Taxi Driver Online

RealCabforce/RealCabforceforum keep your eyes peeled for the angry drivers who want their licence plates and don't want to pay £45,000 for the privilege.


Watch this space?

Well the quote I initially referred to near the top of the thread was from the case, as Ali points out.

Indeed, later in the case it says:

Further, the Taxi Licensing Officer said that any information obtained was doubtful because when it became known that he was conducting a stance survey action would be taken by the trade to ensure that an adequate number of taxis were available at the stances. This evidence was not challenged.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

You are absolutely correct "sirius", it was a ridiculous statement to make,The thought that cars all ignore their radios to sit on a rank just because there is a monitor out is just plain daft, maybe, just maybe, there's enough cabs!!!

_________________
Who's been "Editing" my mailbox then ...lol

daft but true, or are you now admitting that the council are lying,even if thier was enough cabs it wouldnt matter a jot this is about more than that.would a council stop you applying for, say a restraunt licence just becouse thier were other restraunts.i think not

Absolutely correct again "sirius",but they will never accept what is blatantly obvious to the rest of the world, "THERE IS ENOUGH BLACK CABS IN EDINBURGH" Making wild statements in the press to the effect if "blacks" dont grow quickly then phc will eat us" and "there wont be black cabs soon if you dont give us our plates" are not helpful to the trade, especially coming from a person who had a plate and got rid of it and is now deemed not "fit and proper" to hold one Now, they can claim that it is all the councils fault, but,all the evidence points a different way.
I have read the court judgement, as have probably you, it all seems above board and very realistic, but still these people bang on about the injustice thats being done to them. the truth of the matter is quite simple, they wanted to cash in on the current plate price and had no interest whatsoever in the rise of phc or the demise of your living.
Time will tell,but, my best guess is that with rising costs and very little chance of getting their way, they will fade into the background , of course,that might be a problem for them too

_________________
Who's been "Editing" my mailbox then ...lol

First I must thank you for posting the link to the online report it was most helpful.

I have read the report but just like the governments response to the OFT report when that was first published, there was instant euphoria by those who didn't really comprehend the full consequence of its contents.

I fully understand that this is a legal judgement albeit by the lowest court in the land but in order to fully argue against the Sheriffs opinion one has to dissect her reasoning with a fine tooth-comb. You have to look at the judgement with an open mind and balance the evidence in the light of current legislation and case law. The sheriff interpretation of current case law is no doubt open to challenge so in that respect perhaps you could tell us if in your opinion you think the sheriff has correctly interpreted the relevant case law?

Is your command of current case law greater than the Sheriff's or do you think that just because she is a Sheriff she automatically has superior knowledge to that of your own?

Perhaps we should ask ourselves did the sheriff ere in law when she granted the council an extension. Did the higher court not state that a council must be in possession of the evidence of unmet demand when the application falls due?

Would it be right to assume that the higher court might consider “the council’s own admission that it wasn't in a position to know if demand existed or not at the time the applications fell due”. Would this be clear evidence that the council had defaulted in its duty to keep itself informed in the light of both Dundee and Coyle.

Is a high court judge who has already ruled in a previous case that "A council must have such evidence of demand at the time the application falls due" likely to turn on that decision just because Edinburgh council need more time to complete a survey?

I am just posing an alternative as to how the higher court may see it in the light of previous decisions made by themselves. It all fits into the Euphoria element I previously spoke about.

The euphoria of those that greeted the Government response to the OFT report has been short lived and now those euphoric chickens are well and truly coming home to roost with a vengeance. Do not make the same mistake of falling into the same false sense of security that befell those that rejoiced in the Government response to the OFT report. The fat lady might have initially cleared her throat but we shall have to wait and see what tune she finally dances to.

Regards

JD

The Government said this in 2004.

Those authorities in England and Wales that wish to continue to restrict taxi licences will be required to undertake a review of their policy every three years, with published conclusions, and to justify the policy in their LTPs.

But the Sheriff in the Edinburgh case said this in 2005.

1. Guidelines issued by the Department of Transport to English local authorities recommend that a survey of demand should be carried out every three years.

Does anyone have a copy of the DFT guidlines that specificaly says "they recommend a survey of demand should be carried out every three years".

Or did the Sheriff get it wrong?

Regards

JD

Government Response to the OFT Report

18th March 2004

Restrictions on the numbers of taxis

1 In England and Wales outside London, local authorities (district/borough councils or unitary authorities) have been able to restrict the number of taxi licences that they issue since at least 1847. In practice, some 45% of authorities do so at present but the legislation allows them to control numbers only if they are satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand

2 Local authorities with quantity restrictions must be able to justify their policy in the event of an appeal by a taxi licence applicant who has had his application refused on the grounds of quantity controls. The usual method of ascertaining the level of demand is by means of a survey. The legislation "does not stipulate any specific frequency" for the survey but "any licensing authority which controlled taxi numbers would want to ensure that its policy was based on up to date and sound information".

So why did the Sheriff say this?

