For all those drivers that have been asked to present insured vehicles before an application will be determined, or for those drivers that have been asked to pay hundreds of pounds before an application has been determined, then parts of this judgement might help.
If anyone reprints this, could they be kind enough to acknowledge where they got it from. It took someone (not me) ages to type.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN :
CANNOCK CHASE DISTRICT COUNCIL
APPELLANT
-AND-
NEILL ALLDRITT
RESPONDENT
Case stated by the Crown Court at Stafford in respect of its adjudication on an appeal by Mr. Neill Alldritt against the withholding from him by Cannock Chase District Council (hereinafter “the District Council”) of hackney carriage licences.
Case
We heard Mr Alldritt’s appeal on the 23rd March 1992.
Jurisdiction of the Crown Court
1. Lies under s.7 of the Public Health Acts Amendments Act 1890, as amended allowing “any person aggrieved…by the withholding of any….licence…by a local authority under this Act” to appeal to this Court. That includes by reason of s.171 of the Public Health Act 1875 and a. 2(3) of the Public Health Act Amendments Act 1890 withholding of licences for which an application has been made under s.37 of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 which in turn has been amended by s.16 of the Transport Act 1985.
2. As was expressly stated to the Court on the District Councils behalf, we find that the Jurisdiction of the Crown Court on this appeal goes to the full merits of the Council’s decision to withhold licences, so that this Court was entitled to substitute its decision for that of the District Council.
The Issue before the Crown Court in this appeal:
3. Were the Hackney Carriage Licences for which Mr. Alldritt applied properly withheld by the District Council?
The Applicable Law
4-(1) We held that the applicable law was as follows:-
The District Council were the Commissioners for the purposes of the granting of hackney carriage licences to Mr. Alldritt under s.37 of the Town and Police Clauses Act1847 as amended by s.16 of the Transport Act 1985 which sharply changed the pre-existing law. Prior to the 1985 Act the Commissioners, in this case the District Council had unfettered discretion, doubtless to be exercised reasonably, but unfettered beyond that by the express terms of s.37: “That the grant of a licence may be refused for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted if but only if the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.”
The District Council’s decision to withhold licences from Mr. Alldritt was for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted in the District Council’s area. Accordingly the discretion to be exercised by the District Council in respect of
Mr. Alldritt’s application was defined by the terms of s.16 of the 1985 Act. We construed those terms as meaning this: the District Council cannot pay attention to demand for hackney carriage services outside the area to which the licence would apply but significant demand for such services that is not being met within any part of that area suffices to disallow the District Council from refusing a licence for the purpose of limiting the number of licenced hackney carriages. We rejected the construction contended before us on behalf of the District Council that there would have to be a significant demand for such services that is unmet throughout the area to which the licence would apply before the District Council would be disallowed from refusing a licence as being inconsistent with the wording of s.16 of the 1985 Act.
4(2) No authorities were cited to the Court.
5. We made the following finding’s:-
(a) The District Council covers the area of 3 separate towns: Cannock Hednesford and Rugeley. They are separated by stretches of country.
(b) The history of Mr. Alldritt’s dealings with the District Council as regards hackney carriage licences so far as material was as follows. Mr. Alldritt was acting on his own behalf without professional assistance.
(c) Prior to 1/4/90 Mr. Alldritt ran a business consisting in part of hackney carriage licenced vehicles and in part of vehicles for Private Hire. The latter were 4 FX4 (London taxi type) vehicles. From 1/4/90 Mr. Alldritt was disallowed by the District Council from using the 4 FX4 vehicles for private Hire. Mr. Alldritt was notified of that on 23/3/90.
(d) On 26/3/90 by 2 letters Mr. Alldritt applied for 6 hackney carriage licences in respect of 4 vehicles to operate from a rank at Wellington Drive, Rugeley and 2 vehicles to operate from a rank at Bees Lane Rugeley. These ranks are at opposite sides of Rugeley.
(e) By letter dated 2/4/90 the District Council informed Mr. Alldritt that no further licences would be granted but that his letters would be submitted to the Amenities Committee on 7/6/90.
(f) On 19/10/90 Mr. Alldritt received a letter from the District Council stating that, having received a survey, the Council were satisfied that there was no significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages in the district covered by the District Council and no additional hackney carriage vehicle licences would be issued. The said survey was a report prepared by the Public Administration Research Centre at Bolton (the PARC Report) a private research organisation and was dated September 1990.
(g) By letter dated 1/11/90 Mr. Alldritt told the District Council that he would appeal their decision that no additional hackney carriage licences would be issued.
(h) By reply dated 16/11/90 the District Council informed Mr. Alldritt that he could appeal to a Magistrates Court but added that such an appeal could only be made against a refusal of an application for a licence suggesting to Mr. Alldritt that he had not yet made any such application.
(i) On 22/1/91 Mr. Alldritt wrote asking for a copy of the survey relied upon by the Council (see (f) above). On 30/1/91 the District Council replied refusing that request.
