Sheriff misunderstood what was being said he thought it was for a judicial review, cab owner has 14 days to appeal or replace his cab
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Any links to age of cab court cases http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14853 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | skippy41 [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Any links to age of cab court cases |
There is a cab owner taking on our council tomorrow over there 7 year age policy, is there any court cases that cab owners have won if so post links here so he can read them Council have got themselves a big wig barrister |
|
| Author: | Chris the Fish [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Skippy, don't know if this is of any use. I seem to recall going to the website of the Solicitors who took the case on and getting more info there. To be honest I think you would need a transcript of the Judgement and unless someone pays the money you just aint going to get one. You certainly won't get it by tomorrow. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12933 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's a really hard one to fight, even if it's justified. Clearly Scottish Best Practise mirrors (I think) the English version where the DfT says age limits are pointless, if councils test vehicles properly and timely. Check that the council consulted properly, and ask why the council has that view. The case will all go down to the reasonableness or otherwise of the rule, so try to make the condition look unreasonable. That can be done by arguing age isn't a mechanical subject, just an arbitory time. If a vehicle passes the council's testing criteria ask why that vehicle shouldn't be licensed. Is a three year old vehicle with 100,000 on, safer than a 5 year old vehicle with 50,000? |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
AGE OF VEHICLE. In the Case of Sharpe v Nottingham City Council, (February 1981), before Judge M Singh Q.C. The Council refused to renew a vehicle licence having set a condition that no vehicle should be more than 5 years old or have exceeded more than 150,000 miles, it was claimed that this policy fettered the Council's discretion. The judgement was that a Council is entitled to adopt a policy provided it does not impose it inflexibly. The burden lies with the Council to show that the vehicle condition was such that it was unfit to be licensed for the next twelve months. However in Hyndburn B.C v Rauf and Hyndburn BC v Kasim., (12th February l992), High Court before Mr Justice Kennedy it was held that the Council could set a limit on the age of the vehicle |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
AGE OF VEHICLE. The applicant applied for Judicial Review after the refusal of Swansea to licence a vehicle. The policy was that on first application all vehicles should be new, but the vehicle presented had been previously licensed and on examination had been found to be in good condition. The Divisional Court considered that under Section 37 of the 1847 Act the authority could probably adopt a policy of new vehicles only. Local Authorities have a statutory duty to licence and in this case had set high standards to achieve objectives, and as the authority had properly considered all relevant matters in adopting the policy the application was dismissed. (Swansea CC [R] v Julie Amanda Jones, 1996, EWHC Admin 290, CO/3187/95). Allerdale had a maximum fixed age policy of five years for vehicles with a six monthly inspection. An appeal was made to magistrates when some were refused licences due to having reached the age limit. The magistrates found the vehicles to be in good condition and reversed the council’s decision. The policy guidelines had not defined the terms ‘high mileage' or ‘luxury vehicle’, but it was agreed that there should be a policy set by the council and that this should have a degree of flexibility. AGE LIMITS ON VEHICLES. The Government considered during the preparation of a 'White Paper' entitled 'A New Deal for Transport', 1998, a proposal of prohibiting authorities from setting age limit policies for taxis and private hire vehicles, but decided that authorities should continue to make decisions on the age of vehicles they would be prepared to licence |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
VEHICLE CONDITION - EXCEPTIONAL. On appeal to Crown Court (persuasive), in Derwentside DC v Welsh, January 1996, the decision of the District Council to set an age limit of 7 years, unless the vehicle was in exceptional condition, was upheld. The fact that the Council had a properly set policy decision with regard to this condition was an important factor as was the fact that Mr Welsh's vehicle had faults on each of three consecutive occasions when inspected. |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks to all that put answers up, just hope he is successful basically its him against a QC in court |
|
| Author: | skippy41 [ Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sheriff misunderstood what was being said he thought it was for a judicial review, cab owner has 14 days to appeal or replace his cab
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
skippy41 wrote: Sheriff misunderstood what was being said he thought it was for a judicial review, cab owner has 14 days to appeal or replace his cab
Thats correct, if its an appeal over policy it must be judicial review. CC |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|