Taxi Driver Online

Cab inspector ‘struck off list’ by West Norfolk Council

Tuesday 05 April 2016


West Norfolk Council has taken the action against Silena Automotive following an 18-month saga with its proprietor Simon Nash.

The Setch-based business was one of only five garages in the borough approved by the council for tests in respect of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle applications.

But last week the authority wrote to drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles saying it would only accept MoT certificates and borough council compliance test certificate from four garages, with immediate effect.

It came after Mr Nash stuck a notice in the window of his business stating that council officers and members would be refused access to the premises unless they had been expressly invited to attend or could produce a court warrant.

It also said there would be no conversation or cooperation with council officials unless 24 hours’ notice is provided in writing for Mr Nash’s consideration.

The notice said: “It has been demonstrated on more than one occasion that officers and members of the borough council are prepared to behave dishonestly whilst acting in their official capacity.

“This behaviour will no longer be tolerated.”

It also said Mr Nash would request the attendance of his solicitor or third party witnesses whilst council officers were on site if he deemed it necessary.

His stance came after a dispute between himself and the council escalated last September when the authority banned him from sending any emails to officers, members and staff.

Having received more than 50 emails from him within 11 months, the council blocked any further correspondence from him, saying repeatedly dealing with his emails had “wasted public money” and placed an “unreasonable burden” on officers.

The emails had related to the issuing of taxi penalty points to a local taxi driver who allowed his licensed vehicle to be driven by a mechanic.

Mr Nash believes the issuing of the points was wrong, claiming the council misinterpreted the relevant transport legislation, but the authority said its interpretation, and the issuing of points, was right.

Mr Nash also questioned evidence used in the case and has since accused the council of failing to comply with its own taxi testing codes of practice.

A spokesman for West Norfolk Council said: “Maintaining a positive, productive and co-operative relationship with the owners of garages on our list of approved testing stations for licenced vehicles is imperative.

“In exceptional circumstances, where such a relationship cannot be maintained, the garage would be removed from the approved list.”


Read more: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/communit ... z44vsuCyP1

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Sounds like the Council are being bell ends.

I think both parties were being bell ends.

_________________
Grandad,

there's a lot of bell ringing in those parts

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

it's a peal of bells..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

West Norfolk Council may have broken law claims trade body


Council officials may have acted illegally by delisting a West Norfolk taxi testing station, an industry body has claimed.

The warning from the National Private Hire Association (NPHA) is the latest phase of the row over Silena Automotive in Setch.

But West Norfolk Council chiefs have rejected the suggestion, claiming the association has not been given a full picture of the dispute.

Silena Automotive was removed from the council’s accredited list of taxi testing centres last month in the latest phase of a long-running dispute between the authority and the proprietor, Simon Nash.

But, in letters seen by the Lynn News, the NPHA has urged the council to reinstate the site’s accreditation, arguing its decision to withdraw it may be unlawful.

It also claimed the authority was in breach of competition law, by abusing a dominant position, in delisting Silena and criticised the decision to issue penalty points to a taxi driver for allowing a mechanic to drive his licensed vehicle.

Secretary Donna Short said the move to strike off the garage would be illegal if it was connected to the movement of the vehicle in question.

She said: “Mr Nash is doing nothing wrong in law in this regard.

“It would constitute a commercial nonsense if every mechanic and vehicle tester connected with garages – or indeed personnel collecting vehicles from these facilities – had to hold a taxi licence.”

But the council’s chief executive, Ray Harding, replied: “I do not believe that we are at odds in our interpretation of the legislation.”

He also claimed the NPHA had not been made aware of the full facts of the matter, alleging that the person who drove the taxi at the centre of the points row was neither approved to undertake taxi tests nor employed by an approved business.

Mr Harding also claimed the decision to remove Silena Automotive from its list of test centres was not related to the licensing issue but to Mr Nash’s conduct towards council officers.

He said that had made it “impossible for the council to continue Silena Autos’ relationship with us as an approved testing station.”

Mr Nash claims the council has failed to comply with its own codes of practice.


Read more: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/local/la ... z479EwUwHH

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I think the removal of the accreditation is more to do with the chaps stance against the council.

_________________
Grandad,

That's not what we have been led to believe on this thread.

_________________
IDFIMH

Legislation allows a mechanic(non drivers badge holder)to drive and road test a TAXI(hackney carriage) to see if it is roadworthy,there is no legislation that allows anyone to drive a private hire vehicle for any reason unless they have a private hire vehicle drivers badge.

Are all the facts being made public with regard to this incident.

