Taxi Driver Online

When out of six recommendations to committee, only two of them have any chance of being deemed legal in a court.

http://cmis.rochford.gov.uk/CMISWebPubl ... ment=12495

_________________
IDFIMH

This makes interesting reading, obviously there are four recommendations which are illegal but one must ask the question why did Mr Clarkson not inform the Committee that they are illegal. Perhaps he doesn't know? In that case he should have got a second opinion. It is no surprise that the local TOA doesn't have a clue about the law or perhaps they are just trying to manipulate Rochford council. Perhaps Rochford TOA should join the NTA, they could certainly do with some knowledge aforethought.

The six recommendations are listed below but does anyone know which four are illegal?

Mail your answers on a postcard to steve.clarkson@rochford.gov.uk at Rochford council.

8 RECOMMENDATION

8.1 It is proposed that the Sub Committee considers the following proposals submitted by the taxi trade, to reduce the further issue of hackney carriage vehicle licences and to make recommendations to the Environmental Services Committee.

Members must consider that if any of the following proposals are recommended that they be introduced within a reasonable timescale and it is suggested that a suitable period would be 4 weeks from the date of the Committee meeting when a final decision is made.

(1)
That a three year probation period be reintroduced (this is where a licensed drivers with Rochford Council may only apply for a hackney carriage vehicle licence once he has completed 3 years in the trade).

(2)
That all new hackney carriage proprietors should live within a three-mile radius of the district.

(3)
That all hackney carriage proprietors must hold a hackney carriage drivers licence.

(4)
That all new hackney carriage vehicle licences issued be to purpose built wheelchair accessible vehicles only.

(5)
That when transferring the interest of a hackney carriage vehicle licence it should only be transferred to a driver that has completed the three-year probation period.

(6)
That the age limit for purpose built wheelchair accessible vehicles be reduced to no more than six years old when first licensed and have an upper age limit of 12 years.

Steve Clarkson
Head of Revenue and Housing Management
steve.clarkson@rochford.gov.uk

Background Papers:-
Hackney Carriage Licence Conditions For further information please contact Joanne Crawford on:-Tel:-01702 318166
E-Mail joanne.Crawford@Rochford.gov.uk

It has been highlighted in TDO on many occasions that the test for all decision-making bodies is the reasonableness of their decisions in respect of Wednesbury unreasonable. The terms reasonable and unreasonable were highlighted none more so than in the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation in 1947.

The test of whether an authority with administrative powers has acted beyond those powers is laid down in this most famous case. The first thing an administrative body should do before they agree to a decision is examine the decision in the light of Wednesbury.

To compound matters even further administration bodies also have to weigh their decisions in line with European legislation and in particular the ECHR. A heavy burden is placed on admin bodies but there is no excuse for Rochford getting it wrong.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd -v- Wednesbury Corporation
(1948) 112 JP 55; (1948) 92 SJ 26; [1947] 2 All ER 680; [1948] 1 KB 223; [1948] LJR 190; 1947 WL 10584; 45 LGR 635; 63 TLR 623

Court of Appeal
10 November 1947
Greene MR, Somervell LJ and Singleton J
Administrative - Judicial Review - Licensing

Case Note:

The applicant challenged the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal procedure, and the applicant sought a declaration that the conditions were ineffective. Held: Parliament had given to the local authority a discretion as to the conditions for the licence. That discretion might be exercised in different ways according to honestly and reasonably held opinion. It was not the court's job to substitute its own opinion for that of the local authority. Greene MR: 'the discretion must be exercised reasonably.

Now what does that mean? Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word 'unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting 'unreasonably.' Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.' and 'The court is entitled to investigate the action of the local authority with a view to seeing whether they have taken into account matters which they ought not to take into account, or, conversely, have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account. Once that question is answered in favour of the local authority, it may be still possible to say that, although the local authority have kept within the four corners of the matters which they ought to consider, they have nevertheless come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it. In such a case, again, I think the court can interfere. The power of the court to interfere in each case is not as an appellate authority to override a decision of the local authority, but as a judicial authority which is concerned, and concerned only, to see whether the local authority have contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers which Parliament has confided in them.'

