Taxi Driver Online

There is NO appeal under the Section 2B amendment. And that's the problem. I believe it would have to be a Judicial Review, which is very expensive.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

There is a right of appeal under both amendments in accordance with Section 61 (3)

Any driver aggrieved by a decision of a district council under this section may appeal to a magistrates' court.

The difference would be that under Amendment 2A the driver would continue working until the appeal had been disposed of or not be able to drive until his appeal had been allowed in the case of a 2B amendmnt.

If an appeal against a 2B amendment wass subsequently allowed the driver could claim for loss of earnings.

To add: a driver successfully appealed a suspension taking immediate effect on health grounds back in 2007 in Tamworth.

The compensation settlement figure for loss of earnings (the driver had been denied his livelihood for around nine months or so) was £17000.

_________________
Steve.

And that would be correct; but ask yourself why was he denied his livelehood for nine months?

Because there is NO appeal to a Magistrates' Court under the amended Section 61 sub-section (2B) of the LG(MP) Act 1976.

An appeal to Magistrates' Court takes a few weeks to be heard & if you have a top solicitor, then it's a matter of days.

I am preparing a quite involved post on this topic in some detail, so please bear with me; I shouild have it ready in about 20 minutes.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Unfortunately there is not.

The amendments to Sections 61 - Suspension and revocation of drivers’ licence & Sections 77 – Appeals of The LG(MP) Act 1976 were contained in Section 52 of The Road Safety Act 2006. I previously posted on this subject on TDO on this link (three quarters of the way down the page);

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... c&start=20

Section 52 of The Road Safety Act 2006 reads;

Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles

52 Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences

(1) Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (hackney carriages and private hire vehicles in England and Wales outside London) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 61 (suspension and revocation of drivers' licences), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) of this section, a suspension or revocation of the licence of a driver under this section takes effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section.
(2B) If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver.”
(3) In subsection (3) of that section, after “under” insert “subsection (1) of”.
(4) In section 77 (appeals), after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply in relation to a decision under subsection (1) of section 61 of this Act which has immediate effect in accordance with subsection (2B) of that section.”

Now this is quite difficult to interpret, unless you take Sections 61 & 77 of the LG(MP) Act 1976 & insert the wordings of the amendments into those sections to arrive at the new now amended sections. I have done this below & have highlighted the amendments to both sections 61 & 77 in bold & italic so that these can be more easily followed.

Please pay particular attention to the three word amendment to Section 61 subsection (3), which amended that section from the previous ‘Any driver aggrieved by a decision of a district council under this section may appeal to a magistrates' court’, to the now amended, ‘Any driver aggrieved by a decision of a district council under subsection (1) of this section may appeal to a magistrates' court.’

That amendment ONLY allows for an appeal to the Magistrates’ Court under Section 61, subsection (1) of The LG(MP) Act 1976. It does not allow for an appeal to a Magistrates’ Court under the other subsections in Section 61 of The LG(MP) Act 1976.

Here are the re-written Sections 61 & 77 of The LG(MP) Act 1976 after the insertion of the amendments contained in Section 52 of The Road safety act 2006;

61 Suspension and revocation of drivers' licences

(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1847 or in this Part of this Act, a district council may suspend or revoke or (on application therefor under section 46 of the Act of 1847 or section 51 of this Act, as the case may be) refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle on any of the following grounds—

(a) that he has since the grant of the licence—
(i) been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence; or
(ii) been convicted of an offence under or has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act of 1847 or of this Part of this Act; or

(b) any other reasonable cause.

(2) (a) Where a district council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew any licence under this section they shall give to the driver notice of the grounds on which the licence has been suspended or revoked or on which they have refused to renew such licence within fourteen days of such suspension, revocation or refusal and the driver shall on demand return to the district council the driver's badge issued to him in accordance with section 54 of this Act.

(b) If any person without reasonable excuse contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale].

(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) of this section, a suspension or revocation of the licence of a driver under this section takes effect at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which notice is given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section.

(2B) If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver.

(3) Any driver aggrieved by a decision of a district council under subsection (1) of this section may appeal to a magistrates' court.

