Taxi Driver Online

I know a few good lawyers, it's just a shame you don't know any good accountants.

_________________
IDFIMH

Mr T COMPUTER BROKE www.margin42@lycos.co.uk streetcar

Talking of lawyers.

If someone asked one if a council needs to pass a by-law to make existing drivers take the DSA taxi test, then a bad lawyer would point them to the K-v-Darlington Borough Council, Bishop Auckland Crown Court 13th July 2004.

However a good lawyer would point them to the appeal that followed.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Adm ... /2836.html

_________________
IDFIMH

At least if I quote I make it clear that it is a quote, not like some I could mention

Yes, I do quote occassionaly, it provides evidence to substantiate the point I'm making. Let's say a million words of my own, a few thousand quoted?

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

So I take it from your failure to supply his email addie that you were just pulling my leg?

If that was the extent of his reply, and he provided no evidence to substantiate his view, then that suggests he has no substantive perspective on the subject.

In fact his modus operandi reminds me of a few people I've crossed swords with on these forums

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

By the way Mr T, what happened to that post you made about 3am this morning, did you delete it?

It was such an open goal I thought I would leave it until later on - the fun is as much in the anticipation as the act itself.

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

so Mr t was giving bad advice on the other forum.

Following the failed attempt of Carl Cummings to secure all six hackney carriage licenses to be issued by Cardiff county council, the following is the report submitted to the September 2005 committee meeting which laid out the detailed plans for derestriction.

13 Sept 05

CARDIFF COUNCIL Agenda Item:

PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE: 13 September 2005
Joint Report of the Chief Legal and Democratic Services Officer and the Chief
Regulatory Services Officer

DELIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE
LICENCES ISSUED

1. Although this Report is described as a joint report, it is in fact two reports. Firstly the Chief Legal and Democratic Services Officer will report on the outcome of litigation brought by Mr Carl Cummings against the Council. Secondly the Chief Regulatory Services Officer will report upon the practical arrangements to be made following the conclusion of the litigation.

REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGAL AND DEMOCRATIC SERVICES OFFICER

2. Background

2.1 The purpose of this Report is to advise the Committee of the outcome of litigation brought against the Council by Mr Carl Cummings. That litigation is known as Judicial Review 2. The Committee last considered this matter (and other pieces of litigation) on 9th November 2004 (minute no. PP101) and 7th December 2004 (minute no. PP119).

2.2 The Council’s powers to grant Hackney Carriage Proprietor (Vehicle) Licences arise from the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Transport Act 1985. Under these provisions an Authority may limit the number of licences issued provided it has evidence that there is no significant level of unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages.

2.3 For many years the Committee limited the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences that it would issue. As at January 2003 the limit stood at 480. On 14th January 2003 the Committee resolved to issue six additional hackney carriage vehicle licences. The Committee had to decide how to allocate these licences amongst all the people interested. The Committee decided not to use the register of interested persons (the “waiting list”) but to invite fresh expressions of interest. The licences would then be allocated by way of a lottery amongst those who had expressed an interest.

2.4 Mr Cummings was aggrieved by this decision. The week before the lottery was to take place he issued his first application for Judicial Review in the High Court. Amongst other things he sought

(i) a declaration that the award of licences by way of lottery was unlawful

(ii) a declaration that in the absence of other material considerations the
award of the licences should proceed by way of the waiting list system. Mr Cummings’ businesses had 32 applications at the head of the “waiting list.” The Council’s contention was that no one person on the waiting list had priority over another.

2.5 The Committee then resolved to consider removing the limits on the number of licences issued. That would mean that Mr Cummings and everyone else could have all the licences that they wished.

2.6 As the Judicial Review proceedings would be rendered redundant if the Committee decided to delimit, they were adjourned generally to await the Committee’s decision.

2.7 A consultation period then took place and the Committee received a full report on the issue of delimitation at its meeting on 7th October 2003. The Committee resolved

(1) the Committee considered it appropriate in the circumstances that exist in Cardiff to remove the restriction on the number of Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences issued and it was therefore agreed that:

(a) the decision of the Committee on 14th January 2003, authorising the issue of six licences by way of lottery be rescinded;

(b) the limitation on the number of Hackney Carriage Proprietor Licences be removed;
(c) the grant of a Proprietor’s Licence be subject to the following conditions:
(i) the vehicle must be less than three years old and approved as a purpose built Hackney Carriage by the Authority; and
(ii) the vehicle must not be used by a driver that is not currently licensed by Cardiff County Council;
(2) the removal of the numerical limit on the issue of Hackney Carriage Proprietors (Vehicle) Licences be introduced from 23rd October 2003.

2.8 Mr Cummings was very strongly opposed to delimitation. On 22nd October 2003 he issued his second set of Judicial Review proceedings. In them he sought to quash the decision of 7th October 2003 to delimit.

