Taxi Driver Online

Can be, and is used, under the provisions of reasonable conditions attached to the license.

Being owned by a reputable person is not an unreasonable condition in my view.

_________________
IDFIMH

This comes up again and again.

There IS an appeal, where it differs from the normal appeal process is that you remain suspended until the appeal is heard. This I know, could be months.

I am intrigued to see when this happens the first time and the appeal is allowed. Are the LA that dished out the immediate suspension going to have to cover loss of earnings and other financial losses?

If the LA get a huge bill then all the other LA's will be reticent about using the powers that they were given.

I will say again that if a charge is laid, the sensible way to deal with this is for the Courts to use Bail conditions to in effect, suspend the badge, by precluding driving a Taxi or PH vehicle, and not leave it to the LA at all. If that route was used, the LA's could be stripped of the power yet the Public could still be protected.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

In many cases that might be a good route to take, but not all folks charged/bailed actually end up in court. Quite often a case is discontinued.

In that case the driver can then go straight back to work without having to go through their licensing officers first.

_________________
IDFIMH

Does this not lead to a case of misuse of powers in the immediate suspension and should a L/A have to pay compensation to the wronged person.

Road Safety Act 2006, Section 52.

Does the use of this Section by L/As in suspending a license immediately nor remove the right of appeal?

No.

Unless it can be shown that the council/court acted without good reason in the first place.

_________________
IDFIMH

A court can overturn any council decision.

Pre 2006 act a driver merely had to lodge an appeal for him/her to carry on working until the court case.

Now the 2006 act means the driver has to get the court to over turn the council's decision if they want to carry on working.

In short it removed the automatic right to work pending an appeal.

_________________
IDFIMH

From information we were told when this Section 52 came about there is not a right of appeal.

Section 52 of the 2006 act amends section 61 of the 1976 act.

Section 61(3) says an appeal can be made to the Mags court for any part of section 61.

_________________
IDFIMH

It can't happen in Plymouth, the 2006 Act did amend the 1976 Act, it did not amend the Plymouth City Council Act 1975.

That said, when the provision was enacted it was erroneously reported all over the place that there was no appeal available. It should have been correctly reported that the right to continue working whilst waiting for an appeal to be heard was not allowed.

Referring to my own post above "Are the LA that dished out the immediate suspension going to have to cover loss of earnings and other financial losses?"

This was a foolish amendment to the 1976 Act, it should have directed the Courts to use bail conditions (powers which they already have) to protect Public Safety. This would have allowed an accused (but potentially innocent) Driver to make a representation in defence of livelihood either with or without a Lawyer. This section 52 provision allows an LA to immediately suspend and maybe not even hear anything in defence. In the worst Scenarios, the facility to immediately suspend has been delegated to Officers of the LA.

I am all for keeping the Public safe, but S52 was a terribly wrong way to go.

If you can remove a livelihood it should be fast tracked to the Magistrates Court, if it is heinous enough it may be that a Driver must be remanded in Prison. If necessary then Bail with a condition that Driving a Taxi or PH is not allowed. Let the Courts bear the responsibility and at least allow a defence to livelihood to be made.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Interesting that the IoL's new guidance effectively says the same fit and proper considerations should apply to drivers and proprietors:

So would a vehicle license owned by a number of part owners require those part owners to under take a DBS check every three years?

And if they are multi plate owners would they have to have one for each vehicle?

_________________
IDFIMH