Taxi Driver Online

The local authority (when it was Carlisle) limited saloon hackney carriages, but opened up new applications for new WAV's, as I thought was the norm for many local authorities, apparently at a meeting the new LO for Cumberland (or consultant, take your pick) said such a policy wasn't correct, and anyone could apply for a HC license, including saloons, her is a brief reportage.

Dear Licensing

A recent meeting of licensing within Carlisle told a meeting of taxi drivers and proprietors that there was no limit of saloon hackney carriages within Carlisle and this had been the case since 2021.

The Head of licensing emailed the secretary of the local association confirming this.

I draw your attention to the attached document which is the licensing policy we are currently operating under within our district.

I draw your particular attention to 2.1 which states:

2.1. Limitation of Numbers

The Council currently has no limit on the number of hackney carriages which may be licenced within the District and has no intention of introducing one unless evidence of ‘no significant unmet demand’ can be provided. The cost of any ‘unmet demand’ survey would need to be borne by the existing licence holders and re-evaluated every three (3) years to maintain a cap. To assess the unmet demand for Hackney Carriage vehicles, this would be carried out through an independent survey, of which the results data would be analysed, and a decision made if as a Council we had sufficient licenced vehicles to cope with the demand. No powers exist for licensing authorities to limit the number of private hire vehicles that they licence.

I now draw your gaze to 2.13 which specifies the types of vehicles the council will license as Hackney Carriages:

2.13. New Vehicles Hackney carriages

All vehicle applications for a new hackney carriage licence, must be either:

a) a ‘London’ type hackney carriage, or
b) a suitable wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV), approved by the Council.

I understand a number of applications are being considered by drivers for new saloon hackney carriage licenses, licenses that according to our licensing policy shouldnt be issued.

On another note, I understand from some colleagues that they have extended the consultation period for the current consultation in respect of taxi licensing within the whole of Cumberland, however, like many others, I have not yet been advised.

This is obviously consistent, but in the words of John Cleese in 'Clockwise', 'It's not the despair, I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.'

Regards

Wayne Casey

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

the reply

Dear Mr Casey

Thank you for your email.

As you state in your email the Council has not set a limit to the numbers of the Hackney Carriage licences that they can issue as they have not conducted a ‘unmet demand’ survey. Putting a restriction in place is challengeable as there has not been a survey.

The Policy, in 2022, set a condition [2.13] out that only new applications could be given to London cabs or WAVs. This goes against the condition at 2.1.

We understand why that condition has been placed in the Policy, to encourage wheelchair carrying vehicles, but as a survey had not been conducted the Council cannot set a limit.

It can encourage applicants to put on those types of vehicles, but anyone can apply for a Hackney Carriage licence and each application will be looked at and a decision made. If necessary, the application may be referred to the Committee. There is no ‘should not be issued’ as every application should be assessed on its merit together with any supporting documents.

The Department of Transport issues a guidance, https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ide-london, every year and we have regard to this. In that guidance they state:

9.2 Impacts of quantity restrictions

The Competition and Markets Authority was clear in its 2017 guidance on the Regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles: understanding the impact of competition that:

Quantity restrictions are not necessary to ensure the safety of passengers, or to ensure that fares are reasonable. However, they can harm passengers by reducing availability, increasing waiting times, and reducing the scope for downward competitive pressure on fares.

Most licensing authorities do not impose quantity restrictions. The department regards that as best practice. Where restrictions are imposed, the department would urge that the matter should be regularly reviewed. The matter should be approached in terms of the interests of the travelling public:

· What benefits or disadvantages arise for them because of the continuation of controls?

· What benefits or disadvantages would result for the public if the controls were removed?

· Is there evidence that removal of the controls would result in a deterioration in the amount or quality of taxi service provision?

· Are there alternative ways in which the issue could be addressed?

If alternative measures could be used to achieve the same effect, then the department believes these should be used in preference to quantity restrictions.

It has been observed that where quantity restrictions are imposed, vehicle licence plates command a premium, often of tens of thousands of pounds. This indicates that there are people who want to enter the taxi market and provide a service to the public, but who are being prevented from doing so by the quantity restrictions.

