mancityfan wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Like Mr T I always thought the provision allowed a proprietor to refuse the test if the test was 'out of area', not the other way around.
I'm not sure MR T is saying you can refuse the test if it's out of area, that would not help his point of view, the reason you can refuse the test if it's out of area is because it has to be inside, Wolverhampton by having testing stations outside its area are helping these Operators run Wolverhampton vehicles 120 miles away, so we're going back to the Berwick days, while other councils are trying to stop hackneys from working miles away, here we have a council trying to encourage private hire vehicles to do exactly that,when I asked Wolverhampton about how out-of-area private hire operators are supposed to legally use Wolverhampton licensed drivers and vehicles, she said that they “piggyback” an operator licence within the premises of a handful of Wolverhampton operators, paying them £50 per week to use their premises as an ostensible operator base.
Mr T likes to be argumentative at the best of times and when people come on here saying that something is set in stone, because a judge said so in such and such a case, it tends to get up my nose, when you read of so many cases being overturned by yet another judge in another case, and the fact that new laws or old laws have been changed since that case had taken place. Liverpool have had a testing station in Sefton for over 45 years. Originally it used to deal with the overflow of its bookings from its one and only testing station in Liverpool.
Sefton has a testing station for stretch limos outside of its area because that testing station specialises in stretch limos, and Sefton does not have a facility like it, but the vehicles need to be tested to a high standard. Now that to me seems common sense. I personally think, such as in the Berwick case, that if a council is authorising testing stations far away from its own area simply to generate income from licencing fees, then that is most certainly wrong, but if they do it to make sure that a certain type of vehicle is correctly tested, then that is common sense.
As I said in the very beginning, we can argue as much as we like, but the only way you will get a council to change its stance on a policy is to challenge it in court. Two barristers go into court thinking they are right, one comes out a loser, but they both get paid.
Posters on here who try to discredit another persons point of view by suggesting that they are involved in things that are not legal, remind me so much of the old Labour mentality, which is something I would not do myself. Win at all costs is not my motto.