| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Inresting from PHM+taxi for those who have not seen it. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6793 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | juls [ Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Inresting from PHM+taxi for those who have not seen it. |
Has anyone read the phm +taxi issue 179 ref milton keynes case. Bascially saying it seems that the council must prove a demand for wav's ???? |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inresting from PHM+taxi for those who have not seen it. |
juls wrote: Has anyone read the phm +taxi issue 179 ref milton keynes case.
Bascially saying it seems that the council must prove a demand for wav's ???? So have they been acting illegally? |
|
| Author: | gusmac [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: In a landmark judgement given by Deputy District Judge B Dhaliwal in Milton Keynes Magistrates’ Court on 12 July, 71 Appellants who held hackney carriage licences prior to delimitation in Milton Keynes have retained the right to keep and renew their existing licences for saloon and MPV hackney carriages, as well as the right to provide rear loading wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Milton Keynes Council had set out conditions of licence for hackney carriage licence holder in such a way that the 78 original licence holders who were licensed prior to delimitation (which took place in March 2002) had to change to non-rear loading, M1 Whole European Approval wheelchair accessible vehicles by the 1st April 2007, or they would lose their existing licences. A total of 71 of the 78 licence holders instructed the National Association to appeal the decision, and that appeal was heard last month. Evidence presented by both the Appellants and the Respondents included the Department for Transport Best Practice Guidance, the EU Ministers’ document “Improving Access to Taxis” produced by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, and the Draft document entitled “Disability Discrimination and Transport: A Practical Guide for Taxi and Private Hire Services” produced by the Disability Rights Commission, all of which have set out the benefits of a mixed hackney carriage fleet - for both able bodied and disabled passengers. Evidence was also given in the Magistrates’ Court by several disabled persons, who explained their reasons why they were unable to use the wheelchair accessible vehicles as required by the council. They maintained that if the council had consulted with disabled groups prior to taking their decisions, they would have arrived at a different outcome. The Deputy District Judge, in making her judgement, considered two major factors: the amount of consultation undertaken by a local authority in imposing these types of vehicle licensing conditions; and the ability of that local authority to show a demonstrable need for a 100 per cent wheelchair accessible hackney fleet. In her judgement, she found no evidence to substantiate that either of these factors had been proven on the part of Milton Keynes Council; therefore she decreed that the conditions were not reasonably necessary. What this means in real terms is that Milton Keynes currently licenses 142 hackney carriages, of which 68 are wheelchair accessible vehicles. The outcome of this case retains a balance of hackney vehicles, to include saloons and MPVs, and the potential for the 71 Appellants to license rear-loading wheelchair accessible vehicles if they wish. This is the situation at the time of going to press with this issue; we will provide any updates in subsequent issues. |
|
| Author: | MR T [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Milton Keynes Magistrates’ |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
MR T wrote: Milton Keynes Magistrates’
Meaning? |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Inresting from PHM+taxi for those who have not seen it. |
juls wrote: Bascially saying it seems that the council must prove a demand for wav's ????
I think it's a case of the council saying something without having the facts to back it up. In other words bad consultation. Which is a common illness councils suffer with. If they are really interested in sorting this they should appeal, or spend a little time consulting and do the same thing. There is a thread about the story on here somewhere, but I think it stinks when one section of the trade say other drivers must spend up to £35,000 on a motor, but they only want to spend £10,000.
And then you get the NPHA supporting the in-equality.
|
|
| Author: | grandad [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thank you for explaining that. |
|
| Author: | JD [ Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sussex first posted the news which was discussed in the following thread. Some of the comments might give you an understanding about the verdict but don't get carried away with the reference to "ground breaking decision" because it was nothing of the sort. It just highlighted the fact that under the circumstances a district judge found the condition unreasonable but that is not to say that another circuit judge might find the condition totally reasonable. Nothing is binding in these types of decisions until they have gone all the way to the top and even then decisions of this nature always depend on the individual nature of the case. http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6603 Regards JD |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|