Taxi Driver Online

Reported in today's Edinburgh Evening News.

Note, the reporter Andrew Picken wasn't at the hearing. He didn't even get the name of the rpesiding Sheriff right. For the record it was Sheriff McPartlin.

TWO cabbies have lost a court battle against the city council to have the number of taxis on Edinburgh's streets increased.

Jim Taylor and Gordon MacDonald had taxi licence applications rejected by the council in April. They want city leaders to drop a cap imposed on the number of taxis operating in Edinburgh.

But Sheriff Elizabeth Jarvie told Edinburgh Sheriff Court that it was not for her to decide and sent the appeal back to the council's licensing committee.

The council capped the number of black cabs in the Capital at 1260 six years ago but, since then, there has been a huge increase in the number of private hire vehicles.

Two studies have found there is no "significant unmet demand" for black cabs, so the limit has remained unchanged.

However, the sheriff ruled Mr Taylor and Mr MacDonald had suffered a "material injustice" because officials had not supplied them with a report on taxi demand in Edinburgh before their licensing hearing.

Mr Taylor today said the pair were considering an appeal and vowed to fight the cap all the way. Mr Taylor, of Edinburgh, who rents a taxi from another operator, said: "This verdict only buys time for the council. It is not the end of the matter.

"The material justice verdict shows they are deliberately dragging their heels on this, making it difficult because they know they have no case to answer.

"They haven't put another taxi on for five years, Edinburgh is booming and they say there isn't any unmet demand. I still want to see the councillors who took the decision to reject our applications justifying themselves in court."

The cabbies may get their own way regardless if a council review of its policy decides restrictions on taxi numbers need to be lifted. Officials warned demand for an Edinburgh taxi licence is bringing the policy under close scrutiny. Officials are now assessing the implications of retaining the current policy and of removing the cap.

Jim Muldoon, the Edinburgh representative of the Scottish Taxi Federation, said: "We are very pleased with the verdict. This is a victory for common sense.

"An increase in the number of taxis and the possibility of deregulation, and all the things that come with it, would be a disaster for the Edinburgh taxi trade. We have set a good standard in Edinburgh and this decision will hopefully remove the worry for many drivers and we will see further investment in the trade now."

Earlier this year, three cabbies won taxi licences after 18 months of legal wrangling. The Court of Session ruled the council's attempts to block their applications were invalid because too much time had passed since they originally applied for a licence.

As a result, the council agreed to hand licences to three more drivers who had lodged appeals.

Jim Inch, director of corporate services, said: "We are pleased to see that the court has supported our current position. However, we appreciate that the council's existing policy of restricting taxi numbers will continue to come under pressure through applications and subsequent appeals to the courts, as in the case this week."

Kinda makes me wonder though how the two cabbies lost when the council agreed they had breached natural justice yet they claim to have won.

How is it that Jim Inch thinks the Sheriff supports the council's position?

Is he saying that the council acted contrary to the Law and that the Sheriff supports their illegal act?

Is this what our legal system has come to?

And, how is that the Sheriff felt that it was not his position to decide the merits of this case? What on earth does he think his position is?

Doesn't the Act clearly set out the grounds for appeal? And isn't anyone of those grounds being successful reason in itself for the Sheriff to exercise a discretion clearly laid down in the Act in favour of the appellant?

The decision and the ludicrous News report do little other than give the council, and the vested interests in the trade, a false dawn.

Now, as things stand, the matter appears to be back before the council, which is what it wanted, the council now has two choices. The new committee, considering the same information and criteria as before can arrive at two decisions. It can refuse the licence again or grant it.

If it grants, it will be in the curious position of acknowledging that the previous committee acted unfairly and wrongly. Given that all the factors will be constants, and the guidance came from the same corporate services department headed by Jim Inch, this will be proof positive that that his judgement was fundamentally flawed, his guidance legally incompetent. It will be time for Jim Inch to go, his position untenable. A formal public inquiry should follow in order to establish exactly what went on and the legality of council actions in dogged pursuit of its flawed policy essential in the interests of ensuring the probity of our public servants.

