Taxi Driver Online

Well the Councils until recently never said they were taking action to destroy the plate premium. They said it was to allow a free market supply of taxis. Your point was never made in the Royden case, and I doubt if there is any case where the objective of the authorities was solely to destroy the property of licensees who's licences traded at a premium.

I disagree.

In the 1980s interest rates shot up leading to house prices collapsing and tens of thousands of folks losing their homes.

The government of the day paid not a penny in compensation.

_________________
IDFIMH

So plates are transferable, as long as they are attached to a vehicle, same as in England.

Sorry, the losses didn't occur because of a change in legislation, so the HRA did not apply.

]
No they are not, the buyer starts work for that company and then the owner steps down as a director leaving the buyer to continue and change the operators name over, its a back door process as the plate still legally belongs to the council

OK, But it doesn't matter how the premium arises, it's someone's property and has value, if it belongs to a Limited Company the shareholders are protected by the HRA.

Under the CGSA, the licence/plate is at all times the property of the council which issued it.

The back door route via a corporate held plate only works if the licence was originally applied for in the name of a company.
That company continues to hold the plate, even if the ownership of the company changes.

The vast majority of Scottish plates are held by individuals in their own names and must be returned to the council when the plateholder dies or gives it up.

Your theory may apply in E&W but your assumption that the law here is the same is in error.

I suggest you look for examples in English & Welsh areas, which would be under the same legislation as you.

What a Scottish council or an Irish judge does, may not be relevant to English law.

_________________

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

I'm not assuming anything.

When the Irish Government paid out compensation to cab proprietors for loss of plate premium value, after they de-restricted nationally, I wonder whether it was through the kindness of their collective hearts in the Houses of the Oireachtas, or whether they were spooked by the European Human Rights legislation?

Somehow, I don't think it was because of their kindness and affection towards cab proprietors!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

If that is the case then the Irish government probably got legal advice?

CC

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

They said they would when they decided to delimit.

IMO they had no duty to do so.

_________________
IDFIMH

We are not talking about property, as no property is being lost.

We are talking about an assumed scarcity value, accrued in a grey market.

You are saying if a council de-limits they are liable to cover the costs of the assumed scarcity value. But they issue them for nothing, so what should they do? Start charging for plates?

However what is disproportionate about a council delimiting taxi numbers to ensure more WAVs are licensed? Do you think a court would look favourably at a claim against a council that does that?

Would a council be liable if trade reduces due to the economic climate, as that will lower plate prices?

One thing I know for certain however is that if plate holders in restricted areas spent as much time on customer service than they did on issues relating to keeping the premium, then their trade would be in a far better place.

_________________
IDFIMH

It’s a false market with people trying to sell plates which you don’t own, or have control of.
And as for buying a piece of plastic / metal plate with a paper licence attach to it, which is a very big bad gamble. might as well put the money on red
I would have to say i total agree with what Sussex had posted above.

Of course Taxi licences and the premium on them are "property"

Gorman v. Minister for the Environment and Local Government [2001] IEHC 47; [2001] 2 IR 414 (23rd March, 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ie/cases/IEHC/2001/47.html&query=hackney+and+licence+and+transfer+and+premium+and+property&method=boolean

The disproportion is that the Councils did not do surveys to determine how many extra licenses were needed to solve the alleged under supply of taxis. Instead they de-restricted and created a disproportionately excessive supply.

Wheelchair accessible vehicles are a complete red herring. 95% of registered disabled are not wheelchair bound, and they don't want or like wheelchair accessible vehicles.

That's all very nice to hear, but, where is the evidence to support this claim?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!