Taxi Driver Online

If I recall the discussion was centered around the turning circle and your inference that LTI could sue the pco if they changed their policy. You sighted a case which you did not name but I assumed it was this one. The point proven was that this case was not one you could rely on to support your argument as it was totally irrelevant.

Does that sound about right?

Here is what you said.

The PCO's quandary is, as I see it, is that if they change the COF so that bread vans fit, LTI would cry foul and sue, (no choice really, it would drive them out of business) and if they refuse to lower the standard, the breadvan converters will sue. could cost squillions, could take years.

Just a view from the sideline. discuss.

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.

You assumed wrong.

The King / Cook (and Petch) case never cited the turning circle requirement.

Lincoln's requirement then was London type or Similar? Turning circle not a requirement or condition of licence, accessibility was.

_________________
Former taxi driver

It was rather short sighted to guess at the case that I cited JD? Don't you think?

_________________
Former taxi driver

Exactly my point. The judge may see the difficulty of having a mixed fleet but, as there was no DDA at the time, the judge's observations on it are now irrelevant.
If the DDA means that a taxi has to be all things to all disabled people, these difficulties will need to be overcome.

_________________

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

I never said it was about the turning circle, IT WAS YOU WHO SAID IT WAS I MERELY POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE WASN'T ABOUT THE TURNING CIRCLE THEREFORE IT DIDN'T SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS. I'm not shouting by the way, I am just highlighting the fact.

Here is what you said in reference to a case you didn't name but fortunately I was able to locate and conclude that the King case was the one in reference.

Way back in the mists of time, Lincoln City council imposed a "London Type" ruling on the trade. Long story short. Two drivers tried for a judical review. refused. Appeal refused. game over.

And here is what I said advising you that the case was specific to wheelchair accessibility and had nothing to do with the turning circle.

If this is the case to which you refer, it is about wheelchair accessibility not the condition of the turning circle. We have discussed the Wirral vehicle conditions case previously and as long as a local Authority does not specify a certain manufacturer then they are not acting outside the law. As I have stated as far as I know the 25ft turning circle condition has not been tested in a court of law but if the case you mentioned is different from the one posted below then it should be interesting.

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 must have been me that was short sighted about which case was cited then. If the case you are citing isn't the one that I sighted on here, it must be you that is short sighted. Or am I citing another case?

But the King, Cook and Petch case never cited the tuning circle, because the council were far sighted in not insisting on a tight turning circle requirement.

So, what was the question?

_________________
Former taxi driver

Judge's observations are indeed, and always, irrelevant.

Judges rulings however, are very relevant.

_________________
Former taxi driver

Not short sighted, just mistaken. You weren't to know that I would find the case and put the issue straight. At least your comments prompted me to find the case, which no doubt you enjoyed reading for the first time.

Read the thread for yourself.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=2634

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 knew, and indeed know, far more about the King Cook (and Petch) case than you possibly could, JD. knowing all of the appellants, and their reasons for appeal. The turning circle never was a straw that they clutched whilst drowning, and I am somewhat surprised that you claim that I believed that to be the case. Treaty of rome and all that, which was an obvious loser, but you seem to have lost sight (or is that cite?) of the original thread from 1995

_________________
Former taxi driver

Admittedly your initial comments regarding this case were in response to the suggestion by sussex that article 30 of the treaty of Rome might be one ground for appeal which Allied might use. The case you alluded to at the time had no bearing on the turning circle and article 30 was completely irrelevant. I don't for one moment think Allied would cite article 30 if they ever went to court over the turning circle, they would however question whether or not the condition was unreasonable based on it being essential, restrictive and discriminatory.

I take issue with the fact that you know more about the case than me or anyone else. Knowing the applicants doesn't necessarily mean you know more about the case. The case is what is published and the grounds for judicial review are a matter of record. That means you know no more than anyone else who read the case and until I posted it I doubt you had read the case at all.



I never alluded to that being the case, the turning circle was the point of discussion in the thread and you suggested in a response to sussex "that Way back in the mists of time, Lincoln City council imposed a "London Type" ruling on the trade". Two drivers tried for a judicial review. Appeal refused. game over. You cannot get to Rome without going through High Court/ House of Lords malarkey.

Although your reference was in response to the article 30 issue one could easily have formed the opinion that the post was also meant to have some bearing on the issue of the turning circle?

I didn't lose sight of the reference to the treaty of Rome I put the issue in a wider perspective relating to conditions of license. Article 30 has never had any bearing on conditions of license because councils have always been aware of their obligations under article 30. Wirral explored the possible effects of breaching article 30 but once they were informed such a policy decision would be unlawful they thought otherwise.

The interesting thing about that thread you introduced three years ago is that we now have a legal challenge to the very condition that you said LTI would sue over if it was ever removed. However since you introduced that thread there have been several councils that have removed the turning circle condition and LTI have not sued. Therefore your assumption that LTI would sue should the turning circle be removed has not been evident in the provinces or indeed Scotland?

I don't know if you still stand by your opinion but history has so far proven you wrong.

The thread you started in 2005 has more resonance now than it did then. The Liverpool case will be most interesting even though the discussion was cantered on London.

You said, "I'll take bets that if they attempt to change COF, there will be a court case." there have been no court cases outside of London so do you still stand by your opinion in respect of London?

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.

My opinion on London?

In that the turning circle will be retained?

That would appear to be the case, it would seem to me.

_________________
Former taxi driver

The reasons that Roger King, Ted Cook, and David Petch sought a judicial review JD.

As you know more than I do regarding the reason for appeal, do tell the boys and girls out here.

I need to know no more about the Court procedure than appeal lodged appeal failed, (at great public expense)

But why these three?

Why appeal KNOWING they would lose?

_________________
Former taxi driver