Taxi Driver Online

I think we will make it a damn sight clearer than that.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I really need to print entire reports!!


However a High Court decision during February 2009 in the case of Stockton on Tees – v – Latif (attached at Appendix 2) has established that the 21 day period is strict, the courts having no discretion to extend it, and it appears, should run from the making of the officer decision notwithstanding the internal appeals stage operated by this and most other Authorities. This creates a problem because it will almost always take more than 21 days for a Licensing Sub Committee to be convened by which time, if an aggrieved driver has not also exercised his right of appeal to the Magistrates Court, it would be too late to do so. An appeal to the Magistrates Court has a significant cost in terms of court fees and the cost of employing a solicitor.

3.6 To address this problem the following changes are proposed:

(a) where there is considered to be no need to revoke or suspend an existing driver’s licence immediately, the officer does not make a decision but instead refers the case to the Licensing Sub Committee with a report. The Licensing Sub Committee then makes the decision which, if adverse to the driver, would then become the subject of an appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of that decision.

(b) In a case involving a need to revoke or suspend a driver’s licence immediately, for example where a driver has been charged with or convicted of a sexual offence, or offence of similar seriousness, the Head of Environmental Health makes the decision against which there is the right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days. This is in accordance with the scheme of delegation and there is no referral to the Licensing Sub Committee; the appeal must be directly to the court.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The driver is rather upset.

There was no local association, but there's going to be in the next day or two and its going to be affiliated as and when payment is received.

They seem quite keen, but then again, they always are.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I presume then that some of his/her colleagues are more than a little miffed and it's not going to be a local association of one member?

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

You assume correctly.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

WTF are you on about??

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Strange you should say that!!

I have been reliably informed in the last few days that for immediate suspensions under Section 52 of The RSA 2006, Licensing Authorities should have a policy document, stating & setting out under what conditions & transgressions Section 52 suspension would be invoked.

The need for the policy document is not contained within The RSA 2006, but is apparently contained in one of the Local Government Acts, but which one escapes my mind at the minute.

But I shall re-enquire.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

If that has been reported from a High Court case, the IMO there is now no need for guidance from The DfT.

The judge has said it all.

And I believe that is sufficient to launch claims against councils for wrongful use of Section 52.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I have now been told that the idea of policy documents is not mandatory but advisory.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

How could the council justify immediate suspension under Section 61 Amendment 2B notwithstanding the fact that the driver did not actually need an operator's licence?

_________________
Steve.

Anyway Captain Cab, many thanks. A copy and a link to this thread has now been sent to Cannock Chase District Council and Bryan at NPHA has been copied in. This is what I've sent:

Subject:

Suspension procedures - Cannock Chase District Council would do well to consider the following...‏


http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... 2&start=20

However a High Court decision during February 2009 in the case of Stockton on Tees – v – Latif (attached at Appendix 2) has established that the 21 day period is strict, the courts having no discretion to extend it, and it appears, should run from the making of the officer decision notwithstanding the internal appeals stage operated by this and most other Authorities. This creates a problem because it will almost always take more than 21 days for a Licensing Sub Committee to be convened by which time, if an aggrieved driver has not also exercised his right of appeal to the Magistrates Court, it would be too late to do so. An appeal to the Magistrates Court has a significant cost in terms of court fees and the cost of employing a solicitor.
3.6 To address this problem the following changes are proposed:

(a) where there is considered to be no need to revoke or suspend an existing driver’s licence immediately [under Amendment 2B to Section 61 of the Local Government Provisions Act 1976], the officer does not make a decision but instead refers the case to the Licensing Sub Committee with a report. The Licensing Sub Committee then makes the decision which, if adverse to the driver, would then become the subject of an appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days of that decision.

(b) In a case involving a need to revoke or suspend a driver’s licence immediately, for example where a driver has been charged with or convicted of a sexual offence, or offence of similar seriousness [under Amendment 2B to Section 61 of the Local Government Provisions Act 1976], the Head of Environmental Health makes the decision against which there is the right of appeal to the Magistrates Court within 21 days. This is in accordance with the scheme of delegation and there is no referral to the Licensing Sub Committee; the appeal must be directly to the court.


Regards,

Steven Toy.

Hopefully this should bring to an end once-and-for-all CCDC's practice of issuing suspensions without any hearing before a sub-comittee even for minor offences relying on the right of appeal in the Magistrates' Court as a substitute for this.

I've been fighting them on this with growing support for three years.

_________________
Steve.

I wanted to encourage him to say more...... and you know how he just loves to prove me wrong .

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

And the definition of a 'private hire vehicle' under same section of same act is;

"private hire vehicle" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to seat [fewer than nine passengers], other than a hackney carriage or public service vehicle [or a London cab] [or tramcar], which is provided for hire with the services of a driver for the purpose of carrying passengers;

_________________
IDFIMH

No problem, glad the forum may have been of use and I hope you keep us informed.

That aside, surely the holy one, who's extremely grumpy, would have been onto this before a humble taxi forum?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin