Taxi Driver Online

My enquiry about your legal qualification & knowledge was just that - to find out what you base your opinion on.
And no, I do not have any problem with opinons different from my own - unless they are presented as the definitive opinion when they are in fact, like mine, one interpretation. If anything, it would appear that it is I who is not allowed an opinion different to your own!!
As regards Phil Capaldi's case, you quote part of the minutes which uses the word "transfer" but omit the final part which makes it clear that the licence was not transferred. The full text of the item is
A request had been received from Mr Philip Capaldi to transfer a taxi operator’s licence held by his deceased father to his own name. The applicant and his representative were heard and outlined the special circumstances which they felt would permit the Committee to grant the licence sought.

The Committee were reminded of their previous decision that they would normally regard the spouses, sons or daughters of a taxi licence holder who had died, or who intended to surrender their licence to the Council, as being in circumstances that could be regarded as special where they held a current taxi driver’s licence and did not already have a taxi operator’s licence. The Council Solicitor confirmed that Mr Capaldi held a taxi driver’s licence.

DECISION

Having taken into account the special circumstances outlined, to grant Mr Capaldi a taxi operator’s licence subject to the Council’s standard licensing conditions.
So, although a request to transfer was received, no transfer was approved, but the grant of a new licence was approved due to a previously agreed policy which took account of "special circumstances" as allowed under the Civic Code. (JD used this case as an example of something else.) I think you will find that no transfers have been allowed.

"special circumstances"

nothing special about any of these cases the councils policy on special circumstances is based on financial hardship and we could all claim this

somewere else on this thread is a application for a taxi licence from someone who previuosly held a licence and lost it through a civil dispute

decision of the council ?

grant the licence

so any one who currently is in partnership can give it to thier partner
go to the council and ask for another and they will probably be granted one

everythings rosy then

The Dundee case was not an application for an extension of time - nor was demand continuously monitored.
Like it or not, I hold the opinion that CEC administered its duty under current legislation. There can be no generalisation. In Coyle and Dundee, the problem lay with the reliance on an earlier survey with no further information to hand. Edinburgh, on the other hand, did have monitoring provision (as was shown by the previous commissioning of a new survey) and was actively updating its knowledge of demand. The result in Edinburgh was due 2 weeks after the court date NOT the following year.
Let us hypothesise (and since you seem to be reducing this to semantics) we all know that pre-booked work (the call market) is private hire and only street work is public hire; so effectively any survey which looks at the call market is in fact looking at the PH market. If PH satisfy that demand why should it then require more taxis to fill it? Does this not mean that only the hail market should be monitored for taxi provision?

Go back to sleep boy

realcabforce wrote

"The Dundee case was not an application for an extension of time - nor was demand continuously monitored.

it wasnt monitored in edinburgh iether.thier is a difference between saying youre doing somthing and actually doing it?

Like it or not, I hold the opinion that CEC administered its duty under current legislation.
who cares?

There can be no generalisation. In Coyle and Dundee, the problem lay with the reliance on an earlier survey with no further information to hand. Edinburgh, on the other hand, did have monitoring provision (as was shown by the previous commissioning of a new survey)

the only information edinburgh had was also an earlier survey.
edinburgh to had no further information to hand.

edinburgh did have monitoring provision i agree! however it did not actually monitor anything.lip service nothing more

and was actively updating its knowledge of demand. The result in Edinburgh was due 2 weeks after the court date NOT the following year. "

1 year after the applications were lodged.

16 months to complete the survey and satify itself of the level of demand

forgive me realcabfarce but you are either very niave or just plain stupid.

and yes i think i will have a sleep before my shift

Yes we all know it wasn't an application for an extension of time but the comments of Lady Cosgrove speak volumes.

She said, "the fact that Dundee was undertaking a survey supplied no support for the validity of restricting the number of licenses to 507".

In other words it mattered not that Dundee was undertaking a survey, at the time consideration was due, they were not in possession of evidence of demand.

If that was the reasoning of the Court of Session only a few months ago then there is no reason to believe that they would make a special case for Edinburgh. Is there?

For the time being we all have to live with the verdict of the Sheriff like it or not but we are debating the evidence leading up to the verdict are we not?



Nor was demand monitored in Edinburgh, unless you call one stance survey in two years, continual monitoring?

