John Davies wrote:
With regard to this out of area business, the Doncaster case says it all does it not? If I remember correctly, there is also a London case with a similar set of circumstances which also went in favour of the defendent.
I had the Doncaster case on disc somewhere, but now I can't find the bloody thing.
But from memory it concerned a Doncaster taxi picking up within it's area, albeit a phone job. However I don't think the outcome was that clear-cut.
Because the council used the 1976 Act to either write the condition, or bring the prosecution, the judge ruled for the driver. He did however say that the council could have done what it wanted, just not the way it did.
Maybe that's the avenue Brentwood are going down.
Doncaster claimed that taxis working from an office needed a private hire opperators license.
the judge said that private hire opperators licenses came within the scope of misc provisions act, taxi licensing did not, therefore you did not need an opperators license to opperate taxis.
Login
Register
FAQ