(j) Mr. Alldritt then telephoned voicing his concern as to the Council’s view that he had not yet made a valid application for a licence and asking how to appeal.
(k) He received the following reply dated 4/4/91 from a Mr. A. Earnshaw, acting Chief Executive and Clerk to the District Council. “Hackney Carriage Licences”
I refer to your recent enquiry about how to appeal against the Council’s decision that no additional hackney carriages licences should be issued at present. The Council made the decision based upon the results of a survey which revealed that there was no unmet demand for hackney carriages within their area, and I have to say it is not for me to advise you about how to challenge that decision. As stated in my previous letter to you dated 16th November 1990, an appeal against a decision by the Council to refuse a licence should be made tom the Magistrates Court. If you wish to apply for a hackney carriage proprietor’s licence, then you should do so in the normal way and your application will be dealt with in accordance with the usual procedure. If your application were to be refused, then you would have the right to appeal against that refusal to the Magistrates Court.
(l) Mr. Earnshaws reference to an application being made “in the normal way” was a reference to a document in standard form made by the District Council, it is headed
Cannock Chase District Council
Application For Licence in Respect
Of Hackney Carriage Vehicle.
And then refers to “the appropriate provisions of the Town and Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976” the document requires the applicant to provide at the time he makes the application details of the insurance on the vehicle in respect of which he applies for a licence. It require the name of the Insurance company. It requires an answer to the question “Are all third party and passenger risks covered” It requires the period of the policy, It adds this at the end of the document:-
This application must be accompanied by the following:
1. Registration Document for the vehicle
2. A valid insurance certificate;
3. A fee.
So the document makes it a condition of application for a hackney carriage licence that the vehicle in question should have insurance supported by an insurance certificate valid at the time of application.
(m) On the 25.4.91 Mr. Alldritt submitted applications on the said document for 2 of his FX4 vehicles. He had reduced his application from 6 to 2 because, at the stage of not knowing whether he would get licences or not he could only afford to insure 2 such vehicles the insurance for which is expensive. He had been forced to take out that insurance by the terms of the application for licences insisted upon by the District Council before knowing whether any licence would be granted.
(n) On 13/5/91 Mr. Alldritt received a recorded delivery letter inviting him to a meeting of the District Council’s Amenities Committee on the 6/6/91. On the 14/5/91 he received another recorded delivery letter saying that his application would not now be dealt with on the 6/6/91. However he then received a further recorded delivery letter dated 15/5/91 from Mr. Earnshaw in the following terms:
Hackney Carriage Proprietors Licences
With reference to your telephone conversation of today, 15/5/91, I am sorry if you have been confused by the contents of my letters to you.
To clarify the position your application for two hackney carriage proprietors licences will be drawn to the attention of the Amenities Committee on 6/6/91. If the Committee are minded to refuse your applications having regard to the Councils policy, no decision will be made on your applications on this date. Should this happen I will take instruction with a view to you being given an opportunity to present your case personally at a later date.
On the other hand if the Committee decide to grant you’re applications on 6/6/91 the licence will be issued to you in the normal way.
(o) Mr. Alldritt then received from the District Council a letter dated 24/6/91 deferring consideration of his application until a meeting of the Amenities Committee on 1/8/91. The Amenities Committee decided on 1/8/91 that on the basis of the survey of 1990 it was minded to refuse the application, but it resolved that Mr. Alldritt should be allowed to present his case to the Committee and that he should have a copy of the survey previously refused him. (See (F) and (i) above).
(p) On 26/9/91 Mr. Alldritt attended a meeting of the Amenities Committee and presented a petition which was also presented to the Court. The petition bears seven hundred names and addresses on several sheets at the top of which there is this statement:
“We, the undersigned, request that Cannock Chase District Council grant the necessary licensing to allow Maple Taxis, N. Alldritt, to operate FX4 London Taxis from the stand in Wellington Drive for the benefit of people with shopping, prams and wheelchairs”
We find, and it was not contended otherwise, that the petition is genuine.
(q) At that meeting of its Amenities Committee on 26/9/91 the District Council decided that Mr. Alldritt’s application for licences would be refused.
(r) The sole matter taken into account by the District Council in their decision was, we were informed on the District Council’s behalf and so find, the PARC report. The District Council attached no weight to the petition presented by Mr. Alldritt. As to the PARC report our findings are as follows:
1) The author of the PARC report was Mr Robson who gave evidence before us.
2) As to the contents of the PARC report we find as follows:
3) The report relies on three separate sources of information: Detailed Observation of the Activity at the Taxi ranks in Cannock, Hednesford, Rugeley; A telephone survey; the monitoring of the work of individual taxi drivers through daily log sheets.
