. Perhaps you will see why Bellamy and I came to the same conclusion and why you yourself came to a different conclusion.

Regards

JD

you go on facts not inuendo?

take a little more water with it John, facts are what you ignore

You have the floor! What facts have I ever ignored?

JD

just the basics.

you never answer a straight question!

who nicked the document and trawled it round LAs?

why did you say to me that spencer did not exist?

when you know he does?

stick to the facts.