Taxi Driver Online

who said there was a court case, not me, i stated [Bob Brocklebank ] won his case, having made a phone call to get further info, Bob is away on a shooting weekend, will try during the week

editing this thread,
Hey yup.
there is nothing to stop a person doing legal on his own after taking advice, even if it is from this board or some other place, some people dont or cant take a solicitor with them because of the cost, they just hope common sense prevails, as he did in this case, using and armed with advice, this matter may have been discussed at Council committee level and never reached court, to which i think it did

it is stated that Bob Brockleback is running round as an unlicenced taxi as his name cannot be gleaned from the LA of his area, i assure you all Bob is licenced by Beverley county Council, maybe just maybe the LA would not give out details to all and sundry

Well whatever he won, good luck to the fella.

_________________
IDFIMH

Don't you think those two quotes look rather strange "side by side"?

I'm sure everyone else looking at them might draw the conclusion that your intentention was to create the impression that the council had been legally challenged by Mr Brocklebank and that he had won his case? I fail to see any different interpretation that can be drawn from the statement.

Perhaps in your first statement you wanted to explain that there was no legal challenge or court case and that East Riding changed their policy to accomodate Mr Brocklebank. Having missunderstood the message you got carried away with your choice of words when expressing the situation on TDO? I suppose under those circumstances one might assume that condition 28 had now been changed to accomodate all seats in this vehicle but funny as it may seem condition 28 is still in force in its original format? Don't you find that strange?

Considering the condition is still in force I suppose we can now assume that the council didn't change their policy but decided to reconsider it in light of Mr Brocklebanks submission?

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by the word "challenge", considering the fact that one assumes Mr brocklebank was the person who informed you of this non event. If he wasn't then where did you get your information?

Licensing Officer Tina Holtby nor Mr Jeffires know anything about the issue but I for one cant wait for an explantation and I suppose many of those reading this thread are thinking likewise. Many owners who are contemplating challenging their local council over "seating" licensing conditions will no doubt be waiting in anticipation to read the advice given to Mr Brocklebank by Keith Jeffries, which by all accounts convinced East Riding council to license his vehicle contrary to their own regulations? All those in a similiar situation throughout the country would dearly love to read that advice, which apparently Keith Jeffries said, "he didn't give"?

One way or the other I think we might know "all" the facts later today but considering you frequent Mr Mites Website perhaps you could inform those of us who don't, whether or not he has deleted the reference to Mr Jeffries advising Mr Brocklebank on this "seating issue", which was kindly posted in this thread by Brighton Breezy. Surely Mr Mite and the elusive Mr Brocklebank aren't going to deprive the Taxi trade of such ground breaking knowledge of how to "challenge and win a case" such as this?

I forgot, there was no case but considering they are your words, I expect you understand their meaning?

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.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

Remind us again, who was it who told you Bob Brocklebank won his case?

Or is it a secret?

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.

Pete

You said Bob Brocklebank is a personal friend of yours therefore we can probably take it for granted that he told you he had challenged the council and won. Unless he didn't tell you at all, in which case your message was a cock and bull story designed to mislead everyone on TDO? Tony Mite has Mr Brocklebanks phone number and has spoken to him on several occasions, therefore the Mite connection is established. Mite for some unexscusable reason let it be known that Keith Jeffries advised Mr Brocklebank which led to Mr Brocklebank being able to license an 04 six seater Ford Galaxy. I'm just wondering what the connextion is between you and Mite because both stories are a pack of lies.

Mr Brocklebank still drives his 02 six seater Ford Galaxy doesn't he? Which was licensed before condition 28 came into force. Therefore his attempt to license the 04 vehicle failed and you know it failed so why the bullchit? Why did you say he won his case when there was no case, regardless of whether it was a court case or not?

Theres more to this than meets the eye but like I said, to embroil Keith Jeffries in this plot of deceit goes beyond the pale.

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.

Ok folks.

What is the position. Council's are looking to introduce this stupid rule, but has anyone managed to STOP a council yet?

I have heard talk of court cases/appeals etc.

But today I need evidence......please

_________________
A member of the Hire or Reward Industry

There is no evidence. Each case if and when challenged will stand and fall on the indivudual facts that come before a magistrate.

The case in question of Mr Brocklebank is a non case but it is has been offered up as a conclusion to the event, in which you require an answer.

The facts of this particular case are as follows.

Mr Brocklebank asked for advice regarding the licensing of a six seater vehicle in his licensing area. He was informed by me that his council had a condition prohibiting six seats in vehicles such as the one that he wanted to license.

Stinky Pete recently came back with a post saying Mr Brocklebank had won his case. This was a frabrication of the truth, in fact Mr Brocklebank still drives his old six seater vehicle.

Tony Mite recently contacted Mr Brocklebank and informed him that Keith Jeffries mite be able to help him so Mr Brocklebank contacted Keith Jeffries and discussed the situation with a view to taking it to court.

That is the current position and therefore any reference by anyone that Mr Brocklebank has won his case or has indeed been to court is a complete and utter lie and those people engaged in the lie are beneath contempt.

Whether or not Mr Brocklebank eventually goes to court is another matter but his chances of winning are only 50-50 perhaps even less.

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.

right, firstly i have been off being unwell, now recovered and back on form
secondly, i do not know who Mr Mite is, never heard of him

i thought i was doing good by reporting ths but somehow there has been a mix up with words not understanding what was going on, its not a crime is it

there is no need to shout at me, it was basicly good will to which i thought was true, ie dont shoot the messenger

i get all this through my brother as Bob Broicklebank dont have his mobile switched on when i want him

to what i hear the Council have given or are trying to give Bob "grandfather rights" re his seating arrangements for his next vehicle without going to court
please dont shoot the messenger, sometimes it all comes out wrong

remember the old army signal, "send re enforcements, when it was received it came out as "send three and fourpence""

I hope you are better now Mr SP.

As for the rest, well who cares? And a happy Xmas to you and your mob.

_________________
IDFIMH