Taxi Driver Online

Here’s an even bigger laugh Mrs Saltei doesn’t even have a brief.

One hundred and ten still on the “interested parties list” waiting for 15 years not to get one.

Now that’s funny.


What a bunch of numptys.

numptys

Ali T - I think the name you called me was was Torn Arse and alluded to me frequenting bars round the Playhouse area. I think chipolata dick was my response. See, still makes me laugh.

Skull - You've conspicuously ignored the question about your opinion on what IF Mrs Salteri's husband sells his plate. That would prove the case wasn't about deregulation, but profiteering. pretty much all your uinterested in too

Surprised? Shocked? Nah I thought no. Nobody here should be

Strange, the biggest thing to happen to the Edinburgh Taxi Trade for years and they don't even know it is happening?

I am less convinced by the terms of the third ground of appeal and the argument advanced in support of it. This was to the effect that before refusing the application the Sheriff should have taken into account the effect of the provisions of section lO(2) of the 1982 Act. These provisions prohibit a Licensing Authority from granting a taxi licence unless they are satisfied that the vehicle to which the licence is to relate is suitable in type, size and design for use as a taxi and that there is in force an appropriate policy of insurance.

It was pointed out that the applicants averred that the respondent had not provided details of the vehicle for which the licence was sought and indeed it was likely that she had not purchased a taxi. It was contended, as I understood the argument, that this provision conflicted with the "deemed grant" provisions of section 3(4), and that the Sheriff should have taken into account the practical implications of refusing the application. I am far from persuaded that this is a relevant consideration for a Sheriff faced with an application under section 3(2); the consequences of a Licensing Authority failing to reach a final decision in respect of a licence application have been clearly spelled out by Parliament.

If the Authority seeks to have the relevant statutory period extended it must advance positive reasons in support of the application, and not found on the consequences of its own failure.

10. Whilst it is not clear to what extent the Sheriff was influenced by the irrelevant considerations above referred to, or to the fact that the applicants led no evidence and relied simply on the terms of the application, I am persuaded that the errors in these respects are sufficient for me to take the view that I should consider the application of new.

The issue as to whether the licence application was "considered" within three months from the date on which it was made was not highlighted before the Sheriff, and he did not deal with it.

That issue appears to me to be fundamental. As I have indicated nothing is said about it in the pleadings. Counsel for the applicants contended that they had "considered" the application. He produced for the purposes of the appeal proceedings an inventory of productions which showed that the licence application had been registered, that it had been acknowledged by letter to the applicant dated 5 April 2005, and that on the same date an application for a report had been made to Lothian and Borders Police Taxi Examination Centre.

This was followed by a report from the police on 28 April 2005 which indicated that the license applicant was not a licensed taxi driver and had no convictions recorded against her. Counsel contended that the term "consider" simply meant looking at the licence application and causing investigation to be made into it.

11. Whilst there was a superficial attraction in the argument presented by counsel, and I have not had the benefit of hearing competing argument, I am not satisfied that this argument is sound. "Consideration" of a licence application appears to me to involve more than merely registering it and setting in motion the administrative machinery to deal with it. I consider it significant that section 3(1) of the 1982 Act imposes a requirement to "consider" and thereafter reach a "final decision". That appears to me to contemplate some form of initial deliberation by the Licensing Authority within the first three months. On the applicants' own averments their Regulatory Committee meets every four to five weeks.

There is no obvious reason why a licence application could not be placed before it within three months of it being lodged. One of the matters which the Committee would require to consider would be whether there was sufficient information to deal with the application at that stage or whether it was necessary to continue to a later date within the six month period. If there was good reason for believing that the application could not be dealt with within the time limit that may well be the point at which it would be appropriate to instruct an application for an extension under section 3(2).

12. In the present case the Sheriff was, I consider, rightly critical of the fact that nothing appeared to have been done until the summary application was lodged some ten days before the six month period was about to expire. If the matter had been properly "considered" by the applicants within the three month period the extension could have been sought much earlier. In these circumstances I am not minded to allow this appeal.