Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 10:11 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Drivers sue State over ‘disastrous’ liberalisation of taxi licensing regime

Test cases brought to High Court over claims move breached constitutional rights

Many taxi drivers suffered a “financially disastrous overnight catastrophe” as a result of the unlawful, unreasonable and unfair liberalisation of the taxi licensing regime in 2000 and are entitled to damages, the High Court has been told.

Drivers who bought licences from other licence holders for up to £100,000 had their constitutional rights to property, equal treatment and to earn a livelihood breached when their value was wiped out overnight in 2000, Michael Collins SC said.

Some drivers bought licences as late as August 2000; by November, licences could be acquired for about £5,000.

Test cases
Counsel was opening actions by three taxi drivers – Alphonsus Muldoon, Vincent Malone and Thomas Kelly – which are regarded as test cases for actions by some 1,200 other drivers arising from liberalisation of the licensing regime.

The case of Dublin-based Mr Muldoon, the first being opened, is against the Minister for Environment and Local Government, the State and Dublin City Council.

Mr Muldoon (66) bought a licence from another driver for £80,000 in 1998, plus a £3,000 licence fee. He claims the new regulations deprived him of an anticipated substantial asset he aimed to use for pension purposes.

He paid for it with his £40,000 life savings and by remortgaging his home for the other £40,000. While he was later paid €13,000 compensation under the Taxi Hardship Scheme, that did not compensate him for the loss, he claims.

As a result of the new licensing regime, he was unable to meet mortgage repayments over certain periods, his earning capacity and health were affected and he has been unable to provide for a pension.

The court heard no new licences were issued in Dublin over a 10-year period from 1978 beyond the approved number of 1,800. During the 1990s, approval was given for some extra licences. Mr Muldoon claims, when he sought to enter the trade in 1994, he was told he would have to buy a licence from an existing licence holder.

The actions, being heard by Mr Justice Michael Peart, are expected to run for several weeks. The judge will decide the issue of liability first. The defendants deny any liability.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-an ... -1.1577295

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Taxi drivers’ ‘rights’ action might benefit us all



By Paul Mills

Must we continue to put up with inefficiency because of so-called property rights?
How often have we heard over recent years that because of property rights we cannot change the terms, conditions and pensions of senior civil servants, bankers and others? These folk seem to occupy that place euphemistically called the ‘Golden Circle’.

Even in recent days, après budget, as government sought to deprive us of more and more of our hard earned money, it made sure to protect the pensions of senior public servants on the basis of their reasonable expectations and ‘property rights’.

What I, and many others do not understand, is how come this property rights mantra only applies to certain folk but not to the population at large. Over recent years government and its henchmen in the Revenue seem to have their hands in our pockets on a permanent basis.

We’ve been paying into a national pension/unemployment protection scheme, namely PRSI, and now the hated Universal Charge, for most of our lives yet government has no problem changing the rules on how and how much we benefit irrespective of our reasonable expectations.

Some of us thought we were lucky when we were offered a defined pension scheme by our employers. We quite rightly had a reasonable expectation that the scheme would be honoured when we retired and we would receive the promised pension. Was that not a ‘property right’?

However, most of the defined benefit schemes have collapsed and with it any chance we might have of getting that pension we worked so hard for. So how come these boys and girls at the top of government, the public sector and the banks seem to be able to continue to expect that their defined benefit pension, or however they term it, will be paid.

Given that the state of the economy came courtesy of many of these same individuals why are they not being fired for incompetence, or worse.

In the last few days an interesting case has reached the High Court. It could have a big bearing on so-called ‘property rights’. In fact, if the taxi drivers win their case it could widen the concept of ‘property rights’ even further. In so doing we could limit forever any real reform to our inefficient and ineffective systems on this little island, for fear of impacting on someone’s property rights and reasonable expectations.

Most of us will remember how difficult it was at the latter end of the last century, to get a taxi, particularly on weekend nights. Taxi plates were extremely valuable and were changing hands at €100k.

The demand was there but because of an effective closed shop the supply was not there. Government, rightly or wrongly, addressed it by deregulating the market and providing a taxi licence to anyone who was suitably qualified. Guess what happened? The numbers of taxis soared but the price of plates nose-dived.

A number of drivers are suing, inter alia, the Government for what they claim was a ‘breach of their property rights’. Furthermore, they are claiming that the compensation for past and future losses offered by the Government was inadequate. If the taxi drivers lose will that mean that our ‘reasonable expectations’ that we would receive a specific return amount to a hill of beans?

On the other hand if the taxi drivers win will that mean that any actions taken by government that change the expected financial return mean that reasonable compensation must be paid? For instance, if Government action or indeed Government incompetence changes what our ‘reasonable expectations would be’ will we be entitled to compensation?

None of it makes any sense — a bit like government making special rules for its own friends. It just might be the taxi drivers, in taking this action, are doing us all a favour.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/t ... 48000.html

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
Would anyone care to offer odds of victory for the trade?

Will the only winners on the trade's side be their legal team?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 757 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group