Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:26 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39417
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
and does it say.......... and nowhere else..

Not sure it needs to.

It says 'shall' present within the area. That to be is crystal clear.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
and does it say.......... and nowhere else..

Not sure it needs to.

It says 'shall' present within the area. That to be is crystal clear

have you been drinking

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
heathcote wrote:
MR T wrote:
From my own personal experience unless a council is told definitely that it can't do something, it tends to believe it can. When an Act is drawn up the author will write it in a way so that council's have discretion or not. Liverpool has a number of testing stations within its boundaries but it also has a testing station in Sefton. The driver has the choice of which testing station he wants to use. Sefton has a testing station for licenced limousines (the long ones) in Warrington I think, because none of Sefton's testing stations have the facilities to test them. Councils have to comply with the law. Vehicles have to be tested to be deemed roadworthy. I think a court would look more favourably towards a council that is making sure all the vehicles it licenced are roadworthy and safe for the public, than which area they are tested in. If somebody has £20000 plus to spare feel free to challenge it in court. Personally, it won't be me! :D
P.S. I don' t know where Sefton's landaus are tested but it could be Blackpool.



Newcastle v Blueline NCN:[2008]EWHC 236(Admin) Case No:C/O 6448/2007

Paragraph 23 the Judge makes it abundantly clear that vehicles can only be tested in its licensing district.

In other words why does some on here support Councils who are breaking the Law are they themselves flying close to the wind.

Not a nice thing to say [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X [-X

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 36896
Location: Wayneistan
Like Mr T I always thought the provision allowed a proprietor to refuse the test if the test was 'out of area', not the other way around.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:39 pm
Posts: 1302
captain cab wrote:
Like Mr T I always thought the provision allowed a proprietor to refuse the test if the test was 'out of area', not the other way around.


I'm not sure MR T is saying you can refuse the test if it's out of area, that would not help his point of view, the reason you can refuse the test if it's out of area is because it has to be inside, Wolverhampton by having testing stations outside its area are helping these Operators run Wolverhampton vehicles 120 miles away, so we're going back to the Berwick days, while other councils are trying to stop hackneys from working miles away, here we have a council trying to encourage private hire vehicles to do exactly that,when I asked Wolverhampton about how out-of-area private hire operators are supposed to legally use Wolverhampton licensed drivers and vehicles, she said that they “piggyback” an operator licence within the premises of a handful of Wolverhampton operators, paying them £50 per week to use their premises as an ostensible operator base.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
mancityfan wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Like Mr T I always thought the provision allowed a proprietor to refuse the test if the test was 'out of area', not the other way around.


I'm not sure MR T is saying you can refuse the test if it's out of area, that would not help his point of view, the reason you can refuse the test if it's out of area is because it has to be inside, Wolverhampton by having testing stations outside its area are helping these Operators run Wolverhampton vehicles 120 miles away, so we're going back to the Berwick days, while other councils are trying to stop hackneys from working miles away, here we have a council trying to encourage private hire vehicles to do exactly that,when I asked Wolverhampton about how out-of-area private hire operators are supposed to legally use Wolverhampton licensed drivers and vehicles, she said that they “piggyback” an operator licence within the premises of a handful of Wolverhampton operators, paying them £50 per week to use their premises as an ostensible operator base.



