Taxi Driver Online

List of councils vulnerable to a legal challenge. Part 1.

Every council in the UK can be legally challenge for refusing an application for a taxi proprietor's license. However, the certainty of being successful in such a challenge is greatly enhanced if the authority being challenged has made itself vulnerable to such a challenge by not complying with the legal requirements under present legislation. The list below highlights those authorities that may find themselves vulnerable to a legal challenge.

The legal requirement is set out in "section 16 of the 1985 Transport act" and section 10.3 of the "Civic Government (Scotland) act 1982" as amended. The passage states,

The grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted by them if, but only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet.

The legislation requires a licensing authority to be satisfied of demand when refusing a license. You will also notice that there is no mention of surveys, time frames, deferments or time adjustment for being so satisfied? All those items are a by-product of established case law over the last 20 years.

I'm not going to go through the case law in depth but I'll advise you what the current situation is.

When being satisfied of demand a council has to have in its possession evidence that demand for the services of hackney carriages in their area is being met. The accepted way of establishing demand has always been by way of a survey and as long as the evidence is current the courts have so far accepted survey methodology.

In England and Wales the active shelf life of a survey has never been established in a court of law. However, most survey companies will state that they are confident of defending a survey up to three years, some even go further and state they are confident of defending a survey up to five years? I suppose you might be wondering where these survey companies get the idea that they can not only measure demand at certain points in a given time frame but they can also predict future demand some three or five years hence? Well, the top and bottom of it is, "they can't".

In Scotland, these same survey companies boasted they were confident of defending the shelf life of a survey up to three years. They were brought down to earth with a bang when the Scottish judiciary told them that evidence of demand has to be current and an assessment of demand had to be made when consideration of the application falls due. The court highlighted the fact that any assessment that predated the application was historical, therefore the survey conducted by Halcrow some two years previous was deemed worthless.

We currently have a situation where the only time the projected shelf life of a survey has been tested in a court of law, it was found wanting. Survey companies who assess unmet demand in England and Wales are still offering the same opinion and advice as they did in Scotland before the Scottish judiciary firmly nailed that opinion to the floor. The following councils are in my opinion acting outside the law and would find it extremely difficult to defend their position of refusing applications based on evidence of unmet demand.

It should be noted that a certain case involving deferment of a decision for a short period of time, was not in itself a refusal. However, the case in question, Regina v Middlesborough District council, Ex parte IJH Cameron Holdings, has its own peculiarities. It involved the council having to wait only eight weeks for the commissioning and completion of a survey and making a final decision after a total of ten weeks.

In November 1991 Cameron applied for judicial review of a decision by Middlesborough district council to defer his application for a H/C proprietor's license. Justice Popplewell in that case stated, "deferment for a short period of time while an authority measured demand was not in itself a refusal". That opinion was upheld in the subsequent appeal but it has never been established what a short period of time amounts to, saving only for the fact that Popplewell suggested a few weeks. The ruling clashed with the Reading ruling of Nolan J who stated a council that is not sure of demand should issue licenses until it was sure.

Cameron's final appeal was heard before Lord Justice Brown, Dillon and Lady Butler-Sloss on 25th November 1992.

The point being made is that at the moment in England and Wales, "deferment for a short period of time" is part and parcel of the limited options a council has in refusing a license applicant. The crucial factor of what is a short period of time has still to be determined but the Middlesborough case has highlighted that at least ten weeks is a short period?

All the councils listed below are vulnerable to a legal challenge some have never had a survey in the past and others are relying on historical surveys to maintain their policy of quantity control. You can work out the likely hood of a success by the comments attributed to each council.

A letter of application and additional information will be published shortly in Part 2 for those wishing to take advantage of their legal right to apply for a proprietor's license.

There are other authorities that will be added to this list once I have confirmed their survey status.

1. Blyth Valley. Last survey 1989.

2. Calderdale. Zoned, Halifax remains restricted. Plate value 70k. Last Halcrow Survey 2000

3. Congleton. Operates a policy of Quantity control. Has never had a survey as far as I am aware.

4. Durham. In 2005 Durham stated in principal their intention to remove restrictions, however no action has been taken in this respect and the likelihood of any future movement on the issue is highly unlikely.

