DELAYED LICENCE
NPHA Director, Dave Lawrie, wrote an article last July on the Cartledge v Gedling case which established that like any other licensed stakeholder in any other licensed business, a licensee who has submitted their application for renewal before the licence has expired may continue working beyond expiry until the licence has been processed.
It was indeed an absurdity that licensed drivers may be treated differently from other licensees in other businesses where it would be unthinkable as well as unlawful to force them to cease trading due to such bureaucratic delay that was not even their fault. I’m reminded of the article I wrote here two years ago when I concluded that licensed drivers are not treated fairly or equally to other licensees by many licensing authorities and often face disproportionate action in the event of any transgression.
This cultural mind-set on the part of councils simply
mirrors that of the general public who elect them. However this unevenness of treatment is reaching a new low when some councils are perhaps deliberately ignoring the above court ruling in order to prioritise asserting their authority and not losing face above other considerations such as respect- ing the rule of law, natural justice, supporting local business or other such relatively trivial matters.
They are persisting with refusing to allow drivers to continue to work when their renewal applications have been submitted before expiry but the processing of them has been delayed.
I would go further, though: Not only are councils required to allow drivers to continue working pending the processing of their applications when these are delayed, drivers should also receive a partial refund for their licensing fees, not as compensation but to reflect the fact that the fee for the licence may only cover associated costs in part or in whole and a lack of resources resulting in a delay would be a reflection of an associated reduction in cost or expenditure.
I’m not going to name the offending councils lest this prejudices the outcome of our efforts to bring them to account behind the scenes but they know who they are...
CARTLEDGE V GEDLING BOROUGH COUNCIL
Mr Cartledge had applied for the renewal of his driver’s licence long before it expired. His application was not granted until 14 days after expiry. A council officer saw him standing by his cab in a public street the day before his driver’s licence was renewed. There was no suggestion he had been plying for hire or taking passengers. The council prosecuted him under section 46 Town Police Clauses Act 1847 for driving a hackney carriage without a licence. He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and appealed to Nottingham Crown Court.
12 THE MATERIAL FACTS
Cartledge had been a licensee since 1987, holding a succession of licences, renewed without any issues arising. He was also a licensed PCV driver, allowing him to drive any kind of bus or coach. His most recent licence was renewed on 22 August 2016, valid until 21 August 2019.
On 24 April, the council sent a reminder that his current licence was due for renewal on 22 August 2019. On 10 June Mr Cartledge made an appointment and attended the council offices on 19 June with a completed application form and various documentation to renew his licence. His application was not accepted, due to his not having current safeguarding refresher training.
The following day he arranged this refresher training for the morning of 16 August. Cartledge then asked for an appoint- ment to renew on the afternoon following his refresher training; but “appointments are not held on Fridays”. An appointment was made for Monday 19 August.
He completed the training on the morning of Friday, 16 August. Confirmation was emailed by the course provider.
He returned to the council on Monday 19 August. He resubmitted the completed application form and the required documentation, but still his licence was not renewed.
The licence expired on 21 August. He drove his hackney carriage on 4 September. His licence was renewed on 5 September. The council prosecuted him for driving a hackney carriage on 4 September without holding a hack- ney carriage driver’s licence.
THE CROWN COURT DECISION
Mr Cartledge’s appeal against conviction was allowed: the Judge, sitting with two Magistrates, found that the application to renew had been refused: Mr Cartledge had asked for a licence to take the place of his current licence on its expiry and had not been given what he had asked for.
THE REFUSAL TRIGGERED SECTION 77(2) OF LGMPA 1976
“If any requirement, refusal or other decision of a district council against which a right of appeal is conferred by this Act… makes it unlawful for any person to carry on a business which he was lawfully carrying on up to the time of the requirement, refusal or decision… … then, until the time for appealing has expired, or, when an appeal is lodged, until the appeal is disposed of or withdrawn or fails for want of prosecution… that person may carry on that business.”
JANUARY 2022
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
