Taxi Driver Online

A group of individuals get together with the intention of making a single licence plate application. They go to a Human Rights Lawyer and pay for a detailed written submission to be put before the Council RC, on their behalf. The council of course refuses the licence application on the pretense they considered the Human Rights argument along with section 10.3 of the act, and special circumstances.

You then rewrite the submission into a writ of appeal and place it before a Sheriff, with a taxi driver (the applicant) presenting the case as his.

The Sheriff would be forced to consider the council's refusal under Human Rights, or kick it up stair for Judicial Review. If, however, the ruling went in the appellants favour, the council would have to appeal against the decision all the way to the Court of Session. The applicant would simply be holding the coats, waiting for the outcome.

The fundamental principles on which the case is based would not change throughout the process. You would simply be repeating the same argument over and over.

The discrimination argument is simply to prove that an individual or group, is disadvantaged by a prejudicial practice. This would be the council's policy of restriction and licence application process, denying qualified self-employed drivers unfettered access to the tools of his trade.

The inequality created by the council's policy speaks for itself, working practices that reduce a driver's status to that of casual labour.

Exploitation, drivers forced to pay hiked rentals or inflated artificial plate premiums to prop up vested interests in a market which trades openly in public property.

I don't think you would have many problems proving any of the above to the satisfaction of a Judge.

I think the RC, meeting is the way into the process. If you have a proper legal submission before the council that can be carried into court on appeal.

Say 5 guys one licence that's £300 plus the cost of the written HR, submission and lodging the writ. Not a lot of money compared with buying a plate.

Your thought's gentlemen, I do realise it might not be quite that simple, but I'm open to suggestions? It's got to be worth a punt.

id be up for that

it would help clear me name

The first opportunity to state your case is before the RC, and if you have a detailed HR, critique of council policy, and how it impacts on your rights. What more do you need on appeal? The Sheriff would be hearing the case as represented by the applicant at the RC, meeting.

It would be down to the council to satisfy the Sheriff; they did everything in their power to consider and protect your rights when coming to their decision. I think that's a big ask.

As a public body the council is charged with protecting Human Rights and under the Civic Act, they must come to their decision in a reasonable manner, in accordance with natural Justice, based on the facts.

I think a detailed HR, critique of their licensing policy, heard on appeal, could blow them right out the water.

Might be worth a punt...

_________________

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

Are you going to re apply skull???

Skull ~ I hope that you're made of money.

The Solicitors and Barristers will be rubbing their hands in glee at such a scenario.

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

he would get everyone else to do it

Lets flip it again then, what if your idea is passed and I then go to HR and say it's against mine and get it all turned about.

You really have to let go of this Gary, every time you type it sounds like a drunk whose been refused admission to a nightclub and wants to then fight the doormen.

I won't be replying to this again for some time, as this is a fleeting visit and I've just lost my dad last week as well, so even though it could be a good vent avenue I don't feel the need for it as I'm dealing with pretty good now after the initial shock.

Try and move on, especially if you've managed to get out anyway, I've some former driver friends on FB who have done a wall post about the state of the current drivers and cars, virtually all of them say they are glad to be gone from it, I myself am on the 50/50 as to continue, my problem is the customers tbh, the only time there is some money about it's the customer I least desire who has it in his pocket, you've said it yourself, it's a sheet job, and it really is, I'm doing my books right now and they are laughable, if I wasn't financially commited one way or another to the job I'd be gone by now myself, I can think of nothing more impure than to subject oneself to this job, bad hours,no back up,nasty customers,constant expenses,fuel cost and finally lack of residual cash once the man has helped himself to what he wants from you, it all adds up to one self abusing way to live, the whole job has changed and where we were once looked upon as the lags who couldn't do anything else when that simply wasn't true, the reality is now that those accusations are infact a fact.

Not at all, you would be representing the case at appeal yourself.

The council is charged with protecting Human Rights. The RC, meeting gives you an opportunity to present a detailed, legally competent HR, submission as the main thrust of the argument, in support of your application. On appeal, HR, would take center stage, the council's policy of restriction would be put under the microscope. That's not to say the Sheriff wouldn't kick it up stair for Judicial Review but the fact is, the HR, argument would be in the frame, and so too, the council's conduct when considering the application.

This is just Shi*e, for a start your argument would have to be based on reason, logic and empirical evidence. You're not turning anything around if this makes it into court.

As for the rest of your post, it's bang on, but you are confusing me with someone who gives a [edited by admin].

The HR, argument was never tested, and I believe it's a clear winner. I just think it should be put to the test.

Would it make sense if the council were to say that in x years time, trading of plates shall cease and any plate owner wishing to move on hands their plate back to the council who then distribute it to people on a specified waiting list. this gives current owners x years to pay off their plate ?? thereafter it would make the trade more accesible to more people, avoiding people getting into ridiculous debt and mean that drivers rentals could be reduced accordingly (and possibly taxi fares) whilst avoiding the nightmare of de-restriction ???? i'm not sure what x years could be - maybe 5 ???

Just a thought - could be a load of s***e and no doubt some will say it is !!!!

There is a huge argument about Human Rights and the way the council abuses them through applying section 10 3.

The council refuses to address the matter because it knows that to retain its status quo all it needs to do is ignore them.

Sad fact is that this is not how a responsible accountable public body should operate. That it does so proves the scant regard our local politicians have for those they are supposed to represent.

Fortunately, rthe 6 outstanding appeals cases don't have any need to resort to HR and the long expensive haul that would be. The council will give up the licences because it adopted a flawed process, our applications highlighted the flaws before hand, and the Sheriff's decision supports this.

What we now have is a situation where the Sheriff says that licences should have been applied chronologically, and soneone on position 105 was granted a licence incorrectly, when all those before him were refused.

Quite simply, if it is wrong to ask the council to rectify the matter by removing this guy's licence, it is equally wrong that those who were on the list before him aren't given equal status and licence granted. We don't anticipate the Sheriff having any difficulty with this on appeal.

We also have the situation where the vice convenor announced at the outset of the hearing that she "had 27 licences to give out".

Apart from the fact that the licences were not in her "gift", how was it possible for anyone to get a fair hearing under such a circumstance? The Sheriff on appeal will come to understand that all decisions relating to the remaining applications were made well before the hearing took place. This is not how it's supposed to happen.

The councilscrewed up big time with how they handled the whole scenario. We already have a judgement which says this, all we're gonna do is add to the pile of shecht the council is going to have to explain in court.

The problem for the council is that when it gets into court, they could well end up going down a road they don't want to go down.

What price half a dozen licences eh?

The trade is already derestricted. It's called Private Hire. Hadn't you noticed.

I've just spent the last week driving past taxi ranks stappit fu and picking up passengers further down the road. Restriction doesn't make it easier for customers to hail a cab. Any wonder they just dial a number and cut the taxi trade out of their loop?

if you can't understand your own market, then what right have you to hold any opinion about restriction or otherwise. Most other councils don't restrict. So how do they manage? No shortage of guys driving cabs anywhere.

Look around at the problems the trade has got. If I had a buck for every time I've heard someone say how bad it is. But it's restriction that delivered this for you. If you can't see that ...