Taxi Driver Online

I'd like to see a breakdown on how they came up with that £250K worth of lost business. All their drivers are self employed. i think they have around 30 to 40 cars maybe a few more on their fleet. cant quite work out how the office has lost that much worth business.

Clearly it would include the fees from all the cars that left, and all the fees from cars that may have joined.

They may also be able to show where they lost work or contracts due to the on going court cases. Perhaps they may have been banned from tendering for council and school work.

Lots of maybe's and perhap's, but a quater of a million may not be that far off. However I suspect a settlement will be reached.

If for no other reason than it will then stay out of the press.

_________________
IDFIMH

Let me tell you something, because a council deals with ratepayers money it cannot just take a case to law, it has to be sanctioned by I believe the district ombudsman to allow the case to go forth.

nowthen I remember the vast encouragement this council got from taxi drivers nationwide indeed I critisised Halifax for doing nothing there

bit rich now John and Andy climbing on you horses being holier than thou sorry lads it wont wash.

and the district auditor can say nothing unless an agrieved ratepayer brings it to his attention.

and the council cannot settle out of court without consent of the ombudsman.

its a hell of a mess

and the council has my sympathies, they knew they were being conned.

and by the way a judge does not hear a defence until a prima facia case is established.......................................................

thats a fact.

What case are you talking about?


I'm a liitle lost here, What have I said that you find a bit rich?

In fact I'm confused by the whole post. My comments on this matter have been restricted to the lack of factual evidence from plymouth council. I share the opinion of the Judge, indeed the day before this case started I mentioned to steveo that if the council can't provide sufficient evidence to support their actions then the Judge may take a very dim view of it. That was precisely what happened.

I can't for the life of me think why you brought up the subject of prima facie. what was under consideration was a licensing appeal. The decision of the Council had already been made. It is the legal right of every individual in this land to appeal a licensing decision, Prima Facie doesn't enter into it.

Any person aggrieved by a decision of a magistrates court may appeal to the Crown Court against the decision.

Best wishes.

JD

+

John,
Sometimes I wonder please tell me.
how the hell do you know what evidence a judge had?

and,
ok any person can appeal, without funds?

and are you saying Plymouth were not provoked by tv. and taxidrivers?

I really don't see what relevance the above question has? The only thing I'm interested in are the facts, the facts in this case show that Plymouth council made an unreasonable decision in restricing a licence.

My comments as you well know were restricted to the Plymouth Judgement. If you want to disscus the rights or wrongs of that Judgement then you are at liberty to do so but please dont attribute to me comments which were not made by me.

I'm still wondering what you meant by a bit rich?

Best wishes

JD

I can remember clearly saying that the council are on to a wrong'en if they try to make out the chap isn't 'fit and proper', just because he was a mate of the chap who was. As for geeing up the local trade to back a loser, well that's the preserve of the T&G.

I think the chap who won his case could well be viewed as an 'aggrieved ratepayer'.

As for the Ombudsman, a council can do want it bloody well likes in regard to the Ombudsman. He can report on it, but if a council chooses to ignore his findings, well they can.

I would love to see any references showing a council needing the Ombusman's permission to settle. Judge's sometimes, Ombudsman never.

_________________
IDFIMH

well done youve missed the point

apparently there has been argument that its unfailr a LA using financial muscle against a little ratepayer. I am reliably informed that for these reasons thier case must be read and approved by the ombudsman.

now a council who settled out of court willy nilly to avoid publicity is of course not possible. for that they do need consent either by a judge but I believe that permission could be had from the ombudsman.

put out of your mind the ombudsmans role in settling disputes which Sussex I am not on about.

I am on about a role simular to that of the crown prosecution service to the police.

The costs of the legal proceedings will have been assessed at the end of the court case, and it would appear the council quite rightly kopped the lot.

As for the claims for loss etc etc, that will be assessed in another hearing, unless the council settle.

_________________
IDFIMH

Looks like the council WERE offered an out of court but declined:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133188&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133171&contentPK=11003898

SILVERLINE 'OFFERED CITY DEAL'


12:00 - 23 September 2004
Plymouth City Council had the chance to avoid a massive bill for compensation and legal fees which it now faces following its defeat in a court battle with cab firm Silverline, it has emerged.

Last week Silverline won its appeal at Plymouth Crown Court against the council's licensing committee decision not to award operator Lawrence Brown a licence.

Having won, the cab firm intends to take further legal action for damages and legal fees and city taxpayers could be forced to foot a bill, including council costs, totalling up to £400,000.

The council refused Mr Brown a licence on the grounds they believed he was acting as a front man for Leslie Palmer, who was refused a licence in 1997.

Today the Herald can reveal that in April this year solicitors acting for Silverline wrote to the council offering to take no action for compensation, bear the price of their costs and exclude Mr Palmer from the business providing the council grant Mr Brown his licence. The letter stated: "We have discussed the matter with our client and he would be prepared to compromise his appeal before the Plymouth Crown Court on the basis he was granted a conditional licence to operate private hire vehicles.

"The condition would be that Mr Palmer is excluded from the business."

The council, however, decided to continue its fight against the appeal.

The case was thrown out by Judge Francis Gilbert who said the council had produced no evidence suggesting Mr Brown was not keeping the books, or keeping them in the manner he was supposed to.

Having been made an offer to settle, which was refused, the council's chance of getting any joy out of an appeal is less than none.

Heads should, but wont roll.

I'm wondering how much fight Plymouth council will now have left in them to defend the court case being brought by The owner of Taxifast? They may see it as throwing good money after bad and for what?

Best wishes

JD

Reaction from a local resident.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=11005533

Best wishes

JD

It's the in house lawyers that engage the out house lawyers.
And the out house lawyers do what they are told because then whatever happens its always the in house one's that kop the blame.
And so they should.

another front page story today:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133478&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133186&home=yes&contentPK=11143092

CITY'S £500000 TAXI GAMBLE


12:00 - 19 October 2004
Plymouth City Council has been accused of 'playing poker' with council tax-payers' money after it decided to launch a High Court appeal in its battle with a taxi operator.

The council wants the High Court in London to review a Plymouth Crown Court ruling in its long-running battle with Silverline owner Lawrence Brown. Mr Brown won the last round of the legal battle in September when a Plymouth Crown Court judge backed his appeal and overturned a city council licensing committee decision not to grant him an operator's licence.

After the victory he said he was planning to take further legal action against the council to recover £250,000 damages and legal fees totaling £60,000-£70,000. Together with the council's own costs this left the city facing a potential bill for the case of up to £400,000.

Legal experts said that if the council's latest legal moves went to a full hearing this could add a further £50,000 for each side to the legal bill - bringing it to £500,000.

Silverline's solicitor Michael Hayman said the firm and Mr Brown had nothing to fear from the case and said: "It is like the council is playing poker with the citizens of Plymouth's money over a business that the judge said had been serving the people of Plymouth safely for years."