Taxi Driver Online

The 1982 act has plenty of flaws of it's own, Skippy.

The Berwick situation would be illegal under the 1982 act, but then you get the situation we have where the cops don't give a hoot.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

No.

But what do you think may be missing?

_________________
Former taxi driver

I liked the bit, where the judge basically says that just because you're derestricted you can not derestrict every where else, it is also interesting the way he compares hackney and private hire as the same, he also makes it clear that a council can restrict private hire licences, although not for keeping numbers down ( in their district).... it would seem to me that if somebody had a large fleet of private hire vehicles that were never working their licensing area.... than the adjacent district/ Town/ City.... might well have a argument for another judicial review

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

Think about it, lol, I bet the penny drops before the weeks out.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I was talking to someone today about Newcastle Airport.

Apparently it is in the City of Newcastle area but you have taxis from several other surrounding districts ranking up there and City of Newcastle approve of this?

How does this differ from Berwick?

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

All the judge needed to ask himself was whether the Council was lawfully entitled to apply its policy and if so was there any preclusion by the relevant act, or by the Secretary of State's guidance, or by the Council's own statement of licensing policy and whether or not the policy was adminsitered fairly.

It is obvious by his statement that this judge did not find the councils policy in breach of the law. A judge has no legal right to tell a council how to formulate a policy, that is sacrosanct to the duly elected administrative body. A judge can only rule on the vires of a councils policy or decision making according to the facts and in this particular case the facts reside firmly in the court of Berwick.

A judge cannot desire a council to change its policy if that policy is perfectly legal, I'm afraid desirability has never been a legal avenue of enforcement laid down by our legal system and especially when this particular judge misserably failed to inform Berwick council of who should get licenses and who shouldn't? He als failed to consider and inform berwick of the likely consequencies of his desirability on statutory appeal or reference any previous precedent.

I doubt it will be long before this judges desirabilty ruling is put to the legal test.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I quite like that....but I'm missing an and?

regards

CC

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

The scampion case old chap

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4662&highlight=scampion

CC

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

and I disagree JD by the way....in my view the judge has solved a problem....till the next one obviously

regards

CC

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

It seems to me you have three choices:

1 Change the law to make HCs work mainly in the area they are licenced for.

2 Admit that what Berwick have been doing is perfectly legal and let them get on with it.

3 Do nothing and watch the same situation continue.
Berwick plate holders are going to take this back to court if their renewals are refused, as will some new applicants. Wouldn't you?
No legal grounds for refusal except what one judge deems "desirable". Many things in this world are desirable, that doesn't make them legal.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Have they told you that?

I understand there will be a different LA in time for renewal.....but that aside.....say berwick refuse to accept applications that clearly state the vehicle will be used outside the district.

Can you imagine any magistrate going against a Judicial Review that tells Berwick council how applications can be considered and should be done?

So then it goes to a higher court.....which costs even more money.

Will they agree to a taxi being licensed in one area and being used all the time as a PH in another?

I cant see it, but it'll be fun finding out

CC

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

In my view, the judge has pointed out that Berwick is wrong on a number of issues. allowing testing stations in other districts, operating a mail-order licensing system, claiming that they cannot refuse a licence. never seeing the vehicle.
I would not be surprised if Berwick were to make it a condition of Licence that the vehicle proprietor had to sign a declaration that the vehicle and Licence will be used in Berwick , if he does not use it in Berwick then he will be making a false application for which his Licence would be revoked.
I only asked you the question to see which way you think would be best... leave alone or change the law...

ps... in my opinion the judge has clearly stated what tools are available to the council

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

If it is desirable, then the law should be changed to reflect this.
As I said already the Berwick senario is already illegal here.
That doesn't stop it from happening all the same.

You will find Grampian Police's attitude to illegal cabs in this article

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article ... 5?UserKey=

And that was not long after this brutal slaying by an illegal taxi driver and his friends

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 168436.stm

Grampian Police take the same "can't do anything" attitude to hoards of cabs licenced by a neighbouring authority with poor standards working Aberdeen as PH and illegally plying for hire.

So even where it's illegal, it's not taken seriously.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

This type of situation regarding illegal taxis would not be dealt with by the police here. it would be dealt with by trading standards. test purchases. they have the manpower and time that the police do not. and the power to prosecute.

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

tom thumbs got a point here!
Because even though the airport may not be a public road,the seven different authorities hacks which operate from there also have a radio circuit(airport taxis)and accept bookings when they are out of the vicinity of the airport,sometimes not even going back to the airport!
Same thing as far as i can see.

_________________
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z07K29Fc15U