Taxi Driver Online

committee clerks are usually the best way of finding out the past...and what year did they first licence P/h ..that would be the year they adopted the 76 act..you would think..[/quote]
As stated it was in the Council minutes in January 1981.[/quote]

your now a councillor use your powers grab the Leader by the short and curleys

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE

What is it you are trying to do??

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Quite obvious, if they have not adopted the act correctly, they will have to refund all fees charged since 1981.

In Aylesbury Vale District Council v Call a Cab Limited it states.

Following the House of Lords judgment in Boddington v British Transport Police [1999] 2 AC 143 it argued that it was entitled to show on balance of probabilities that the resolution was procedurally invalid. Section 45(3) provides that no resolution should be made unless the Council has placed a statutory notice of intention to adopt in a local newspaper and has served the same on parishes and parish meetings in its area. In the case of Aylesbury Vale there are 85 parishes and 27 parish meetings. While it was accepted that newspaper advertisements had been placed, the company did not accept that notices had been duly sent, let alone received. It argued that non-receipt by one parish was sufficient to vitiate the resolution.

I take it you do not intend to be a councillor for long..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I take it that you don't think Councils should be accountable to the people?

_________________
Grandad,

Wasn't this case overturned on appeal?

Breach of procedure not fatal to prosecution - Aylesbury Vale DC v Call a Cab Ltd.

Breach of procedure not fatal to prosecution - Aylesbury Vale DC v Call a Cab Ltd.In an eagerly anticipated judgement that will provide great relief to licensing authorities up and down the country, Mr Justice Ouseley and Lord Justice Treacy ruled that a single breach of a procedural requirement upon which a prosecution depends does not automatically mean that prosecution will fail.

The defendants, Call a Cab Ltd., were prosecuted by Aylesbury Vale District Council for operating a private hire vehicle without a licence. However, the defendants claimed that the Council had failed to carry out the correct procedures in 1989 when they sought to adopt the private hire controls in Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Magistrates’ Court accepted the defendants’ argument, ruling that a failure to notify 12 out of the 112 parish councils in the district meant that the Act had never been validly adopted and the prosecution therefore failed.

On appeal to the High Court, Mr Justice Ouseley (with whom Lord Justice Treacy agreed) ruled that the starting point must be the statutory context read as a whole and that is was significant in this case that the defendants had suffered no prejudice because the Act did not require notification to them, but to the parish councils.

Finally he said that the magistrate should have considered the degree to which there had been "substantial compliance" with the procedural requirement, echoing the words of Lord Woolf in R v SSHD ex parte Jeyeanthan [2000] 1 WLR 354.

Interestingly, although Mr Justice Ouseley rejected the Council's first ground of appeal (which concerned the inferences the District Judge drew from the lack of mention of receipt of any notices in parish council minutes) he did comment as to a number of different ways councils might be able to demonstrate service and, most importantly, confirmed that any Court examining the matter should start from the presumption that the Council had done what it ought to have done.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter back to the Magistrates' court for further consideration.

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

The biggest flaw in that particular case to me seems to be that the Council did publish the notice in the paper which was not in doubt., However In our case i can find no sign of the notice in the paper and the Council have no record of there being a notice in the paper. So if none of the parish Councils have any record either, a court would probably have trouble "presuming" that the Council did what it ought to have done.

_________________
Grandad,

Court is a rather expensive way of finding out though

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

Yes I do think Councils should be accountable to the people. But you have a financial interest..that leaves you open..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

34 years let's say at 25000 a year...825000..and where will that come from...what other cutbacks will have to be made more job losses. is that your intention Councillor...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I think there is a 6 year limit on how far these things can go back. My intention is to show that the whole system needs to be looked at again and done properly.

_________________
Grandad,

I did ask and you said.......

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Actually, mancityfan said................

_________________
Grandad,

Actually, mancityfan said

So he did.....My apologies....

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!