1. Guidelines issued by the Department of Transport to English local authorities recommend that a survey of demand should be carried out every three years.

Regards

JD

I would think that a policy review would look at supply and demand as part of the process.

My Oxford English Dictionary defines 'survey' as 'a general view or consideration of something' so perhaps you are assuming something that isn't there? Remenber that the OFT report was not accepted in Scotland and we also have a different legal system.

I also think it realistic to accept that a person with formal legal training and experience, and who now sits on the bench, will be able to read and interprete legal jargon better than you and I. They are not perfect, but then neither are we.

Can anyone tell me why Edinburgh council went through the sham process of fit and proper person checks when they had no intention of issuing any licences?

Can anyone tell me if the 49 successful applicants in 2003 had to provide a vehicle for test "before" they were notified they had been granted a licence?

Regards

JD

But can you show me where the DFT has ever said that a survey should be carried out every three years? It is not about interpreting legal jargon it is about getting ones facts right and that is why we have appeals when Judges get their facts wrong.

Regards

JD

Why was this persons application to have his fathers licence transferred determined in a matter of weeks and without having to submit a vehicle, yet it took Edinburgh council six months to do nothing in respect of those now applying for licenses?

7 APPLICATION FOR TAXI LICENCE - WILLIAM CODONA

An application for a taxi licence had been received from William Codona, 107 Clement Rise, Dedridge, Livingston. Accompanying the application was a note by the applicant’s father (also William Codona) written shortly before his death, seeking to "transfer" the licence to his son.

DECISION

To grant the application, subject to a satisfactory vehicle examination and exhibition of evidence of insurance.

It would be interesting to see the quality of these taxi monitering reports. I supsect they will be available with or without the FOI act.

4 TAXI MONITORING: APRIL 2000

DECISION

To note the Taxi Licensing Officer’s report for April 2000.

(Reference - report dated 19 May 2000 by the Council Solicitor, submitted.)

Regards

JD

Does anyone know why this applicant was refused a licence and didn't we cover this story in another thread?

Minutes: Licensing Committee 14/04/2000
Back

10 APPLICATION FOR TAXI LICENCE - CATHERINE LAING

Mrs Catherine Laing had applied for a taxi licence in substitution for the licence previously held by her late husband, citing special personal circumstances in support of her application. The applicant and her representatives were heard in relation to the special circumstances.

DECISION

To refuse the application for a taxi licence.

(Reference - report by the Council Solicitor 14 April 2000, submitted.)

Regards

JD

Does anyone remember the evidence submitted by Edinburgh council which said

1. Details of the vehicles proposed by the Respondents to be used as taxis have not been provided. A licence cannot be granted until details of the proposed vehicle have been provided and it has been inspected by the Cab Inspector and found to be suitable for use as a taxi.

2. The Applicants have been unable to complete their inquiries within a period of six months from the date when the Respondents' applications were made. The Applicants have acted in good faith.

Yet the following minute proves quite conclusively that in order to be granted a license you do not have to submit a vehicle before the license is granted. If you look at the amendment and the voting that followed, the councillors voted on the license applications before any decision was made about type of vehicle? So why did Edinburgh council insist that a vehicle be presented when they had never done such a thing in the past? Especially when they had made it quite clear in previous evidence that they had no intention of granting the vehicle owners a licence?

It is also noteworthy that a policy of deferment was in operation even back in 1999 if you read the minutes carefully.

Minutes: Licensing Committee 17/09/1999
Back

8 AIRPORT TAXI LICENCES - APPLICATIONS

The Committee had previously continued applications for Airport Taxi Licences pending a report on the present level of demand for Taxi Licences in the City of Edinburgh, and had agreed that further discussions be held with Edinburgh Airport Limited prior to consideration of a further report on the matter.

The Director of Corporate Services reported on the up to date position and gave details of a meeting held on 7 September 1999 between representatives of the Committee and Edinburgh Airport Limited on the perceived demand for additional Airport Taxi Licences and the airport taxi licensing system in general. A further meeting had been scheduled for mid November to ensure an ongoing exchange of views and to allow the airport to keep the Council advised on developments with a survey of the Airport Taxi service which was being conducted by the Airport Company.

Mr Mushet, one of the applicants for an Airport Taxi Licence, was heard.

Motion

To continue the applications for Airport Taxi Licences without making a final determination, pending a report on the present level of demand for Taxi Licences in the City of Edinburgh and that further discussions take place with Edinburgh Airport Limited.

- moved by Councillor Attridge, seconded by Councillor Pringle.

Amendment

To grant Airport Taxi Licences to the 7 applicants detailed in the Director’s report.

- moved by Councillor Walls, seconded by Councillor Hunter.

Voting

The motion was carried by 4 votes to 3.

DECISION

To continue the applications without making a final determination pending a report on the present level of demand for Taxi Licences in the City of Edinburgh and that further discussions take place with Edinburgh Airport Limited.

(References - Licensing Committee 20 August 1999, Item 8, report by the Director of Corporate Services 14 September 1999, submitted.)
..........................................................................................................