As you may be aware, neither the legacy Council, Copeland and Allerdale, have a restriction on numbers and it is the proposed Cumberland Policy that no limit is set.

As stated in the guidance above a restriction on the plate number normally results in a ‘price’ on the plate and therefore there is an encouragement to keep the numbers restricted to continue with that ‘price’.

This has nothing to do with the availability of vehicles for passengers, which is the goal of any Licensing Authority, to try and ensure that those persons who wish to put a vehicle on the road, and meets the criteria to drive, can do so.

Consultation on the Taxi Policy has been extended until the 18th October 2024. An email will be sent out soon to all the drivers that we have emails for. We have also updated our website and social media.

There is also a meeting arranged at Allerdale House, Workington on the 3rd October 2024. I have attached a copy of the announcement that was issued.

Yours sincerely

Licensing Team [Carlisle]

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

my proposed reply;

Dear Licensing Team

Thank you for your email of 11th September.

I have a number of issues with your view on the licensing policy of 2022 – 2027; primarily I don’t think you fully understand it.

In response to “The Policy, in 2022, set a condition [2.13] out that only new applications could be given to London cabs or WAVs. This goes against the condition at 2.1.”

I am well aware that the council must consider each application on its own merits.

However, I would contend that this policy is in favour of 2.1, as the council can consider applications but not necessarily approve them, as is their right. As any applicant has the right of appeal, which I suggest you know, the point contended is pithy as 2.13 is merely a clarification of 2.1.

I also suggest the policy must have been run past the council’s legal team at the time and deemed as legal, hence the policy being adopted, as the previous policy was similarly adopted.

Indeed, best practice guidance states:

• exercise discretion on application of other vehicle requirements if they would prevent suitable wheelchair accessible vehicles from being brought into service where there is unmet demand
Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
In reply to your comment;

We understand why that condition has been placed in the Policy, to encourage wheelchair carrying vehicles, but as a survey had not been conducted the Council cannot set a limit.

I don’t believe this is correct, as the council has not limited the number of hackney carriages, it was merely using its powers under section 38 of the TPCA 1847.

38 What to be hackney carriages.

Every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance, and every carriage standing upon any street within the prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by this or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning of this Act; and in all proceedings at law or otherwise the term “hackney carriage” shall be sufficient to describe any such carriage:

This is legally cited by virtue of numerous court cases, especially in the days of the old ‘mandatory orders’.

R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association 1983

Notwithstanding subsequent cases, possibly the most important is the case of R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association as it forms the basis of the later decisions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council resolved that from a certain date, all hackney carriages licensed by the Council would have to be of a purpose-built type.

Originally, the resolution specifically stated ‘FX4’, but it was suggested, and accepted, that this might conflict with art 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The resolution was amended to become a specification, rather than a specific make or model of vehicle. One of the reasons for this policy was that it was important for the public to be able to distinguish between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. Another reason concerned the general suitability of that type of vehicle for hackney carriage work. The Wirral Licensed Taxi Drivers Association challenged the decision. In dismissing the application, Glidewell J said:

“What are the Council’s functions under this legislation in relation to the licensing of taxi cabs? As I see it they are to achieve, so far as they can, the safety, convenience and comfort of passengers in hackney carriages, the safety of other road users and to ensure that there is some way in which those who wish to use either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles can readily distinguish the one type of vehicle from another. That the last is a proper object is to my mind made clear by section 47(2) of the 1976 Act. I conclude, on the material before me, that the Council’s primary purpose was, indeed .to introduce a requirement which served to distinguish hackney carriage vehicles from private hire vehicles. But I cannot find that it was the sole purpose, nor can I find that in arriving at its decision, the Council did not take into account other factors. Putting it the other way round, I am satisfied on the material before me that the Council did take into account other factors: safety and convenience. It was not only entitled to do so, but was obliged to do so and it did so”.


