Taxi Driver Online

I get where the council is coming from in respect of written objections.

However, I don’t get as to why the refused to hear oral arguments.

They could be allowed under the Chair’s discretion.

By allowing those oral representations it would have taken a lot of heat out of the situation.

_________________
IDFIMH

Headline here looked interesting, but it's just some of yesterday's stuff rehashed, and the usual Uber boilerplate


Uber release statement about launch in Fife as objections thrown out

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/2 ... ns-thrown/

UBER say they are getting ready to start working in Fife after a bid for a taxi operating office licence was controversially progressed.

At a meeting on Tuesday, Fife Council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee ruled out a total of 431 representations against the application for premises in Rosyth after they were branded invalid.

Councillors had been told by solicitor Kevin Clancy, who was acting for Uber, that none of the objections which has been published in council papers were competent.

He explained that under legislation, they needed to specify the grounds of the objection, specify the names and addresses of objections and be signed.

Council solicitor Kimberley Langley confirmed none of the submissions had been signed by hand or electronically.

This led to committee convener, Councillor Tom Adams, moving that the objections be disregarded which resulted in the application going through unopposed.

Reacting to the decision, an Uber spokesperson said: “We are pleased to have been given this licence to operate by Fife Council and we’re currently working on our plans to launch in the area.

“We see strong demand for Uber in Fife and we’re excited about the opportunity to give people a safe, affordable and easy option to get where they need to go.

“Importantly, this will also offer new earning opportunities for local drivers. On Uber, all drivers have access to industry-leading worker rights such as holiday entitlement and access to a pension scheme, as well as formal representation through GMB Union.”

...and according to the council's most senior official as regards legal and licensing matters, there's nothing that could have been done yesterday

But it's one of those 'lessons will be learned' sort of statements. Never heard that one before


Fife Council apologises to 431 Uber objectors ignored

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/2 ... s-ignored/

FIFE Council has apologised to over 400 members of the public who had their objections to an Uber taxi office licence rejected.

The local authority’s head of legal and democratic service, Lindsay Thomson, acknowledged the frustration of those who had made submissions.

“I’d like to apologise to anyone who took the trouble to submit an objection by email and who took time out to come along to yesterday’s committee to speak to that objection,” she said.

“We understand your frustration and disappointment.

“A preliminary legal objection was raised by Uber’s solicitors and this had not been identified as an issue by officers in advance or raised by Uber’s agents before the committee meeting.

“This application type, for a taxi booking office, is rare and has its own particular procedure, which includes allowing members of the public to make representations. There have been no other recent licensing cases where public representations could have been made.

“Unfortunately, once the issue with the objections came to light during the committee hearing, it was too late to fix the issue with the objections that had been lodged, and no new objections could be received as the hearing process had already begun.

"It would not therefore have been possible to abandon or reconvene the committee.”

Members of the council’s Regulation and Licensing Committee ruled out a total of 431 representations against the application for premises in Rosyth on Thursday.

This came after solicitor Kevin Clancy, who was acting for Uber, stated that none of the objections which has been published in council papers were competent.

He explained that under legislation, they needed to specify the grounds of the objection, specify the names and addresses of objections and be signed.

This resulted in committee convener, Councillor Tom Adams, moving that the objections be disregarded which resulted in the application going through unopposed.

Ms Thomson moved to reassure Fifers that the process for representations on things such as planning applications – after more than 14,000 were received for plans for a data centre in Auchtertool – was different.

“To be clear, the process for how representations were gathered for yesterday’s meeting do not apply to other committees or to planning applications,” she added.

“Planning applications are considered under different legislation entirely. The objections which have been received for the Auchtertool Data Centre are considered using different rules and regulations.

“We are currently looking at how yesterday’s situation came about and will be carrying out a review to ensure that we do not have a similar situation in the future.”

And, right on cue, literally an article saying 'lessons should be learned'

But, I mean, this is one of the former licensing committee vice-conveners, who's been a committee member for about 20 years, I think.

And who still thinks 99/100% pass rates for the annual inspections are credible figures in most of the Fife zones

And who thinks that if you've got a sticker missing or a rooflight out then you're some kind of villain who needs to be suspended, 'fined' £100 and appear before councillors to explain yourself

And who seems incapable of a bit of basic arithmetic or economic rigour when it comes to the fares stuff

This sounds impressive enough, though, whoever happened to write it

But, in essence, it's a thinly-veiled attempt to shift blame from councillors to officials, correct me if I'm wrong

(And, after reading it not very intensely, it really does need a careful reading to work out precisely what she's trying to say. But, in essence, it reeks of buck-passing and blame-shifting.)


Concerns raised as Uber granted Fife licence after objections ruled invalid

https://news.stv.tv/north/concerns-rais ... ed-invalid

Kirkcaldy North councillor Carol Lindsay said lessons should be learned for future complex licensing applications

A Fife councillor has asked if lessons could be learned after a controversial meeting which saw Uber granted an operating licence after more than 400 objections were ruled to be invalid.

Kirkcaldy North councillor Carol Lindsay is a member of Fife Council’s Regulations and Licensing Committee who were asked to make a ruling on the application on Tuesday.

She has since raised concerns over how the situation arose and how the objections were dealt with.

“Whatever the eventual outcome of an application, everyone should be able to have confidence that the process used to reach it was clear, robust, transparent and fair,” she said.

“My concern is about whether there are lessons for Fife Council in how we administer complex licensing applications and support both members of the public and councillors through that process.”

Cllr Lindsay said the committee was advised that determining the competency of the objections was a matter for them to decide.

She said the experience had raised wider questions about whether members had been provided with sufficient factual information to make that determination and whether potential issues surrounding the objections could have been identified earlier in the process.

“Today was not about whether I agreed with the applicant or with the people who had submitted objections,” she said.

“As a member of a regulatory committee, my responsibility is to approach an application impartially and make decisions on the evidence and the law.

“What concerned me was that we were being asked to determine whether a very substantial number of objections met the necessary legal requirements, while we were also told that there had not been sufficient time to carry out individual checks because of the volume involved.

“If there are capacity issues in processing applications, this should have been raised long before we were advised today.

“If the decision on competency rests with councillors, then members need the factual information and administrative groundwork necessary to make that decision confidently.”

The Regulation and Licensing Committee ruled out a total of 431 representations against the application for premises in Rosyth after solicitor Kevin Clancy, who was acting for Uber, stated that none of the objections which has been published in council papers were competent.

He explained that under legislation, they needed to specify the grounds of the objection, specify the names and addresses of objections and be signed.

This resulted in committee convener, Councillor Tom Adams, moving that the objections be disregarded which resulted in the application going through unopposed.

Cllr Lindsay said the situation raised a “legitimate question” about preparation.

“With such a significant number of objections having been received, was their competency considered during the preparation and agenda planning process and, if so, could these issues have been identified earlier rather than emerging through a procedural legal challenge at the hearing?” she said.

“There is also a wider issue about public confidence. People who take the time to participate in a statutory council process should understand what is required of them and should be able to have confidence that what they submit will be properly processed.

“Where an objection meets the statutory requirements, people should have the opportunity for their views to form part of the proper decision-making process.

“Equally, councillors need to be able to distinguish fact from assertion, fact from myth, and relevant evidence from matters which cannot legally influence our decision.

“We can only do that effectively when the information and appropriate professional advice are available to us.”

In fact, some incredible stuff in there, and I don't mean that in a good way

But numerous thinly-veiled digs at officialdom there

And, of course, it all smacks of buck-passing and blame-shifting.


Well, I mean, that's total BS. Yes, there were a huge number of objections. But the vast majority were just pro-forma additions to a central template. So they didn't all need to be processed in the way that's being portrayed - all it was required was to notice that *one* didn't meet the requirements for a valid objection

When reading that couldn't help thinking about a major row in Scottish politics at the moment about councillors being silenced with regard to criticising officials because officials can complain under the councillors' code of conduct about any criticism made in public

So if the councillor above had actually named names, it looks like a prima facie breach of the councillors' code. And since there's a small number of officials involved, I wonder if they could in fact lodge a complaint about her to the ethical standards commissioner?

Anyway, some reading here about the wider thing if anyone's interested. The complaints are made to the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who then assesses the complaint, and will then refer it to the Standards Commission for Scotland if it's deemed valid. The latter body will then consider it and can suspend councillors etc if they're found to be in breach of the code of conduct

But the Standards Commission recently lost a court case about a councillor not being allowed to call certain evidence in her defence (currently being appealed), and there's a big hoohah about the destruction of case files after one year (claimed to be because of GDPR), and Edinburgh Council has passed a vote of no confidence in the commission, and looks like a Holyrood enquiry in the offing


Councillors removed by 'kangaroo court' for highlighting failings and alleged corruption

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/coun ... g-37555733

Elected local representatives have said a controversial Holyrood-funded ethics watchdog is being used as a tool to suppress legitimate dissent.