If the council choose to deny the licence again then it will merely be that the matter will be brought back before the courts on the same appeal, with the same grounds - the already ceded "contrary to natural justice ground enhanced.

Councillors WILL be brought into the witness box and, under oath, will be questioned in such a way as to expose what has really happened throughout this process and what corporate services' and key political figures' parts have been in it.

And, the Sheriff will be in the position of having given the council a lifeline, and now will have to consider the other two appeal grounds, but this time in the certain knowledge that the council has already acted in contravention of the Law.

One final curious thing is that this Sheriff has stated that he can't be sure the new council committee may not consider the matter differently and that they should be given the chance to revisit the application. This raises two issues.

First, applications are made to councils, not to committees. It doesn't matter what the make up of the council committee is, or whether it changes because it is the unelected officials of the councils who provide the corporate link through the electoral process. Committee decisions are binding on councils.

Second, where does it say that the council can keep assessing applications until it gets it right? The Sheriff has set a dangerous "precedent" with this, because other opponents of council policy can now use such a judgement in support of their argument to cause council rethinks every time the memebership of any committee making contentious decisons changes. The council has effectively been rendered unworkable. Nice one Sheriff MacPartland (Note:- reporter Andrew Picken couldn't even get the name of the Sheriff correct).

Finally, the real benefit here to the council is that it has bought time, possibly enough, to allow the report it has commissioned into licensing of taxis in Edinburgh to come into play and settle the matter. I suspect I, and the trade vested interests, all know that the council recognises its difficulties and the report will be constructed to deal with it. Any doubts about derestriction of the trade now? Or at least a substantial increase in the number of taxi licences?

I venture that we all know that the outcome of these applications is that they WILL both be granted, along with other licence applications in the pipeline and those who apply from the interested parties list, along with other new applications made during the process.

The reason for confidence about this is the ramifications of councillors giving evidence under oath. Can you imagine what Wigglesworth will have to say about the instructions and "advice" he followed from Jim Inch's corporate services department and council legal officials? Will Wigglesworth be able to be schooled to avoid giving damning testimony, short of lying? Now he's thankfully no longer a councillor, will he be bothered to try to obscure truth?

So Edinburgh taxi trade vested interests, enjoy the false dawn. But always remember, the Langoliers are coming.



BTW Why has the trade's chattering monkeys not vented ther spleen on the sewing bee - the forum that censors rather than debates - about the council's own bus company operating its taxi bus service as a taxi in direct opposition to the trade? Why has the bus driver convener of the Regulatory Committee not done so either?

And, why has there been no reaction to pivate hire adding a block of 50 new PH licences? No threat to our work there then?

Can't let reality get in the way of the vested interest plate values eh?



Much better to let the work disappear to competitors as long as drivers prop up the the trade's illusion of busnissmanship?

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Keep banging on Jim, you will get your plate(s) in the end.

The Sherrif took the easy way out, maybe he had a full list in front of him and wanted to get home to watch the rugby/cricket.

Your time will come Jim.

_________________
IDFIMH

May be like you Jimbob he got someone else to stand in for him

_________________
Keyboards and Cretins : Facts - not opinions - are the only truths

Damascus Moments - easy excuses for a sociopath

TDO the website of double standards and changing identities

Or maybe he just got the story from Gladstone over the phone.

A victory for impartial reporting

_________________

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

The curious thing about the referral back by the Sheriff so that the council can rethink and retake the decision on these licence applications is how it flies in the face of the Appeal court judgements in the Salteri et al cases.

In that decision the Lords decided that while there is a legal requirement for councils to consider applications within the first three months, there was no penalty proscribed in the legislation if they fail to do so. The appeal Lords stated however that councils should meet the 6 month deadline to consider applications "with a determination".