R v Hyndburn Borough Council Ex parte Rauf and Another
R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh
R v Lincoln City Council, ex p King and Cook
R v Luton Borough Council ex. p Mirza.

R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh 1989

Some authorities have gone further and have required not only an all-London-style cab fleet, but that the fleet itself should be comprised of all wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This was pioneered in the late 1980s by Manchester City Council and was challenged in the case of R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh.1989. In the mid-1980’s Manchester City Council was concerned about the provision of transport services for disabled people who used wheelchairs and, when they decided to increase the size of the hackney carriage fleet in Manchester by 100 vehicles, they imposed a condition upon those licences requiring the successful applicants to provide vehicles which were not only based on a London-style cab, but also either already converted for wheel-chair access or to be converted within a specified period of time at their own expense.

This condition was challenged as being unreasonable.

The Court held that a facility for transporting the wheelchair-bound disabled is directly relating to the safe, comfortable and convenient functioning of the taxi.

Ultimately, it must always be a question of fact and degree whether a minority is so small or the advantage to them is so slight or the cost of complying with the provision is so great that the imposition of such a condition cannot be justified.

Further to the above the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 47 states;

47 Licensing of hackney carriages.

(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.
(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates’ court.

Section 47 permits any aggrieved person to appeal.

I additionally point out that I am a private hire driver and private hire vehicle owner, therefore the price of any goodwill, something that is presumably taxable, is of no consequence to me, I am intrigued as to why you mentioned it in your email?

The Department of Transport: Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice Guidance (March 2010) at paragraph 14 points out that different accessibility considerations apply between taxis and PHVs since taxis can be hired on the spot whereas PHV’s can only be booked through an operator. It is considered that a disabled person should be able to hire a taxi on the spot with the minimum of delay or inconvenience, and having accessible taxis helps make that possible.

The Law Commission’s review of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire legislation in 2014 included matters relating to access to Hackney Carriages by disabled persons. It is acknowledged that the Law Commission’s report does not advocate 100% WAV fleets and raises concerns about the potential harm of focussing solely on wheelchair users, to the detriment of people with other disabilities. The report also advocates a mixture of WAV’s which includes both side-loading vehicles and those where the wheelchair is loaded from the rear. The report also recommends giving due consideration to alternative aids to accessing vehicles by disabled persons, for example swing seats.

To summarise, it is blatantly obvious from the licensing policy 2022 – 2027 the intention of the council was to ensure that any future licenses issued to new hackney carriages should be to vehicles which are wheelchair accessible. It is backed up by reports from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), and from then and now guidance from the DFT.

Indeed a good number of local authorities in England and Wales are following Carlisle’s 2022 policy, but, and baby, it’s a really big but, all of those are wrong and our licensing team are correct, from the little berg of Carlisle?

Seriously?

With love and best wishes

Wayne Casey

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

I suppose things do get a little complicated when councils merge into a bigger authority. In short someone gains and someone loses out.

Years ago I was in favour of councils ending restrictions by adopting a WAV policy for new vehicle licenses, but the immense costs of these things have changed my viewpoint.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well it shouldn’t be complicated you adopt the act first then consult with all interested people it affects.
I thought you were a proper comrade, I didn’t know you were on the dark side, private hire

Its a lot more relaxed on PH if I'm honest

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

revised

Dear Licensing Team

Thank you for your email of 11th September.

I have a number of problems with your view on the licensing policy of 2022 – 2027; primarily I don’t think you fully appreciate it.

In response to your point that “The Policy, in 2022, set a condition [2.13] out that only new applications could be given to London cabs or WAVs. This goes against the condition at 2.1.”

I am well aware the council must consider each application on its own merits.

However, I would contend that this policy is in favour of 2.1, as the council can consider applications but not necessarily approve them, as is their right. As any applicant has the right of appeal, which I suggest you know, the point I contend is that 2.13 is merely a clarification of 2.1.

I also suggest the policy must have been run past the council’s legal team at the time and deemed as legal, hence the policy being adopted, as the previous policy was similarly adopted.