Ethics watchdog could face Holyrood free speech probe after judge's ruling

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scot ... d-37680727

The Standards Commission was found to have acted unlawfully in Fiona Higgins case - and now faces questions over document destruction.

Not much new here either except what's in the headline, but that's not really much of a surprise

Also the claim that anyone working for Uber will be blackballed by the legacy offices. But that's hardly a huge revelation either


Taxi operators considering legal challenge to Fife Uber decision after objections ‘blunder’

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/fi ... ms-lawyer/

More than 430 objections to Uber's licence application were ruled incompetent.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

Several taxi operators are considering legal action against Fife Council following this week’s Uber objections controversy.

They claim they were badly advised by licensing chiefs, who told them an email without a signature was enough to formally object to the company’s application.

More than 430 objections were then thrown out at the start of Wednesday’s regulation and licensing committee.

Uber’s lawyer successfully argued they were incompetent as they did not include signatures, which are required by law.

The firm’s bid to open a Rosyth booking office was therefore approved.

East Fife Taxi Association secretary Linda Holt said around eight companies have already joined forces to consider the legal position.

And dozens more are expected to join the fight.

“This is a massive c***-up by Fife Council,” she said.

“We think it’s possible the way the council has behaved can be challenged.

“We have written evidence where someone has emailed their objection and asked if it was ok like that.

“They were told it was fine.”

Possible legal challenge against Fife Uber licence decision

Ms Holt, who also co-owns St Andrews Taxis with husband James Glen, told The Courier they have already engaged a solicitor.

“A lot of people are very, very angry and have said they’ll put money in to help pay,” she said.

The taxi owner added that a number of companies have also agreed not to employ any drivers who work for Uber.

“They will be black sheep,” she said.

William Laing, of Prompt Taxis, is one of those also involved in the early stages of the legal campaign.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 6x1023.jpg

He runs Fife’s biggest taxi company, with 70 cars operating out of Glenrothes and Dunfermline.

And he said: “Uber’s lawyer was perfectly right.

“He knew the game and it turns out we were badly advised by the council on how to submit objections.”

The taxi companies’ action comes as a Fife councillor also raised questions about the handling of objections.

‘The public need to have confidence in the process’

Kirkcaldy SNP councillor Carol Lindsay is a member of the regulation and licensing committee and its former convener.

She has questioned whether any any issues should have been identified earlier in the process.

And she said: “We were being asked to determine whether a very substantial number of objections met the necessary legal requirements, while we were also told there had not been sufficient time to carry out individual checks because of the volume involved.

https://wpcluster.dctdigital.com/wp-con ... 40x564.jpg

“If there are capacity issues in processing applications, this should have been raised long before.

“There is also a wider issue about public confidence.

“People who take the time to participate in a statutory council process should understand what is required of them.

“And they should be able to have confidence that what they submit will be properly processed.”

Fife Council’s head of legal and democratic services Lindsay Thomson said the taxi licensing team will reflect on whether any changes to the process are required in future.

Not the brightest thing to say to the press.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, Sussex, and I would say a bit more, but

Anyway, was just thinking earlier that none of the various articles published in the last few days contain my favourite term 'ride-hailing' or similar, or even something like 'taxi app'

The articles just really say 'Uber', and there's no real description.

Anyway, kept on meaning to have a look at the obscure procedural stuff EFTA had found regarding the signature stuff etc.

And indeed it does read like basically the council can specify how objections etc can be made by electronic means.

(And it looks like that's stuff that's been added to the legislation since its enactment to accommodate modern methods of communication like email, most obviously.)

Anyway, it seems to be saying that objections can either use an electronic signature or some other means of 'authentication'

So well done to EFTA for finding that, and it will be interesting to see if there's any mileage in it.

Although, once again, I suspect it is and would have been largely academic in terms of whether or not the licence was approved.

Anyway, it's paragraph 16(A) here, quite far down the page. But please no one try to read and digest the whole of Schedule 1 on this page, which seems to be all the procedural stuff as regards applications, objections, suspensions, revocations etc

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/45/schedule/1