Livery- Court of Appeal and High and Crown Court transcripts

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8518

MarkRGuildford wrote:

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.

47 Licensing of hackney carriages (1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.

(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates' court. It does not say you will win

Sussex · **Posted:** Sun Feb 24, 2019 8:50 pm

MarkRGuildford wrote:

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.

Of course you can fight as much as you want, and hopefully win every fight.

But, personally, I couldn't give a f*** what colour my car has to be. I'm only interested in how many punters I can get in it.

Yes I would sooner not pay £1,200, but over the life of a cab that's not a life or death, or a bankruptcy amount.

mancityfan · **Joined:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm **Posts:** 1544

MarkRGuildford wrote:

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.

I believe that, in accordance with general legal principles, the burden of proving the grievance, on a balance of probabilities, lies upon you to show that the local authority's stated conditions are not reasonably necessary.
Now not knowing the full details or being part of any consultation, and of course they must have consulted with the trade, it’s hard to advise you on what is reasonably necessary.
I can think of lots of reasons why they would want a livery, but none of them are reasonably necessary.

mancityfan · **Joined:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm **Posts:** 1544

Try reading
STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL -V- KENNETH JOHN EYLES

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:21 pm

mancityfan wrote:

Try reading
STOCKPORT METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL -V- KENNETH JOHN EYLES

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=24945

Taxi Driver Online

Livery- Court of Appeal and High and Crown Court transcripts

Who is online