Stinky Pete wrote:
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3790&highlight=warriner
The case in question relates to England and Wales so we are getting of the beaten track slightly but I was most surprised at Macpherson’s judgement in that case and I think if the applicant had gone to the court of appeal, he would have won.
Under Macpherson’s reasoning every plate that is transferred regardless of whether it is for money is subject to a council policy and can be revoked. What I can't understand is why the council transferred the license in the first place if that is what they believed? They had already transferred the license and then decided to take it away? It is already established law that the renewal process is just an extension of the license and it is not a new grant. Therefore any revocation can only come by way the following.
a) that the hackney carriage or private hire vehicle is unfit for use as a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle;
(b) any offence under, or non-compliance with, the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this Part of this Act by the operator or driver; or
(c) any other reasonable cause."
The judge found that section (1, c) any reasonable cause amounted to any council policy that might be in existence so it follows that any plate transferred in England and Wales could in effect be revoked after 12 months regardless of whether the person transferring the plate was alive or dead?
If York has such a policy then why does it only apply to dead people and not those that are alive? Perhaps if the plate head been transferred a week before the lady died then York wouldn't have invoked this so called policy decision? Who knows but the applicant was wrong not to take it higher.
Regards
JD