gusmac wrote:
stationtone wrote:
"waiting for the results of a demand survey is
unlikely to be accepted."
Do you not think that is up to a sherrif to decide.My piont was it can be done and you have just said it can be done. You then have made assumptions to what a sherriff would decide
Did you miss this bit?
Quote:
Each application is supposed to be determined individually and refusals on SUD grounds must be made with information available at the time of application.
1 Refusing every application would not be determining each application individually.
2 Waiting for an SUD survey to be completed would be irrelevant, unless the results cover the time of the application. No SUD has been started yet so any current applications and any submitted before one is started would not be covered by it.
It's also not the applicants' fault if the council don't have the information they need to deny an application. It is the council's own fault.
This leaves a Sheriff very little room to grant an extention. I believe that in one of the Edinburgh cases a few years ago an extention on the grounds of SUD information was refused by the Sheriff.
Maybe someone can post the case?
Yes it is for the Sheriff to decide but he has to make a decision based upon the law and legal precident. He can't just make it up as he goes along and any error on his part can be appealed.
The SUD surveys will cost a lot of money. It isn't just one survey, they will have to be repeated on a regular basis and your trade will have to pay for them.
Also, Dundee council are not obliged to hold a survey and they don't have to accept it's findings.
The above are the facts as I understand them. If your more knowledgeable posters wish to dispute them, I'm all ears.
This BTW is my opinion:
A limit now will have no noticeable effect if Dundee already has far to many taxis.
It
won't take a single taxi off the road and you will still have far to many taxis.
It
won't stop new drivers getting badges. Their numbers cannot be capped.
It
won't stop new driver's getting PH cars. Their numbers also cannot be capped.
It
won't stop taxis being rented out/double shifted. In fact it's likely to increase.
It
will make plate holders reluctant to return their plates when they leave the trade, if they think the plates have any value.
You will end up with a black market in plates. We have that here with saloon plates and we are not restricted.
If we were, we would have one in WAV plates as well.
Superb post Gusmac. You have stated what we have been saying all along.
Only comment I would make is that you claim:
Each application is supposed to be [b]determined individually and refusals on SUD grounds must be made with
information available at the time of application.
Each application considered on its merits? This doesn't actually happen. Indeed, with the existence of a policy to cap numbers, any application is prejudicd by the policy.
What happens now is that councils give the applicant a hearing, but it is just window dressing. Because it knows that the policy will prevail and the app refused.
It wouldn't matter what was contained in the application, what circumstances were offered. In Edinburgh the council solicitor used to write from the outset that the policy would be applied, stating a refusal from the outset. This is NOT a fair process.
The applicant does not determine what a special circumstance is that would allow a grant outwith the policy. Gmac pointed to his being sacked by a radio company and his unemployment. The response from convener Keir was, "We are not here to discuss your employment status".
Yet, when it suits the council it can declare special circumstances and grant to a "pal".
Like all other aspects of licensing there are no roundrules, no standards and no precedent. The rules are designed to allows councils to make it up as it goes along. And this is what it does with impunity.
refusals on SUD grounds must be made with information available at the time of application.
I'd be interested in where you get this interpretation.
I have two cases sisted in Court where the council did not have information at time of appliction, in both cases they received the app then commissioned surveys to justify the refusal.
In the first case in 2007, there had been no licence issued for 5 years, when by the council's own account the city was "burgeoning", its economy booming. Two years later another application refused, this time 7 years since last grant. Again this was before the recession hit.
Both surveys done here were by Jacobs. No unmet demand found.
(Incidentally I have since been advised that the job information provided by the taxi companies was falsified. I am advised that figures were used which were based on the licence plate numbers of key committee men in the companies. The council used this information to justify licence refusal.)
Curiously (NOT!!) Jacobs did not even tender for the opportunity to conduct the latest survey. This was won by Halcrow who, surprise surprise, came with a demand for 30 licences while the city was in recession.
The council then allocated these licences to those on the illegal IPL, shuffling applicants down the list to accomodate this. This is the subject of the latest appeal.
A reasonable government in Holyrood would be throwing its hands up in horror about all of this council chicanery.
But of course, it isn't.
So, you can see why I am interested in your take on SUD availability at time of application. If what you say is indeed true, then I have two licences just waiting to be granted, because the information to refuse wasn't available when application was lodged.
Login
Register
FAQ
but i still want the toon capped
)
