Taxi Driver Online

O/K. THE MARXS BROTHERS.......So I am supposed to take advice from you three, who did not know that blowing a car horn was a police offence,??The wirral case has nothing to do with what I am saying it could be any case that says plates have no valul.
All I am interested in is the fact that the law wolud seem to have two fases a bit like yourselves,
A bit of adice for j.d. stick to being a librarian....,,,,,,,,....It wolud seem that your idea of debate is to LECTURE....mr T........

Well you've totally lost me now Mr T. For one, I can't recall saying anything recently about sounding car horns, perhaps you could enlighten me?

Second, I didn't realise that blowing a car horn was an offence, although I'm aware it can be under certain circumstances.




You claimed that the Wirral case decided that plates have no value, but in fact this value was never disputed - in fact it was the 'big issue' in the case.

I can't recall reading ANY case that claimed that plates don't have any value, perhaps you are confusing attempts by the NTA to mislead with judgements handed down by a court of law.



The law has never denied that plates have a value, the point is that this value is not set in stone, as Mr Royden tried to claim it should be (of course, rising plate values have never been an issue, but falling premiums seem to be a problem).

I mean if a court siezed the assets of a racehorse owner it would no doubt try to sell the racehorses at the going rate. But a horse could easily run in the Grand National (say), break a leg and have to be put down.

But the fact that it might become worthless hardly means that the courts shouldn't realise its value when it's fit, and this hardly makes the court two-faced.

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

By the way Mr T, here's another important passage from the case, which makes it all very clear:

...it seems to me hard to say that Mr Royden and his colleagues had a reasonable and legitimate expectation that a policy of restricting the number of hackney carriage vehicles licensed in the Wirral area would continue indefinitely in force. On the contrary, it has been clear since the coming into force of the Transport Act 1985, and the Department of Transport Circular no. 3/85, that the legislative policy has been in favour of de-restriction, the only possible exception being if no unmet demand can be established. Even if an authority is satisfied that there is no unmet demand, it is still under no statutory obligation to maintain a restriction on the numbers of licences issued.

In those circumstances, it seems to me, anyone acquiring a hackney carriage vehicle in the Wirral, at any rate after 1985, must be taken in law to have done so in the knowledge that a policy of "de-restriction" might come into effect at some future date, whatever the state of the demand. In those circumstances it seems to me that there could be no reasonable or legitimate, expectation that the "premium value" of the licence would be maintained. Those that paid such a premium (and I have no specific evidence about that) in my view made a business judgment about whether the premium was worth paying, and took a business risk. Those, like Mr Royden himself, who paid no premium, have simply lost the possibility of a future " windfall". In my view in law Mr Royden could not, after 1999, have reasonably or legitimately expected that this "windfall" was protected against the possibility of "de-restriction" under the Act of 1847 as amended.

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

By the way again Mr T, maybe your confusion on this issue demonstrates why you seem to think that 'the trade' should have taken the issue further. However, the Wirral case was taken to the Court of Appeal and but this just wasted more time and money.

I thought you were a fan of Derek Cummins, so perhaps you should heed his words, since in an article he quoted the above passages from the case, and also said:

And the reality is grim, because legally the case is unwinnable; it's as simple as that.

and

In other words, for the benefit of the illiterate, the naive or the just plain stupid; individuals who bought in after 1985 did so knowing that the policy was de-restriction, and in any case the plate has an artificial value because of the monopoly status (or as the appeal judge called it an oligopoly). It is hard to argue the contrary because de-restricted areas have no plate value (London for example) and restricted areas do. Therefore individuals that bought in before 1985 might (but it's a big might) have a shout for compensation, but not the £15-30k they were changing hands for prior to the de-restriction.

This is why I get exasperated with people in the trade who put forward the "you would've won with a different claimant" because how anyone can misunderstand Bellamy's summing up is beyond me. It is given in plain English not the tortuous syntax normally associated with judges. A lot of people, who really should know better are in denial and believe that if they put their heads under the sheets, the bogie man will go away, and there are people in the trade who are upset with Wirral because we have the audacity to point this out

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

I don't think we are giving you advice we are stating facts. One can accept some factually incorrect statements if when presented they are presented in good faith. You made a blatant statement about the Wirral case knowing that statement to be false.

You could always take advice from Mr Cummins who still thinks the Wirral case is a carbon copy of the Liverpool case. Perhaps if you quoted the facts your comments wouldn't need correcting. After all, you are the one who quoted Bellamy as saying "plates have no value". TDO merely corrected your blatant misquotation. What makes your comment even more disturbing is the fact that at one time you put yourself forward as being a representative of the cab trade and yet you can't even grasp the basic concept of what Bellamy actually said in the Wirral judgement.

With regard to confiscating criminal assets, you can and should have found the answer to your own question by looking up the relevant law in respect of the "Proceeds of crime act" and all the other relevant acts appertaining to forfeiture and confiscation orders. If you wish to know the answer to your own question you can start by reading the following acts.

1986 Drug Trafficking Offences Act (DTOA) Confiscation provisions for drug trafficking offences and first drug money laundering offence
1987 Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act
1988 Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988)
Confiscation provisions for all non-drug indictable offences and specified summary offences
1990 Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act Mutual legal assistance, further drug money laundering offences and drug cash seizure on import or export
1993 Criminal Justice Act (CJA 1993) (Other forms of) money laundering offences and enhancements to all crime confiscation provisions
1994 Drug Trafficking Act (DTA) Consolidating the drug provisions and removing mandatory confiscation
1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act Bringing forward the date from which CJA 1993 confiscation provisions apply
1995 Proceeds of Crime Act. (PCA) Further alignment of all crime confiscation provisions with DTA. 1994.
1995 Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act
1996 Proceeds of Crime (NI) Order
1998 Crime and Disorder Act Amendment to CJA for confiscation orders on committal for sentence.
2002 Proceeds of crime act Money laundering



I know for a fact I have never debated the blowing of car horns but I must admit at not being surprised at another one of your inaccuracies. If you want to debate car horns in whatever sphere you can always post your views on the "legal statutory requirement of noise abatement" as applied by law. If you wish to expand on the blowing of car horns in respect of plying for hire I am quite sure we will be able to enlighten you on that matter also.



