Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Jan 25, 2026 11:17 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
MR T wrote:
http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=203&MId=5306&Ver=4

look at item 5.

And if those two have done their homework & my guess is, if it's on the agenga then they have, the reduction in licence fees will be agreed by the committee.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
captain cab wrote:
mancityfan wrote:
The wording of lgmpa 1976,s 70(1)c clearly envisages the inclusion of the costs of enforcement,and subsequent legal proceedings, as being part of the costs relating to the vehicles themselves.This will cover enforcement of the provisions against both licensed vehicles and unlicensed vehicles.The costs of enforcement for hackney may be different from the enforcement costs in relation to private hire.It is less clear whether the costs of enforcement in relation to operators licences,can be included in the fee,as the wording appears to limit the use of that section to vehicles themselves.the overall effect of the provisions within the act,in respect of fees for licences would appear that,in relation to drivers,the costs of issue and admin can be recovered,in relation to vehicles the costs of inspection,ranks,control and supervision and the admin connected with it can be recovered.In order to be able to justify a fee under the act it will be necessary to be able to differentiate between the two provisions.This will mean that there must be at least two identifiable accounts relating to the fees levied under each section.


Thank you Mr Button :lol:

CC
Now there is a man that should know ... considering he was one of lawyers that lost the case

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
Quote:
I don't agree with that, because one authorities licensing cost will not necessarily have any bearing on a neighbouring authorities licensing costs.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Sussex wrote:
Rob P wrote:
I am currently challenging my local authority over 'profiteering' from our fees.

As has been mentioned go to the District Auditor, but first get loads of FoI requests in to get as much info as possible. :wink:

As Mr Sussex suggests & implies, you really do have to do all the donkey work for the District Auditor & lay it on a plate for him. That's what we found in Brum.

But once it's on a plate for him & he does get involved, you just sit back & watch him get stuck into your council. If the DA asks the council for X, Y, Z, the council provides X, Y, Z & pretty damn sharpish too. The DA don't get screwed around like you & I might do!

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37485
Location: Wayneistan
mancityfan wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with that, because one authorities licensing cost will not necessarily have any bearing on a neighbouring authorities licensing costs.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison.


Here's me winding him up, and here's you quoting things I was going to quote when he was on the end of the hook :lol:

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
Quote:
The Licensing Department may make profits
It has been established in a number of cases before the courts that a Council may not derive a profit or surplus from such licensing activity


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
mancityfan wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with that, because one authorities licensing cost will not necessarily have any bearing on a neighbouring authorities licensing costs.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison.

That may be so & I don't know the Act you refer to nor the section.

But if one LA's costs are quite different from a neighbouring LA's then each LA will set licensing fees accordinmgly.

I note that you say they are required to carry out comparison, period. Is that similar to councils must consult before making decisions, but after consultation they may still take whatever decision they wish, even though it flies in the face of any such consultations?

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
While the question of what is ‘reasonable’ can only be resolved by challenge, it seems clear that ‘costs’ charged to accounts to be recovered by licence fee income must be commensurate with the actual and necessary expenditure of human and material resources.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
mancityfan wrote:
Quote:
The Licensing Department may make profits

It has been established in a number of cases before the courts that a Council may not derive a profit or surplus from such licensing activity

Please read my post in its' full context.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
It follows that the Council must be able to demonstrate that those costs charged directly or by apportionment can be identified as being relevant and proportionate


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:39 pm
Posts: 1582
I would draw to the your attention the comments of Lord Justice Schiemann
In Kelly v Liverpool City Council [2003] EWCA Civ197, in relation to the separation of costs for the various aspects of licensing different types of vehicle – see paragraph 15 of the transcript of the ‘handed down’ judgement delivered on 20th. January,2003.

I would also note the requirements of ‘best value’ legislation


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
captain cab wrote:
mancityfan wrote:
Quote:
I don't agree with that, because one authorities licensing cost will not necessarily have any bearing on a neighbouring authorities licensing costs.

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison.

Here's me winding him up, and here's you quoting things I was going to quote when he was on the end of the hook :lol:

CC

So the council has compared & made comparisons with neighbouring councils or even council countrywide.

CONCLUSION = WE HAVE MADE COMPARISIONS WITH OUR NEIGHBOURING COUNCIL. OUR FEES FOR HCVL ARE £10,000, THE NEIGHBOURING COUNCIL'S FEES FOR HCVL ARE FIVE BOB.

SO WHAT!! WE HAVE MADE COMPARISONS AND COMPLIED WITH THE LAW. PERIOD!!

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
mancityfan wrote:
While the question of what is ‘reasonable’ can only be resolved by challenge, it seems clear that ‘costs’ charged to accounts to be recovered by licence fee income must be commensurate with the actual and necessary expenditure of human and material resources.

Image Image Image Image Image

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
mancityfan wrote:
It follows that the Council must be able to demonstrate that those costs charged directly or by apportionment can be identified as being relevant and proportionate

Image Image Image Image Image

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
mancityfan wrote:
I would draw to the your attention the comments of Lord Justice Schiemann
In Kelly v Liverpool City Council [2003] EWCA Civ197, in relation to the separation of costs for the various aspects of licensing different types of vehicle – see paragraph 15 of the transcript of the ‘handed down’ judgement delivered on 20th. January,2003.

I'd like to see that judgment, sounds very interesting. Did Button use this in his book as quoted above.

mancityfan wrote:
I would also note the requirements of ‘best value’ legislation

I've heard of this, had a session on it in our monthly Trade Reps meeting about a year ago, but it's very vague now.

_________________
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 134 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 67 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