Taxi Driver Online

A cab was stolen a few weeks ago, and the driver was advised inform the council, and was told to call down at the licensing office. He expalined that Police didn't hope for a quick success in finding the cab, so he was presented with a form to sign surrendering the licence, and he signed. The licence would have expired at the end of January 08.
Now things got interesting when suddenly council announced intention to limit again. This driver rushed back to check that in the event his cab is found or he gets paid to replace the cab, can he still have his licence? He is told that since he surrendered the licence, his licence was reissued to another applicant.
I have no personal involvement in this but out of curiosity where does he stand legally in appealing to the council for his plate? Is the council justified in reissuing a licence which has been paid for till the expiry at end of January, and the driver thought he was doing the right thing by keeping the council informed? He maintains his intention was never to give up his job and he was pursuing the insurance for a replacement vehicle.

I think under natural justice he should get a new plate, or at least have some sort of claim against the council.

If I was him I would contact the lead licensing councillor, but as the council haven't got any evidence of no SUD, then he could always appeal to the courts and get as many plates as he likes.

_________________
IDFIMH

Why the hell did he give up his plate?

Never heard of rentals up there?

Any licenced vehicle has to be insured all the time the licence is in force, and because his cab was stollen, he decied to rent till his insurance was sorted out. He transfered his insurance policy onto the rented cab to effectivelysave having to pay for it twice, and decided to tell the town hall the the stollen vehicle is no longer covered. The town hall had him sign a piece of paper for surrender of the licence.
He would have to get a new cab to replace the stollen one and the rule is that a new application fee has to be paid when replacing a cab with another even though a licence may be current on the original.
The misunderstanding was on his part in that he still had a couple of months still to run on the stollen cab and thought that he would be given a plate when he gets a cab before that runs out at the end of January, but that's not now the case.

Rent? yes he is renting now but should he have to?

You're missing the point, there are companies that rent out taxi's through insurance companies, ie: when yours is off the road due to accident, I'm sure it would be the same in the case of a stollen vehicle.

You just have to temporarily transfer your plate to the rental until your vehicle is either repaired/replaced.

oops!
Now there are companies like that but nothing on offer if your cab is stolen. In case of an accident where it's other party's fault then they fall over each other to give you a car because they can then claim back so much more from the other party. In this case however the cab has not been found and own insurance only paid the value of the missing cab. It's at this stage now the council will decide on January 9th wheather to impose a limit or not and the testing spaces have already been booked up till then. He has therefore been told that he can bring a vehicle and book it for a test but may still not get a licence if the limit is slapped on.

The council will not accept temporary rented vehicle in an application for a licence, only a long term formal agreement. This driver couldn't commit to a lease agreement simply because he waited for insurance to clear, oh what a mess.

I would expect as Sussex suggested, through natural justice that he should get a plate but if the licensing office become defensive then this chap is in trouble. It seems a little harsh that when he called in at the town hall, he wasn't given a choice of either or but only option to formally notify them of the missing cab was to sign on the dotted line. That initself wasn't too bad had not been for the subsequent intended change of heart on limitaion policy.

They can only refuse him if the council have up-to-date evidence that there is no SUD.

The last report (not sure if it was a full SUD survey) said the council shouldn't re-restrict. Can't see him losing a challenge.

If I was him I would present my vehicle to the council prior to the committee meeting. The fact that the council can't fit in a test is their problem, and theirs alone.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree with you Sussex that probably should be the case. The council is in posession of the results of a demand survey conducted during the summer. The survey however didn't recommend a limitation but also did say that there is no unmet demand, thus leaving the politicians to decide on January 9th. The vote is too close to call with just two votes to change the result either way.
Maybe if he can get the application in before the limitation goes on then I would expect some difficulty by LA in explaining why he shouldn't get a licence, because the as things stand there is no limit till the decission on 8th January.