It would appear that the very first sentence of the post attributed to you and typed from your keyboard stated the following.

"If you read the Wirral case, you will see that the Judge states that plates (licences) have no value"

The responses you got were in part directed at that particular statement. You had to insert that statement about Wirral because the rest of your observations would otherwise become irrelevant.

None of us, not even you yourself, know the details of the case you refer to in respect of the confiscated plates. Therefore it might be prudent if people view your statement with a degree of scepticism.



The law in respect of Hackney carriage proprietor licenses is very clear indeed and it has been for a very long time. You of course know this but choose to ignore it.

The question you should be asking yourself in respect of any case that involves the confiscation of a vehicle, especially one that is licensed as a Taxi, is this.

Can the court when it confiscates a vehicle, also confiscate the licence when it is deemed that such a license is perceived to be an asset by virtue of the scarcity value placed on the licence because of the political policy of a local authority?

Not knowing the background to this case renders all of us somewhat impotent but it must be remembered that a court has very wide ranging powers under the confiscation acts mentioned above. It would not surprise me in the least if they did indeed acquire the licence along with the cab. It may be that such confiscation amounts to a transfer and such a transfer under these acts would not need the agreement of the license holder. Therefore the cab and plate become the property of the crown until such time the item is sold to recover what criminal proceeds the court has deemed appropriate.

The court would no doubt take into account that purchasing a license by the convicted offender was a money laundering exercise and as such the court had every right to appropriate the license on behalf of the crown.

The court would probably deem the Taxi as a business and without the license there is no business. On confiscation the business becomes the property of the crown and because the license in this instance has a scarcity premium the value of the business is enhanced.

I think you need to take a long look at the power of the courts and forget what a licensing authority might wish to do. Once a court has made an entitled decision in law a licensing authority would no doubt think twice before trying to overturn it.

Does present legislation give the courts the right to confiscate an asset that might come in the form of a license? I think you might well find that it does.

JD

J.D. the horn was a wind-up ,what did harpo carry, honk honk
I agree with your assessment ,BUT where does this lead??... mrT..

t.d.o. you are a silly little man making up all that rubbish out of nothing,what's up had a bad night.???????L,pool courts selling plates, and I am interested,WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT, I am not being drawn into your foolishness mrT... P.S. L,POOL did the samething with more cab's and plates,answer me this if the cab's where out of test then the vehicles were not licenced, what did they sell ?? for 20,ooo pounds each...mrT...

I take the view that the council should have revoked the taxi licenses well before the asset hearing, if there wasn't an injunction stopping them doing so.

We all know that in England and Wales plate transfers are permitted, some may view selling plates as morally wrong, but alas, it's not legally wrong.

Still if Liverpool de-limited then they wouldn't have to put up with such iffy folk running their cab trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

sussex. mrTand there is more.

The confiscation process only begins when an offender has been convicted of a criminal offence. Up until that time any license would remain in his possession. Normally an order to recover criminal proceeds from the defendants estate would be dealt with on the day of sentencing, whether that date is deferred or not. Being found guilty and sentenced at a later date may prompt the court to freeze all assets until the solvency of the offender is determined.

Therefore on occasions there could be very little time for a restricted licensing authority to react. In any case a license holder still has the same statutory rights of appeal as anyone else.

Regards

JD

So it's my fault that you're spreading misinformation then is it

All I did was to correct a simple misstatement of fact that you made - ie that the Wirral case decided that plates didn't have a value - I think it's you that's 'making up all that rubbish out of nothing'

You were wrong and I corrected you - get over it!!!

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

It must be prity clear , that there is some thing wrong, with the Liverpool taxi trade when drug dealers, have found it and still find it an attractive place to get involved in . I know that plate values are being inflated by the powder boys , who with the demise of pubs, sunbed centres and high street shops . Have found the perfect vehicle for money laundering . Where else can can you have a large business, with a big turn over . employ no one, dont pay rates, have a reason for having large amounts of cash and look like you are gainfully employed . I have not heard of any one having a taxi plate, taken of them for being a criminal . Only when they have actually , had there assets seized, two or three at the most . Delimiting would have have cleaned Liverpool up over night . What a stupid thick council we have . What a wasted opportunity . reguards streetcar .

Yes, it's an interesting thought that the purchase of taxi plates can be an opportunity for money laundering.

Of course, the vested interests in the trade say that derestriction represents an open door for criminality to enter the trade, whereas restricted numbers arguably represents a better opportunity.

However, I'm not going to express an opininon on this one way or the other, since I don't think the arguments should really be used to either justify or condemn restricted numbers.

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

By the way Mr T, before you mention the 'compensation' scheme in Ireland, this is a bit of a misnomer because it was an ex gratia scheme to and thus has no possible legal relevance as regards Wirral etc.

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

I dont agree, its plain to see a restricted market is far more attrative to criminalty Than an open one . Every argument should be used to end restriction . This is just as good and proberbly more important than any other argument i have heard . The people in Liverpool who got their plates seized . Were not guilty of, not paying the T V licence, one got 24 years . Streetcar.