Taxi Driver Online

The Courts have said that Councils can impose any livery policy they wish, without restraint.

Does anyone have any ideas as to how or if they went wrong in law? Or to put it another way, what could their legal authority to impose livery be?

Any thoughts welcome.

Best to read here https://misconductinpublicoffice.org/wiki/Appeal_against_Guildford_Crown_Court_livery_decision from top of the list to get a true picture.

Surely it all goes down to reasonableness.

If a council said all cars had to be pink with yellow flowers I doubt a court would say that's reasonable.

If a council said cars had to be white with the council emblem on, then a court would probably agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

I am dying to ask him what he thought an aggrieved person is/was.

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

I think he was very lucky relating to costs ...….nobody have anything to say??

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

MR T The Judges all recognised the driver was aggrieved, but they said that the Council could do whatever they wanted despite his justified grievance. On the costs the driver had to pay his own and the Councils legal fees in the end for four hearings, total about £17,000.
My question is what was the legal justification for what they did.

Sussex, The Act says they have to believe the condition is reasonably necessary, that is there is a reason and it is a necessity.
They said first that it was to prevent child sex exploitation after the Rotherham case, but when it was pointed out that the Rotherham taxis were already liveried, there only real reason disappeared.

Mark, I watched Sefton MBC lose a case that was scheduled for 2 days in court. It cost them £22,000 plus their own costs. A few years before that I watched the drivers in Wirral lose a case, and between their costs and the council's costs they had to pay out over £50,000. So at the moment you are not doing too bad, although it still must sting.

Interpretation of an aggrieved person - I can see that the judges agree that the person involved is aggrieved in the sense that he does not agree with the decision the council made, but the council followed the procedure correctly, and came to a decision and then implemented it. The consequences of that decision affected the whole of the trade and not just one person. If they had implemented it in a way that that decision affected one person differently to everyone else then he would be an aggrieved person, (in my opinion), but as it stands, his boat doesn't float. After reading the transcripts it would seem the judges involved have been lenient.

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

I'm not sure the council needed to mention Rotherham, they could, maybe they should, have said that proper signage helps stop unlicensed hirings.

There are laws in place to stop PH, to stop normal cars, looking like taxis, so when you have a fleet of multi coloured saloon vehicles licensed as taxis, then confusion with licensed PH is going to happen.

_________________
IDFIMH

All that said personally I'm not critical of drivers fighting for what they believe is right.

But my view is that the colour of the taxi is not the top of the things that the trade currently need to fight for.

_________________
IDFIMH

Mr T, the thing is Councils only have powers given to them by Act of Parliament, so which Act gives them the power to impose whatever livery they like?

IDFIMH, I don't think there's any rule that says only one issue at at a time, is there? It costs each driver about £1200. Is that money we'll spent?

1976 Act..
48 Licensing of private hire vehicles (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a district council may on the receipt of an application from the proprietor
of any vehicle for the grant in respect of such vehicle of a licence to use the vehicle as a private hire vehicle, grant in respect thereof a vehicle licence:

Provided that a district council shall not grant such a licence unless they are satisfied— (a) that the vehicle is— (i) suitable in type, size and design for use as a private hire vehicle; (ii) not of such design and appearance as to lead any person to believe that the vehicle is a hackney carriage; (iii) in a suitable mechanical condition; (iv) safe; and (v) comfortable;

(b) that there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance or such security as complies with the requirements of [Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988],

and shall not refuse such a licence for the purpose of limiting the number of vehicles in respect of which such licences are granted by the council.

(2) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this subsection, conditions requiring or prohibiting the display of signs on or from the vehicle to which die licence relates.

(3) In every vehicle licence granted under this section there shall be specified— (a) the name and address of — (i) the applicant; and (ii) every other person who is a proprietor of the private hire vehicle in respect of which the licence is granted, or who is concerned, either solely or in partnership with any other person, in the keeping, employing or letting on hire of the private hire vehicle; (b) the number of the licence which shall correspond with the number to be painted or marked on the plate or disc to be exhibited on the private hire vehicle in accordance with subsection (6) of this section; (c) the conditions attached to the grant of the licence; and (d) such other particulars as the district council consider reasonably necessary.

(4) Every licence granted under this section shall — (a) be signed by an authorised officer of the council which granted it; (b) relate to not more than one private hire vehicle; and (c) remain in force for such period not being longer than one year as the district council may specify in the licence.

(5) Where a district council grant under this section a vehicle licence in respect of a private hire vehicle they shall issue a plate or disc identifying that vehicle as a private hire vehicle in respect of which a vehicle licence has been granted.

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

1976 Act..


(3) In every vehicle licence granted under this section there shall be specified— (a) the name and address of — (i) the applicant; and (ii) every other person who is a proprietor of the private hire vehicle in respect of which the licence is granted, or who is concerned, either solely or in partnership with any other person, in the keeping, employing or letting on hire of the private hire vehicle; (b) the number of the licence which shall correspond with the number to be painted or marked on the plate or disc to be exhibited on the private hire vehicle in accordance with subsection (6) of this section; (c) the conditions attached to the grant of the licence; and (d) such other particulars as the district council consider reasonably necessary.

Under this section Council Officers are failing to fulfil the LAW.
Every P/H vehicle license must specify the Private Hire Operator in it,Councils must be made to fulfil their lawful obligations and delegated powers must be suspended until they are seen to be fulfilling their obligations.

From Mr T:

1976 Act..
48 Licensing of private hire vehicles (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a district council may on the receipt of an application from the proprietor
of any vehicle for the grant in respect of such vehicle of a licence to use the vehicle as a private hire vehicle, grant in respect thereof a vehicle licence:

That section is about private hire, I'm talking about hackney carriage livery, which is section 48.

There isn't a rule that says we can only fight one thing at a time is there?
The livery costs drivers £1200 per car.