77 Appeals

(1) Sections 300 to 302 of the Act of 1936, which relate to appeals, shall have effect as if this Part of this Act were part of that Act.

(2) If any requirement, refusal or other decision of a district council against which a right of appeal is conferred by this Act —

(a) involves the execution of any work or the taking of any action; or
(b) makes it unlawful for any person to carry on a business which he was lawfully carrying on up to the time of the requirement, refusal or decision; then, until the time for appealing has expired, or, when an appeal is lodged, until the appeal is disposed of or withdrawn or fails for want of prosecution —

(i) no proceedings shall be taken in respect of any failure to execute the work, or take the action; and
(ii) that person may carry on that business.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section does not apply in relation to a decision under subsection (1) of section 61 of this Act which has immediate effect in accordance with subsection (2B) of that section.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Agreed that in the meantime before the appeal was heard the driver would be suspended but once the appeal was successful the licence woyuld be reinstated and a claim submitted for loss of earnings.

I'll read your forthcoming post with interest. I'm concerned that Cannock Chase DC Licensing Unit's next move will be to start churning out suspension notices under Amendment 2B in order to stop drivers lodging appeals, winning them and not losing a single day's work (apart from the court appearance.)

They haven't done so yet but appear to be at war with the trade at the moment having lost a few cases recently in court to the tune of over 5k in costs and much of that would be my fault...

_________________
Steve.

I see your point. So basically our last Labour government as funded by the GMB and the RMT Unions have enabled LAs to bypass due process as and when they see fit.

This is another one to add to the pile under the proposed Great Repeal Act.

I am however unsure that court proceedings would be impossible to bring against a LA at a magistrates court.

_________________
Steve.

That sound like you have a wally of a LO, who is full of his own importance & doesn't see logical sense or ask the Council's Solicitor for legal advice.

I was wondering where Channock Chase was (as in your Location on the right of the screen)?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

You'd be right about the LO. The council's own solicitor is in fact a locum. He's actually not the most competent solicitor I've encountered having made a number of elementary mistakes during court proceedings and wrongly cited the Data Protection Act 1998 as a reason for refusing to submit a suspension notice issued to another driver for the same offence on request as evidence for comparative purposes during an appeal case. He obviously didn't know about Section 35 of the DPA which makes exemptions when the personal data is required as evidence in court proceedings.
(I have to say all this so he can't sue me for libel )



Cannock Chase District is between Lichfield District to the East, Walsall Metropolitan Borough to the Southeast, South Staffordshire District to the Southwest and West and Stafford Borough to the North. It is in Staffordshire and within 20 miles of Birmingham.

_________________
Steve.

I was referring to your mis-spelling of Cannock Chase as in your 'Location', which is shown on the right of the screen; you have it as Channock Chase.

I know exactly where that is; I don't live in Brum although licensed there & our Post Code is WS4, so I'm only 5-7 miles from you in a little village between Lichfield, Cannock, Pelsall & Walsall. You should be able to narrow that down quite quickly.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Ooops. Typo. Thanks for telling me!

_________________
Steve.

Or they could be thanked for ensuring scumbags weren't allowed to drive whilst their hearing went on, and any subsequent appeals.

I would be interested as why you didn't stop the amendment to the act, and point out where the Tories and Libs voted against it.

And if they did when will we see it repealed by the new coalition?

_________________
IDFIMH

I have no issue with the principle of Amendment 2B and the power to suspend with immediate effect under certain circumstances. I do have an issue though with removing the right of appeal because it enables LAs to misuse the amendment to bully and intimidate innocent drivers without any facility to hold them to account.

I can see authoritarian/libertarian lines being drawn on this issue.

I nail my colours to the mast - I still believe that one is innocent until proven guilty and I place that particular maxim above public protection. I also do not believe that the end justifies the means.

We should certainly not trade liberty for security on this. Many LAs do abuse the powers bestowed upon them.

_________________
Steve.

But why is it the fault of the unions?

_________________
IDFIMH

Because the trades unions fund the Labour Party who have become a party of oppression.

The old left versus right in socio-economic terms has been replaced by a libertarianism versus authoritarianism dichotomy.

The trades unions now fund the party of authoritarianism.

_________________
Steve.