Taxi Driver Online

I found the following elsewhere on the internet :

If you read the wirral case.you will see that the Judge states that plates(licences) have no value,
but in european law businesses and their licences in some circumstances are recognised to have a value , they have paid compensation to owners of fising boats for them to scrap them and surrender their licences.

But that's not quite what the Wirral case said.

The judge at no time disputed that the plates had a value. The crux of the case was whether the value of a plate was such that it amounted to a 'posession' that the authorities were duty bound to protect under the Human Rights Act.

But, because this value depended on the closed market operated by LAs, then the judge decided that there was no duty on the authorities to protect that value.

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

And that could be the reason why the NTTG (or whatever they call themselves at the mo) didn't spend thousands of pounds on legal advice, when they got all the info they needed for nothing from my good mate Sir CB.

But if a council takes back plates from those that are no longer deemed 'fit and proper', shouldn't they be re-issued to the chaps on the waiting lists?

Isn't that what the unions should be fighting for?

_________________
IDFIMH

ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT THE LIVERPOOL COURTS DID NOT DO THAT........THEY SOLD THEM FOR 200,000 POUNDS mrT.....

READ 152 mr T ..

And that's what happen all the time, people sell/transfer plates.

My point was the council should have taken the plates away from those that the court found guilty, and re-issued them to the lads on the list.

It's the councils fault for not giving a f*** about the non plate-holders, a fault shared by the so called 'workers united'.

_________________
IDFIMH

152. In my view, in the present case, the decision of 18 March 2002 is in an area of policy in the sphere of local administration. Social, economic, and in some respects political, factors are in play. In addition, even if it were protected at all, which I do not think it is, the protection of the value of unofficial premium attaching to a hackney carriage vehicle licence would be, in my judgment, a relatively long way down the scale of fundamental human rights protected by the Convention.

I'm not that sure it helps you.

_________________
IDFIMH

my point is that the courts sold them.....mrT..

I agree, but someone from the council should have taken them back before the court decided.

The asset hearing would have taken place well after the chaps were found guilty, thus in anyones opinion they can't be viewed as being 'fit and proper'.

Or do Liverpool Council allow gansters to own and run their licensed taxis?

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree with you but the courts don't

the courts ordered liverpool not to do any thing that would devalue the plates

does this say closed market

Well who knows, but there does seem to be a conflict of interest between one public authority trying to maximise revenue for the public purse, and an LA taking the plates back in which case the taxpayer would lose out, but clearly in these cases the taxpayer won, assuming there were plates involved.

I suspect that in cases like this the courts have significant powers to maximise the revenue and can tell this, that and the next person what to do lest the value of any assets is reduced by the actions of anyone - this could include telling Liverpool CC not to take them back.

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

No, but try this from para 132:

The 'premium' arises simply because of the restriction on the number of hackney carriages authorised to ply for hire in the Wirral area. In other words, it is simply the reflection of the value of the local monopoly enjoyed by the existing hackney carriage proprietors and drivers.

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

You never cease to amaze me. You must have read the Wirral Judgement more times than soft Mick, yet you still don't understand it. What don't you understand about artificial values?

As was clearly stated by Bellamy when referring to the judgement in Hempenstall v Minister of the Environment.

Property rights arising in licences created by law (enacted or delegated) are subject to the conditions created by law and to an implied condition that the law may change those conditions.

In other words, "the artificial private value" that licenses attain because of legislation or authoritative decisions can just as easily be removed by the same process.

To some of us it seems you still have your head buried in the sand. Bellamy very eloquently pointed out that a Hackney carriage license is not a possession under ECHR and that it only has a value in restricted authorities because a council has a policy of restricting them.

It might help you get over it if you repeat after me,

"My licence has a scarcity value and nothing more" "my licence has a scarcity value and nothing more" "my licence has a scarcity value and nothing more" "my licence has a scarcity value and nothing more" "my licence has a scarcity value and nothing more" "my licence has a scarcity value and nothing more".

Repeat that long enough and it just might sink in how vulnerable you are.

In respect of a Judge ordering the selling of a plate as a business Asset I would just like to say, it is hard to comment on a case that I or anybody else including you, knows very little about. I'm surprised your local rag Taxitalk didn't write an article about it, or did they?

JD

I suspect they followed the Taxi press line and blanked any story with plate values in.

All that aside, if I've got it right, the Bellamy judgement (which was upheld in the higher court) was after the mess made in Liverpool.

Thus Bellamy is current law.

_________________
IDFIMH