Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Apr 24, 2026 3:51 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Watford judgement
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 9:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57329
Location: 1066 Country
So much for council's being best placed to deal with de-limitation. ](*,)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1590.html

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 4:28 pm
Posts: 8998
Location: London
I can't be bothered scrolling through all that legal (s)chit chat, what was the result?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
The result is usually ascsertainable by reading towards the end of the judgement; in this case the final paragraph suffices:

Quote:
With some hesitation I have come to the view that, notwithstanding all that happened between 5 September and 20 October, the failure on the part of the defendant to consult prior to taking a decision in principle on the issue of de-limitation was fatal to their ability to take, on 20 October, a decision to delimit the number of hackney carriage licences with immediate effect. Had they acknowledged what had gone wrong on the 5 September, decided to proceed on the basis that delimitation was one of the options it was considering, albeit a preferred one, and consulted on that basis, then it would have been open to them to decide to delimit. Mr Findlay has not, however, sought to persuade me that the issue is so cut and dried that a decision to delimit is the only one open to the defendant so as to make a further consultation exercise, followed by a decision taken on a proper basis, a foregone conclusion. Accordingly, in my judgment, this application for Judicial Review must succeed. I will hear the parties on the form of the remedy and on any other ancillary matters when this judgment is handed down.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57329
Location: 1066 Country
GBC wrote:
I can't be bothered scrolling through all that legal (s)chit chat, what was the result?

Well I suppose the cab drivers won, not sure what they have won, but they won.

Maybe they've got a delay, but if I know anything about the workings of councillors, then that's all the lads are going to get. :-$

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Watford made the grave error of announcing their decision on 5th September before proper consultation had taken place. The Judge was critical of the fact that prior to the announcement date on September 5th the council had not engaged in proper consultation and therefore the decision in his eyes could not stand.

The Judge stated "there was nothing wrong in a licensing authority expressing a view about future licensing policy", we are all aware however that in order to adopt such a policy a fair consultation process must be entered into. What Watford did was enter into a fair consultation process after they had announced their new policy. It was this decision which the Judge found unlawfull.

The consequences of doing it wrong means that in order to change the policy they now have to go back and do it right. Whether or not they will do that is anyones guess?

Summary.

Road traffic—Hackney carriage—Licence—Grant of licence—Local authority passing resolution to delimit number of licences—Whether decision fair. By s 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and s 16 of the Transport Act 1985 a local authority had power to limit by number the hackney carriage licences issued but only if it was satisfied that there was no significant demand for such services which was unmet. For many years the authority had adopted a policy of restricting the number of licences it issued.

In March 2004, the government wrote to local authorities stating that quantity control should only be retained where there was a clear benefit to the consumer and that unless a specific case could be made it was not in the interests of consumers for licences to be limited in number. On 3 March 2005, the authority adopted a recommendation that officers conduct a consultation exercise and engage an appropriate consultant to conduct a survey into any significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in its area in line with the 2004 government guidance.

A report was prepared for the licensing committee meeting on 5 September. At that meeting a resolution was carried that a detailed report would be prepared for the next meeting of the committee to agree the manner under which delimitation would take effect. A report was prepared for the meeting of 20 October, which recommended delimitation stating that consultation had included a letter to all existing hackney carriage vehicle drivers on 9 September, a press release; a public advertisement and an entry on the Council’s website.

The report then dealt with the implications of increasing the hackney carriage fleet and the implications for finance, staffing and legal issues. At the meeting of 20 October, the first claimant was invited to speak to the committee about the proposal. There was then a full discussion which addressed the principle of delimitation. The resolution to adopt the policy to delimit was then passed. The defendant local authority decided to delimit with immediate effect licences for hackney cabs in its area. The claimants who were hackney carriage cab drivers sought judicial review of that decision.

The issue which arose was whether there had been a decision on 5 September to delimit the number of hackney carriage licenses to be issued and whether that decision was taken unlawfully. The claimants argued that, even if the effective decision to delimit was taken on 20 October 2005, the consultation which took place between 5 September and 20 October was ineffective as it was not undertaken at a time when proposals were still at a formative stage. The application would be allowed. The description ‘a formative stage’ might be apt to describe a number of different situations.

An authority might only have reached the stage of identifying a number of options when it decided to consult. On the other hand, it might have gone beyond that and have identified a preferred option upon which it might wish to consult. In other circumstances it might have formed a provisional view as to the course to be adopted or might ‘be minded’ to take a particular course subject to the outcome of consultations.

In each of those cases what the authority was doing was consulting in advance of the decision being consulted about being made. It was no doubt correct that, if the authority had a preferred option or had formed a provisional view, those being consulted should be informed of that so as better to focus their responses.

The fact that an authority might have come to a provisional view or have a preferred option did not prevent a consultation exercise being conducted in good faith at a stage when the policy was still formative in the sense that no final decision had yet been made. It was, however, a difference in kind for it to have made a decision in principle to adopt a policy and, thereafter, to be concerned only with the timing of its implementation and other matters of detail. In the instant case, having regard to the totality of the evidence, the authority on 5 September took a decision in principle to de-limit. Further, the policy of delimitation, by virtue of that decision, ceased to be a policy which was at a formative stage.

There had been consultation prior to the decisions of 20 October, but that consultation failed the condition that consultation had to be both substantively fair and have the appearance of fairness. Although what was done after 5 September was done professionally and in accordance with the requisite standards, there was a residual feeling that the decision to delimit had not been taken in a fair way. R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2000] 3 All ER 850 applied.

Published Date 30/06/2006


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 850
Location: jock HQ
got told today that watford council lost in the high court of judiciary with there efforts to deregulate and have been left with a 1.7million bill

now i will add that i know nothing about this case and the info i have been told might just
be a load of CR"P????


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57329
Location: 1066 Country
chipper wrote:
got told today that watford council lost in the high court of judiciary with there efforts to deregulate and have been left with a 1.7million bill

I think the costs might be a bit OTT, but the rest is true.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Watford have held an inquiry in to what went wrong in their procedure to remove quantity controls. The bottom line is that they intend to go through the process again and this time get it right.

Here is the link to the report.

http://www.watford.gov.uk/ccm/cms-servi ... id=8193029

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 383 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group