(s) As to the detailed observation by PARC at the taxi ranks in Cannock, Hednesford and Rugeley, we find that these ranks are several miles apart and that the only taxi rank observed for the PARC report in Rugeley was the one at Bees Lane, Rugeley and that the PARC report makes clear that the Rugeley taxi rank is well below in performance of its taxi services, either of the other two towns; below in the length of its queues which are much longer than elsewhere; below in the number of people who, having got fed up with waiting leave the queue; below in the percentage obtaining a taxi service within five minutes. We accepted as an accurate statement of fact that the PARC reports own conclusion that; passengers can face longer individual delays than elsewhere. This is a known fact perhaps. Consequently people are disinclined to wait at Rugeley as they would at Cannock and Hednesford, and will renege, that is leave, the rank queue in greater numbers than from the other two ranks. This suggests that there is a public knowledge concerning the under performance of the hackney fleet which serves the Rugeley rank.
(t) As to the telephone survey we find that 425 residents were telephoned and 297 responded in the area covered by the District Council in which there are in excess of 31,000 households. We find that the telephone survey yielded no reliable information.
(u) As to the monitering of the work of individual taxi drivers we accept the PARC reports own conclusion that; “ The number of logs involved were to few for any reliable conclusions to be drawn concerning the overall operation of the taxi services.”
(v) Mr. Robson had no knowledge of the existence of the Wellington Drive taxi rank in Rugeley and it was not taken into account in framing the PARC report.
6. We concluded that:
a) there was at all material times significant demand for the services of hackney carriages in the town of Rugeley, which is within the area to which licences would apply, that is unmet and therefore that the District Council was not entitled to refuse grant of licences to Mr Alldritt for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted;
b) That Mr Alldritt applications for six licences in his letters of 23/3/90 were valid applications which the District Council was under a duty to consider.
c) That in the light of our conclusion in (a) the Council was not entitled to refuse grant of those six licences;
d) That Mr. Earnshaw on the District Council’s behalf was wrong in law in telling Mr. Alldritt by his letter of 4/4/91 (Referring to his letter of 16/10/90) that Mr. Alldritt must apply for licences on the District Council’s form of application. That was wrong in law because the Councils form of application imposed unlawful conditions in that it requires as a condition for applying for a licence for a vehicle the presentation of a certificate of insurance in respect of the vehicle it is sought to licence that is valid at the time of making the application. Such a condition is onerous and is not reasonably necessary and is liable for no good reason to discourage applications for licences. It is inconsistent with the policy of section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 and with the plain implication of section 47 (1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which permits a District Council to attach to the Grant of a licence of hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as a District Council may consider reasonably necessary. By necessary implication a District Council is not permitted to attach conditions to an application for licences or at any rate not permitted to attach unreasonable conditions to such an application;
e) That Mr. Earnshaw on the District Council’s behalf was also wrong in law in informing Mr. Alldritt that appeal from a refusal to grant a licence lay to the Magistrates Court. No such appeal was in fact available to Mr. Alldritt acting on the advice he had received from the District Council he issued a summons dated 11/10/91 returnable to Rugeley Magistrates Court on 22/11/91 by way of his appeal against the decision of the District Council. At some time after that Mr. Alldritt discovered that he in fact had no right of appeal to the Magistrates Court but would need to appeal to this Court accordingly Mr Alldritt made his appeal to the Crown Court by letter dated 6/2/92 in the course of that letter he wrote;
“I wish to appeal against the CCDC decision not to grant me hackney carriage licences on the grounds that they have not given due consideration to the Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Transport Act and has not considered the people of Rugeley or myself or my drivers. I also feel that they have misinterpreted a survey commissioned by themselves into hackney carriages in the district and failed to react in any way to comparisons between Corby and Cannock Chase drawn by myself and also failed to respond to a petition of Rugeley people with regard to this survey.”
That letter of appeal was dated 6/2/92. It has been agreed that no point would be taken by the District Council in relation to the delay in putting the appeal into the correct form.
f) On our findings and conclusions above we treated this appeal as being in respect of the applications for six licences made by letters dated 26/4/90. accordingly our decision was that six hackney carriage licences ought to be issued to Mr. Alldritt by the District Council together with £50.00 in cost offered by the District Council and accepted by Mr. Alldritt.
Questions
The questions for the opinion of the High Court are;
1) Was the Crown Court correct in holding as unlawful the condition imposed by the District Council; that an applicant for a hackney carriage licence must present, with his application, a certificate of insurance in respect of the vehicle it is sought to licence that is valid at the time of making the application?
2) What is the proper construction of section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act as amended by section 16 of The Transport Act 1985? Is it as the Crown Court held, that the District Council cannot pay attention to demand for hackney carriage services outside the area to which the licence would apply but significant demand for such services that is not being met within any part of that area suffices to disallow the District Council from refusing a licence for the purpose of limiting the number of licenced hackney carriages. Or is it, as the District Council contended that there would have to be a significant demand for such services that is unmet throughout the area to which the licence would apply before the District Council would be disallowed from refusing a licence? Or is it to be construed in some other way?
Login
Register
FAQ
