Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

Can we all agree to put the title of the thread in the subject column, and any comments relating to that in the comments box?

It's started with Charles, and we have grown to live with him, but it seems loads are doing it now.

Please?

I will re-title the thread.

Wakefield taxis face massive shake up

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3519032

However I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up, and that's the comment below is illegal.

'a new requirement for all operators to have held a UK licence for a minimum of two years.'

Sussex wrote:

Illegal in what respect?
Cannot a council say for example " we will not licence anyone that wears brown shoes "
Surely each council can set its own criteria

A council must be 'reasonable' when attaching conditions or formulating policy and cannot make decisions on these matters that over-ride or try to over-ride parliamentary legislation.

says who,is that your opinion or did some other numptie like it ?

Sussex wrote:

Illegal in what respect?
Cannot a council say for example " we will not licence anyone that wears brown shoes "
Surely each council can set its own criteria

There is no requirement for any operator to have a driving licence. However section 59 (1b) states that a hackney drivers licence cannot be issued to someone who has not had a driving licence for AT LEAST(being the keyword) 12 months.

tom2907 wrote:

The act says 'shall not', which in legal terms means you can't under any circumstances.

But it also means that a council shall if the 12 month rule has been surpassed. Council's don't have any discretion over this.

I think it was tested in front of a District Judge about 10 years ago in Swansea.

Author:	Jayco [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Not before time
http://tinyurl.com/3bxvunf

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Can we all agree to put the title of the thread in the subject column, and any comments relating to that in the comments box? It's started with Charles, and we have grown to live with him, but it seems loads are doing it now. Please? I will re-title the thread. Wakefield taxis face massive shake up http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3519032

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:
However I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up, and that's the comment below is illegal. 'a new requirement for all operators to have held a UK licence for a minimum of two years.'

Author:	captain cab [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:
[quote="Sussex"]I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17048 You weren't as sad last time CC

Author:	Jayco [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: Can we all agree to put the title of the thread in the subject column, and any comments relating to that in the comments box? It's started with Charles, and we have grown to live with him, but it seems loads are doing it now. Please? I will re-title the thread. Wakefield taxis face massive shake up http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... _1_3519032 Apologies all round.....Newbie poster

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Not before time http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17080	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Jayco [ Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: However I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up, and that's the comment below is illegal. 'a new requirement for all operators to have held a UK licence for a minimum of two years.' Illegal in what respect? Cannot a council say for example " we will not licence anyone that wears brown shoes " Surely each council can set its own criteria

Author:	Brummie Cabbie [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:20 am ]
Post subject:	Not before time
Jayco wrote: Sussex wrote: However I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up, and that's the comment below is illegal. 'a new requirement for all operators to have held a UK licence for a minimum of two years.' Illegal in what respect? Cannot a council say for example " we will not licence anyone that wears brown shoes " Surely each council can set its own criteria A council must be 'reasonable' when attaching conditions or formulating policy and cannot make decisions on these matters that over-ride or try to over-ride parliamentary legislation.

Author:	andycable [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 12:54 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: A council must be 'reasonable' when attaching conditions or formulating policy and cannot make decisions on these matters that over-ride or try to over-ride parliamentary legislation. says who,is that your opinion or did some other numptie like it ?

Author:	tom2907 [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 6:41 am ]
Post subject:	Hackney conditions
LGMPA (1976) Section 47(1) A council .....may attached such conditions as they think reasonably necessary.

Author:	captain cab [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:36 am ]
Post subject:
andycable wrote: says who,is that your opinion or did some other numptie like it ? There's a few high court judges which say so. CC

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:28 am ]
Post subject:
Jayco wrote: Sussex wrote: However I will repeat what I sad when this story was previously put up, and that's the comment below is illegal. 'a new requirement for all operators to have held a UK licence for a minimum of two years.' Illegal in what respect? Cannot a council say for example " we will not licence anyone that wears brown shoes " Surely each council can set its own criteria Statute law says a license must be issued to a fit and proper person on demand, who has had a full license for more than 12 months. So as long as they pass all the tests, they get a license. You can't have one of the tests going against primary legislation.

Author:	tom2907 [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:
There is no requirement for any operator to have a driving licence. However section 59 (1b) states that a hackney drivers licence cannot be issued to someone who has not had a driving licence for AT LEAST(being the keyword) 12 months.

Author:	Sussex [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:17 pm ]
Post subject:
tom2907 wrote: There is no requirement for any operator to have a driving licence. However section 59 (1b) states that a hackney drivers licence cannot be issued to someone who has not had a driving licence for AT LEAST(being the keyword) 12 months. The act says 'shall not', which in legal terms means you can't under any circumstances. But it also means that a council shall if the 12 month rule has been surpassed. Council's don't have any discretion over this. I think it was tested in front of a District Judge about 10 years ago in Swansea.

Author:	Brummie Cabbie [ Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: tom2907 wrote: There is no requirement for any operator to have a driving licence. However section 59 (1b) states that a hackney drivers licence cannot be issued to someone who has not had a driving licence for AT LEAST(being the keyword) 12 months. The act says 'shall not', which in legal terms means you can't under any circumstances. But it also means that a council shall if the 12 month rule has been surpassed. Council's don't have any discretion over this. I think it was tested in front of a District Judge about 10 years ago in Swansea. And Keith Jeffreys was the solicitor and the 19 year-old lady applicant was successful in getting her licence.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/