Perhaps your definition of monitoring and that of Sheriff Mackie might not meet the standard expected by the appeal court? You have a taste of what the appeal court said about the ongoing Survey in Dundee. So you are unlikely to get any relief from the appeal court on that score. Dundee and Edinburgh are practically carbon copies because both had started the first steps of commissioning a survey. The only difference is that the Dundee survey took slightly longer to complete than the Edinburgh survey. Neither survey was completed within the six-month time frame allowed for resolving these applications.

Not withstanding the decision of Sheriff Mackie, I am at a loss as to how you can say Edinburgh council continuously monitored demand, it is plain for all to see that in more than two years the LO only conducted one stance survey. Do you honestly believe one stance survey is adequate evidence?

It could well be that Edinburgh has no unmet demand but the law states a council must have evidence of that when refusing a license. You have an interest that no more licenses should be issued, I can fully appreciate that but you can't let that vested interest cloud your judgement of the facts.



Well you have the decision of the Sheriff to back you up on that score. We cannot deny the judgement but I suspect even though I may have been the first to offer a substantial rebuttal of the Sheriffs decision, I won't be the last.



It doesn't make any difference what Edinburgh might have had. If they were in possession of evidence of demand they could and should have used that evidence to refuse the applicants. The very fact that they didn't refuse the applicants demonstrates that they didn't have any evidence to refuse them with. Can't you grasp that? Therefore it doesn't make one bit of difference what the licensing officer says if Edinburgh do not have evidence, then they do not have evidence, it's as simple as that.

Even you must concede that if Edinburgh had evidence of no unmet demand they would have used it to refuse the applicants within the statutory time frame?

The law states a council cannot refuse a license unless it can prove there is no demand for the services of Taxis that is not being met. The law also states that a council is allowed six months in which to determine an application.

The fact remains that the evidence they needed was being gathered by a survey and there was no way Edinburgh council was going to fulfil their duty within the six-month time frame without having that survey to hand.



It doesn't matter if it was due in two days after the court date or two years, the council are obliged to discharge their duties within the six month allotted time frame. The six months was up in May so the survey was produced two months after the first application which was submitted in November 2004.



I don't want to go into the hypothetical probabilities of demand surveys, that is for others to do if they wish, my only concern is how the law is applied. I try and keep an open mind and balance the evidence appropriately. The only issue in this case was should the Sheriff have allowed the appeal for an extension of time based on the evidence before her? That is the only issue I'm concerned about. In order to get to that decision she had to examine the reasons why the council failed to carry out its duty under the act of 1982.

You agree with the sheriff that Edinburgh council did everything they could to expedite the decision making process in the six months time frame allowed by law. I do not.

I have laid out my reasons for believing why Edinburgh council did not expedite their decision making, in line with what was required by law. If you look at the evidence objectively instead of looking at it from a vested interest perspective you may find instances which might raise a few doubts in your mind as to the conclusion drawn, that the council acted correctly.

I would however like to ask you the following questions because you are probably better placed to know the answers, than I.

Edinburgh Council stated in I think it was the July 2003 licensing committee meeting, that stance and street surveys were discontinued in 2002, can you tell me what month in 2002 because it may mean that Edinburgh only conducted one stance survey in three years. I have already calculated that from January 2003 to July 2005 the period in question is some two years seven months, in which one stance survey was undertaken. But you can clear this up by informing me of the exact date in 2002 when the council stopped doing stance surveys?

Can you also advise me what evidence the licensing officer placed before the council in that two years seven month period which suggested he had up to date information on the level of demand.

I would just like to clear up one point in the light of the misconception that everyone appears to be having in respect of Lord Rodger's ruling in the Coyle case. Lord Rodger said this.

"Where a figure has been determined in this way all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official who has the "information" to judge whether the demand has increased since the matter was last considered".

Lord Rodger stated "the matter should be kept under review by an Official" who has the "information" to judge whether the demand has increased since the matter was last considered.

Lord Rodger is not saying the official should be the information gatherer, only that the official should have the information to judge whether demand has increased.

In Edinburgh's case the official was both the information gatherer and the person charged with informing the relevant committee if demand had increased or not. Perhaps there was a conflict of interest there somewhere but that is another matter, the point I'm making is "don't assume the licensing officer has to be the one gathering the information" because that is not what Lord Rodger is saying.

Regards

JD

The point is that the decision requested under the heading of a 'transfer' actually took place, thus what is effectivlely happening is that a new license being handed out in substitution for an old one or to compensate for the loss of an old one means that in substance a transfer can be effected merely by handing out a new license.

Thus legally there is no transfer, but in substance handing in an old license and granting a new one in another name (usually a business entity of some kind) amounts to a transfer.

