Representing myself in Court

toots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:12 pm

toots wrote:

gusmac wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

If there was, it should have been produced.

If there is can it still be produced?

Ok it can in England but this is Scotland so does anybody know if it can still be produced

captain cab · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:13 pm

toots wrote:

Ok it can in England but this is Scotland so does anybody know if it can still be produced

I'm sure Gusmac will tell you, in a really sarcastic manner obviously. :lol:

CC

Caledonian Cabbie · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:15 pm

toots wrote:

Ok it can in England but this is Scotland so does anybody know if it can still be produced

Not retrospectively, if that's what you mean.

I think :lol:

Braveheart · **Joined:** Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:49 pm **Posts:** 24

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

The Statement of Reasons supplied by a council after a decision is in effect what is up for debate in an appeal. The Statement in my case does not mention any remeasuring of demand to take into account my application, so as far as I am concerned the have erred in law by not exercising there statutory obligations

toots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:31 pm

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

The Statement of Reasons supplied by a council after a decision is in effect what is up for debate in an appeal. The Statement in my case does not mention any remeasuring of demand to take into account my application, so as far as I am concerned the have erred in law by not exercising there statutory obligations

Ok, so as far as you're concerned they have erred in law, but, as far as the law is concerned have they?

Braveheart · **Joined:** Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:49 pm **Posts:** 24

toots wrote:

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

The Statement of Reasons supplied by a council after a decision is in effect what is up for debate in an appeal. The Statement in my case does not mention any remeasuring of demand to take into account my application, so as far as I am concerned the have erred in law by not exercising there statutory obligations

Ok, so as far as you're concerned they have erred in law, but, as far as the law is concerned have they?

Councils in Scotland who limit numbers have to satisfy themselves, at the time of an application, there is no significant unmet demand. If they cannot, they must grant.

The case law is there in black and white, as far as I am concerned its a no brainer, if a council limits, they must remeasure demand in whatever way they see fit in order to satisfy themselves there is no change in demand since the last time they surveyed.

Coyle v. City of Glasgow Council

Dundee Taxi Cab Co v Dundee City Council

toots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 9:52 pm

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

The Statement of Reasons supplied by a council after a decision is in effect what is up for debate in an appeal. The Statement in my case does not mention any remeasuring of demand to take into account my application, so as far as I am concerned the have erred in law by not exercising there statutory obligations

Ok, so as far as you're concerned they have erred in law, but, as far as the law is concerned have they?

Councils in Scotland who limit numbers have to satisfy themselves, at the time of an application, there is no significant unmet demand. If they cannot, they must grant.

The case law is there in black and white, as far as I am concerned its a no brainer, if a council limits, they must remeasure demand in whatever way they see fit in order to satisfy themselves there is no change in demand since the last time they surveyed.

Coyle v. City of Glasgow Council

Dundee Taxi Cab Co v Dundee City Council

Wasn't the last time they surveyed only 12 months ago?

Braveheart · **Joined:** Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:49 pm **Posts:** 24

toots wrote:

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

The Statement of Reasons supplied by a council after a decision is in effect what is up for debate in an appeal. The Statement in my case does not mention any remeasuring of demand to take into account my application, so as far as I am concerned the have erred in law by not exercising there statutory obligations

Ok, so as far as you're concerned they have erred in law, but, as far as the law is concerned have they?

Councils in Scotland who limit numbers have to satisfy themselves, at the time of an application, there is no significant unmet demand. If they cannot, they must grant.

The case law is there in black and white, as far as I am concerned its a no brainer, if a council limits, they must remeasure demand in whatever way they see fit in order to satisfy themselves there is no change in demand since the last time they surveyed.

Coyle v. City of Glasgow Council

Dundee Taxi Cab Co v Dundee City Council

Wasn't the last time they surveyed only 12 months ago?

I see where you coming from but to quote Coyle

Where a figure has been determined in this way, all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official who has the information to judge whether the demand has increased since the matter was last considered. If he informs the committee that there has been no change in the level of demand, they can be satisfied that at that time there is no significant unmet demand if the relevant number of licences has already been issued.

A 12 month old survey is easily out of date, indeed the survey prior to the one before the committee found significant unmet demand requiring a number of licences to be issued only seven months prior

toots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:23 pm

Quote:

A 12 month old survey is easily out of date, indeed the survey prior to the one before the committee found significant unmet demand requiring a number of licences to be issued only seven months prior

Were those licenses issued?

Quote:

all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official

Is it this information that was missing at the last hearing?

Can I ask why you are doing this. Is it because you genuinely believe there is an unmet demand or is it because you can and you don't believe in restriction?

Braveheart · **Joined:** Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:49 pm **Posts:** 24

toots wrote:

Quote:

A 12 month old survey is easily out of date, indeed the survey prior to the one before the committee found significant unmet demand requiring a number of licences to be issued only seven months prior

Were those licenses issued?

Quote:

all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official

Is it this information that was missing at the last hearing?

Can I ask why you are doing this. Is it because you genuinely believe there is an unmet demand or is it because you can and you don't believe in restriction?

The licences werent issued, some might say the council took fright and arranged a quick re-survey

I genuinely believe there is unmet demand

toots · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:39 pm

Braveheart wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

A 12 month old survey is easily out of date, indeed the survey prior to the one before the committee found significant unmet demand requiring a number of licences to be issued only seven months prior

Were those licenses issued?

Quote:

all that is required is that the matter should be kept under review by an official

Is it this information that was missing at the last hearing?

Can I ask why you are doing this. Is it because you genuinely believe there is an unmet demand or is it because you can and you don't believe in restriction?

The licences werent issued, some might say the council took fright and arranged a quick re-survey

I genuinely believe there is unmet demand

Oh well good luck then and I hope it's not in vain :wink:

captain cab · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 10:42 pm

toots wrote:

Oh well good luck then and I hope it's not in vain :wink:

and dont sell it as soon as you get it?

CC

gusmac · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:09 pm

toots wrote:

gusmac wrote:

toots wrote:

Quote:

there was no such evidence from any official at my hearing.

Does that mean there isn't any?

If there was, it should have been produced.

If there is can it still be produced?

Ok it can in England but this is Scotland so does anybody know if it can still be produced

Braveheart is correct when he says the statement of reasons is what matters. This (as it says) is a written list of reasons why the licence was refused.
These reasons are what is being appealed and anything not mentioned there is irrelevant.
If they had anything to back up the accuracy of their 12 month old survey, it should have been mentioned at the council hearing and they should have put it in the statement of reasons.
If they didn't, it's the council's screw up.

In the Saltieri case, the court called CEC's policy to restrict a self imposed burden which the council did not have to pursue.
Having chosen to restrict, it is for them to show that no SUD exists.

gusmac · **Posted:** Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:18 pm

captain cab wrote:

and dont sell it as soon as you get it?

captain cab wrote:

You know, posting in the Scottish section, to a person called braveheart, who is therefore presumably an australian bigot anti-semite, about a scottish law case.....it never occured to me that I was anywhere else

I should just ignore your usual inane contributions.
They demonstrate yet again your contempt for the Scots and your ignorance of both Scottish history and Scottish law.

captain cab · **Posted:** Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:31 am

gusmac wrote:

I should just ignore your usual inane contributions.
They demonstrate yet again your contempt for the Scots and your ignorance of both Scottish history and Scottish law.

Lighten up.....it was a quip at Mel Gibson ffs :roll:

CC

Taxi Driver Online

Representing myself in Court

Who is online