2.9 At the same time Mr Cummings sought to proceed with Judicial Review 1. His position was that the Council should not delimit, and that the six licences authorised by the Committee on 14th January 2003 should be allocated to him.

2.10 On 23rd October 2003, Mr Cummings obtained, by consent, an interim High Court injunction prohibiting the Council from implementing its decision of 7th October 2003 to delimit the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences that it issued. The then Chief Legal Services Officer consented to the interim injunction, as it was simply to preserve the status quo for the time being, and it was inevitable that the court would grant it.

3. The outcome of Judicial Reviews 1 and 2

3.1 The substantive hearing of Judicial Reviews 1 and 2 took place on 20th and
21st September 2004 and judgement was delivered on 27th October 2004.

3.2 Mr Cummings failed in both Judicial Reviews 1 and 2. Details were reported to the Committee on 9th November 2004.

3.3 In relation to Judicial Review 2 (which concerned delimitation), Mr. Cummings appealed to the Court of Appeal. Once again, in order to maintain the status quo, an injunction was granted preventing the Council from implementing delimitation pending the hearing. Also, on 9th November 2004 the Committee resolved:

The Committee’s resolution of 7 October 2003 to remove the limitation on the
number of hackney carriage proprietor’s licences issued (Minute L90(1)(b))
be not implemented until either:

a. Mr Cummings’ application for permission to appeal is refused; or

b. if permission is granted, the disposal or withdrawal of the appeal.

3.4 The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 11th July 2005. It was dismissed and Mr Cummings was ordered to pay the Council’s costs. The injunction ceased to have effect from that date.

3.5 The Committee’s decision of 7th October 2003 to remove the limitation on the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences therefore became effective on 11th July 2005.

REPORT OF THE CHIEF REGULATORY SERVICES OFFICER

4. Issue of Hackney Carriage Proprietors’ Licences

4.1 It is now possible to implement the decision of the Committee of 7th October
2003.

4.2 The issue is of major concern to the taxi trade, which has followed the proceedings with great interest. In order to commence issuing licences, Committee is asked to confirm that the grant of a vehicle licence be subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the vehicle must be less than three years old and approved as a purpose built hackney carriage by the Authority; and

(ii) the vehicle not being used by a driver that is not currently licensed by Cardiff County Council.

4.3 It is pointed out that the "waiting list" was discontinued by separate resolution
of the Committee on 14th January 2003. Applications for licences will be dealt with as they arrive i.e. previous expressions of interest will not be followed up.

5. Legal Implications
5.1 Any applicant who is refused a licence has the right of appeal to the Crown
Court.

5.2 All decisions taken by the Committee must

(a) be within the legal powers of the Council and the Committee;

(b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed by law;

(c) be fully and properly informed;

(d) be properly motivated;

(e) be taken having regard to the Council’s fiduciary duty to its taxpayers; and

(f) be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 Mr Cummings has been ordered to pay certain legal costs to the Council. If the sum cannot be agreed with his solicitors, the Court will be asked to assess the costs.

6.2 The Licensing Section is required to be self financing with all expenditure being met from licence fees and charges. The issue of further licences has no direct financial implications since the cost of issuing those licences should be met in the first instance from the licence fee. However, the matter will be monitored and any necessary adjustments made at the annual fee review.

7. Recommendation

That the Chief Regulatory Services Officer be authorised to commence issuing hackney carriage proprietors’ licences in an orderly fashion as resources allow as of the date of this Committee, and that signs be placed in the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Section notifying trade members of the result of legal proceedings. The grant of a vehicle licence will be subject to the following conditions:-

(i) the vehicle must be less than three years old and approved as a purpose built hackney carriage by the Authority; and
(ii) the vehicle must not be used by a driver that is currently not licensed by Cardiff County Council.

Kate Berry
Chief Legal & Democratic Services Officer
M W Evans
Chief Regulatory Services Officer
13 July 2005
This Report has been prepared in accordance with procedures approved by Corporate
Directors.
Background Papers
Decision of the Court of Appeal made on 11th July 2005

Really?

_________________
IDFIMH

It proves that Mr Cummings doesn't mind obtaining something that has an artificial value but when the same commodity is freely available without the artificial value, he strongly opposes it.

It was his greed that brought the house of cards firmly down on the heads of the Cardiff Taxi trade. Perhaps the good thing about all this is that his power base in the Cardiff Taxi trade may well be eroded by the influx of new owner drivers and it might be worth their while to form a new Taxi association excluding Mr Cummings.


Regards

JD

What's the point of that, or am I missing something?

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

I suspect they are letting it be known that you specificaly need a Cardiff Hackney carriage drivers license, to drive one.

Regards

JD

That's kind of what I thought, but surely that's in the rules anyway, and seems like stating the obvious?

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

I suspect they were trying to make it clear that even for leisure purposes you still need a Cardiff Hackney Carriage drivers license to drive a Cardiff licensed hackney carriage?

Regards

JD