That the document referred to above is headed as a request for a transfer when what is really being requested is a new license gives the game away, thus you may be right as regards the strict letter of the law, but not the substance of what's going on.

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

I can't really see how anyone is positing their interpretations as 'definitive statements' any more than the other man.

You said:

Unlike you and JD, I do not think I know Scots law better than a qualified and competent member of the Scottish legal profession. I have read the notes of the Coyle and Dundee cases, and I do not see the same relevance to this appeal as you seem to. The time to argue on that point is when the applications are refused.

Precisely what did you mean by that?

Like the other posters, I've been critical of some aspects of the judgement, as have others, including a couple who largely agree with the sheriff's judgement, but who clearly disagreed with the LO's rubbishing of the rank observations as misleading because of attempts to manipulate the findings, and the sheriff's endorsement of this view.

At the outset of this thread, for example, I cast doubt upon the sheriff's observation:



You and I both know that's garbage, but because of criticism like that you seem to think that I consider myself more of an expert on Scots law than the sheriff. I've never thought that, but I think statements like the one above are garbage, but I think I can say that without giving rise to your statement regarding your view of me and Scots law.

So perhaps you could retract that or provide an explanation?

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

I'm not sure what the relevance is of the fact that the OFT report was rejected in Scotland.

It was also rejected in England and Wales as well as regards restricted numbers insofar as no change in the law followed.

The OFT could make no change in the law by itself, and the 'de-limit' recommendation made by the DfT has no real legal basis, thus the substantive law both north and south of the border remained effectively unchanged.

But in the aftermath of the OFT report the DfT made recommendations and drew up guidlines regarding surveys etc, but while these can be persuasive in a court of law, they are not mandatory.

But I'm not really sure what the OFT report being rejected in Scotland has got to do with it.

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

Hardly - I assume that like in Liverpool the Edinburgh taxi trade did most of the pre-booked work big PH numbers came along, and presumably this was also the case in Edinburgh?

And presumably the taxi sector in Edinburgh still does a lot of pre-booked work, or do they all work the streets?

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

For what it's worth, and as I said after the case was published, the feature distinguishing Edinburgh from Coyle and Dundee is that in Edinburgh the applications had not been decided, whereas in Dundee they had, and it was clearly impossible to go back and do a survey at the time the applications were decided. In Edinburgh it's clearly a case of whether the delay in deciding the applications is reasonable.

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

Yup. But as I said any pre-booked job is a 'private hire' and has been since time immemorial. Taxis (being public hire vehicles) can do private hire work legally but PHC cannot do public hire legally. (although, as we all know, they frequently do) My somewhat lighthearted contention is that although a survey of demand looks at both hail & call markets, should it?

JD wrote

Yes we all know it wasn't an application for an extension of time but the comments of Lady Cosgrove speak volumes.

She said, "the fact that Dundee was undertaking a survey supplied no support for the validity of restricting the number of licenses to 507".

In other words it mattered not that Dundee was undertaking a survey, at the time consideration was due, they were not in possession of evidence of demand.

If that was the reasoning of the Court of Session only a few months ago then there is no reason to believe that they would make a special case for Edinburgh. Is there?

For the time being we all have to live with the verdict of the Sheriff like it or not but we are debating the evidence leading up to the verdict are we not?

It could be interpreted as the Council, through being in possession of evidence of demand from their appointed official (remembering that what that evidence should be, is not stipulated in law), did not accept that there was SUD but, in the interests of fairness to the applicants asked for an extension for the results of the survey to confirm this?



Nor was demand monitored in Edinburgh, unless you call one stance survey in two years, continual monitoring?

That depends on whether you regard stance surveys (which both sides agreed were not overly helpful) as a good indicator or whether other ways better monitor demand.

Perhaps your definition of monitoring and that of Sheriff Mackie might not meet the standard expected by the appeal court? You have a taste of what the appeal court said about the ongoing Survey in Dundee. So you are unlikely to get any relief from the appeal court on that score. Dundee and Edinburgh are practically carbon copies because both had started the first steps of commissioning a survey. The only difference is that the Dundee survey took slightly longer to complete than the Edinburgh survey. Neither survey was completed within the six-month time frame allowed for resolving these applications.

I agree that the monitoring standard is moot. But Dundee had NO provision whatsoever.

Not withstanding the decision of Sheriff Mackie, I am at a loss as to how you can say Edinburgh council continuously monitored demand, it is plain for all to see that in more than two years the LO only conducted one stance survey. Do you honestly believe one stance survey is adequate evidence?

