| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Bristol area court case http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22178 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | roythebus [ Fri May 10, 2013 3:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Bristol area court case |
In about 2009/2010, there was an appeal at Bristol Crown court regarding taxi licencing. It involved an operator either from S.Gloucester or North Somerset who had something like an 8 seater and it was deemed the space in the front middle seat was insufficient, despite being EU type-approved. The judges ruled the council regulations were not fit for purpose and the appeal was allowed. I read about this case in RouteOne bus mag. I've been trying to track down the name or number of this case for a couple of weeks but twith no success, and there's no mention of it on the database here. I've tried phoning a couple of operators in the area, both know of the case but can't remember who it was, and Bailii can't find it as I don't have enough details. Does anyone here have any recollection or details of this case? I've been through the back-numbers of Route One online for 2011/2012, that's as far back as they go, and their editor know the case but also can't remember what issue it was in. A chap called Mike King of Prestige Cars was involved in the original case, but he's no longer with Prestige and it wasn't their case either. Any help appreciated. |
|
| Author: | Dusty Bin [ Sat May 11, 2013 3:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/inches-c ... z2Swgv45lG http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol- ... z2Swgv45lG http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Taxi-dri ... z2Swgv45lG |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sat May 11, 2013 6:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
Dusty Bin wrote: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/inches-costs-cabby-thousands/story-11275325-detail/story.html#axzz2Swgv45lG http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Bristol- ... z2Swgv45lG http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Taxi-dri ... z2Swgv45lG well done dusty - good to see you back 
|
|
| Author: | roythebus [ Sat May 11, 2013 9:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
Thanks for the link there. What routeOne magazine didn't carry was the final episode where the case was further appealed and lost. However, the judge's comments were of note : "The council's policy needs to be reviewed so that hearings like this can be avoided. It is out of date and not fit for purpose." I didn't realise the case dated back to 2008! |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat May 11, 2013 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
captain cab wrote: well done dusty - good to see you back I think he has shrunk. 
|
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Sat May 11, 2013 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
Sussex wrote: captain cab wrote: well done dusty - good to see you back I think he has shrunk. Yup, deffo not the bin he used to be. Maybe he's bin on a diet
|
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sun May 12, 2013 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
Sussex wrote: I think he has shrunk. It'll be the cold snap 
|
|
| Author: | mancityfan [ Mon May 13, 2013 4:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
This may be of interest? I have converted it from PDF so there will be some errors,but you should be able to work it out.i can email the PDF if anyone wants it. Local Government OMBUDSMAN Statement of Reasons Complaint ref: 10 019 007 Council: West Somerset District Council Date: 27 May 2011 Complaint 1. The complainant, Mr X, says that the Council did not properly deal with the licensing of his private hire vehicle, and in particular that it delayed informing him that his vehicle did not comply with the Council's regulations. Investigation 2. As part of the investigation, I have: • considered the complaint and the aocuments provided by me complainant; • discussed the issues with the complainant; • made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council has provided. The role of the Ombudsman and the relevant law 3. The Ombudsman's role is to considercomplaints of service failure and maladministration causing injustice. The Ombudsman must consider whether the Council has acted reasonably in accordance with the law, its own policies and generally accepted standards of local administration. Where a council has acted with maladministration, the Ombudsman considers whether injustice has arisen, and any appropriate remedy for that injustice. 4. The Local Government Act 1974 says that the Ombudiman may not investigate a complaint if complainants have or had the right to take legal proceedings. In such cases, the Ombudsman can only investigate where he considers it unreasonable to expect the complainant to use that right. Key facts 5. As I understand it, Mr X has been running a private hire taxi business for 12 years and prior to February 2010, was operating two private hire vehicles, one seating four passengers and one seating seven passengers. In December 2009, the vehicle seating seven passengers was destroyed in an arson attack. Mr X purchased a similar replacement vehicle and took it to the Council's nominated garage to be inspected. The Council then issued a vehicle licence and plate. 6. Around six weeks later, in January 2010, the Council contacted Mr X and asked him to bring the replacement vehicle in to be inspected by the Licensing Oficer. It says that it had been informed via an anonymous phone call that the vehicle did not comply with the Council's private hire regulations. Mr X took the vehicle in to be inspected and the Council confirmed that it did not comply. The regulation in question states: • A vehicle used as a hackney carriage/private hire vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to be safe and comfortable; the doors must open sufficiently wide so as to allow easy access to and egress from the vehicle and cause no inconvenience to passengers. Access to and egress from the vehicle must at all times be available in respect of each seat without the need to move or adjust any seating. 7. The regulations for vehicle speciication were approved in 2005 with minor amendments in 2008. Mr X says that he was not aware of the regulation and had provided all the vehicle's details over the phone to the Licensing Officer at the time of the purchase and she did not mention any requirement to also inspect the vehicle herself. 