Taxi Driver Online

Good day to you all

It has been a bit quiet on here for a while, so I have a little issue for you to mull over and consider if you please.
A colleague of mine has a 63 plate Mondeo that he has plated for the past four years. This year though, due to mechanical issues he did not re-plate on expiry, so he has no continuance. He has instead, sought to get the vehicle plated some 4 months after expiry.

He was told the vehicle is over 8 years old and therefore too old and he could not re-plate the vehicle.

Below is our Licensing District's policy on vehicle age....

6 VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENCE
6.1 GENERAL
6.1.1 The Council recognises the need to move towards a greener fleet for the benefit of the environment
as referenced in 6.1.8 below. The motor trade is also moving in this direction under the central
government direction to cease the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. Given the current
infrastructure and cost constraints it is impractical to require the trade to change wholesale to
greener vehicles in the short term however the Council will look to research and develop an
incentive scheme to encourage a move towards carbon reduction in line with the Council’s Climate
Change ambitions.
6.1.2 All licensed vehicles shall comply in all respects with the requirements set out below as
appropriate for the type of vehicle (Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicles including Stretched
Limousines). This is in addition to all requirements of the Road Traffic legislation, which relates to
all motor vehicles.
6.1.3 All vehicles shall have an appropriate “type approval” which is either a:-
• European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval;
• British National Type Approval; or
• British Individual Vehicle Approval.
6.1.4 Be of Euro New Car Assessment Programme star rating of 4 or more.
6.1.5 Be no more than eight years of age since the date of first registration.
6.1.6 Where a currently licensed vehicle of either petrol or diesel reaches ten years of age it must be
tested a minimum of twice a year to ensure the vehicle remains fully compliant and fit for purpose.


There are no further references to a vehicles age anywhere within the policy document.
So, how do you interpret 6.1.5 Be no more than eight years of age since the date of first registration.?

How would a court interpret this?
Where does a policy stand in law?

It is my opinion that the counsel have misinterpreted their own policy rule or misrepresented their intentions.
Either way, the policy does not authorise them to deny the re-licensing of my colleagues vehicle

Your comments please

In my view a court will interpret this as being that a first application for a vehicle license will not be accepted if the vehicle is older than 8 years old.

I'm interested to see how else it could be viewed.

_________________
IDFIMH

6.1.5 reads to me that no vehicle can be over eight years old, whether it's a newly plated vehicle or one that's already plated. Thus when it reaches its eight birthday, it's off.

But Sudbury implies that in fact vehicles are allowed to be older than eight years, assuming they're plated before reaching eight-years-old.

And, of course, 6.1.6 also implies that vehicles can be older than eight years. Therefore it doesn't really make sense.

But if accepted practice has been that it's an eight-year maximum ON rule, but no age limit once plated, then I don't hold out much hope for replating a vehicle that's older than eight years but has been unplated for several months

Accepted practice is a new taxi plate can be issued to a vehicle when first presented to the council for approval so long as it is less than 8 years old
After being 10 years old, that vehicle is subjected to twice yearly inspection. This is how we have understood the policy to be for some time now.

There is no mention in the policy that the license has to run continuously without a gap, so it comes down to interpretation of the policy and parameters of law.
What status in law does a policy hold?
In this instance, in the context of us drivers going out to work everyday, does the policy equate to a contract?
If it does have the status of a contract, then surely the letter of the law applies and the wording of the policy document/contract is crucial as it in essence becomes legal and binding?

Has your mate tried the 'be nice' route?

If I was in this situation, or if I was to advise a mate in this situation, I would write to the Chair of Licensing asking the council to make an exemption in this instance.

As we all know councils are not allowed to have 'hard and fast' rules, the legal term is they mustn't 'fetter their discretion'.

Mention to the Chair the above, and say the vehicle was always going to be relicensed, it's just the time and cost it took to repair was something that wasn't anticipated.

Mention that times are hard, and you would be extremely grateful if the council could review their position and grant a license in the same way they have for the previous years.

_________________
IDFIMH

our lad sat at a garage having a job done on his taxi when another came in with his new car, that guy had spent £13,000 (plus his immaculate Peugeot part exchange), when Jnr asked why the guy said "cos it was too old", Jnr pointed to his car on the ramps which was over the 7 year rule, "just plated that again, the rules have "exceptional condition exemption" in them......."

the other guy admitted he hadnt read the new rules...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Good luck with trying to argue, effectively, that a licence that has lapsed or expired isn't really a lapsed/expired licence because the original licensee got another licence at some time in the future...

Instead of the hard law approach, maybe a soft diplomacy strategy would be more likely to bear fruit, along the lines of the exceptional circumstances/exceptional condition kind of stuff described above...

And not sure if contract law is the best way to look at it. But if it is, then I'm sure the council might argue that an implied term in the contract is that the vehicle in question should be continuously licensed.

On the other hand, it seems to be an implied term that an existing plated vehicle isn't subject to the explicit eight-year age rule in 6.1.5 because of what's stated in 6.1.6 and other policy and practice.

Alternatively, in terms of contract law it might be argued that because of the explicit contradiction between 6.1.5 and 6.1.6 then the whole contract is void for uncertainty

But to that extent I don't think the contract law angle provides much mileage in terms of what you want, because a court of law isn't going to declare the whole relationship between licensees and the council as void because of contractual uncertainty

I had a similar case with Shepway District Council about 12 years ago at Dover Magistrates with a 7 year old Chrysler in exceptional condition. The LO didn't want to re-licence it as it was against their policy. They dropped the case on the day following advice from their legal team but wanted it to go to court to get the mags view on matters. It was all done on a friendly basis with the LO who came from another area where the age limit was more generous but still had the "exceptional condition" clause. I think I may have posted the case on here in the legal section. Gould-v-Shepway district Council.

This is why I've been on the "soap box" about having national standards as we have in the bus industry.