Indeed, best practice guidance states:

• exercise discretion on application of other vehicle requirements if they would prevent suitable wheelchair accessible vehicles from being brought into service where there is unmet demand
Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
In reply to your comment;

We understand why that condition has been placed in the Policy, to encourage wheelchair carrying vehicles, but as a survey had not been conducted the Council cannot set a limit.

I don’t believe this is correct, as the council has not limited the number of hackney carriages; it was merely using its powers under section 38 of the TPCA 1847.

38 What to be hackney carriages.

Every wheeled carriage, whatever may be its form or construction, used in standing or plying for hire in any street within the prescribed distance, and every carriage standing upon any street within the prescribed distance, having thereon any numbered plate required by this or the special Act to be fixed upon a hackney carriage, or having thereon any plate resembling or intended to resemble any such plate as aforesaid, shall be deemed to be a hackney carriage within the meaning of this Act; and in all proceedings at law or otherwise the term “hackney carriage” shall be sufficient to describe any such carriage:

This is legally cited by virtue of numerous court cases, especially in the days of the old ‘mandatory orders’.

Further to the above the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 47 states;

47 Licensing of hackney carriages.

(1) A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing subsection, a district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.
(3) Any person aggrieved by any conditions attached to such a licence may appeal to a magistrates’ court.

Section 47 (3) permits any aggrieved person to appeal.


R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association 1983

Notwithstanding subsequent cases, possibly the most important is the case of R v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p the Wirral Licensed Hackney Carriage Owners Association as it forms the basis of the later decisions. Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council resolved that from a certain date, all hackney carriages licensed by the Council would have to be of a purpose-built type.

Originally, the resolution specifically stated ‘FX4’, but it was suggested, and accepted, that this might conflict with art 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The resolution was amended to become a specification, rather than a specific make or model of vehicle. One of the reasons for this policy was that it was important for the public to be able to distinguish between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. Another reason concerned the general suitability of that type of vehicle for hackney carriage work. The Wirral Licensed Taxi Drivers Association challenged the decision. In dismissing the application, Glidewell J said:

“What are the Council’s functions under this legislation in relation to the licensing of taxi cabs? As I see it they are to achieve, so far as they can, the safety, convenience and comfort of passengers in hackney carriages, the safety of other road users and to ensure that there is some way in which those who wish to use either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles can readily distinguish the one type of vehicle from another. That the last is a proper object is to my mind made clear by section 47(2) of the 1976 Act. I conclude, on the material before me, that the Council’s primary purpose was, indeed to introduce a requirement which served to distinguish hackney carriage vehicles from private hire vehicles. But I cannot find that it was the sole purpose, nor can I find that in arriving at its decision, the Council did not take into account other factors. Putting it the other way round, I am satisfied on the material before me that the Council did take into account other factors: safety and convenience. It was not only entitled to do so, but was obliged to do so and it did so”.


R v Hyndburn Borough Council Ex parte Rauf and Another
R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh
R v Lincoln City Council, ex p King and Cook
R v Luton Borough Council ex. p Mirza.

R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh 1989

Some authorities have gone further and have required not only an all-London-style cab fleet, but that the fleet itself should be comprised of all wheelchair-accessible vehicles. This was pioneered in the late 1980s by Manchester City Council and was challenged in the case of R v Manchester City Council, ex p Reid and McHugh.1989. In the mid-1980’s Manchester City Council was concerned about the provision of transport services for disabled people who used wheelchairs and, when they decided to increase the size of the hackney carriage fleet in Manchester by 100 vehicles, they imposed a condition upon those licences requiring the successful applicants to provide vehicles which were not only based on a London-style cab, but also either already converted for wheel-chair access or to be converted within a specified period of time at their own expense.

This condition was challenged as being unreasonable.

The Court held that a facility for transporting the wheelchair-bound disabled is directly relating to the safe, comfortable and convenient functioning of the taxi.

Ultimately, it must always be a question of fact and degree whether a minority is so small or the advantage to them is so slight or the cost of complying with the provision is so great that the imposition of such a condition cannot be justified.
I additionally point out that I am a private hire driver and private hire vehicle owner, therefore the price of any goodwill, something that is presumably taxable, is of no consequence to me, I am intrigued as to why you mentioned it in your email?

