Taxi Driver Online

DRIVERS HIT BACK OVER COURT DATE

Cabbies in Bath have hit out at private hire drivers taking the council to court for withholding licences. The group of drivers is taking Bath and North East Somerset Council to court after the authority delayed making a decision on applications for hackney carriage licences.

The row erupted after 14 private hire drivers each handed over £307 to the council in March, expecting to get a hackney licence allowing them to be hailed in the street in return. They had followed 17 others, who had applied successfully in February after the council abandoned its cap of 89 on the number of hackney licences.

But although B &NES cashed their cheques, it delayed a decision on their applications until September because an investigation into the level of demand for taxis is now being carried out. Nine of the drivers contacted the national industry body, the Taxi and Private Hire Association, to launch an appeal against the decision and a hearing is due to take place at Bristol Crown Court tomorrow.

However, independent hackney carriage driver Ken Taylor, a member of the Bath Spa Taxi Association (BSTA) committee, said they had put pressure on the council to carry out a supply and demand survey. Mr Taylor said: "We all agreed that we will stand by the results of the survey.

"Let that be the decision maker, not some court in Bristol that has no history or very little knowledge of the trade. "Yes, the council was wrong to cash the cheques before any decision was made - the money should have been refunded and the applications put on hold until the survey results were in."

Glen Harrington, secretary of BSTA, added: "There is a shortage of rank space for the existing hackneys. "Also, the increase in pollution needs to be taken into account with all the extra taxis driving round for non-existent rank space."

The Taxi and Private Hire Association is taking the court action under the Public Health Acts Amendments Act of 1907, which allows any person aggrieved by the withholding of a licence to appeal to the Crown court.

Brian Hemmings, who is one of the group appealing, criticised the council for not telling drivers more in February. Mr Hemmings, who has worked as a taxi driver for 16 years, said: "When the council initially gave out these extra licences, you would think they would have gone to some of the drivers that had been licensed for many years to see whether they would have benefited from a licence plate."

But Andrew Jones, licensing manager at B &NES, said it was not common practice to inform everyone when the council received other applications.
And he said an independent firm of consultants had been employed to evaluate the taxi service in the Bath and north east Somerset area. Mr Jones said: "It is our intention to defend the appeal."

_________________
IDFIMH

The only reason they put pressure on the council to survey was because without one the council would have de-limited.

Not the most gracious of offers methinks.

_________________
IDFIMH

The courts don't need to know about Bath, all they need to know about is the law.

Maybe they could give Bath council a few hints.

_________________
IDFIMH

Very T&G-ish - the survey would just mean Bath council complying with the law, yet the BSTA makes it look as if they are giving something away.

And he'll know that surveys rarely do anything else but endorse the status quo.

A bit better than Halton though

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

ANGRY TAXI DRIVERS GO TO COURT OVER LICENCE ROW

Taxi drivers who are furious at a decision by Bath and North East Somerset Council to "withhold" their hackney carriage licences while a survey of their service is carried out took their case to court yesterday. The court heard that the nine men were frustrated they had been told by the council they would have to wait until September before they would find out whether they would receive their licences.

The council has deferred issuing licences until the results of a survey into the demand for taxis in Bath is completed.

Yesterday the drivers agreed to their appeal being adjourned until the review was completed. But they warned they could be back at the court if they were not satisfied with the decisions made by the council following the review.

The appellants include John O'Neill, of Broadmoor Lane, Geoff Seymour, of Lansdown View, Aaron Isaac, of Old Fosse Road and Paul Smith, of Fairfield Avenue, Fairfield Park. Their fellow appellants are Brian Hemmings, of College Road, Trowbridge, Vivian Stokes, of Gloucester Road, Trowbridge, Walter Wood, of Cleveland Gardens, Trowbridge, Gary Sharpe, of Clifton Close, Chippenham, and Douglas Johnson, of Lowbourne, Melksham.

Explaining the case, Allan Fuller, prosecuting, said: "The appellants are appealing against a decision from B &NES on the granting of hackney carriage proprietors' licences. The council has deferred the decision, which is said to amount to a withholding. It's agreed that the best way forward is to allow a survey that was instigated some months ago, and should be completed within a month, to take place.

"Consideration will take place in September. After that, any further grievances can be aired in this court, or in the event that the parties are happy, it could be dealt with administratively."

Judge Simon Darwall-Smith said: "If and when the survey is done in September, presumably those applications can be considered in the normal way by the licensing committee."

The judge heard that the council's executive would decide if there was a need for the taxis. Mr Fuller said the men were all first in line for consideration. He said: "It may be that the outcome of the survey is favourable. If not we can resurrect proceedings."

Prior to yesterday's court hearing, the taxi drivers had said they were angry because in March they had each paid £307 to the council for a licence. The claimed the council was holding on to the money without giving them licences.

_________________
IDFIMH

This case follows the classic example of current case law, which in England and Wales allows a council to defer applicants for a short period of time. The only difference in this case seems to be that the council has taken money from the applicants who in turn must have had an expectation of being granted a license. Whether or not these applicants were promised a license I don't know but if they had and they have it in writing then the council may be on a sticky wicket.

If as I assume the council did not offer licenses to these applicants then if the survey shows no unmet demand (and the way surveys are manipulated I assume it will), then the council need not issue any new licenses.

I'm afraid that is the law as it stands until such time it is changed.

Regards

JD