Taxi Driver Online

The minutes of the Carlisle regulatory panel make interesting reading.

I doubt many websites or Taxi publications will publish these minutes but you can rest assured that we on TDO will not shy away from exposing the facts.
___________________________________

Special note should be taken of comments from the licensing officer, solicitor and the representative of the Carlisle Taxi association Mr McCullough, who pointed out the association's firm commitment to keeping the rank "EXCLUSIVE".

CARLISLE TAXI RANK. MINUTES

REGULATORY PANEL

WEDNESDAY 4 APRIL 2007 AT 2.00PM

PRESENT: Councillors Morton (Chairman), Bainbridge (substitute for Cllr Parsons), Boaden, S Bowman, Mrs Farmer, Mrs Fisher (substitute for Cllr Prest), Riddle (substitute for Cllr Styth) Scarborough, Stockdale, Tootle and Wilson.

RP.06/07 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted by Councillors Parsons, Prest, Styth and Quilter.

RP.07/07 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2007 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of the meeting.

RP.08/07 AGENDA ITEMS

RESOLVED – That a verbal report from the Principal Solicitor regarding an appeal to the Magistrates Court be added to the agenda as item A.2.

RP.09/07 HACKNEY CARRIAGE CONDITIONS – COURT SQUARE RANK

The Licensing Officer presented report LDS.33/07 regarding a review of the conditions applicable to Hackney Carriages using the Court Square rank.

Mr McCullough, Carlisle Taxi Association and Mr Matthews and Mr Thompson were in attendance at the meeting.

The Principal Solicitor outlined the procedure the Panel would follow. Mr McCullough, Mr Matthews and Mr Thompson confirmed that they had received and read the Licensing Manager’s report.

The Licensing Officer reported that since 1994, the use of Court Square rank had been limited to Hackney Carriages that were capable of conveying wheelchair passengers. Non wheelchair carrying taxis could use all other ranks in the City and could be flagged down in the street but they could not use the Court Square rank.

A 2002 Court of Appeal decision, Maud v Castle Point Borough Council, had come to the attention of the Council’s Legal Services section, the decision stated that a licence should be a licence to ply throughout the entire district or zone and not limited to certain areas. The effect of the case was that the Court Square rank condition might not be justifiable.

The Licensing Officer stated that Carlisle Taxi Association were aware of the case and had written in to the Licensing Office with no objections.

In response to a Member’s question the Principal Solicitor stated that the 2002 case had not been brought to the attention of the Panel until now because it was an unreported case and was only brought to the attention of the Licensing Office when it appeared in a taxi publication.

The Licensing Officer reported that he was not aware of any other authorities that had the same or similar condition in place regarding taxi ranks.

Mr Matthews then addressed the Panel. He stated that at a previous meeting the Panel had decided to place an age restriction on vehicles and that only wheelchair accessible Hackney Carriages would be licensed. He asked how this would affect the decision being made today and why all taxis should not be treated equally.

The Chairman responded that if the Panel decided to change the policy it might also decide to re-visit a previous decision and that would be considered at a future meeting of the Panel.

The Licensing Officer stated that the Council had the authority to impose conditions regarding the type of vehicle it would licence, but did not have the authority to impose conditions about where the licensed vehicles can operate.

Mr Thompson addressed the Panel and stated that he agreed with Mr Matthews statement.

In response to a question the Principal Solicitor stated that a Disability Impact Assessment had not been carried out.

Mr McCullough then addressed the Panel. "He stated that Carlisle Taxi Association wanted the rank to stay as it was and was unsure where the statement that they had no objections had come from."

He raised concerns that when individuals decided to apply for a licence they were in no doubt what restrictions were in place before they decided to purchase a saloon car or a wheelchair accessible vehicle. In most cases it was an individual’s business and the cost of finance and projected earnings were extremely important. When deciding to purchase a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the fact that they have "exclusive" rights to the Court Square rank was a deciding factor in their decision. To remove that will, without doubt, make it uneconomical to own one and many drivers would switch to a saloon car thereby reducing the service to the people who needed it most.

He stated that the rank has had the condition since 1994 and people who require a wheelchair accessible vehicle knew that if they went to the rank they could get a taxi there. If the Panel allowed saloon cars onto the rank there could be a situation where a wheelchair user could have to wait while saloon cars drive past them and pick up other members of the public who are behind them in the queue.

