wannabeeahack wrote:
This was raised elsewhere citing the firms prosecution but im only interesting HOW the firm was deemed to be "operating" in an area they were not (it seems) licensed for, or at least the cars/drivers were not.
We all take jobs from over the borders we are licensed within.
Yes, my point was more about the suggestion that the press article was a recent one, and to that degree the case had dragged on longer than it actually had.
But indeed there's nothing in the reports to suggest what the operator thing was about, precisely, and can't find anything else online to shed any light.
For what it's worth, I'd guess that the scenario was pretty bog standard, and that the defendant just came up with the 'intermediary' idea to get round the need for a licence in Aylesbury Vale, which would have obviously been inconvenient with the cars plated in Rutland. Which I think is why the 'intermediary' argument seems to have been given short shrift, reading between the lines.
Even the report on the Local Government Lawyer website isn't a whole lot different from the one in the mainstream press, although there was this about the procedural argument, which may or may not be relevant to the stuff on this thread about licensing fees etc.
Local Government Lawyer wrote:
However, a district judge accepted the defendants’ argument that Aylesbury Vale had failed to carry out the correct procedures in 1989 when the authority sought to adopt the private hire controls in Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The judge ruled that a failure to notify 12 out of 112 parish councils in the district meant that the Act had never been validly adopted.
A two-judge Divisional Court upheld Aylesbury Vale’s appeal in November 2013.
Mr Justice Ouseley concluded that the defendants had suffered no prejudice because the 1976 Act did not require notification to them, but to the parish councils.
The judge also said the district judge should have considered the degree to which there had been ‘substantial compliance’ with the procedural requirement.
The case was sent back to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration.
https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk ... of-licenceThe full judgement is available at the link below. Can't be bothered reading that, but from what I can see there's nothing obvious that might shed light on what the 'operation' of the PHVs was all about, and it's all about the procedural point regarding the adoption of the Act and the requirement for notification etc.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /3765.html