5. Ellesmere Port. Last survey 2001.

6. Halton ua. No survey. license plate value 12k.

7. High Peak. No survey.

8. Hyndburn. No Survey.

9. Pendle. No survey.

10. Penwith. No survey

11. Ribble Valley. No survey.

12. Scarborough. Last survey conducted 1990. 97 H/C.

13. Sevenoaks. Last survey believed to be 2002/3.

14. Stoke on Trent ua. No Survey. Issuing 30 new license each year in 2006/7/8. Will review current policy in 2008 with a view to removing quantity controls. As of 14/6/06

15. Bolton. Policy change & survey 2003.

16. Bristol. Last survey 2003.

17. Corby. Last survey 2003

18. Havant. Last survey 2003.

19. Leeds. Last survey 2000.

20. Leicester. Last surveyed Jan 2001.

21. Mid Sussex. Last Survey 2003.

22. Oldham. Last survey 2003.

23. Poole ua. No independent survey. Conducted in-house survey in 2005.

24. Reading ua. Survey in 2002 found high level of unmet demand, issued additional licenses in 2003. Local taxi trade tried to stop the issue but lost the judicial review. 2002 survey now questionable?

25. Torfaen. No Survey, Policy decision possibly Oct 2006. As of 10/7/06

26. Warrington ua. Conducted in house survey. Decided to keep restrictions and issue 15 licenses in 2005, 15 in 2006 and review policy in 2007. 109 hacks. No independent survey, open to legal challenge.

Any discrepancy found in this list will be remedied at the earliest opportunity.

.....................................................................................

JD

Hello JD,
I am inquisitive. I have not examined the legislation which you have identified, but I would ask that in addition to the rights obtained by virtue of the Excise Licence - Plying for hire, what further rights does the vehicle owner obtain by agreeing to take up one of these licenses that the LA's grant?
Regards,
Jeff

JD, how did you obtain this information? which disguise did you use? where are your references?

Instead of him pointing out to you where he is right, why don't you point out where you think he is wrong. As was requested at the bottom of his post.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another thing. If a council isn't doing what the law says it should, then surely all licensed drivers, even you, should be supporting any efforts to make sure they do.

And if a few drivers are helped to gain a plate or two, then what's wrong with that?

_________________
IDFIMH

That most drivers would be kept out in the cold?

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

whats wrong with a survey? if demand is shown then the council can issue more plates.

Because they are bent.

And if a survey does show SUD and cars are licensed to meet it, then what's the difference between that and letting market forces meet it?

_________________
IDFIMH

its sad that you believe that market forces are the be all and end all. they are not always suitable.

unless youre A PH.

Your wrong cgull, delimatation for a ph in our city could be a nightmare, lets say 25% of our ph become hacks, 125 approx. They will have to buy wheelchair cars. They go down town to the streets of gold. They can't use the station as they do not have a pass. Their now competing with 625 hacks for a living. They won't make it. They have to go back on a firm. They in effect have paid 15 -30k to be a glorified PH.
Even as a PH myself I do not believe delimatation will benifit either trade. However I do not believe the current system is correct, but thats another story.

see i have a hack and but work the radio.
why shouldnt the other lads?
great for me that i can sell my plate for 45 grand.
but is that good for punters?

if you are so worried about punters, then give them a free ride, lets see how long you would last......

What are you on about now sad boy, lets hope you burgh gets de-restricted next.

What will you do then apart from [edited by admin] in your pants:?:


Tell me something, how do you live in this perpetual state of fear? Funny thing, I love people to do what they say, at least then you know where you stand, for good or for bad.

Then there's the pain Ah yes the pain, can't wait.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Cgull,
whats needed in Brighton is a long term plan. Im not sure what side you are on, but if the two sides continue to fight the eventual delimatation, and it will come, will finacially cripple both PH and Hack. You cannot blame Hacks who have entered the trade by buying in, because that is how are hack trade has evolved, you cannot blame PH who take the same tests and pay the same licence fees for wanting to be Hacks. The trade needs to sit down with our council, who must be made to take some responsibility, because they knew and have ignored since they lost the transfer of plates court case (bish) what has been happening. A long 5 - 10 year plan, time for those who have invested to regain their finacial outlay and an end for those PH who want to be Hacks. After the end of the 5 - 10 year period we must persuade our council to go back to court to return to the original returning of plates so the next person on the list can be issued. I believe the above with the three year survey of unmet demand would work better for those in the trade rather than delimatation.
Do you not think this is a better idea ?