Taxi Driver Online

Section 10 says;

(1) A licence, to be known as a “taxi licence” or, as the case may be, a “private hire car licence”, shall be required for the operation of a vehicle as:
(a) a taxi; or
(b) a private hire car.

(2) A licensing authority shall not grant or renew a taxi licence or private hire car 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 or private hire car, as the case may be, and is safe for that use, and that there is in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or such security as complies with Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

(3) Without prejudice to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to this Act, the grant of a taxi licence may be refused by a licensing authority for the purpose of limiting the number of taxis in respect of which licences are granted by them if, and only if, they are satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of taxis in their area which is unmet.

(4) A vehicle shall, for the purpose of subsection (2) above, be treated by a licensing authority:
(a) as being suitable in type, size and design if it complies with regulations in that regard made by the Secretary of State under section 20(2) of this Act in respect of their area; and
(b) as not being so suitable if it does not so comply.

(5) A taxi licence or private hire car licence shall extend to the operation of a vehicle substituted for the vehicle in respect of which the licence is granted or, as the case may be, last renewed if the licensing authority are as respects the substitute vehicle satisfied as to the matters specified in subsection (2) above, and where a taxi licence or private hire car licence extends under this subsection to a substitute vehicle, subsection (6) below shall not apply in respect of the vehicle replaced by the substitute vehicle.

(6) Subject to subsection (5) above, the holder of a taxi or private hire car licence shall within 28 days of his selling or otherwise disposing of the vehicle to which the licence relates deliver to the licensing authority the licence and any licence plate or other thing which has been issued by the licensing authority for the purpose of indicating that the vehicle is a taxi or, as the case may be, private hire car, and if without reasonable excuse fails to do so that licence holder shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £500.

_________________
IDFIMH

To me that reads that the council can only do what the SoS says.

If that's the case then I suspect loads of Statutory Instruments were made soon after the act was passed.

But since then Scottish councils seem to have decided they don't need to bother with the act.

_________________
IDFIMH

This is a reply from Mr Macleod Aberdeen council.

thank you for your e mail. I will obtain a full copy of the Sheriff's opinion.

S20(2) of the 1982 Act states that the Secretary of State for Scotland (following devolution, the Scottish Parliament) may by statutory instrument prescribe types, sizes and designs of vehicles for the purposes of S10(4). Guidance issued by the Scottish Secretary of Scotland in 1986 was that this was only intended to be a reserve power that would only be used if there was evidence that councils were requiring unecessarily expensive vehicles. No such statutory instruments have been passed.

The generally held view was that Scottish Councils could still reach their own decisions as to the types of taxis they allowed in their own areas. The Scottish Executive indeed wrote to us on 16th September 2003 (a copy was attached to my report to the Committee in June 2005) stating "Until the Taxi Accessibility Regulations resulting from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are introduced it is entirely a matter, under the provisions of the 10(2) of the 1982 Act, for the Council to determine the type of vehicles that can operate in as taxis in their area."

Please find below the guidance notes on taxi vehicles lifted from the council's website http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ilwwcm/publishing.nsf/Content/Navigation-TaxiandPrivateHireLicencesHomePage -

The main policies relating to taxi vehicles are as follows:
The holder of a taxi licence shall use as a taxi only an FX4 Metropolitan type vehicle of any other vehicle of a type which has received the prior approval of the licensing authority. From 1 January 2002, all vehicles to be licensed as taxis shall:-
(i) be coloured white;
(ii) be wheelchair accessible and either custom built taxis such as FX4’s or Metro cabs or alternatively MPV’s (multi person vehicles) of a type approved by the licensing authority;
(iii) be less than 8 years old from the date of first registration of the vehicle where that vehicle is wheelchair accessible and otherwise be less than 5 years old (the latter age limit to apply only from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003 to non-wheelchair accessible taxis which were licensed prior to 1 January 2002); and
(iv) be subject to 6 monthly inspections as from the time they are 5 years old from the date of first registration.


Should you have a query that is not covered in these guidance notes please feel free to contact the licensing section for further information.
Contact Details Office Hours
Monday - Thursday 8.45am - 4.00pm Friday 8.45am - 3.15pm
Phone: 0141 840 3272 Fax: 0141 840 3566
Email: licensing.cs@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Or write to:
Renfrewshire Council
Corporate Services Department
Licensing Section
Headquarters
Cotton Street
Paisley
PA1 1TT

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

Do we have a full copy of the Sheriff's Judgement?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

The problem every Scottish council has is that unlike England the legislation doesn't specifically give them the power to state what can be a Taxi? What the LO is saying is that there is no statutory instrument giving them such a power, only guidance. I'm afraid guidance is not legislation and it will be interesting to see what the courts make of it because as far as I can see there is nothing in section 10.2 that gives them the power to state what is to be a Taxi. I think that is why the Sheriff came to the conclusion he did and if a council in the past has licensed saloon vehicles as taxis then by their very own hand they are dammed.

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.

Guidance is viewed by the court as carrying a lot of weight, but the act is what carries the most.

And if the gov wanted to change the law then they have had plenty of time to do so.

So really the judge, or whatever you call them, didn't really have a lot of choice.

_________________
IDFIMH

You are right. The Sheriff has applied the law as he has seen it, not as councils would wish it to be.

I do have a few questions though.

