Task and finish group taxi and private hire, letter to Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling

28th October 2018

The Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP

Secretary of State

Department for Transport

POCorrespondence@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Sir,

I am writing in connection with your current review of taxi legislation of interest to 356,300 taxi or private hire vehicle drivers.

The following areas of defect have not to my knowledge been mentioned anywhere, and I think that as they originated in part in 1976 legislation, it is well beyond time that they and the associated matters were rectified.

Abuse of powers to impose unnecessary license conditions under section 47 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (LGMPA)

Judges have wrongly found 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 they 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 without a hearing after five Justices reviewed the matter while avoiding hearing the substance of the drivers complaint, in the High Court (CO/829/2017), and Court of Appeal (C1/2017/3126), in the case of Benn Simmonds v Guildford Borough Council.

Abuse of section 68 Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976

A High Court Justice wrongly approved the suspension of a taxi vehicle licence for two months without the right of appeal for non-dangerous infringements of taxi licence conditions.

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 supposedly modelled, which only allows suspension without right of appeal in the case of taxis which are a danger to the public.

Department for Transport guidelines are unclear

87. As part of enforcement, local licensing authorities will often make spot checks, which can lead to their suspending or revoking licences. They will wish to consider carefully which power should best be used for this purpose. They will note, among other things, that section 60 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 provides a right of appeal for the licence-holder, whereas section 68, which is also sometimes used, does not; this can complicate any challenge by the licence-holder.

There is evidence that authorities do choose section 68 simply to get an unappealable suspension of a safe vehicle.

Failure of Local Government Ombudsman

The Ombudsman cannot comment on the abuse of section 68 LGMPA as it had been decided by the Courts, even though that decision was perverse and wrong.

The Councils abuse of its consultation and policy procedure to produce an unnecessary livery policy were referred to the Local Government Ombudsman who wrongly said that the Council had regard to the Regulators Code of 2014 and legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 because it had been mentioned by the Council when considering a different matter.

Abuse of court cost system to prevent any regular use of summary Magistrates Court relief or Judicial Review

Ignoring Home Office guidelines mentioned by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society who have said that awarding costs for a licensing appeal should be an exception, not a rule, and any resident with reasonable grounds for an appeal should not be penalised. (Taken from:Ref: DEP 05/1623 - Justices' Clerks' Society good practice guide: Licensing 1999 (revised November 2001). 114 p (deposited in the House of Commons Library on 07-12-05 by the Justices' Clerks Society / Department for Constitutional Affairs), magistrates and the Crown and High Courts have awarded large costs against appellants who had very good reason to appeal. The effect of these cost awards are to nullify any rights and protections taxi drivers were given by Parliament and to further make unavailable Judicial Review of wrongful decisions by Councils.

Lack of expertise on taxi law in court and legal system

It appears that many Magistrates, Judges and Justices, have no experience of dealing with taxi law. Each time they come to the matters afresh. There are limited cases precedent, because most don’t get as far as the High Court and therefore the Judiciary and their legal advisers, and Barristers are without proper guidance. This produces random and capricious results.

The damage is compounded by the small importance attached to and small interest shown in taxi cases as evidenced by Lord Justice in the unreported Court of Appeal case re section 68.

Partiality in court and legal system

The Magistrates are partial to the Councils. The Crown Court Recorders are traditionally the placemen of the Councils and are partial to them. Many barristers earn their fees from local authorities and as in the case of Guildford Chambers, and others, refuse to act against them.

Those same Licencing Act barristers form the pool from which a large number of Administrative Court Justices are drawn. They and their chambers earn large fees acting for local authorities in Licencing Act matters and are partial to them, both as Justices and as barristers. There is further partiality as a result of the recent Court of Appeal decision not to hear applications that don’t follow Court rules exactly, thereby preventing any redress to litigants in person.

Failure of management of taxi and private hire numbers

Expert economic analysis has definitively shown the folly of a policy of unrestricted taxi numbers. The point was made at length to the Law Commission, but they apparently completely ignored the evidence.

I have copies of the legal cases and orders, and economist’s reports and other matters referred to and will provide them to you if require.

I hope you will be able to clarify or rectify the law on licence conditions, suspensions, and to solve the problems of lack of legal expertise, partiality and costs by setting up a specialist taxi tribunal to deal with all taxi and private hire legal matters, along similar lines and with similar no cost operation as the Property Tribunal and the Information Tribunal.

Could you please let me know your intentions by email?

Yours truly Mark Rostron Secretary, Guildford Hackney Association