Taxi Driver Online

Renfrewshire Council

Regulatory Functions Board
13 December 2007

Report by Director of Corporate Services
Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982

Thomas Sneddon -v- The Renfrewshire Council

1. Summary
1.1. At the meeting of the Regulatory Functions Board on 23 June 2005 the Board refused the application to renew the Taxi Licence held by Thomas Sneddon given that he was not prepared to have licensed a wheelchair accessible vehicle.
1.2. Mr Sneddon appealed to the Sheriff and after protracted procedure the Sheriff has now issued his judgement. The Sheriff has allowed the appeal and has remitted the application back to the Regulatory Functions Board to consider the application of new before a differently constituted Board.
1.3. The Council have marked an appeal meantime to the Court of Session and have asked Senior Counsel for an opinion on the prospects of appealing the Sheriff's decision.
1.4. The purpose of this report is to report on the current position.

2. Recommendations
2.1. It is recommended that the Board note the terms of the report. A further report will be submitted following advice from Senior Counsel.

3. Background
3.1. Mr Sneddon's application to renew his taxi licence was refused by the Regulatory Functions Board on 23 June 2005 on the basis that he was not prepared to have licensed a wheelchair accessible vehicle.
3.2. Mr Sneddon subsequently appealed to the Sheriff and 31 other operators have lodged similar appeals which are currently sisted pending Mr Sneddon's appeal.
3.3. The Sheriff after protracted procedure has now issued his judgement and has remitted the application back to the Board to consider the application of new before a differently constituted Board. The Sheriff held that the Board had breached natural justice in how it dealt with the application and observed that the Council's wheelchair accessible policy
was ultra vires in respect that in the Sheriff's opinion primary legislation required that the matter of vehicle type for the carrying in taxis of disabled people can only be determined by the Secretary of State.
3.4. An appeal has been marked meantime to the Court of Session and Senior Counsel has been asked for a note on the prospect of successfully appealing the Sheriff's decision.
3.5. Approximately 32 other local authorities, following guidance from the Scottish Government have introduced similar policies. The Sheriff's decision has ramifications for such policies. The decision has been brought to the attention of the Scottish Government and we are seeking to ascertain their position.

Implications of this report
1 Financial implications –The cost of an appeal to the Court of Session will be substantial.
2 Personnel implications – None
3 Community Plan implications
Social inclusion - None
Modernising government - None
Sustainable development - None
4 Legal implications – As outlined in the report.
5 Property implications – None
6 Information Technology implications – None
7 Equal Opportunities implications – None

Sneddon Council Report

_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_around_the_world

Now that's very interesting.

_________________
IDFIMH

Us people south of the border sometimes forget that Scottish legislation is somewhat slightly different than our own. The relevant act does indeed state that the secretary of state shall prescribe what is to be licensed and not local councils. The act does state that he can design different types for different areas so I suppose he could say all wav for Edinburgh and saloon or a mixture of both for another area. Those persons from other areas that have a stake in this outcome should find out what the secretary of state has decided for their area, if indeed he has decided anything at all? It would appear he hasn't conferred power on councils to choose for themselves.

I have a feeling in the case of Edinburgh Glasgow etc that it is the council who have stipulated the type of vehicle and not the Secretary of State.

Therefore any condition relating to all wav could well be illegal.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

JD, so any council like Aberdeen for instance is breaking the law as it stands, not only on insisting that if you want to put on a cab it must be a wav, but the absolutely stupid practice of requiring any wav owner to rip the head lining out to pass the height requirement, as there is no such height requirement in law as yet

I think that's why the council are appealing. Cos as it stands these councils can't bring in stupid conditions as they ain't got the powers.

_________________
IDFIMH

I must admit its the first time I've looked at the Scottish legislation regarding vehicles and the Secretary of states involvement. Like I said many of us folk south of the border overlook some of the scottish legislation because we seem to think most of it is the same as ours but it isn't.

Having read the relevant sections it would appear that councils in Scotland don't have the power to dictate what can be licensed because that power rests with the Secretary of state. That is why the sheriff said it was "ultra vires" and he is quite right. And that is why I said all you guys in Scotland should look at what the secretary of state has mandated to be licensed in your area because the council don't have the power to refuse.

I expect the court of appeal wouldn't entertain an appeal so it would appear you guys in Scotland can choose your own vehicles as long as it complies with what the Secretary of state has deemed suitable.

Which of course makes me extremely happy because it gives a little power back to you guys.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

LOL JD, I wonder if the Skull is contemplating getting a saloon now, thats if he and the others on the waiting list can get a plate or even ali T

These events are extremely interesting but I just wonder why it has taken you guys in Scotland so long to realise that unlike England, councils in Scotland are not empowered to dictate what can be licensed as a cab?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I would expect the Scottish parliament to sooner or later resolve this situation by way of legislation, so I wouldn't get too carried away with the courts decision.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Haven't read the judgement but presumably it's about WAVs rather than vehicle conditions more generally?

I know the legislation gave the SoS general powers to impose conditions, but this is a discretionary power which has never been used.

The DDA 1995 provided the SoS with more specific powers as regards accesability, but as we know these have not been used except as regards guide dogs.

But I suspect the sherrif was talking about WAVs specifically rather than vehicle conditions more generally? But I thought the DDA was all about the SoS making WAV conditions mandatory on councils rather than interfering with the current discretion of councils, so the sherrif is wrong?

But if he's right then I suspect that similar reasoning would be just as relevant to England?

Looking at the act Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 it appears to be all taxi conditions unless a Statutory Instrument is made.

TBH I'm amazed this has taken 25 years to come out.

_________________
IDFIMH

The problem with the 1982 act, unlike the 1847 act, is that the 1847 act specifically empowers a council with the right to decide what shall be hackney carriages. The 1982 act confers no such right on Scottish councils and instead places that power in the hands of the Secretary of State. That’s my understanding of the 1982 act.

The relevant sections are 10.4 and section 20, especially 20.2. Can you see any other relevancies?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

If a council has an existing policy of licensing saloons then under this legislation it would be pretty hard to refuse a license to anyone who wanted to license a saloon.

Could a council say, we will license saloons but they have to be accessible for wheelchairs? Then how do you get a wav accessible saloon that doesn't amount to a people carrier type vehicle? Swivel chair may be but then again maybe not?

Can someone post the section from the 1982 act relating to councils setting vehicle conditions, i'm feeling lazy.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

The reason is that cab trades have been operated in Scotland with no opposition. We have no organisation that is prepared to hold our councils to account for the way they trear us.

Have to say though, it's really no more than we deserve, is it?

Section 20 says that the SoS MAY make regulations, but my understanding is that SoSs have generally not exercised that power, except to pass regulations which prohibits councils from not granting badges to part-timers, those living outside the council area etc.

So as regards vehicle conditions, unless the SoS does something then it's basically up to the councils to make their own conditions.