Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

How much does an appeal cost.
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5030		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Chester J.D. [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:38 am ]
Post subject:  How much does an appeal cost.
I have recently applied to my local council for a HC licence and have been refused on the grounds of No Unmet Demand,I dispute this and believe that there is unmet demand but have been told that No more licenses will be issued until maybe after the next survey in 2008.
I believe if I appealled then I would have a reasonable chance of winning based partly on the review that has just been completed and is going before the Cabinet later today http://www.chester.gov.uk/committeeSystems/PDFdocs/REP%2030112006%20CAB%20-%20PROGRESS%20UPDATE%20OF%20T.pdf
So what I want to know is how much does it cost to take the appeal to court does anyone have any experience of these things ?

I did state in a previous post that I would not bother going through the courts but I feel totally justified and to be honest fed up about the way I have been treated.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:02 am ]
Post subject: 
If you win nothing, but if you lose it could cost you up to £5,000 if you factor in the council costs. Some may scaremonger that the costs could reach £50,000, but that's rubbish in my opinion.

Do as much research as you can, maybe get up a petition. Speaking to the dis groups might also help. Be careful what you say on here, just PM or e-mail the right folks for advice.

All that said, you have to prove f*** all, the council has to prove everything.

I would apply for more than one plate, especially if you aren't top or near top of the waiting list. The problem you will have is they last surveyed in 2005, so unless you can prove that to be iffy, then you may struggle.

I would also ask them for their justification for keeping quotas, and who outside of the trade would be disavantaged if the council de-limited.

But it's nice to see someone not taking it up the rear, and to see JD's list get a mention. :D
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
But it's nice to see someone not taking it up the rear, and to see JD's list get a mention.


It doesnt actually mention JD's list, it mentions;

Figures obtained from the Public Health Information Unit and Taxi Driver On Line

Which in one respect is actually quite worrying?

CC
Author:  JD [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Quote:
But it's nice to see someone not taking it up the rear, and to see JD's list get a mention.


It doesnt actually mention JD's list, it mentions;

Figures obtained from the Public Health Information Unit and Taxi Driver On Line


Thats ok, i'm happy with the "fact" he got his figures from "Taxi Driver online", it might not make you happy but it proves that these LO's take no notice of the nonsence some people write in Taxi magazines?

Quote:
Which in one respect is actually quite worrying?


I suppose you're going to keep this one worrying respect to yourself?

lol

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Quote:
But it's nice to see someone not taking it up the rear, and to see JD's list get a mention.


It doesnt actually mention JD's list, it mentions;

Figures obtained from the Public Health Information Unit and Taxi Driver On Line


Thats ok, i'm happy with the "fact" he got his figures from "Taxi Driver online", it might not make you happy but it proves that these LO's take no notice of the nonsence some people write in Taxi magazines?

Quote:
Which in one respect is actually quite worrying?


I suppose you're going to keep this one worrying respect to yourself?

lol

Regards

JD


No, I think its worrying to everyone, primarily the figures are assembled by a nome de plume and this hasnt been explained in the report.

Indeed, the fact the website takes a pro-deregulation stance hasnt been explained either. Which is a bit like permitting Michael Jackson to take care of the babysitting arrangements?

regards

CC
Author:  JD [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
No, I think its worrying to everyone, primarily the figures are assembled by a nome de plume and this hasnt been explained in the report.


Didn't you say in your last post that the report didn't mention anyone by name, only that it was obtained from Taxi driver online?

Just because you don't know the compiler it would be unwise to think that others don't know? Isn't a proportion of the garbage published in Taxi Talk magazine written by insignificant anonymous persons such as your local TOA etc? Didn't Dusty once point out at least four anonymous articles in one particular issue of Taxi Talk?

Some people don’t have a problem with facts they can relate to, the simple fact is that although you can relate to them, you don't like them and that is why you have tried to discredit them in the past? The fact remains that you can't discredit them because they are fact and I think from your past utterances that really pizzes you off?

Quote:
Indeed, the fact the website takes a pro-deregulation stance hasn't been explained either.


This site takes a stance on "equality" whether it be driver or vehicle licenses and that quite adequately explains the position of this site?

Your personal stance is one of restriction in the form of managed growth and driving vehicles that only comply with the COF. The reason I say that is because that is what you have said in the past? You are entitled to your opinion and no one is going to deprive you of that but don't ever assume that your opinion is correct and others are wrong when your opinion is based on nothing more than restricting opportunity.

Regards

JD
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
Didn't you say in your last post that the report didn't mention anyone by name, only that it was obtained from Taxi driver online?

Just because you don't know the compiler it would be unwise to think that others don't know? Isn't a proportion of the garbage published in Taxi Talk magazine written by insignificant anonymous persons such as your local TOA etc? Didn't Dusty once point out at least four anonymous articles in one particular issue of Taxi Talk?

Some people don’t have a problem with facts they can relate to, the simple fact is that although you can relate to them, you don't like them and that is why you have tried to discredit them in the past? The fact remains that you can't discredit them because they are fact and I think from your past utterances that really pizzes you off?


