Taxi Driver Online

Cabbies fail in camera challenge

A BID by two cabbies to challenge compulsory cameras in Southampton taxis has been struck out before their case could be heard. Southampton City Council persuaded a judge that it should go no further as the pair were effectively appealing against a change of policy not a licensing condition requiring the controversial cameras.

But the taxi drivers insisted the council had only won on a legal technicality and vowed to fight on. The council decided last August that all 263 hail and ride Hackney Carriage taxis and the 450 private hire vehicles in the city must have digital security cameras fitted.

Clive Johnson, chairman of Radio Taxis, the city’s largest firm, and Kevin May, the city’s largest taxi proprietor, launched a legal action after the council sent a letter confirming the requirement. They wanted to argue that compulsory cameras breached a driver’s right to privacy under the human rights laws and that the requirement to install the £700 cameras reduced the resale value of their licences.

The Daily Echo reported last week how a taxi driver was trying to sell his vehicle licence, or plate, together with a new seven-seater taxi for £55,000, just weeks after it had been virtually given away in a lottery style council draw.

Mr May and Mr Johnson also claimed the decision to make them compulsory was disproportionate when recordings had only been retrieved from cars about once a month.

But council legal chiefs argued that Southampton Magistrates’ Court could not hear the appeal as it was against a statement detailing a change in policy, rather than the licensing condition requiring a camera be fitted, which only came into play when a new licence was granted or an existing one renewed after one year.

The council admitted that any suggestion in its letter that a taxicam condition had been immediately imposed by councillors was “simply wrong”. Mr May said: “It was not far off what we expected. But we are not going to stop here. It’s going to continue. We don’t think it's reasonable to ask 100 per cent of drivers to have these cameras. It infringes human rights.”

Councillor Royston Smith, Cabinet member for community safety, said: “We hope that safety cameras in our taxis have been very successful at preventing crimes from happening. “We are one of the few authorities in the country to require taxis to be fitted with these cameras and I am pleased that this is still the case.”

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
IDFIMH

WTF has that got to do with the story?

CC

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

I thought Hackney Carriages were regulated by Byelaws & not Conditions of Licence.

And if the 'condition' is not in the Byelaws, can the council legally enforce CCTVs in Hackney Carrages?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I wager the rule is attached to the proprietors license, which of course isnt subject to byelaws.

CC

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

I beg to differ . . . . or I think I beg to differ.

And now I have looked it up . . . . I DO beg to differ!

Section 68 of TPC 1847 states;

68 Byelaws for regulating hackney carriages

The commissioners may from time to time (subject to the restrictions of this and the special Act) make byelaws for all or any of the purposes following; (that is to say,)

For regulating the conduct of the proprietors and drivers of hackney carriages plying within the prescribed distance in their several employments, and determining whether such drivers shall wear any and what badges, and for regulating the hours within which they may exercise their calling:

For regulating the manner in which the number of each carriage, corresponding with the number of its licence, shall be displayed:

And blah, de blah, de blah, etc., etc.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I beg to differ again;

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.

CC

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

Section 47 of the 76 act allows local authorities to set conditions on proprietors licenses.......the same act has NO power to set conditions to Hackney Carriage drivers in the same respect.

CC

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

I havn't noticed that before; I better start re-reading again.

It kind of makes byelaws a bit wishy-washy though.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

It takes the p*ss BC, it allows councils to attach conditions to drivers via prop licenses, very naughty and lazy IMO

CC

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

The by-laws/licensing conditions issue isn't the thing that the court decided on.

They decided the issue on no case to answer, as the members of the trade were appealing against something that currently didn't exist on their license.

_________________
IDFIMH

From what I hear Southampton Council have had this posted up the back door!

With also Brighton GMB removing support for CCTV there might be a few trade investors in CCTV companies catching a bit of a cold!

And the appeal papers are in the post.

I hope the driver has more than the £15,000 it has cost him so far, especially as the DJ didn't award costs.

Lost on the Human Rights issue I'm informed, which means it will go to the highest courts we have.

_________________
IDFIMH

[quote][quote="Sussex"][quote="Nemisis"]From what I hear Southampton Council have had this posted up the back door!
[/quote]
And the appeal papers are in the post.

I hope the driver has more than the £15,000 it has cost him so far, especially as the DJ didn't award costs.

Lost on the Human Rights issue I'm informed, which means it will go to the highest courts we have.[/quote][/quote]

I understand the Judge was very critical of the council handling of this, as usual they over stepped the grounds of "reasonable" as always when dealing with the Taxi trade. I doubt very much if the appeal papers are in the post...more likely stuck in a back passage somewhere!

If council has any chance of credibility playing silly buggers with council taxpayers money. It will take at least 3 meetings in council chambers before they might even consider moving this to the highest court...my money would go on the drivers winning, and recovering costs in the bargain...I wonder who advised council?

Well you can doubt what you like, but I wouldn't have typed it if it wasn't true.

Maybe you should try speaking to the horses mouth rather than it's arse.

_________________
IDFIMH