Kicked Out Again

ALI T · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:14 pm

so jim upset you and you change your stance on derestriction
good one chip such devotion to ones cause
as for jockies not making a bolt utter bullchit.
we've been throught his b4
im proof of the pudding.
i bought and ran my taxi for peanuts £50 a week if i recall.
its just fear that stops you believing you can do it.

but you obviosly prefer paying through the nose and having no control over youre present or future job security.
dont worry as long as you keep paying whatever they ask you'll be ok chip

ALI T · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:25 pm

so jim upset you and you change your stance on derestriction
good one chip such devotion to ones cause
as for jockies not making a bolt utter bullchit.
we've been throught his b4
im proof of the pudding.
i bought and ran my taxi for peanuts £50 a week if i recall.
its just fear that stops you believing you can do it.

but you obviosly prefer paying through the nose and having no control over youre present or future job security.
dont worry as long as you keep paying whatever they ask you'll be ok chip

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:38 pm

gusmac wrote:

The CGSA is quite clear on this.
There must be No SUD for an authority to refuse a licence application. Proof of SUD is not required for a grant, proof of No SUD is for a refusal.
Refusing one without proof of No SUD is not in accordance with the act, and the application would most likely either be remitted back or granted by the Sheriff on appeal.

CEC have travelled this road several times now, and must be well aware of the requirements. so it could be considered deliberate flauting of the act. Whether that in itself is a criminal act, I will leave for others to debate. I'm just not sure.

Is there any case law on this?

What does the 'S' stand for in SUD? :shock:

CC

gusmac · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:39 pm

captain cab wrote:

gusmac wrote:

The CGSA is quite clear on this.
There must be No SUD for an authority to refuse a licence application. Proof of SUD is not required for a grant, proof of No SUD is for a refusal.
Refusing one without proof of No SUD is not in accordance with the act, and the application would most likely either be remitted back or granted by the Sheriff on appeal.

CEC have travelled this road several times now, and must be well aware of the requirements. so it could be considered deliberate flauting of the act. Whether that in itself is a criminal act, I will leave for others to debate. I'm just not sure.

Is there any case law on this?

What does the 'S' stand for in SUD? :shock:

CC

Sufficient.
Care to offer a definition?

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:40 pm

gusmac wrote:

captain cab wrote:

gusmac wrote:

The CGSA is quite clear on this.
There must be No SUD for an authority to refuse a licence application. Proof of SUD is not required for a grant, proof of No SUD is for a refusal.
Refusing one without proof of No SUD is not in accordance with the act, and the application would most likely either be remitted back or granted by the Sheriff on appeal.

CEC have travelled this road several times now, and must be well aware of the requirements. so it could be considered deliberate flauting of the act. Whether that in itself is a criminal act, I will leave for others to debate. I'm just not sure.

Is there any case law on this?

What does the 'S' stand for in SUD? :shock:

CC

Sufficient.
Care to offer a definition?

No it isnt...and you know that, you little tinker.

CC

gusmac · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:42 pm

captain cab wrote:

gusmac wrote:

captain cab wrote:

gusmac wrote:

The CGSA is quite clear on this.
There must be No SUD for an authority to refuse a licence application. Proof of SUD is not required for a grant, proof of No SUD is for a refusal.
Refusing one without proof of No SUD is not in accordance with the act, and the application would most likely either be remitted back or granted by the Sheriff on appeal.

CEC have travelled this road several times now, and must be well aware of the requirements. so it could be considered deliberate flauting of the act. Whether that in itself is a criminal act, I will leave for others to debate. I'm just not sure.

Is there any case law on this?

What does the 'S' stand for in SUD? :shock:

CC

Sufficient.
Care to offer a definition?

No it isnt...and you know that, you little tinker.

CC

Ok you didn't fall for it. Hehe.

Care to define "significant"?

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:49 pm

gusmac wrote:

Ok you didn't fall for it. Hehe.

Care to define "significant"?

Nope....the courts have done that, even yours up there.

Davies v. Renfrewshire Council & Anor [2005] ScotCS CSIH_17 (11 February 2005)

Great Yarmouth Borough Council vs. Sawyer

Stevenage Borough Council vs. Younas

Brighton vs. Bunch

Cannock Chase vs. Aldritt

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:02 pm

I don't think they ever defined significant.

Just decided that various councils and survey folks had done their jobs within the law.

Even Halcrow never define significant as a word, more a mathematical equation.

But in a previous Bunch to the Bunch you mentioned, a court decided that the definition of significant was, wait for it, that which isn't in-significant. :lol:

gusmac · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:04 pm

Sussex wrote:

that which isn't in-significant.

Now, that's what I call a clear definition :lol:

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:05 pm

Sussex wrote:

I don't think they ever defined significant.

Just decided that various councils and survey folks had done their jobs within the law.

Even Halcrow never define significant as a word, more a mathematical equation.

But in a previous Bunch to the Bunch you mentioned, a court decided that the definition of significant was, wait for it, that which isn't in-significant. :lol:

I just listed the cases surely the council or court decide how significant the demand actually is?

CC

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:11 pm

captain cab wrote:

I just listed the cases surely the council or court decide how significant the demand actually is?

They decided on the merits of the cases before them, not on what they defined as SUD.

I suppose at Castlepoint the judge did say Halcrow got their methods wrong, but even he didn't have a pop at the maths equation for SUD.

gusmac · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:17 pm

It is for the council to justify "No SUD". I would imagine they would have to define significant before they refused the licence.
Their definition of significant may well be the point of appeal?

Significant may be the significant thing :lol:

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:18 pm

Sussex wrote:

captain cab wrote:

I just listed the cases surely the council or court decide how significant the demand actually is?

They decided on the merits of the cases before them, not on what they defined as SUD.

I suppose at Castlepoint the judge did say Halcrow got their methods wrong, but even he didn't have a pop at the maths equation for SUD.

Do I have to make quotations :lol:

CC

captain cab · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:05 pm

Quote:

In satisfying itself that there is no unmet demand a broader approach is legitimate: Stevenage Borough Council v Younas [1990] RTR 405n; R v Great Yarmouth Borough Council, ex p Sawyer [1989] RTR 297n. In considering an appeal against the decision of a council to refuse a licence on the ground that it was satisfied that there was not significant unmet demand, the Crown Court is entitled to take a different view from the council in deciding whether to exercise the power conferred by the Transport Act 1985 s 16: Cannock Chase District Council v Aldritt (28 January 1993) Lexis, Enggen Library, Cases File, DC.

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6686&highlight=aldritt

ALI T · **Posted:** Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:47 pm

chipper wrote:

just had a wee phone call saying no de-reg and 1 application refused.

The Forum should be buzzing the night :wink:

dont see much buzzing mr chips :oops:

methinks the clowns are to dim to know whats next.
you just cant think for yourselfs can you.
baaa baaa

Taxi Driver Online

Kicked Out Again

Who is online