Taxi Driver Online

If I was the judge (or whatever...) I would have considered that the English and Welsh version (1976 Miss act) stated that councils could do what they wanted within reason.

As that pre-dated the 1982 act, if the gov wanted councils to do as they choose, then they wouldn't have written the act in the way it was.

Thus the judge, IMO, has interpreted the act as how the gov (at the time) wanted it, not how subsequent govs want it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Fae Fife


Surely having to shell out on a wav all because a council says so, will put the prospective owner at a disadvantage with regards the cost of buying and running one, over the cost of a saloon, and also increase the costs to the punters

This piece from Donald Macleod's report to the licencing committee in 2005 is interesting, in light of the Sheriff's decision in the Sneddon case.



The Sheriff does not agree with the Corporate Director's view.
http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/ACCI/nms ... 5&sID=2086

_________________

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

I seem to remember from somewhere that Glasgow didn't actually have a WAV policy as such, it was just that the vehicles on their approved list took wheelchairs, ie TX & Metrocab

I don't know if that's still the case

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

When faced with implementing an illegal condition or ultra vires decision practically every authority in the United kingdom will come up with the response "we are advised the condition is legal". It is then up to anyone who disagrees to challenge that decision in a court of law. Thats how they get away with abusing the law.

Anyone subscribing to TDO wil be no stranger to illegal conditions because this website has been at the forefront of exposing such activity for quite some time. It is significant that Mr Macleod is aware that the legislation doesn't specifically give them the power to say what type of vehicle can be licensed.

If you read the full report he gives several oblique reasons as to why he thinks a council might be able to circumvent that particular problem but none of them amount to a hill of beans. The Sheriff on the other hand is in complete agreement with Mr Macleod on his observation that the act doesn't expressly give a council power to state what can be licensed. Hence the Sheriffs judgment.

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 be very interested to know where the 1976 act, in relation to vehicle licenses, is worded in a similar way to the 1982 act.

Cos if it was then this thread wouldn't exist.

_________________
IDFIMH

I now have the full judgement. If anyone wants a copy PM me with an email address and I will send it to you.

_________________

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

Thanks to GUS I'm working on converting the pdf image file into a manageable doc, pdf and html format, by way of OCR. I've been at it for 7 hours and will be finished later today. The pdf consists of 136 pages and is over 6 meg, that will give you some idea of the size of the document.

For those in Scotland this judgment is an essentialt read because it puts into perspective the limited powers of a Scottish licesning authority and gives you plenty of insight into what a Scottish licensing authority can and cannot do.

In summing up the Sheriff stated this.


it is the clear intention of Parliament that it is for the Secretary of State to make Regulations for the provision of taxis for the disabled and for users of wheelchairs under Section 20(2A) ofthe 1982 Act as amended.

**I am fortified in my view in considering the interplay between Sections 10(2), 10(4) and 20(2A) of the 1982 Act as amended. **

I agree with the Appellant's Counsel's interpretation that under Section 10(2) the Licensing Authority has a duty not to grant or renew a licence unless the vehicle is suitable. "Section 10(4)" removes that function from the Local Authority to the Secretary of State who under Section "20(2A)" is empowered 'to prescribe what is suitable for the carrying in taxis of disabled persons etc.'

Further I am unable to attribute an intention to Parliament, in the absence of regulations under section 20(2A), that a Local Authority could impose a condition requiring an applicant to have a wheelchair accessible vehicle. It seem to me that the intention of Parliament is that conditions cannot be imposed under para 5 of Schedule I of the 1982 Act to cover the carrying in taxis of disabled persons, otherwise it would not have been necessary for Parliament to introduce the amending legislation.

In effect, what Parliament appears to be saying in Section 20(2A) is that notwithstanding the generality of para 5 of Schedule I to the 1982 Act, it is for the Secretary of State by way of regulation and not for the individual Licensing Authority by way of conditions to make provision for the carrying in taxis of disabled persons. While I can empathise with Renfrewshire Council's intentions in introducing its policy I would have come to the view that it has no power so to do.

For the above reasons and for the other reasons given by counsel for the Appellant I would have come to the conclusion that the Appellants primary submission was correct in that "the policy and licensing conditions which implement(s) that policy is/are ultra vires and go beyond the powers entrusted to the Respondent by Parliament:'


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 know appears that following advice Renfrewshire Council will now appeal the decision to the Court of Session

http://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/WebRepli ... em%203.pdf

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

Buying time but nevertheless the Court of Apeal will come up with the goods one way or another? If they uphold the Sheriffs decision then you can say goodbye to great many LTI vehicles in Scotland.

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 have sent your council a copy of the best practice guidance just in case they have not received there's yet

My money's on the appeal being successful.

I haven't read the whole judgement, but I can't see anything that has changed my opinion and indeed that which prevailed among lawyers, councils, the Scottish Executive and anyone else who had an opinion on the matter - ie, the SofS's powers in the legislation regarding accessability are non-mandatory unless he takes action and that in the meantime there's nothing to stop councils doing their own thing in this regard.

At the very least the implications of the judgment are certainly not what was intended by the legislators, and before the judgement no one even seemed to consider that councils couldn't implement their own accessability policies.

Fae Fife, I take it you have not read the best practice guidance also, under vehicles it states that saloons and any other vehicle can be licenced

Is the best practice guidance that of the Scottish Government ?

If so, could you provide a link please ?

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