8. Mr X applied to the Council for an exemption from the requirement to comply with this regulation and the matter was brought before the Licensing Committee in. February 2010. The Committee determined that an exemption should not be granted but that if Mr X removed one seat from the middle row of seats, the vehicle would then comply with the regulations. Mr X was informed that he could appeal the decision in the Magistrates Court within 21 days. 9. The Comirilif4e wasinformed that a review of he rtWilatlo—n-rarid pitidediireS relating to hackney carriage/private hire was last undertaken ive years previdusly. The Committee resolved that a full review of the regulations and procedures be approved. 10. Mr X says that the Council's decision was unfair and that as a result of removing one of the seats he has lost trade to the value of around £5000. He says that by the time the Council informed him that the vehicle did not comply with the regulations, it was too late to take the vehicle back to the dealer. 11. In March 2010, another vehicle went before the Licensing Committee due to non compliance with the same regulation. The Committee determined that the exemption could be granted if a seat were removed from the vehicle. The Council then received legal advice that this could be taken as making the exemption conditional, which the Committee did not have the power to do. The matter was then taken before the Committee again in May 2010 and the vehicle was granted exemption from the requirement to comply with the regulation. 12. Mr X then wrote to the Council asking if the same legal issue applied to the decision relating to his vehicle's compliance with the regulations. He was told that it did not. Mr X complains that he was required to remove a seat from his six door vehicle that carried seven passengers, whereas the other vehicle in question only had four doors and carried six passengers but was not required to remove a seat, even though that was the Licensing Committee's initial decision. 13. The National Private Hire Association wrote to the Council explaining that it had acted on behalf of several other taxi drivers in the same situation and had been successful in eight of the nine cases. The case that was unsuccessful was lost prior to the publishing of the Department for Transport's Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Guidance in March 2010. This guidance states that it may be too restrictive to automatically rule out considering Multi- Purpose Vehicles, or to license them for fewer passengers than their seating capacity.' 14. In a speech for the National Taxi Association Conference on 27 October 2010, Norman Baker, Minister for Local and Regional Transport said, 'And, in this regard, you might be interested to know that I also expressed my concern to licensing authorities about local policies which require taxi owners with seven or eight seater vehicles to remove one or two of the seats. There is no real justification for this - all it does is to restrict your ability to provide the sort of service which you have identified and which you want to provide.' 15. The Council has explained that Mr X was informed verbally several times and in writing of his right to challenge the Council's decision in court but chose not to do so. Analysis 16. As explained in paragraph four, the Ombudsman should not consider a complaint where a right of appeal to a court of law exists, unless it is unreasonable to expect the complainant to use that right. The complainant was aware of his right of appeal and whilst he was concerned about the costs involved in taking legal action, I do not consider that it was unreasonable for Mr X to appeal the matter in the Magistrates Court. I therefore do not intend to consider the process leading to the Committee's decision. 17. However, I will point out that the Department for Transport's guidance had not been published at the time Mr X was able to appeal so it should not be assumed that an appeal would have been successful on this basis. The comments of the Minister for Local and Regional Transport were made several months later. 18.1 have considered he .Council's actions when Mr X purchased the vehicle. In the Council's response to the comiiiiihOt says that if-Mr kh—RI asked laiether he ccurdsofelytake the vehicle to the inspecting garage he would have been informed that it still needed to be taken to the Council ofices for inspection by the Licensing Officer. Once the pass certificate was issued by the garage, the Council was aware that Mr X had taken the vehicle to the garage before taking it to the Council's offices and, in my view, it should have informed him at this time of the need to inspect the vehicle. 19. Regulation 3.47 of the Private Hire Regulations states 'any vehicle which is the subject of an application for a licence will be examined (including mechanically) by a duly authorised officer of the council prior to the issue or renewal of a vehicle licence...'. It seems to me that the Council has a responsibility to inspect the vehicle before it issues a licence. I do not accept that the Council was entitled to assume the vehicle was compliant and it is my view that the Council should have followed its own regulation and not issued a licence before it had inspected the vehicle. This is maladministration. 20. If the Council had inspected the vehicle before issuing the licence as it should have done, Mr X would have been advised at the time of the inspection that the vehicle did not comply. He would then have had the option to take the vehicle back to the dealer and substitute it for one that did comply with the regulations. That said, once Mr X was informed that an exemption would not be granted, he could have replaced the vehicle at that time. In line with my recommendation, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X of £300 to recognise the time and trouble he has been put to as a consequence of the Council issuing the licence before the vehicle was inspected. 21. The Council says it is reviewing its regulations and procedures to ensure that they relect current legislation and guidance. In light of the Department for Transport's guidance and the comments of the Minister for Local and Regional Transport and following my recommendation, the Council has agreed to consider a fresh application from Mr X for exemption from the requirement to comply with the regulation in question, and if unsuccessful, provide him with a fresh right of appeal. Final view 22. My decision is that Mr X has suffered injustice as a result of maladministration by the Council, but that the Council's agreement to take the action included in paragraphs 20 and 21 is a fair and reasonable basis for settlement of the complaint. I do not believe there are grounds to pursue the complaint fUrther. Jackie Foster Investigator On behalf of the Local Government Ombudsman |
|
| Author: | roythebus [ Mon May 13, 2013 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bristol area court case |
Thanks, more useful info there. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|