Abuse of Section 68 Local Government Miscellaneous Act 1976

Copy letter to Department for Business

For the attention of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy

Dear Sirs

Re Unlawful taxi license conditions and abuse of Acts of Parliament

Guildford Borough Council has introduced non-statutory policies that require taxis in Guildford be liveried in a green plastic wrap, and also required extra training for existing taxi drivers.

Although the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 by means of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007, and the Regulators Code 2014 require the Council to make these policies in a way which was transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent, they failed to follow those statutory instructions. Complaint has been made to the Council, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Local Government Ombudsman, but all have refused to apply the Statutory guidance.

I draw this to your attention, as it seems that the Courts and the Ombudsman have failed to adhere to the wishes of Parliament in applying these regulations, designed to limit the Councils’ wide powers given to any Council by the Local Government Act 2000 and the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976.

Further, it seems that section 47 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (LGMPA) requiring Councils to adopt license conditions which are reasonably necessary, is of no effect, as the Courts have held that Councils can make unnecessary taxi license conditions if they have undertaken a “consultation”, although no Act gives them that power in relation to taxi licenses. That matter was decided in the High Court (CO/829/2017), and Court of Appeal (C1/2017/3126), in the case of Benn Simmonds v Guildford Borough Council

Finally, it seems that under section 68 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, Councils can suspend a taxi license for 2 months, without right of appeal, if the Council believe that the taxi does not comply with any license condition. (Wilcock v Lancaster City Council [2013] EWHC 1231 (Admin) (11 April 2013)) permission to appeal refused on the papers.

Those decisions do not follow the intention of the LGMPA, which was to mirror the Plymouth City Council Act of 1975, on which the 1976 Act was modelled, which only allows suspension without right of appeal in the case of taxis which are a danger to the public.

Could you let me know by email what if anything you propose to do about these matters?

Yours truly

Mark Rostron

• Order by the Honourable Mr Justice Walker refusing permission for Judicial Review of suspension of hackney carriage license
• Livery suspension Pre-Action Protocol Letter
• Gmail - Justine Fuller Attendees and minutes livery meeting
• Complaint against GBC re Livery condition
• Complaint against GBC, Facts and Grounds
• GBC Licensing Committee livery policy
• GBC Executive enforcement policy
• s68 Suspension Notice, covering letter 4th January 2018 from GBC
• Brief facts and grounds
• Casey Report on child sexual exploitation Rotherham
• Comparison of s60 and s68 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976
• Letter before action s68
• Additional to letter before action s68
• Regulators Code Explanatory Memorandum
• Grounds of appeal Rostron v GBC Livery licence suspension
• Latif case - jurisdiction to extend the time beyond the statutory time limit of 21 days laid down
• Livery Consultation Document for Licensing Committee
• Local Government Act 2000 s2
• Notice of suspension
• Parsing of s60 and s68
• Public reports pack 18032015 1900 Licensing Committee
• Statement of facts and grounds LIVERY SUSPENSION JUDICIAL REVIEW
• Wilcock v Lancaster City Council 2013 LLR 607, Admin Ct
• Wilcock v Lancaster City Council 2013 LLR 607, Admin Ct Case judgement only
• ZL Duties of Candour