Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:33 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
captain cab wrote:
Likewise, can you tell me which councils say restriction is illegal?

CC
Perth? Aren't they all saying they can't enforce limits on numbers because of legal challenge?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
The decision in the Royden case that taxi licence premiums were not property protected by the Human Rights Act was almost certainly wrong, and should have been appealed. I would urge anyone about to be affected or where a decision to delimit was made within the last three years to seek a barristers opinion.

The Judge said that a case could be made if the plate was transferred for money prior to the 1985 Transport Act, after that it was a case of buyer beware.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
European case law has established that premiums resulting from restrictive licences are property protected by the Human Rights Act. Councils can derestrict provided they comply with the Human Rights Act rules set out as follows:

European case law was well debated during the Royden hearing, and it came out as not protecting plate premiums.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
See section 20 of "The right to property-A guide to the implementation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights" Monica Carss-Frisk http://echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/AFE5CA8A-9F42-4F6F-997B-12E290BA2121/0/DG2ENHRHAND042003.pdf

No property is being lost, just an investment/gamble.

Same as when Northern Rock was nationalised, all those with shares lost their money.

If your scenario was right, then every Northern Rock investor would be entitled to their money back, as would every other shareholder of every other company who's shares lose their value.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
The Councils seem to be saying that any restriction is illegal, but many spheres of activity are also restricted by Council licences, and those restrictions are not illegal.

I'm not sure what councils may be saying, but I'm 100% certain taxi restrictions are only legal if backed by a taxi survey.

And I have never read a council report that says otherwise.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Any change to policy must be proportionate to the problem addressed, and compensation is payable for the loss of licence value premium.

No.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
lol skip......the guy has a point....the HRA act has moved on since the Royden case as have the courts understanding of its implications.

In most cases the HRA has had little effect.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
toots wrote:
Throw this thread into the Scottish section and things could become really interesting :wink:

MarkRGuildford wrote:
skippy41 wrote:
CC you missed out the question can a plate that belongs to and issued by the licencing authority be legally sold on its own
The licence is transferable, and if the licensee can get a premium he is quite entitled to it. All perfectly legal.


Doesn't apply here.
Plates in Scotland are non-transferable.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8521
MarkRGuildford wrote:
toots wrote:
Throw this thread into the Scottish section and things could become really interesting :wink:


I particularly wanted to post this today because I read about Perth de-restricting numbers. Also the Perth Councillor? is quoted as saying that the aim is to nullify the licence premium, i.e. they are deliberately setting out as the policy object intereference with property, it is the plate value itself that they object to, seeing it as a barrier to entry. They have got overconfident because of the Royden case, and admitted what in my view is a deliberate intention to breach the drivers human rights.


An interesting but little known fact... is that... a number of licences in Liverpool where owned by drug pushes.... who were brought to justice by the police..... the licences were seized by the courts, as assets of crime... the court appointed agents to sell the licences.. the courts instructed Liverpool council not to do anything that would interfere with their value... many of these licences were sold by the Court Agents... even though... many of them had legally expired... and had no vehicles attached... you might find this interesting.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
gusmac wrote:
Doesn't apply here.
Plates in Scotland are non-transferable.
How does the premium exist then?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Any change to policy must be proportionate to the problem addressed, and compensation is payable for the loss of licence value premium.

No.


Quote:
(v) Is the interference proportionate? That is, does it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights?


Clearly the proportionate response to under supply of taxis is to do a survey and issue plates as required, not de-restriction which results in huge oversupply.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
No property is being lost, just an investment/gamble.

Same as when Northern Rock was nationalised, all those with shares lost their money.

If your scenario was right, then every Northern Rock investor would be entitled to their money back, as would every other shareholder of every other company who's shares lose their value.


This has nothing to do with Northern Rock, that was a Bank with shareholders, I am talking about the property of taxi drivers being destroyed as a result of disproportionate Council action.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
MarkRGuildford wrote:
gusmac wrote:
Doesn't apply here.
Plates in Scotland are non-transferable.
How does the premium exist then?


Because some scrots like councilor Kerr of Edinburgh CC decided to restrict cab numbers, and continues to do so
Thereby creating a restricted market so plates along with the vehicle change hands for extortionate rates, and then are rented out to an idiot who pays up to £300 per week before fuel and a wage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54377
Location: 1066 Country
MarkRGuildford wrote:
Clearly the proportionate response to under supply of taxis is to do a survey and issue plates as required, not de-restriction which results in huge oversupply.

Not in my view.

Is it in the interests of the wider community to have plate premiums? I don't think so.

That's where your proportionate theory falls.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 7:21 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Guildford
Sussex wrote:
The Judge said that a case could be made if the plate was transferred for money prior to the 1985 Transport Act, after that it was a case of buyer beware.
Property values can always be affected by legislation, and the owners must accept that, but the authorities have to pay compensation under the HRA if they take disproportionate action.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group