Indeed Yates vs. Gates 1970 underlines the point made in Hawkins v Edwards [1901] that a Hackney Carriage is always a hackney carriage.

The Department of Transport: Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice Guidance (March 2010) at paragraph 14 points out that different accessibility considerations apply between taxis and PHVs since taxis can be hired on the spot whereas PHV’s can only be booked through an operator. It is considered that a disabled person should be able to hire a taxi on the spot with the minimum of delay or inconvenience, and having accessible taxis helps make that possible.

The Law Commission’s review of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire legislation in 2014 included matters relating to access to Hackney Carriages by disabled persons. It is acknowledged that the Law Commission’s report does not advocate 100% WAV fleets and raises concerns about the potential harm of focussing solely on wheelchair users, to the detriment of people with other disabilities. The report also advocates a mixture of WAV’s which includes both side-loading vehicles and those where the wheelchair is loaded from the rear. The report also recommends giving due consideration to alternative aids to accessing vehicles by disabled persons, for example swing seats.

To summarise, it is blatantly obvious from the licensing policy 2022 – 2027 the intention of the council was to ensure that any future licenses issued to new hackney carriages should be to vehicles which are wheelchair accessible. It is backed up by reports from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), and from then and now guidance from the DFT.

Indeed a good number of local authorities in England and Wales are following Carlisle’s 2022 policy, as indeed were Carlisle.

Regards

Wayne Casey

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

You know the reply you are going to get.

Dear Captain,

Thank you for your reply. Your views are noted.

Yours, Civil Servant

_________________
IDFIMH

yep

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

on another note, this ones a doozy

it has nothing to do with the above



Thank you for your reply and the attachments.

Please forgive my confusion, but I don’t really understand how a decision made in September 2021, which was presumably made under the previous licensing policy, has anything to do with a different policy that began on 1st January 2022.

Irrespective of the above, you have conceded that I was misinformed by the council as to being granted a hackney carriage proprietors license.

Upon the wrong advice being issued, I purchased a suitable vehicle for use as private hire.

This naturally means I need work off a private hire operator, whereas a hackney carriage is able to both work the streets and also use an operator if they so wish.

I was subsequently informed by the council that I could indeed have been granted a Hackney carriage proprietor’s license for a saloon vehicle, as the wrong advice had been given.

Having only just entered a hire purchase agreement with a finance company, which is now approaching being some one month old, I cannot afford to change to a vehicle that meets the current criteria.

Whilst I had a private hire vehicle prior to the purchase of my new one, it was bought on the presumption that firstly, being told the council didn’t issue licenses to hackney carriage saloons and secondly, the company I operate for is reasonably stable.

Subsequently, it has transpired that ***** ***** (my operator) has been sold to a company from the North East of England. I can only presume the former owners are also ‘sorry’ for deceiving the people who paid them a weekly ‘settle’ of £110, but I somehow doubt it. As you may imagine, nobody is now sure what the future holds and what plans the new owners have for the business.

If I had all of this information to hand prior to the purchase of my new vehicle, I would have definitely bought something that could have been licensed as a hackney carriage saloon.

The council has permitted a vehicle to be continued to be licensed that has advertising that deviates from the councils current taxi advertising policy, but will be suitable to an un-adopted proposed policy that is still out for consultation, but is fully expected to come into force during the spring of next year.

I further understand the councils proposed policy will allow vehicles to be licensed as hackney carriages which are of any colour, this is currently forbidden by the existing policy.

The response of the council to me is ‘Sorry’.

I truly believe, given the circumstances, a suitable remedy to the situation is to allow my vehicle to be licensed as a hackney carriage. I understand that the council can do this by virtue of section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

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

Dear Mr *******

Thank you for your quick response.

I appreciate and obviously accept you are not responsible for actions taken by your predecessors, just as I am not responsible for the illogical move of the local taxi association calling for re-regulation of hackney carriage numbers back in 2021, without the wholehearted support of the rest of the taxi trade.

