Taxi Driver Online

I think your wide of the mark or getting the wrong end of the stick.

In so far as I am aware, the LA based their decision on;

(Revised) Code of Practice - Rights of Access: services to the public, public authority functions, private clubs and premises

The rank in question has a designated loading area for wheelchairs.

Whatever the rights or wrongs it would appear Mr McCullough managed to put a doubt in their minds.

I think your wide of the mark or getting the wrong end of the stick.

In so far as I am aware, the LA based their decision on;

(Revised) Code of Practice - Rights of Access: services to the public, public authority functions, private clubs and premises

The rank in question has a designated loading area for wheelchairs.

Whatever the rights or wrongs it would appear Mr McCullough managed to put a doubt in their minds.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you fail to understand the Castle Point Judgment, however I'm pretty certain that your failure to understand the judgment is down to your inability or refusal to believe or accept the ruling as fact simply because it suits your purpose not to.

This so called "non decision" you refer to was handed down by the second highest court in the land and your observations in stating, that "in your own view" the Judges comments were "hypothetical", are utter nonsense.

Maud asked the court to quash the council decision of 25 June 2001, which was to abandon their previously adopted policy of quantity controls. And, in principle and subject to their criteria in respect of suitability, issue such licences without restriction of number.

The Claimant Maud argued that in each of "two" respects the decision was founded upon irrelevant considerations.

***"His third argument"*** "is of a fall-back character:" "he contends that the Defendants failed to appreciate that they were entitled to make the grant of any additional licences subject to a particular condition."

Do you understand that Maud Challenged the council decision on three grounds? And do you also understand what it means by his third argument?

Just in case you don't, I'll explain it to you.

Maud's third ground of appeal asked the court to rule on the legality of the lawfulness or otherwise of a condition being attached to a hackney carriage licence preventing the taxi from plying for hire in part of the authority's district, under section 47.1 of the LGMPA. Now in the court of Appeal that third ground was placed at the forefront of the APPLICATION.

I take it you understand what forefront means? It means it was the main plank of his appeal and the reason it was his main plank of appeal is because Maud's Counsel new that the other two grounds had no standing in law.

Therefore it is of no surprise that 90% of the appeal was taken up in considering this pivotal ground of appeal on whether or not a council could apply a condition that excluded certain licensed hackney carriage vehicles from plying for hire anywhere in the licensed area? Under section 47.1 of the LGMPA

And what did the Three Lord Justices state?

LORD JUSTICE KEENE

In my view a condition preventing a taxi from plying for hire from a particular taxi stand or stands, or in a particular street or streets, would fall outside the scope of the powers granted by Parliament. Despite Mr Wolfe's attractive submissions, I conclude that the authority was right to adopt the advice it had been given by counsel on this particular point.

29. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: I agree. I have nothing I wish to add.
30. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I also agree.

Therefore the third ground was presented by the appelent and the court administered their judgment in full. There was no hypothetical question and no hypothetical answer, it was a registered ground of appeal which the court ruled upon and found unlawful.

On a seperate note, your reference to Red Cab Taxis just proves how detached from the reality of this issue, you really are.

I needn't say anymore.

Regards

JD

Which part of the stick is it that you just don't understand



Correct me if I'm wrong, but we've know for years that the DDA provisions don't apply to taxi accesability, and that the DfT are formulating provisions that will take effect in the future (if at all), thus I can't really see the LEGAL relevance of the DDA.

And even if it was relevant, then what about the other ranks in Carlisle, not to mention the continued existence of saloon taxis in Carlise, not to mention hundreds of other LAs, not to mention the entire PH trade?





So if a rank doesn't have it then that breaches the DDA, using your logic?



Well that was perhaps my point - it wasn't about the rights and wrongs; the committee is duty bound to apply the law as it is, not as they think it should be.

There are arguments about the rights and wrongs of Carlisle's policy (and, as I said in the past, it does have some merit) and of wheelchair accessability more generally, but what we're talking about here is the letter of the law, and the rights and wrongs of complying with that.

Now we have JD being judge, jury and executioner....based upon a hypothetical. To me the red cabs case has more relevance....but seeing as I will be passing forward the judgement and you are allegedly not involved we'll see who's right Graham.

I think your incorrect and i'm not talking about taxi regulations more a LA's duty.

As I seem to have stated on countless occassions, I have more saloon cars then WAV's to be honest I dont really give a f*ck what they do.

Which duty would that be then? Moral duty? Legal duty? The point is that ultimately,it's the law that counts and the council's duty thereto, it's not what the council considers desirable that's paramount.

How many times has a council tried to do things that it considers morally desirable but they know that it's outwith the law, or they go ahead and are subsequently brought to book in court?