I have a problem when statistics are maybe compiled by people who are not qualified, when these amateur efforts are then treated as solid facts it is kind of worrying. Sally Clarke was jailed because of misrepresentation of statistics.

I dont see what taxitalk has to do with this, but didnt you give an opinion based as fact in a recent article in a certain magazine and couldnt that therefore be considered as garbage? indeed when you write are you not anonymous?


Quote:
This site takes a stance on "equality" whether it be driver or vehicle licenses and that quite adequately explains the position of this site?

Your personal stance is one of restriction in the form of managed growth and driving vehicles that only comply with the COF. The reason I say that is because that is what you have said in the past? You are entitled to your opinion and no one is going to deprive you of that but don't ever assume that your opinion is correct and others are wrong when your opinion is based on nothing more than restricting opportunity.

Regards

JD


You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am mine, however your opinion isnt widely expressed as you state in the above 'the position of this site'.

This surely throws the question of the statistics open, the website received the mention in the Chester report, as previously stated, as a specific entity in its own right.

The postition of the site is one of delimitation, not of 'equality'.

regards

CC
Author:  MR T [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How much does an appeal cost.
JDBubbles wrote:
I have recently applied to my local council for a HC licence and have been refused on the grounds of No Unmet Demand,I dispute this and believe that there is unmet demand but have been told that No more licenses will be issued until maybe after the next survey in 2008.
I believe if I appealled then I would have a reasonable chance of winning based partly on the review that has just been completed and is going before the Cabinet later today http://www.chester.gov.uk/committeeSystems/PDFdocs/REP%2030112006%20CAB%20-%20PROGRESS%20UPDATE%20OF%20T.pdf
So what I want to know is how much does it cost to take the appeal to court does anyone have any experience of these things ?

I did state in a previous post that I would not bother going through the courts but I feel totally justified and to be honest fed up about the way I have been treated.
Any advice would be appreciated.




I think you realise that I do not agree with unlimiting numbers, so therefore people will say that I'm trying to frighten you,

A Mr Holmes in 2000 took Sefton Council to court his costs where £12,000 and Seftons costs was £11,000 in total 23,000 .

In my opinion which is formed purely on reading the minutes the council would win...

They have a clear policy, and their decision is made on the evidence laid before them. :wink:
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
I wonder if certain people would give a stuff if the folks behind this site were pro quotas. :?

And what exactly is the problem of a list that tells councils what other councils are doing?

If it's wrong or out of date, I'm pretty sure JD will amend it asap. :wink:
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 7:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
I wonder if certain people would give a stuff if the folks behind this site were pro quotas. :?

And what exactly is the problem of a list that tells councils what other councils are doing?

If it's wrong or out of date, I'm pretty sure JD will amend it asap. :wink:


No but I'm pretty certain others would point that out too :?

No problem at all with lists, just a slight problem with statistics obtained from the Public Health Information Unit and Taxi Driver On Line :D

CC
Author:  GA [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
I would concern myself with the grounds of your appeal rather than the cost of it.

If the council have identified NO UNMET DEMAND they have fulfilled their legal obligation and have followed govermental advice.

If you feel as though they have not reached their decision correctly you would have to prove otherwise, the council would already have proof in order to form their policies and your appeal would have to offer evidence to the contrary.

Getting what you want isn't enough to convince the council or anyone else that you should get a HC plate, after all I'm sure the Pink Ladies feel as agrieved as you that they are not able to operate as they wish, the only differance is that TDO wouldn't support their rights as they do yours.

B. Lucky :D
Author:  JD [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
The postition of the site is one of delimitation, not of 'equality'.


I suppose under normal circumstances you might be able to give us an example of the inequality of this website? But I suspect for reasons unknown to us that such examples escape you right now?

It's a common fact that this site prefers quality controls to quantity controls. The reason being is that quality controls place an emphasis on the license holder reaching a standard that is attainable by every applicant. Quantity controls place the emphasis on a plate being available to buy and whether or not the buyer has enough money to buy it?

One of those options stands for equality the other stands for inequality and suffice to say it is you who supports the latter, so what does that make you?

Regards

JD
Author:  GA [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
captain cab wrote:
The postition of the site is one of delimitation, not of 'equality'.


I suppose under normal circumstances you might be able to give us an example of the inequality of this website? But I suspect for reasons unknown to us that such examples escape you right now?

Regards

JD


How about Pink Ladies not being allowed to carry passengers legally for hire and reward but licensed PH being allowed to.

I note you support the restriction that the change in law has presented.

B. Lucky :D
Author:  JD [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
GA wrote:
How about Pink Ladies not being allowed to carry passengers legally for hire and reward but licensed PH being allowed to.

I note you support the restriction that the change in law has presented.

B. Lucky :D


That’s the most bizarre analogy I've ever read in my entire life and I'm sure everyone else will think the same, even your buddy captain cab? lol

But your previous post was about right excepting for your reference to "unlicensed" Pink Ladies?

JD
Author:  GA [ Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
But my mate CC supports restrictions .............. so there is nothing contradictory about his objection to their operation.

On the other hand ......................


B. Lucky :D
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/