Mr T likes to be argumentative at the best of times and when people come on here saying that something is set in stone, because a judge said so in such and such a case, it tends to get up my nose, when you read of so many cases being overturned by yet another judge in another case, and the fact that new laws or old laws have been changed since that case had taken place. Liverpool have had a testing station in Sefton for over 45 years. Originally it used to deal with the overflow of its bookings from its one and only testing station in Liverpool.
Sefton has a testing station for stretch limos outside of its area because that testing station specialises in stretch limos, and Sefton does not have a facility like it, but the vehicles need to be tested to a high standard. Now that to me seems common sense. I personally think, such as in the Berwick case, that if a council is authorising testing stations far away from its own area simply to generate income from licencing fees, then that is most certainly wrong, but if they do it to make sure that a certain type of vehicle is correctly tested, then that is common sense.
As I said in the very beginning, we can argue as much as we like, but the only way you will get a council to change its stance on a policy is to challenge it in court. Two barristers go into court thinking they are right, one comes out a loser, but they both get paid.
Posters on here who try to discredit another persons point of view by suggesting that they are involved in things that are not legal, remind me so much of the old Labour mentality, which is something I would not do myself. Win at all costs is not my motto.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:39 pm
Posts: 1302
MR T wrote:
mancityfan wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Like Mr T I always thought the provision allowed a proprietor to refuse the test if the test was 'out of area', not the other way around.


I'm not sure MR T is saying you can refuse the test if it's out of area, that would not help his point of view, the reason you can refuse the test if it's out of area is because it has to be inside, Wolverhampton by having testing stations outside its area are helping these Operators run Wolverhampton vehicles 120 miles away, so we're going back to the Berwick days, while other councils are trying to stop hackneys from working miles away, here we have a council trying to encourage private hire vehicles to do exactly that,when I asked Wolverhampton about how out-of-area private hire operators are supposed to legally use Wolverhampton licensed drivers and vehicles, she said that they “piggyback” an operator licence within the premises of a handful of Wolverhampton operators, paying them £50 per week to use their premises as an ostensible operator base.



Mr T likes to be argumentative at the best of times and when people come on here saying that something is set in stone, because a judge said so in such and such a case, it tends to get up my nose, when you read of so many cases being overturned by yet another judge in another case, and the fact that new laws or old laws have been changed since that case had taken place. Liverpool have had a testing station in Sefton for over 45 years. Originally it used to deal with the overflow of its bookings from its one and only testing station in Liverpool.
Sefton has a testing station for stretch limos outside of its area because that testing station specialises in stretch limos, and Sefton does not have a facility like it, but the vehicles need to be tested to a high standard. Now that to me seems common sense. I personally think, such as in the Berwick case, that if a council is authorising testing stations far away from its own area simply to generate income from licencing fees, then that is most certainly wrong, but if they do it to make sure that a certain type of vehicle is correctly tested, then that is common sense.
As I said in the very beginning, we can argue as much as we like, but the only way you will get a council to change its stance on a policy is to challenge it in court. Two barristers go into court thinking they are right, one comes out a loser, but they both get paid.
Posters on here who try to discredit another persons point of view by suggesting that they are involved in things that are not legal, remind me so much of the old Labour mentality, which is something I would not do myself. Win at all costs is not my motto.


Your opinion is appreciated as always, I don't think I quoted any case law or accused you of anything? I was just trying to liven up the forum as it was getting pretty boring.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
Quote:
I don't think I quoted any case law or accused you of anything?


Not meant at you.......your nice....ha ha

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1047
MR T wrote:
Quote:
I don't think I quoted any case law or accused you of anything?


Not meant at you.......your nice....ha ha


Probably meant at me,if offended I apologise but just trying to get reaction to what seems to be a quite period on here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
heathcote wrote:
MR T wrote:
Quote:
I don't think I quoted any case law or accused you of anything?


Not meant at you.......your nice....ha ha


Probably meant at me,if offended I apologise but just trying to get reaction to what seems to be a quite period on here.

Knowing that if I cut your head off and looked inside ,I would see TAXIDRIVER stamped, just like a bar of rock. I will let you off. :D

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:06 pm
Posts: 21129
Location: A City near Birmingham
We have 1.............. chosen- it seems - not by tender, i cant say more

i know for a compliance+MOT they get £31

_________________
Freedom is never free


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:45 am
Posts: 9173
Location: Clandestine, soon to be Russia.
The garage for Mansfield on Rotherham Road well, lets put it this way, I wouldn't take my car there for an MOT.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group