Taxi Driver Online

JD, what do you know of the comments comming from fastblacks about a council cave in over these recent license applications?

If true, that's a very interesting development.

_________________
IDFIMH

I haven't read the comments you refer to but I can imagine what they might say? If I did comment I might be breaking a confidentiality and I'm not prepared to do that.

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.

26th July 2007

Dear Cllr Keir

Since the refusal of my licence application by the RC on 18th April and the local elections in May, which saw you installed as convener of the RC, I have written on many occasions about three matters which I require to be answered, according to the established rights under our system of "democratic" and "accountable" government for members of the electorate to ask questions of councils and elected officials.

Firstly, I have repeatedly asked both elected and unelected officials to advise me of the demand information gleaned by the council since the Jacobs "Interim survey of the demand for taxis in Edinburgh" based on data collected during March, 2007. Specifically I have asked for the information collected for the months of April, May, June and now July.

I have also requested, under Freedom of Information legislation, information about whether the council is currently in the process of seeking a full survey, and what the council's plans to do so are over the next 12 months. I have not yet received an official acknowledgement of these requests, a clear breach of the relevant FOI legislation.

In effect, the council is once again continuing to act contrary to natural justice, despite having already knowingly conceded this breach and proposing the Sheriff allow it the latitude to refer the appeal back to the RC. This contradiction is a fact which will be relied on in forthcoming court proceedings.

I now re-iterate my formal requests for the above information to be supplied to me, along with specific details of the information the council would use to consider any licence applications being made at this time - all requests to be dealt with under Freedom of Information laws.

In the event that you choose, once again, to ignore this request for information, I hold that I will be entitled to assume that no information is available for the council to deny licences on the basis of there being no significant unmet demand for taxi services in this area, as permitted under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, and that subsequent applications will be processed by the RC unopposed on this ground.

Secondly, I have requested, once again under Freedom of Information, details of who was responsible for making the offer that the council would cede the appeal on the grounds that it acted contrary to natural justice. Who took this decision and who was consulted throughout that process?

Once again it is reprehensible that this City of Edinburgh Council, and its newly elected officials, have failed to formally acknowledge this request as required in the legislation and I formally re-iterate it.

Thirdly Cllr Keir, I have drawn to your attention the conflict you have as a bus driver in your position as convener of the RC. You have failed/refused to respond to this.

In the circumstances where the RC, and the council, has decided a policy to restrict the number of operating taxi licences (no licences have been issued for five years outwith court action) a clear tension exists between you maintaining this restriction policy while being employed by the local bus company - owned by the council - which operates in direct competition to the taxi trade and benefits from such restriction of its competitor.

This breaches every basic moral principle in the fair operation of markets, a free market philosophy which is supported by all political parties represented on the council.

In view of this conflict of interest I put it to you that your position as RC convener is untenable and that you should resign forthwith, along with other RC members whose interests contravene the tenet that council officials should be wholly independent, objective and untainted by commercial or other political or transport sector bias.

I require your response to this within 10 working days.

Yours

Thank you Mr Jasbar.

It must be strange thing for your council to be challenged over issues, when all the cab trade usually does is bend over and take it up the rear.

_________________
IDFIMH

Do you have a date for the Court of session yet?

_________________

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

When you say recent licence applications Sussex, do you mean the applications we made today?

No, but I wish you well with all your applications.

_________________
IDFIMH

An application submitted on November 1st has a six month statutory expiry date which means it expires on May 1st. A licensing authority that refuses a license on the grounds of no unmet demand and then realises after the six months expiry date that it made a fundamental mistake in law when hearing the application, should in my opinion issue the license by default because the time for determination has expired. The council having admitted their mistake after the expiry date would have no defence in law and I believe a Sheriff would have no other option but to grant the license.

Any other course would be giving the council a second bite of the Cherry after the expiry date, which the law does not allow.

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 suspect this is why the council did this very thing. A deemed grant by a sheriff gets them off the hook. They can claim that it was all an error and their policy to restrict on the basis of the interim survey still holds. So, although Taylor's licence has been granted, don't bother applying boys, you won't be granted.

Except, we've asked what the current demand information is. Rather than just tell us that they have information that there is no unmet demand, the council have gone off on one to say they won't tell us what information they actually have. This errs in law, because they've got to, under FOI, divulge the info. We know they're sitting on a sud which will highlight sufficient demand to disburse the IPL. We've applied again. Another licence in the frame. They're fecked.

Now they can't say there is demand, they can't say there is no demand.

Anyone in the UK who wants an Edinburgh taxi licence which they could sell on at market rates, currently £50K, should apply now.

How can you sell this on? Quite simply because our council will never derestrict because it will feck their bus system, and the shiny new £600 million trams system.

Spend £1205 now, reap £50K soon. What a deal. Remember you heard it from me.

BTW It beats working for a living. All we have to do is play the system, and the system delivers £50K golden eggs.

BTW2 The application forms are on the council's web site www. edinburgh.gov.uk.

BTW3 It's easier to sell the company if you incorporate first. Just go to the Companies House site, the forms are there. It costs £20, £50 for the premium same day service. You can incorporate later, the council will charge you another £1205 for the privilege.

BTW 4 When you've bought the pad in Spain on the back of all your licence applications, remember to give me a good holiday rental rate. Zilch would be a good number.