Taxi Driver Online

Court of Session upholds Fife Council decision to refuse taxi driver licence
Fife Council regulations and licensing committee chairman Gerry McMullan has welcomed a Court of Session ruling which backed its refusal to renew a Kirkcaldy taxi driver's licence.

He said, "I am delighted at the court's decision. Our committee goes into great detail before granting a licence to anyone who comes before us and I am delighted common sense has prevailed on our initial decision."

When Robert Ewing applied for a licence in 2006 he had been given a £60 fixed penalty and three points for speeding. Early the following year, the committee granted a taxi driver's licence with a warning.

However, the committee was unaware that in October 2006 he had committed a further speeding offence, again being fined £60 and incurring three penalty points.

When he applied to renew his licence in February 2008, the second speeding offence came to the committee's notice. This time the licence was renewed, but with a severe warning.

But the following month police saw him driving a taxi with four passengers in the back seat, which could accommodate three at most. One passenger was sitting on another's lap.

Mr Ewing was given a third £60 fixed penalty and three points. He applied again to renew his licence but the police objected on the basis of his three driving offences.

That November the committee unanimously refused to renew it on the grounds that members felt he was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Mr Ewing appealed that decision through Kirkcaldy Sheriff Court. Presented to the sheriff was a precis of previous decisions made by the committee on similar applications which Mr Ewing said had not been put before the committee.

This was said to show the committee had granted licences to applicants who had more penalty points than Mr Ewing and that members regularly gave at least one further warning.

The sheriff did reject pleas that the committee had been in breach of natural justice but believed there had been "a huge disparity" in the range of disposals made by the committee in such applications.

Sheriff Grant McCulloch quashed the committee's decision and Mr Ewing's licence was granted.

But the committee appealed to the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk, sitting with Lord Emslie and Lord Brodie, sustained that appeal and restored the committee's original decision.

Lord Justice Clerk said the committee was entitled to determine Mr Ewing was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence, given he had incurred nine penalty points in 20 months. He added that the sheriff had erred in his reasoning, having concluded the committee had turned down the application after one misdemeanour.

He believed the sheriff should have declined to receive the precis as it contained evidence which had not been put before the committee. But, having received it, he should have given no weight to it.

Lord Justice Clerk said, "I can see nothing in the precis that could justify his concluding that the disparities in the range of disposals, however 'huge' they may have seemed to him, gave the objective onlooker any cause for concern."

He also said the sheriff had erred in the conclusion that the decision appealed against was so out of line with all those in the precis that the decision must be considered arbitrary and as such unreasonable.

He said, "In my view there was nothing arbitrary about the decision at all. It was amply warranted on the evidence."

Mr McMullan said, "I fully appreciate the local sheriff courts are inundated with cases and many appeals may slip through. However, our committee does take the standard of taxi drivers very seriously when it comes to passenger safety and I have to say I am delighted, through the good working relationship we have with the Fife Taxi Association and the police, to be improving standards of vehicles and drivers for passenger safety."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/a ... cence.html

thats what happens when u overload aye

It's time that the "fit and proper" rule was looked at.

It is this interpretation that allows government, and the courts to stiff us.

What kind of society do we have that we allow such woolly criteria to decide whether someone can have a licence.

And I'#m fed up with the courts pandering to the fascists on cpuncils. What they are are showing is that the courts are little more than the instruments of government oppression.

And that's why I hold them in utter contempt.

If the courts in this land are not going to protect us from council fascism, then we have no alternative to the AK47.

If the government is not for us. Then it has to be smashed.

Hey guys. I think I've just become an anarchist.

What a [edited by admin] up world we live in. (fecked up?

You wetting yourself now Toots? Dumpling that you are son.

You and GCHQ both.

one could say u are trying to invoke a riot or a terorist act weres the police when u need them

9 points on a driving license used to be rare, but with the advent of cameras, I'd guess 9 points probably applies to thousands and thousands of drivers.

Bit harsh taking away someones living over 2 speeding fines, and carrying an extra punter.

I agree.

_________________
IDFIMH

I do not, what a silly thing to say.
Points are one thing but having an extra punter is just stupid, he got what he deserved some would say.

The driver could have a crash and leave everyone on board with a severe injury or dead.
No pay out for anyone, bit harsh from the insurance company?
Jailed for his stupidity because the extra punter was killed with no belt for them, bit harsh from the law?
Sued by the families of those involved, bit harsh?

Have you ever exceeded the speed limit?

If so then you are acting a tad hypocritical, as I don't think many have been killed or maimed due to them having someone sitting on their laps in the rear of a vehicle, whilst thousands are killed or maimed annually due to excessive speed.

_________________
IDFIMH

That's because everyone speeds, but you won't see many putting four adults in the back seat of a car.

That is an assumption. The story did not say that all 4 passengers in the back were adults. It may have been one adult, 2 children and a baby in the adults arms. Obviously still not legal.

_________________
Grandad,

But the poster indicated utter disgust at what the chap did in terms of safety. I believe it was wrong but so are many other things everyone of us does on a daily basis.

_________________
IDFIMH

Fair point, but I assumed it was the sort of story where if there was children involved then it would have said so, because it adds to the impact of the piece. For example, if it had been a babe in arms then the final sentence below would have been worded differently. And it seems probable that the police would have been more likely to notice an extra adult than a smaller person, although the article doesn't go into sufficient detail.

"But the following month police saw him driving a taxi with four passengers in the back seat, which could accommodate three at most. One passenger was sitting on another's lap."

And I would also imagine that the most obvious scenario for overloading would be five drunks late at night, who will offer an extra few quid to take an extra body.

Indeed, if you look at the judgement it quotes from the council minutes which make clear that the offence took place late at night. Also, the further passage also doesn't sound like it was anything other than four adults, because I'm sure it it was kids or babes in arms then that would have been highlighted, but neither of us can tell with absolute certainty what happened:

"The Committee noted the incident at 11.40 pm on 20th March 2008 in Kirkcaldy where the Police observed four fare paying passengers within the rear of your client's vehicle, with one of them seated upon another's lap."

"The Committee were advised that your client was not aware that there were five people in his taxi. The Committee, notwithstanding that, was of the opinion that your client must have been aware of the number of people in his car and that it was overcrowded. The Committee had concerns not only for the safety of your client as driver and his passengers but also for pedestrians and other road users. The Committee was also concerned about the risks posed by an unrestrained passenger in the rear of the vehicle and that your client had allowed that situation to arise."

A couple of weeks ago I was out in one of our six seaters. I stopped for 5 passengers. I got in the front and the other 4 sat in the middle row of seats. I had a hell of a job explaining that although the vehicle is licensed for six passengers they have to be in the proper seats.

_________________
Grandad,

Well it wouldn't make much sense if you got in the back

Know what you mean though, it's bad enough with a saloon at times, and that's one reason I don't have a five, six, seven or eight seater.

In an LTI Taxi in London, the regs allow you to carry 5 adults PLUS children under a certain age! It's not something like babes in arms either, something daft like 8.

As Grandad said, in my Vito the rear bench seat is designed for 3, but it won't be the first time 4 people, usually two adults and two kids have all sat on the same seat.

Either way, taking away somones living for an extra punter is o.t.t., I meet so few punters that even bother to put their seatbelts on, I know this because I've lost track of how many have fallen on the floor or whacked the taxi partition as a mobile phone user walks straight off the kerb into my path.

A suspension or fine would have rammed the message home just as well.