Taxi Driver Online

well i wont beat myself up to much about not having the money to go to court or that i did not know the law after all quite a few sherifs and a sherif principle did not know the law as the lords have clearly shown by the decision they handed down. How could i be expected to know the law when sherifs and sherif principles clearly do not. i do not blame the court for my not being able to afford to go to court but that is different from you calling it inaction it is not the same thing. But i do blame the court for employing sherifs and a sherif principle who do not know the law and i also blame the system that allows this to happen and does not allow me to go back with the new knowledge i have thanks to the lords and force the sherif to change his decsion to one that can be supported in law as per the lords ruling. What is so wrong with that?

You may be right JD about asking a lawyer if there is any way open for me i suppose it has to be worth a shot thank you.

Authority knew its action were wrong: Jim Taylor

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lette ... =509392007


Keep the pressure on whatever you do Stillhoping

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

Defo don't beat yourself up. As you said you didn't know the law and the way the council behaved to you and your colleagues was an utter disgrace.

But thankfully for some the higher courts did know the law, but alas not for you this time.

_________________
IDFIMH

You have no legal grounds for pursuing the matter perhaps. But I contend you have a strong moral case here.

Given that the council is now under pressure with other applications it has refused, and then there's the IPL, any representations you make may just give it another moral dilemma and help the total case for de-restriction.

Here's what I have just sent to the council solicitor.

FAO Gill Lindsay
Council Solicitor
City of Edinburgh Council

2nd April 2007

Dear Mr Lindsay

As you will no doubt be aware, in accordance with the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, it is incumbent on the Council to apply the Law correctly, to base its decisions on sound material fact, exercise its discretion in a reasonable manner and do so in accordance with natural justice.

In the cases of the applications which were the subject of the Council's long drawn out appeal process it is clear from the decision delivered by Lord Johnston in the Court of Session that the Council has breached the terms and spirit of the Act and failed in its statutory duty.

However, in addition, the ruling also highlights the Council's failure in respect of those applications which were refused or the applicants were "invited" to withdraw.

In response to Lord Johnston's question as to why the Council had voluntarily sought to delay consideration of the applications rather than simply deny them outright, the Council's counsel - QC Armstrong, advised the Court that the Council would then have "fallen foul of Coyle". This reveals that the Council knew of the Coyle decision, yet sought to ignore it.

In the cases which were formally refused, each of these applications was made prior to the availability of any demand information resulting from the Jacob survey, which Cllr Wigglesworth has gone on record to say was "flawed". According to the Coyle decision therefore, the Council has failed in each of its legal imperatives outlined above.

The moral and legal imperative here now is that these licence applications be recalled and reconsidered in accordance with Coyle, based only on the precise information available at the time they were made.

In the cases where applicants were "invited" to withdraw, and receive a refund of a portion of their application fee, it was suggested that the Council's policy, then recently affirmed, was to restrict the number of licences to the current 1260 based on Jacob's survey, which purported that there was no current significant unmet demand for more taxis.

The clear inference here is that the Council had pre-determined each of these applications, once again breaching each of its legal imperatives outlined above. The moral, and legal imperative now is for these licence applications to be recalled and properly considered, according to the terms laid down in the Act, and based only on information available at the time their application was lodged.

In the case of my own pending application I am concerned that the Council's concerted disregard for the Coyle decision will prejudice my case. Having requested demand information and received no intimation of any, I applied for my licence on 27th November 2006.

In his report to the Regulatory Committee in February, the Corporate Services Director recommended the application be held over for consideration by the RC until April, when up to date information "will be available". Clearly therefore, no such information existed when I applied and, according to the Coyle decision, any subsequent information is irrelevant to my application.

My concern all along is that the Council's strategy has continually failed to take account of the Coyle decision and has voluntarily embarked on a policy to circumvent the terms of the Act in order to deny licences illegally.