What this Sheriff has done is to give councils carte blanche again to take any amount of time they want to consider licence applications. They can wait the full six months then when the case comes forward for appeal they can go to a Sheriff, cede a fraction of one appeal ground and ask the Sheriff to remit it back to the council again - effectively little more than a wangled time extension.

Hasn't the Law been brought into disrepute?

It has certainly been manipulated. Do we know how long the council have before they have to make a decision?

_________________

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

They will seek to take as long as they can. That was the reason for the referral back strategy, to buy time.

It's clear that they are crafting a solution to resolve the matter, it's certain that their strategy is to deal with these applications as part of that strategy.

A once and for all solution.

That solution is likely to be a surge in taxi numbers and an attempt to put the cap back on. This would allow the IPL to be disbursed and satisfy any applications in appeal or in the pipeline. Clearly anyone who wants a licence should consider this and apply now. When the cap goes back on it will likely NEVER come back off. because the council will serve its vested interests with renewed vigour. We shoud remember it owns a bus company, with night buses and taxi buses, and its buying itself its own tram set. They don't want myriad taxis running all over the place taking their customers and rendering the P&L accounts red.

There's also their pals in private hire to consider, who seem to have an in to the council through the activities of certain councillors, presumably pushing their own commercial interests.

5 years time? Plates may well be worth £100,000.

As I said, if I wanted a piece of the action, I'd be applying now.

JIM YOU LOOK SO HANSOME IN THAT PHOTO HOW ABOUT WE DO LUNCH OR SOMETHING TOGETHER

If the council owns the bus company and the people of Edinburgh "own" the council, then surely any profits from the bus company benefit the residents. (The £2million they receive annually is a drop in the ocean in council budget terms.)
There are now 2 councillors who operate taxis on the council, so will they now turn corrupt and want to keep taxi numbers restricted?

Your projected surge in taxi numbers is unlikely as is the the success of your licence application. Perhaps you should read and be aware of all the provisions of the CGSA. Despite your pontificating above it seems that you are unaware of some provisions. Current best advice is that it would be inadvisable to apply for a taxi licence now.

Well tit, why don't you explain?


Next you'll be telling us the council backed down because of their strong position... oh now I remember they won... and accepted the costs ta-boot

John T. you are a tit and nothing will change that not even your plate.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

You're surely not referring to the plink formerly known as Eric Barry as one of these two examples of taxi ownership.

Not the same Eric Barry who hijacked the T&G. Who set up the Edinburgh Taxi Branch. Who didn't recruit new members because it would dilute his influence.

Who has done brussel sprout for Edsinburgh's taxi drivers.

Drivers who are no more than casual labour in our trade.

And the other must be Norrie. Now, I've assisted Norrie in the past. Now he wouldn't even speak to me.

Scumbags both. As are all politicians. Oh dear. The pricks in Mi whatever the feck they call themselves wiull have noted that little jibe. I must watch myselt of the plutonium injection may be coming my way.

We're surrounded by complete pratts. You just happen to be one of them.



BTW Note that neither of these two are in the position of being seen to influence our RC. No, thet position is reserved for bus drivers.

As Ronnie said, "Let's nuke the [edited by admin]".

more sheeite
more rumours
go on then enlighten us, you obviously know somit we dont , or is this just more pash, from someone who cant defend thier position, and just wants to spread the rumours to put everyone off applying

Drowning men, clutching at straws. Your council don't give a sh*t about you, just like every other council. They will sell you down the river in a heartbeat to save their own a*ses, as you will soon find out. Whatever they decide to do will be what suits their interests best, not yours. That's what they have been doing for years. You have benefitted from their restricted numbers policy by accident, not design. They will sh*t on you when it suits their purpose and they won't care then either. Whether you like it or not, change is coming.

It's no accident that we are covered by the same legislation as scrap metal dealers and the sex industry. That's how we are seen and treated by local and national politicians. Not as professional business people but as shady characters that need to be watched.

_________________

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

A quality post Gusmac

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"