Statute(s) referred to: Cinematograph Act 1909 - Sunday Entertainments Act 1932

:^o

:^o

:^o



:^o

_________________
IDFIMH

errrrrr 2and 5 not o/ k.......errrrr

It might have been a long time in coming but the conclusion of the proposed illegal conditions mentioned in this thread is as follows.
______________________________

Taxi Licensing Sub-Committee – 7 July 2005

Minutes of the meeting of the Taxi Licensing Sub-Committee held on 7 July 2005 when there were present:-

Chairman: Cllr P F A Webster Cllr R A Amner

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr T Livings

SUBSTITUTE
Cllr J E Grey

OFFICERS PRESENT
J Crawford - Transportation Manager J Read - Hackney Carriage Officer J Bostock - Principal Committee Administrator

ALSO PRESENT

P Richmond - Association of Circuit Company Owners in the Rochford District M Chaplin - Rochford Hackney Carriage Drivers Association

38 MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 February 2005 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

39 REGULATING THE ISSUE OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE LICENCES
The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Head of Revenue and Housing Management on proposals by the Hackney Carriage trade to limit the further issue of Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences.

The Chairman invited all present to comment on the proposals before the Sub-Committee.

Members agreed that there should be no re-introduction of a three year probation period or a requirement that all Hackney Carriage drivers live within a three mile radius of the District. The proposals relating to proprietors holding Hackne y Carriage Drivers Licences and suggested provisions relating to wheelchair accessible vehicles were endorsed.

1 Taxi Licensing Sub-Committee – 7 July 2005 Recommended to the Environmental Services Committee:-

(1) That there be no re-introduction of a three year probation period relating to the issue of Hackney Carriage vehicle licences.

(2) That there be no requirement for all new hackney carriage proprietors to live within a three mile radius of the District.

(3) That all hackney carriage proprietors must hold a Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.

(4) That all new Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences issued be to purpose built wheelchair accessible vehicles only.

(5) That the age limit for purpose built wheelchair accessible vehicles be reduced to no more than 6 years old when first licensed with an upper age limit of 12 years. (HRHM)

The meeting commenced at 10.00am and closed at 10.05am.
_________________________

In the end, the council in all its wisdom only adopted one illegal condition. That being a hackney carriage proprietor needing to hold a hackney carriage drivers license.

Regardless of my opinion on the matter the law as it stands states that a hackney carriage license can only be refused if a person is not fit and proper, or the council limit licenses by virtue of section 16.

This is yet another case of councillors making up the law as they go along.

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.

The background is as follows.

These recommended changes were proposed after consultation with the local taxi trade and it was the local taxi trade who put forward most of these recommendations.

Not surprisingly most were rejected but one recommendation got the Carlisle treatment under section 47 of the LGMPA.

No matter what we might think of the merits behind the condition the fact is the condition which was was put forward by taxi drivers and sanctioned by the licensing committee, is unlawful.

If we are ever going to get a change in Taxi licensing legislation then we must make licensing officers, councillors and taxi drivers understand that they cannot make their own laws. Once they realise that, they might get the message that current legislation isn't working and we need a brand new act.

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.

although I have some sympathy with the way you feel, let us be perfectly honest about this, the council's solicitor will have advised the members of the council that the condition was legal...... to my mind it is yet again another [edited by admin] poor solicitor....

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

You would have thought so Trevor but that was not the case.

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.

Maybe they borrowed him from Carlisle.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I believe that Carlisle solicitor stated that in his opinion that the condition was illegal. But the Councillors made the decision to let the courts have the final word.

and I also believe that a great many owners are changing to saloon vehicle now .

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

Well I can't recall it being quite as categorical as that, and indeed if it had been then presumably the council wouldn't have ended up with egg on their face?




Did they?

I didn't think that was how the process worked.

Can you enlighten me further?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I stand to be corrected, but my recollection is that the councillors decided it on the basis of what wasn't law yet rather than what was law at the time

Strange, but true

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Why don't you quote what she actually said? The information is freely available on TDO. The same applies to these belligerent councilors. I don't recall they ever said they will let the courts decide? Is this an attempt at misinforming readers of TDO?

You should be awarded a rosette for your obvious attempt at spin.

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.

Not sure what the councillors said, but no councillor should say 'we will let the courts decide'.

That's a kop out on a major scale, and it's alright for them to say that as they have a legal team behind them whereas the ordinary driver is on his todd.

_________________
IDFIMH