Taxi Driver Online

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

Note that since there seem to be a plethora of Edinburgh threads around at the moment, an attempt was made to shift this post to one of the existing threads rather than start a new one.

Unfortunately this attempt went awry and thus it might have been better to leave the post where it was.

Apologies to Mike

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

So why is it Mr Skull's fault?

Did he twist your arm, or was it a case of you thinking you might have missed out?

You should be backing up the likes of Mr Skull, instead of sniping. Else you have no-chance of getting what you want.

But you already know that, don't you?

_________________
IDFIMH

Why start a new Edinburgh thread?

Surely if you have got to talk about the on-going situation up there, then one of the dozen or so threads should fit the bill, shouldn't it?

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I punted my £700 on an application too.

The council are in the process of obtaining an extension to the six month period in my case too.

Thats where the similarity ends.

I made myself aware of all the parameters and possible outcomes, and having done so I made my application.

Nobody twisted my arm, and if I lose this time then I do so having gone into the whole process with my eyes open.

And for the record, I never even met the ubiquitous Mr Skull until months after my application was lodged.

If you were not in full command of the facts prior to the submission of your application then that is a matter for you, no-one else.

Whatever the rights and wrongsof all this, £700 is a ridiculous sum to ask for an application, and seems more about CEC and the law deterrring people from applying.

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

I agree, £700 does seem high enough to be thought of as a deterrent measure.

When, and if, my application is finally refused I shall move on to pursuing the refund of my £700 as I personally don't believe they have the right to keep it (specifically based on my own case, although I believe others will probably be the same).

I think that's a wise decision, and maybe it could be pursued via the Local Gov Ombudsman.

Especially as councils aren't there to make profits, just cover their costs. So they will be able to show applicants exactly how that £700 has been spent.

Why doesn't someone ask them via a Freedom of Information request?

_________________
IDFIMH

Couple of things.

The £700 is tax deductable. And, are you meekly going to accept the council retaining the full fee in the event your application is refused.

The £700 figure - which the council has never justified, it merely being an arbitrary figure - is allegedly the amount required to rocess a full successful application. This would include all the administration associated with the new licence. Plates. Initial testing of the vehicle. Operators paperwork. vehicle paperwork. None of this would happen in the event of rejection of the application. So why should the council be allowed to retain this portion of the "application" fee which doesn't apply. (It's worth bearing in mind that those who are on the "interested parties" list only submitted £200 with their application. And, have those who have had their applications rejected been placed on this list?

The licences are only rejected because the council has "proven" no significant unmet demand via the jacob report. A report so fundamentally flawed as not to prove the council's position. Are you, and the others involved, going to allow this to go unchallenged.

200 guys wanting their own plate (and there's already around 100 at the airport) each paying a paltry 100 bucks, would allow a serious challenge to the Jacob report in a judicial review/licence application appeal in the Sheriff Court.

Why not?

Sure. But the original figure was £1000. It was reviewed downward when the council raided the licensing budget only to be told that licensing revenue can only be spent on licensing matters. They disbursed some of the restored surplus budget by reducing various licensing fees.

This proves that the £700 fee was merely plucked out of the air as being what they thought they could get away with and, as you say TDO, would offer a deterrent.

Isn't this tiresome? Why should we have to play games like this with officials who are supposed to be elected by us to be on our side. Yet, the reality is that the "stewards de bar" are really at war with us?

really how so
if youre six months is nearly up and they have the up to date info I:E jacobs then they have no real reason to apply to the sherrifs do they ??

certainly not under 10.3 10.4 of the act anyway

Ali T asks why CEC need to go to court if they have Jacobs and the six month period is about to expire ??

Well, come in the " hold it " car !!!!!

Erm, could it be because by the time the CEC arrange meetings to deliver their verdict to the applicants, the statutory 6 month period would have expired and those applicants would be entitled to a plate by default ??

Do try to keep up !!

Sorry put this in the wrong topic



People like you are a disease Mike, if a couple of hundred drivers had got together and had taken on the council for a nominal fee and challenged the Jacob's Report or the system, the council would buckle for sure. The problem is people like you who try and freeload on a situation and then spit out the dummy when it doesn't work out.

Think about this, 200 drivers as a group apply for one licence plate £700 then contribute £100 each to a fighting fund. You could drag the council in and out of court almost indefinitely for a £100 a pop. The Council wouldn't fight under such overwhelming opposition. You could even commission your own report to challenge Jacob with the correct criteria.

Why don't you go out and pay £45,000 for a plate Mike but let me know who you really are so I can watch when de-restriction comes.

We are still in the fight Mike, we haven't give up like some. Read the passage below you might learn something from it. Then again I doubt it.


It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

I new a guy at school just like you Mike, funnily enough his name was Micheal Hay. No one liked the little [edited by admin] because he laughed at his own jokes more than anyone else. A striking resemblance even though I do say so myself. Your second name wouldn't be Hay would it?

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"