My points in respect of the court cases were that both section 38 of the TPCA 1847 and section 47 of the LGMPA permit a local authority to license hackney carriages. They don’t suggest the type and design of the carriage as these are determined in the conditions as reflected in section 47 (1) of the 76 act.

Whatever vehicle the local authority deem fit to be a Hackney Carriage is appealable via section 47 (3).

The fact that the only cases I could find involved mandatory orders perhaps points to the fact that I probably either have a really bad search engine on my PC or that there hasn’t been a case where a local authority has been successfully challenged in respect of a mixed fleet policy.

There was a case in Scotland, which might perhaps be persuasive to a court, Seddon? The applicant applied for a saloon vehicle to be licensed against a local authority decision to have a 100% WAV fleet. Although, I understand, he lost.

In the City of Newcastle Ex parte James Michael Blake, R v. [1997] EWHC Admin 162 (19th February, 1997) In the high court of justice CO/470/97 perhaps is the rare exception which underlines my point that the mixed fleet policy is lawful.

The following was stated by the Judge.

30. In those circumstances, I can see very cogent arguments in favour of saying new licences should only be issued in respect of vehicles with wheelchair access so as to make sure the service is adequate for all. I bear in mind what is said in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.4 that there should not be invidious discrimination between one operator and another and that all new vehicles which are newly licensed should have wheelchair access.

31. In those circumstances, I can see no arguable Wednesbury challenge against the policy decision that all new vehicles should have vehicular access. It seems to me that is a way of ensuring achievement of the policy requirement of paragraph 5.4 and it is a way of ensuring that newcomers to the operation of hackney carriages, or those existing operators who obtain additional licences, should be competing on even terms and all suffering, if you like, the same handicap of having to provide vehicles which have wheelchair access. I reject that challenge also. That means I am quite unpersuaded that there is any arguable challenge. I refuse leave.

As you will be aware, there are numerous local authorities across the UK which operates with mixed fleets of both saloon and accessible hackney carriages.

If your assertion is correct, if the council were to limit saloon hackney carriage numbers they could only do so if supported by a demand survey, we’d surely have court cases coming out of our ears?

The current policy permits the issue of further hackney carriage licenses but only to accessible vehicles.

Neither section 38 of the TPCA or Section 47 of the 76 act distinguish between the types of vehicles licensed, it is the homogeneous term ‘hackney carriage’ is obviously key, It is clearly the hackney carriage license, which derives the type of vehicle that is licensed, as determined by the local authority via their conditions of license.

As previously pointed out, this is challengeable via section 47 (3) of the 76 act, which again is a matter for reflection by the appropriate committee upon their decision upon the local authorities policy decision, but as we know, every decision is challengeable.

For example, North Tyneside has a limit of 204 licenses.
Saloon licenses have grandfather rights.

All other licenses have to be WAVS.

There are presently only 152 licenses issued meaning 52 are lying on the shelf which can only be issued to WAVs.

Any saloon licenses handed back to the Council can only be reissued to WAVs.

The saloon fleet has reduced to 99 licenses.

My main question is, when did Cumberland council decide to unify the ‘legacy areas’, which committee decided it, and who is ultimately responsible?

Minutes of the meeting would seem to be a plausible pointer.

Obviously, this decision wasn’t yours, so who in Cumberland Council decided it?

This would obviously save me the travails of a FOI request.

I look forward to meeting you at some point, I really do appreciate the difficulties of the situation you have inherited, but at some point I would really like some transparency as it seems you are getting a tremendous amount of flack because others haven’t been entirely candid.

If you want my advice, and I don’t know if it will be accepted or appreciated, but is meant with my kindest, may I suggest your employers adopt the 76 act, as at the moment they haven’t and this may well be challengeable, should you go to court? (Hull vs. Wilson).

If you see or speak to my friend, James Button, my email has changed, so please advise him of it, and please pass on my best wishes and hopes that he’ll soon again address the National Taxi Association conference, like he has done in the past.

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