He stated that much had been made of the judgement the Maud –v- Castle Point Borough Council but in his opinion there was a distinct difference. Section 47(1) of the 1976 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act empowered a District Council to attach “such conditions as the District Council may consider reasonably necessary”. The condition was used in Carlisle to ensure that there was always a sufficient number of wheelchair accessible vehicles to meet the needs of the disabled. In Mr McCullough’s opinion positive discrimination, which the rest of the County was just beginning to catch up with, was a positive move for the Council and is in paragraph 4.22 page 31 of the Provision and Use of Transport Vehicles Statutory Code of Practice.

Mr McCullough stated that it would be a tragedy if a Council who had for so long led the way in supporting the disabled were to be at the forefront of seriously reducing the availability of transport and turning them into second class citizens. He quoted the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act and the Disability Rights Commission, which states that a transport provider should not discriminate by providing a service to a disabled person to a lesser standard without justification.

In response to the points raised by Mr McCullough, the Principal Solicitor responded that:

* The Code of Practice stated that nothing in the Act prohibited positive discrimination. This was an issue for taxi providers. The Council was subject to a duty to promote equality between service users.

* The lesser standard statement applied to Taxi companies rather than the licensing authority, although the Council did have the duty to promote equality mentioned above

* Wheelchair accessible vehicle owners who bought their vehicle because of the use of the rank could appeal to the Courts for the decision to be overturned.

In response Mr McCullough stated that the Licensing Panel on the 24 April 1989 had resolved that all Hackney Carriage vehicles should be able to carry disabled persons by 1992.

In response to Mr McCullough’s statement the Licensing Officer stated that the Licensing Office had received a letter from Carlisle Taxi Association, dated 22 March 2007, stating that they had no objections to the change. He stated that if the Panel decided to allow saloon cars on to the rank then there would be some changes in terms of the practicalities of the rank but it would be the same as other mixed fleet ranks around the Country. He stated there could be an initial loss of wheelchair accessible vehicles but the Panel had made a previous decision that only wheelchair accessible vehicles would be licensed and so the number would increase.

A Member requested legal advice regarding the options set out before the Panel.

[B]The Principle Solicitor explained that the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act allowed the Council to attached any conditions reasonably necessary to a licence. The case of Maud –v- Castle Point Borough Council had concerned a similar situation to Carlisle’s. That Council had restricted the number of licences to 37. Because of unmet demand the Council determined to delimit the number of licences. This decision was challenged by Mr Maud who proposed that the Council could instead, place a condition on certain licences prohibiting their use of the busy station rank.

"The Courts held that a licence should be a licence to ply throughout the entire district or zone and not limited to certain areas, the Court ruling was that an authority cannot have a two tier system of licences, effectively with two different classes. That was the case still."

She stated that the Panel had no choice but to look at the condition again in light of this case. That said, the case pre-dated the Disability Discrimination Act which places a duty on the Council to promote equality between service users and that duty may be reason for the retention of the condition.

In giving consideration to the matter Members made the following comments and observations:

1. A Member stated that in light of the Disability Discrimination Act, the City Council was well advanced compared to other Councils and should not make a change to the rank condition;

2. A Member asked if the decision could be deferred until the impact of any decision could be assessed.

In response the Principal Solicitor stated that the court case clearly stated that the Council should not have the condition and a decision should be made otherwise the Council could be exposed to a challenge.

3. A Member raised concerns that consultation had only been carried out with Carlisle Taxi Association and not any access groups.

In response the Licensing Officer stated that the Council’s access officer had been contacted. If saloon cars were allowed to use the Court Square rank it would benefit the disabled users that had difficulty using wheelchair accessible vehicles.

4. In response to a Member’s question the Principal Solicitor stated that the decision made by the Panel could be challenged.

5. A Member asked if saloon cars ever used the rank and what would happen if they did.

The Licensing Officer stated that the Licensing Office could prosecute saloon cars using the rank but had never had to take that action.

Members then voted on the options set out in the report.

Councillor Mrs Fisher entered the meeting during consideration of the above matter and wished it to be recorded that she had taken no part in the decision.

RESOLVED – 1) That the Court decision regarding Maud –v- Castle Point Borough Council be noted

2) That the policy allowing only wheelchair accessible vehicles to use the Court Square rank be retained, in light of the duties imposed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which was not in existence at the date of the case and which is a significant factor.

(The meeting ended at 2.45 pm)
_______________________

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

At present the DDA has no legal relevance as regards making taxis accessible.

Thus this is not about the law, it's about what councillors think the law should be.

Whatever merit there may be in the decision, it certainly underlines that many councils/councillors think that the rule of law doesn't apply to them, but then we knew that already anyway.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think your wide of the mark or getting the wrong end of the stick.