Was the decision to adopt this strategy borne out of the advice of QC Armstrong and his instructing solicitors? Or was QC Armstrong simply responding to instructions given him by Council officials?

If so, given the strength of the opinion delivered by Lord Johnston, how can the Council justify its actions in these matters, particularly when it received clear messages about them throughout the process from Sheriffs Liddle and Horsburgh, and Sheriff Principal Bowen, all of whose decisions to refuse the extension have been confirmed in the Court of Session?

Why did the Council not see the warning signals being given and heed them? Why has the Council, in its stoic defence of its restriction policy, continually failed to take account of Coyle in its actions on taxi licensing?

Mr Lindsay, isn't the moral imperative now to redress these matters by recalling these applications and proceeding with them in accordance with the Council's legal imperatives as required in the Act?

Yours sincerely

You have taken the words right out of my mouth Jasbar. Seriously the points you make are what i wanted to say but could not. i do not hold out much hope for myself by relying on the councils morals but i do think thats the only road available to me. The whole thing still stinks and they are getting away with it but that is what they wanted all along.

Indeed it does stink, but if the likes of Mr Taylor and Mr Skull carry on as they are, then there is a chance that the council will get to the stage were they say f*** it and lets open it up.

The drip drip effect has worked many times before, and it will work again somewhere. Let's hope it's in your manor.

_________________
IDFIMH

The Council are already there.

Word on the grapevine is the council can no longer sustain their position of restricting plates without making matters worse - inviting further legal challenges and higher plate premiums. Some off the IPL have already made an appearance at cooncil HQ screaming about their plates.

A period of derestriction has been talked about but so far not decided upon.

It will be interesting to see if they pull the plug in-line with issuing the plates won through the courts. I don't think they want anyone cashing in before the fall.

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

Do you agree JD that whilst the Lawlords came to the same conclusions as the sheriff principal, they did so for different reasons and did, in fact comment on the errors made by the sheriff principal?
"In our opinion, therefore, the sheriff principal approached the matter on the wrong basis. He did not address the issue of good reason and we therefore are unable to accept his approach. That being so the issue of "good reason" is now before us for consideration."

What the Lords reminded "EVERYONE" is this.

That above everything else the very first thing that should be considered when a council applies for an extension of time is "good reason". And basically, that is all that needs to be considered. The Lords highlighted the fact that the Sheriff Principal didn't base his ruling on the simple understanding of "good reason". The court alluded to the fact that all the Sheriff need do is consider the factor of "good reason" and nothing else.

After all, I have always stated that the law is clear and unambiguous in what is required and thankfully the Law Lords have now stated as such.

The bottom line is this, under the terms of the 1982 Civic Government Scotland act, the Lords have ruled that awaiting a survey report is not a "good reason" to delay the consideration of a license application. Second, that when applying for an extension of time it is up to the applicant to convince a Sheriff that their application is based on "Good Reasons". The court for obvious reasons declined to offer an opinion of what amounted to a good reason, which in my opinion was the right thing to do.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Grasping at straws are we?

John T do yourself a favour, face the inevitable and stop being so pathetic.

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

Pedantic point, but is that the correct way to refer to a judgement by the Court of Session?

When I see a reference to the Law Lords then I assume that's referring to a House of Lords judgement.

The reference may be correct (I know a bit more about English law than Scots law) but somehow I'm not so sure?

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

Pedantic? yes!
Given the appeal was before 3 Lords (Lord Johnston, Lord Clarke and Lord Penrose) the reference was to them. Seems you're less picky with your mates.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

But that wasn't my point - it wasn't about who heard the case but whether it's good protocol to refer to their Lordships in the Court of Session as the law lords since to me this conjures up visions of the House of Lords.

As regards your latter point, it's very nice to meet you as well

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

Does the ruling mean that internal Council surveys are inadequate methods of measuring demand that is unmet ?

Further, if so does that mean that some other type of survey would have to be commissioned prior to licensing committees hearing applications ?

_________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_around_the_world