Any appeal would have to show the Sheriff erred in law, would it not?
The Court of Session can decide not to hear an appeal?
Can councils continue to impose their WAV conditions pending any appeal?
If the SoS decided to do as these councils want, would it leave this decision meaningless? and how long would such a move be likely to take?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I think he would have to change the act, and that could take up to 2 years if you include the consultation period, parliament time, and time to adjust.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think the Sheriff was looking for specific evidence in the 1982 act or even the DDA that gave a council the right to exclude certain types of vehicles and only include other types? He couldn't find any such powers bestowed on councils excepting those bestowed on the Secretary of state, hence his decision.

No doubt we would all be grateful if someone could post "SPECIFIC" legislation that actually says a council may license such vehicles of types and size or design as they think fit? The problem is that there is no Specific legislation and that is why the Sheriff had a distinct problem with section 10.2

All section 2 does is state that,

A licensing authority shall not grant or renew a taxi licence or private hire car 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 or private hire car.

However when the Sheriff was confronted by section 10.4 he had a clear indication that the right to determine what can be taxis was bestowed on the Secretary of state.

A vehicle shall, for the purpose of subsection (2) above, be treated by a licensing authority: as being suitable in type, size and design if it complies with regulations in that regard made by the Secretary of State under section 20(2) of this Act in respect of their area; and as not being so suitable if it does not so comply.

The Sheriff then had to look at section 20.2 but before that we have section 20.1 which states, the “Secretary of State by statutory instruments may make regulations for providing licensing authorities to set conditions on Taxis and Taxi drivers but only within the confines of the regulations set down by the Secretary of State.

Now it would appear to me and probably the Sheriff too that if there is no provision in these regulations that give a council the right to determine what type of vehicle can be licensed, then that would be the end of the matter.

Returning to section 20.2 “The secretary of state may by regulations made by statutory instruments prescribe types of, sizes and designs of vehicles for the purpose of section 10.4 of the act and in doing so may prescribe different types, sizes or designs of vehicles in respect of different areas.”

I wouldn't get too carried away by the word "May" because the courts have a much wider interpretation of the word than the general meaning might suggest.

If you put section 10.2 10.4 and 20.2 together it becomes obvious that the only person allowed by law to determine what can be licensed as a taxi is the secretary of state. If you then look at section 20.1 it is also obvious that conditions can only be applied by virtue of the regulations set out by the secretary of state. In fact apart from what is specifically stated in the various sections of the act a council can only set conditions that the secretary of state has deemed appropriate in the "regulations" provided for in any and all statutory instruments. Therefore those in Scotland might wish to write to the secretary of state asking him to provide details of all regulations appertaining to the 1982 act that have been subject to an order of Statutory Instruments. You will then know exactly where you stand and also where a council stands on regulating conditions of licenses in respect of those purposes which are defined and limited, in section 20.1. If you get all the SI numbers I might be able to dig out the details for you?

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.

It appears the new guidance is out-of-date already, cos it says;

22. The legislation gives local authorities a wide range of discretion over the types of vehicle that they can license as taxis or PHCs. Some authorities have adopted criteria as to vehicle specification that in practice can only be met by purpose-built vehicles but the majority license a range of vehicles.

_________________
IDFIMH

No its not Sussex

From my reading of it, councils have been asked to lift restrictions on numbers, they have been asked to licence saloons as well, so that any disabled person not in a wheelchair can get a taxi from the street.

No, my point is that the guidance says councils can license what they want, but the courts say it down to the SoS.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. As the Aberdeen solicitor said, the SoS's power were intended as a reserve.

An old circular said that it would only be used if a council imposed conditions which were too onerous and raised costs to the public too much.

I think the word MAY in section 20 is the relevant one - it's a discretionary power which the SoS has never excecised in relation to vehicle types and conditions.

S. 10(2) allows councils to define vehicle types and conditions, and 10(4) only operates if the SoS has used his S. 20 powers.

If that be the case then surely the act would have said so? The Sheriff didn't see it that way but perhaps the court of appeal might? We shall have to wait and see.



Costs to the public? I thought it stated this,

Guidance issued by the Scottish Secretary of Scotland in 1986 was that this was only intended to be a reserve power that would only be used if there was evidence that councils were "requiring unecessarily expensive vehicles". No such statutory instruments have been passed.

The guidance doesn't mention direct cost to the public but it does mention vehicle expenditure. I take this to mean the imposition of an uneccesary financial burden placed on Taxi owners for the purpose of councils requiring expensive and unecessary vehicles to be used as taxis.

I think it pertinent to ask which section bestowes on a council the right to impose conditions? Apart from the act itself which is full of specific conditions relating to various matters, the only section I can see is section 20.1. Which specifically states that the secretary of state is the only person who can by regulation provide councils with the means of imposing conditions but only those conditions as prescribed in any regulations.

Therefore Section 10.2 in my opinion does not give a council the right to state what can be licensed as Taxis even if the Government of the day meant them to have that power? In my opinion 10.2 would appear to be attached to 10.1 and it is 10.4 in conjuction with 20.2 that defines what can be licensed as Taxis.

No doubt that is how the Sheriff saw it and it is easy to see why but as I said, we shall have to wait and see what those who sit in loftier places than us, think about this legislation?

In the meantime Mr Sneddon has his victory.

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.