In so far as I am aware, the LA based their decision on;

(Revised) Code of Practice - Rights of Access: services to the public, public authority functions, private clubs and premises

http://www.drc.org.uk/the_law/legislation__codes__regulation/codes_of_practice.aspx

The rank in question has a designated loading area for wheelchairs.

Whatever the rights or wrongs it would appear Mr McCullough managed to put a doubt in their minds.

CC

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

Really don't and wont get into all this again.

But DDA guidance isn't superior to legal judgements.

_________________
IDFIMH

However, courts and tribunals must take them into account.

In one court you get a decision. then someone moves the goalposts, it will be interesting to see the next Decision, is it not the rule in European law that when two sets of law contradict one has to take President over the other, But which one,

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

By the way captain, how was the golfing in Florida

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

For what its worth I dont want to go there either.

I would point out the Castle Point (non) decision was based on permitting a rank for the original 37 vehicles.....Carlisle wasn't. Anyone can use that rank, provided they provide a WAV.

Also, in my own view the judge passed a comment on a hypothetical situation that was not part of the Castle Point judgement....there's a rather nice latin word for it 'obiter dictum'.

If the people in Carlisle have an issue then surely the case they need to consider is a case from Blackpool....Red Cab Taxis?

I have no real opinion on the Carlisle situation....anytime its raised its head I have always declared an interest.

The LA decision in 1994 was flawed.

The LA decision to order a review 2 years ago would have solved the issue, yet people chose to quash the review. Thats the crime here.

CC

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

Aren't those ranks on private land?

_________________
IDFIMH

I think there's something in what the judge states about applying conditions to one set of traders at the expense of another.

CC

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

You'll be telling them about the bank job next

CC

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

I don't think so. I told you it had a big pool.

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

What like PH and HC?

_________________
IDFIMH

not quite...but nice try

Incidentally the Red Cab case was about Hc & PH I think

CC

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

I wonder if he did a Flitcroft there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... db3101.xml

_________________
IDFIMH

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you fail to understand the Castle Point Judgment, however I'm pretty certain that your failure to understand the judgment is down to your inability or refusal to believe or accept the ruling as fact simply because it suits your purpose not to.

This so called "non decision" you refer to was handed down by the second highest court in the land and your observations in stating, that "in your own view" the Judges comments were "hypothetical", are utter nonsense.

Maud asked the court to quash the council decision of 25 June 2001, which was to abandon their previously adopted policy of quantity controls. And, in principle and subject to their criteria in respect of suitability, issue such licences without restriction of number.

The Claimant Maud argued that in each of "two" respects the decision was founded upon irrelevant considerations.

***"His third argument"*** "is of a fall-back character:" "he contends that the Defendants failed to appreciate that they were entitled to make the grant of any additional licences subject to a particular condition."

Do you understand that Maud Challenged the council decision on three grounds? And do you also understand what it means by his third argument?

Just in case you don't, I'll explain it to you.

Maud's third ground of appeal asked the court to rule on the legality of the lawfulness or otherwise of a condition being attached to a hackney carriage licence preventing the taxi from plying for hire in part of the authority's district, under section 47.1 of the LGMPA. Now in the court of Appeal that third ground was placed at the forefront of the APPLICATION.

I take it you understand what forefront means? It means it was the main plank of his appeal and the reason it was his main plank of appeal is because Maud's Counsel new that the other two grounds had no standing in law.

Therefore it is of no surprise that 90% of the appeal was taken up in considering this pivotal ground of appeal on whether or not a council could apply a condition that excluded certain licensed hackney carriage vehicles from plying for hire anywhere in the licensed area? Under section 47.1 of the LGMPA

And what did the Three Lord Justices state?

LORD JUSTICE KEENE

In my view a condition preventing a taxi from plying for hire from a particular taxi stand or stands, or in a particular street or streets, would fall outside the scope of the powers granted by Parliament. Despite Mr Wolfe's attractive submissions, I conclude that the authority was right to adopt the advice it had been given by counsel on this particular point.

29. LORD JUSTICE BUXTON: I agree. I have nothing I wish to add.
30. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I also agree.

Therefore the third ground was presented by the appelent and the court administered their judgment in full. There was no hypothetical question and no hypothetical answer, it was a registered ground of appeal which the court ruled upon and found unlawful.

On a seperate note, your reference to Red Cab Taxis just proves how detached from the reality of this issue, you really are.

I needn't say anymore.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.