Of course not, but as stated previously it was not claimed to be. CEC stated "Factors considered by the Taxi Licensing Officer included comments from the taxi trade and the public, the number of private hire car licences issued, the number of applications for taxi licences, and occasional street and stance surveys."

It could well be that Edinburgh has no unmet demand but the law states a council must have evidence of that when refusing a license. You have an interest that no more licenses should be issued, I can fully appreciate that but you can't let that vested interest cloud your judgement of the facts.

"My vested interest" does not cloud my judgement, my opinion is based on the evidence produced or more correctly my interpretation of it. The council have yet to refuse any licences.



Well you have the decision of the Sheriff to back you up on that score. We cannot deny the judgement but I suspect even though I may have been the first to offer a substantial rebuttal of the Sheriffs decision, I won't be the last.



It doesn't make any difference what Edinburgh might have had. If they were in possession of evidence of demand they could and should have used that evidence to refuse the applicants. The very fact that they didn't refuse the applicants demonstrates that they didn't have any evidence to refuse them with. Can't you grasp that? Therefore it doesn't make one bit of difference what the licensing officer says if Edinburgh do not have evidence, then they do not have evidence, it's as simple as that.
That is your interpretation. From the Coyle case "Where a figure has been determined in this way all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official who has the "information" to judge whether the demand has increased since the matter was last considered. If he informs the committee that there has been no change in the level of demand, they can be satisfied that at that time there is no significant unmet demand if the relevant number of licences has already been issued. If, on the other hand, they are told that demand has increased, then they will require to reconsider the matter. "Unless they do so, they will not be able to refuse to grant licences under Section 10(3) since they will not know whether the existing number of licences is sufficient to meet the increased demand." So they were told that demand MAY have increased and they are re-considering the matter, is it not reasonable to allow that process to be carried out before considering the applications?


Even you must concede that if Edinburgh had evidence of no unmet demand they would have used it to refuse the applicants within the statutory time frame?

As stated previously the matter of demand was monitored (even if you disagree, it was accepted that it was) and they were re-considering it.

The law states a council cannot refuse a license unless it can prove there is no demand for the services of Taxis that is not being met. The law also states that a council is allowed six months in which to determine an application.

There has been no refusal. The time limits are not written in stone, as has been shown by the grant of an extension.

Your other questions, I will require to look out the paperwork for them!!!

realcabforce wrote

"The law states a council cannot refuse a license unless it can prove there is no demand for the services of Taxis that is not being met. The law also states that a council is allowed six months in which to determine an application.

There has been no refusal. The time limits are not written in stone, as has been shown by the grant of an extension.

Your other questions, I will require to look out the paperwork for them!!!"

so what happens if the council doesnt have the survey by the end of october?
having failed to put it through all the relevant commitees?
we already know that they have sworn in court to rush this through bypassing the hire car consultation group,scrutiny panels.,etc
should they then be given more time and more time again?

dundee wav wrote

"its now over a year and a half since dundee was deregulated plus the seventy odd plates won by 203020 which represented ten percent of the total hack numbers prior to deregulation, and the situation is that the old plate holders who relied heavily on drivers are reporting big losses
the ops who drive their own cabs are reporting minor losses the new ops are saying either they are making the same or if they have a driver are better off, before dundee dregulation this site was full of hack owners shouting off some become quite aggressive just like the edinburgh situation but now everyone are pals again, its not nearly as bad as everyone thought it would be, dundee has probably went through one of the biggest changes, imagine your manor issuing ten percent of the hack numbers to one company then opening up to wavs ?the doom and gloom has not appeared in dundee at least no plates were surrendered when they were due to be renewed many thought 150 plus would go back
but the figures talk for themselves, but the old ops will probably say different, one problem dundee has is dundee private hire putting all the dole claimants through their badges this is acounting for nearly 90 per cent of new badge holders but the old ops think this is ok?maybe part of the cab test should be higher maths, the number of cabs in our office handys the biggest in dundee has also dropped this is also going against the too many taxis claim, quality controls do work and if the offices backed them up with nobody with a a full time job and no dole dossers
rule then all cabbies would make decent money"

proof is in the pudding eh realcabforce

so why dont you want youre fellow cabbies to have thier own plates again?

we are all in the same boat, you me thier is no differance,only these poorly thought out and poorly implemented laws put this artificial barrier between taxi drivers,and cause all this infighting.

open youre eyes and see the truth its coming wether any of us like it or not.

we all await youre response