Taxi Driver Online

Donald's reply

*********************************

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thank you for your e-mail.

1. Your statement is one of 17 statements of reasons still outstanding for these new taxi refusals. 14 statements of reasons have been provided to other persons whose licences have been refused. I apologise for the continuing delay in providing the statement which is due to other areas of work having to be attended to. As you say the Council is under a statutory duty to provide these within 10 days. This work has to be carried out within existing resources. I will prepare your statement of reasons as soon as possible.

As you will be aware, a test case is being heard at court and it is thought that a decision will be available in January. I am attempting to provide everyone's reasons by the middle of January so that everyone will know what they wish to do when the test case decision is available.

2 and 3. I note your FOI requests. These will be allocated an FOI reference and these will be replied to within the required 20 day period

Regards

********************************


Proof positive that the council has no regard for its statutory duty.

Proof positive that we are spot on when we say the council makes it up as it goes along.

So, what is the point of having a statutory process if the Council can just ignore it. Which it has done consistently.

This is precisely the "statutory duty" that Jim Inch has long played fast and loose with. He has played the game like it was his own personal fiefdom with no obligation to the public he was supposed to serve.

Inch never recovered from being docked in the 3maxblack case. Salteri et al proved the point when they got their licences. Inch was wrong.

Inch's hand of vested interest has gripped the trade ever since. He was wrong then, and he's wrong now. He's going off into the sunset with his pension and handshake, leaving behind the mess that the new Chief Executive is duty bound to clean up.

This is morally repugnant. Inch should be facing the stiffest public inquiry into what he got up to.

Any wonder that we consider Inch the scumbag he obviously is - despicable and contemptible?

So,what is Sue Bruce gonna do to make sure that City of Edinburgh Council does what it is supposed to do - act in accordance with the Law - in the pubic interest?

Or can we just expect nothing to change, Corporate Services allowed to continue to fail. More cases in court, more expense, the war continuing unabated.

Lest we forget, and shouldn't Sue Bruce take heed of this (Colin Keir didn't), TWO females are known to have been sexually assaulted because the difficulty of hailing a real taxi encouraged them to get into an unlicensed vehicle.

Keir ignored the first assault, then the second one happened.

Judge Lady Smith stated clearly that all the victim "needed" was a taxi. The council's restriction policy, at Inch's behest, significantly reduced her prospects of getting one.

This is Inch's real legacy.

Will a female at the helm finally bring common sense to taxi licensing in Edinburgh, as it did in her former charge at Aberdeen?

No council can claim to have done everything it can to ensure the public's safety unless and until it has done everything it can to ensure public safety.

Restricting taxis, making it more difficult than possible to engage one, falls significantly below this benchmark.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Isn't it curious?

The statutory period for providing the statement of reasons for refusal of licence is ten days.

After many months Donald tells me he is going to reply, but gives a time scale for that reply of 6 weeks.

There's still no attempt to reply to my request within the statutory length of period of 10 days.

Now, why would this be?

Could it be the statement of reasons would have to address the Human Rights issues raised within the application?

Does anyone really believe Donald has any intent to supply the statement of reasons to me and the others he's failed to respond to?

Does anyone doubt that Donald knows that ultimately he's not going to be required to produce the statement of reasons?

Now why could this be?

And, with him giving me a timescale of mid Januay, does anyone doubt that whatever reason he has for not having to supply this statement of reasons is going to be made publicly known BEFORE mid-January?

And my latest FOI request would have to be answered BEFORE mid January.

Media savvy suggests that the best time to bury "bad" news would be before Christmas.

I wonder ......

Could this be the last Christmas of the Taxi Operator's grand illusion (or is that delusion)?

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

It could be that Donald doesn't know what to put in the statement of reasons........
......after all, it wasn't his decision and those who made the decision may be struggling to justify it.
Maybe they are just going to pass the buck on to the court in January?

Apart from the details at the top of the statement, wouldn't the reasons be pretty much the same in each case?
So why have 14 been done and 17 not?
31 more or less identical letters wouldn't take up much time surely?

I have to wonder what the court will make of the council's failure to give a statement of reasons within the statutory period?
Their continued failure to do so even when reminded of this duty smacks of contempt for the licensing process......this could be grounds for a grant on it's own

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

We know

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"