Mr T answered this pages ago

I quote:

RUPERT COPE
HEAD OF TAXI BRANCH
BUSES AND TAXIS DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
INTEGRATED AND LOCAL TRANSPORT DIRECTORATE
3/12 GREAT MINSTER HOUSE
76 MARSHAM STREET
LONDON
SW1P 4DR

DIRECT LINE: 020 7944 2291
DIVISIONAL ENQUIRIES: 020 7944 2293
FAX: 020 7944 2279
GTN CODE: 3533 2291
E-MAIL: e-mail: rupert_cope@detr.gsi.gov.uk
WEB SITE: http://www.detr.gov.uk

OUR REF: PT2 10/25/13
YOUR REF:

7 NOVEMBER 2000

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1976: ELIGIBILITY TO DRIVE A PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE IN ENGLAND AND WALES OUTSIDE LONDON

I refer to our conversation last week at Telford in which I said I would include you in the letters I was sending out about eligibility to drive a private hire vehicle (PHV) in England and Wales outside London.

The need for the letters was, of course, prompted by a parliamentary answer Keith Hill MP, the Minister for Local Transport, gave to Jeffrey Ennis MP on 26 July. As you know, the matter stems from a court case in 1997 which essentially stated that the only people who could drive licensed PHVs in England and Wales outside London were those who held PHV driver licences. In the light of this judgement, the Department carried out a consultation exercise to seek views on whether we
should make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to broaden the range of people eligible to drive licensed PHVs. The conclusion that the Minister announced in July was that only people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver, should be eligible to drive licensed PHVs without themselves holding a PHV driver licence.
For reasons which are set out in the remainder of this letter, he concluded that a deregulation order was not necessary for this purpose.

The decision took into account that an exemption for testing licensed taxis and would-be taxi drivers is included in Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 and that we consulted on the basis that a deregulation order would be necessary to effect the options for change proposed. Against that background, many have sought clarification of why the Minister reached this conclusion.

This letter sets out the Department's view of the law, but ultimately interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. If anyone is in doubt about whether or not they are entitled to drive a licensed PHV in any particular circumstances, it is of course open to them to obtain their own legal advice.

There is no express statutory provision which exempts those carrying out legally necessary tests of, or in, licensed PHVs from holding a PHV driver licence. But we consider that it is necessary to look at the wider legal picture.

The 'MOT' testing scheme for motor vehicles other than goods vehicles is established under sections 45 and 46 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. By section 47(1) of that Act a person who uses on a road a motor vehicle to which the section applies will commit an offence if a test certificate has not been issued within the appropriate period. The only way of obtaining an 'MOT' certificate is by having the vehicle tested by someone who is authorised to do so.

Closely linked to this are sections 41 and 42 of the 1988 Act which make provision for the general regulation of the construction and use of vehicles. The principal regulations are the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Again, most people have to rely on motor mechanics to ensure that they do not commit construction and use offences.

Almost inevitably in relation to an 'MOT' test, and in many instances in relation to motor vehicle maintenance and repair, examiners or motor mechanics will need to road-test a vehicle. If they were not able to do so in relation to PHVs, then they would probably be unable to carry out the test or the work in the first place and the owners of the vehicles would find it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the statutory requirements.

Under sections 48 and 51 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the licensing authority is under a specific statutory obligation not to grant a PHV licence unless it is satisfied that the vehicle is safe and in a suitable mechanical condition nor to grant a PHV driver's licence unless it is satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Inevitably, these obligations will involve an element of testing, during which a person who does not hold a PHV driver's licence will have to drive a licensed PHV. If this were not the case, then it would be extremely difficult to comply with the obligations.

In relation to the examples set out above, the view that in no circumstances can a licensed PHV be driven in a controlled district by a person who does not hold a PHV driver licence produces an apparent conflict not only between different provisions in the same Act but also between different provisions in different Acts. If such a conflict were to arise in practice, it would be a matter for a court to resolve; but we take the view that, despite Schedule 7 to the Transport Act 1985 in relation to taxis, it could never have been the intention that the strict interpretation should have the effect of precluding the statutory testing and general maintenance of PHVs or of preventing a licensing authority from complying with its statutory obligations. Such an interpretation would produce an absurd result.

We are therefore of the view that should a court have to resolve such a conflict it would not find that an offence had been committed where a person was driving a PHV in connection with the testing of the vehicle for statutory purposes or for the purpose of work necessary to keep the vehicle in good order. We take the same view in relation to the driving of a PHV in connection with the performance of statutory obligations by a licensing authority.

The purpose of the order-making power contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 is to reduce or alleviate a burden imposed by legislation but, having come to the conclusion that the existing legislation would not be interpreted so as to impose a burden in relation to statutory testing procedures or the compliance with statutory obligations, it followed that no such order was necessary.

When we next write to the chief executives of all taxi and PHV licensing authorities in England and Wales on various taxi/PHV matters, we shall include a similar clarification of the Minister's announcement.

R F COPE

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin