Taxi Driver Online

I have had a seriously long day.

Here's a thought for consideration.

A lot has been stated about local authorities justifying there numbers restrictions prior to the dates set by the DFT.

So here is a question from myself;

Could a local authoirty when not justifying its restriction by the dates set by the DFT, be opening themselves up for a challenge on the grounds that no justification for restrictions was made????

If you have justified your policy your ok, if you havent, do you have a defence?

oh hum!

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Well I hope not.

Perhaps if and when we get proper guidance from the DfT, it will make councils not properly justifying open to challenge.

At the moment I think it will just cost non justifying councils a few (or maybe quite a few) quid in lost revenue through a flawed Transport Plan.

I wonder how many LOs realise that?

_________________
IDFIMH

Is the point that a council offering justification for forming a policy or maintaining one is complying with government guidelines.

Is the question therefore that if a council chooses to blindly derestrict they are beyond reproach but if another council holds an investigation into local requirements and finds that the number of vehicles is meeting the demands placed on then from consumers, they can expect a legal challenge. Not from user groups but from people who want a free plate.

I repeat, the "I want" brigade are just that, they have no interest in providing extra services they only wish to obtain such things for their own benefit.

The council are not in place to provide for individuals.

B. lucky

The point I am trying to get across is that the government has asked LA's to justify their policy of restricted numbers.

If a LA fail to advise the Govt. of the justification, do they therefore not open themselves upto a challenge (by an applicant who wants a HC vehicle License), on the grounds that no justification has been made, as per government request and urgo there must be no justification for the limit.

Just a question.

regards

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Yeah but will the justification not be equally open to legal challenge from the self interest groups.

Thats what I'm trying to get accross, a council who neglect their responsibilities and blindly derestrict are beyond reproach yet a council who try to form policies in the best interest of the people they represent remain "open" to legal challenge.

B. Lucky

Section 16 of the 85 act states that LA's can limit numbers if, and only if, they are satisfied there is no unmet demand within their controlled area.

The trade has effectively been delimited ever since, with LA's having to justify their limits, usually by way of surveys.

The "self interest groups" (as you put them) are therefore only acting within the law.

My point is, that what the government has requested maybe ignored by some LA's. Those that ignore the DFT request are possibly opening themselves up to a challenge on the basis as set out above.

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

The councils that have never properly addressed the legal test that you refer to have always been open to challenge Cap.

To what extent the DfT's response to the OFT changes the law is unclear, since only the judges can change the law in subsequent cases, and they could well take account of the DfT advice.

But if an LA ignores the DfT and no one in the LA takes action to make them conform with the law, then it's not obvious what the DfT can do about it, other than try to exert more pressure.

That was perhaps why they said that three years after the DfT's response to the OfT they would look at the extent to which controls remained.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Don't you mean the the opposite of 'beyond reproach'?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I dont think you understand my point TDO.

I dont think the Dft will do anything if a council does not justify as requested.

But will the failure of an LA to justify, open the door for an applicant?

If you look to the court cases, you very often see DFT circulars being referred to as evidence.

Could the lack of a LA response be tantamount to an admission that their policy cannot be justified?

Just a question, no implications aimed at anyone, and thrown out here for debate.

Captain cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I don't think there are any direct legal implications if the LA fails to respond to the DfT.

But in all likelihood this will mean that they haven't properly surveyed demand, in which case they would be open to challenge under current case law.

If the LA haven't said how restrictions benefit consumers (for example) it seems unlikely that this would form the basis for a challenge, since this requirement isn't a legal one.

However, as you say the courts often refer to DfT circulars and the like, so to that extent the courts could take them into account when interpreting the legislation, but I think that something like a requirement from the DfT for LAs to say how restrictions benefit consumers is a bit too far from the wording of the legislation, which is just about unmet demand, and not whether or not this benefits consumers.

DfT guidance on supressed demand (or similar) would be a different story, since that more obviously relates to how the wording of the legislation is interpreted.

There was supposed to be more detailed guidance from the DfT last summer, but I don't think it ever appeared.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Who are these people who would challenge a councils decision?

Consumer groups?
General Public?
Large PH organisations looking to increase their profits?

I say this because the cost of a legal challenge is beyond the means of most drivers.

B. Lucky

The guidance was a request but it was a request which the Government expected an answer. Most of the councils that are not able to meet the requested deadline have written to the DFT and asked for an extension.

A local authority can be challenged at anytime, as you well know. Prior to the Government guidance any council that refused an applicant and failed to satisfy itself of the level of demand was placing itself in a position where it could possibly lose a legal challenge. That position applies now, as it did then, regardless of the new Government advice.

With regard to your specific question in respect of the time frame, I would suggest that anyone taking a council to court on the Government guidance alone might have an uphill struggle. A council such as Hyndburn, who hasn't had a survey yet has addressed the Government guidance and decided on a restricted numbers policy, is more likely to lose a challenge than a council who has had a survey but has not yet addressed the Government guidance.

Bet wishes

JD

So a council that has properly investigated the needs of the residents and visitors to their borough is in a more procarious position, regarding legal challenge, than one who takes no consideration of consumer demand and grants licenses upon the demand of those who can afford the required vehicles.

Doesn't sound fair to me at all.

Still this site is all about the rich getting what they want, no consideration on here is given to the normal working man, and thats not [edited by admin] fair either.

B. Lucky