UNEMPLOYED WHILST WAITING FOR THE David Lawrie, Director NPHTA
dave@nphta.co.uk UNEMPLOYED? WHY!
Most local authorities will tell you that if a licence holder applies for a renewal, but the licensing authority fails to determine his application before the licence expires, he must stop working.
We have been saying for many years that provided a licensee submits his renewal application prior to the expiry of the existing licence, then they may continue about their business as normal whilst they wait. In fact, the printing of the licence should take no more than 30 minutes.
So much so that David Lawrie challenged this several times at local levels successfully during his former role as chair of a local trade association, which was supported by David Wilson of A2Z licensing who advised local authorities that “an application should not be rejected due to a missing tick box or document, further information can be requested.”
FINALLY CHALLENGED IN THE CROWN COURT
This has now been successfully challenged at Nottingham Crown Court by the leading licensing QC in the UK, Gerald Gouriet of Francis Taylor Buildings in London, who coinciden- tally also represented us in our Judicial Review.
DISPARITY AMONG COUNCILS!
Until the mismatch of taxi licensing legislation is reformed, there is one law for London, another for the rest of England, another for Plymouth, and yet another for Scotland.
In Greater London: Section 17(7) of The Transport Act 1985 says –
17(7) Where a person holds a licence which is in force when he applies for it to be renewed, the existing licence shall continue in force until the application for the new licence, or any appeal under this section in relation to that application, is disposed of.
Under the LGMPA 1976; There is no ‘continue in force’ provision; when a licence expires, it expires, even if the licensee has applied to renew it.
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
James Button offers an alternative to this forced unemploy- ment of a licensee whilst waiting: issue a temporary licence.
28
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 appointment 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 re- submitted 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 hack- ney carriage on 4 September without holding a hackney carriage driver’s licence.
JULY 2021
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 holding a licence. He was convicted in the Magistrates’ Court and appealed to Nottingham Crown Court.
THE MATERIAL FACTS
Cartledge had been a licensee since 1987, holding a succes- sion of licences, renewed without any issues arising. He was also a licensed PCV (Passenger Carrying Vehicle) 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.
www.nphta.co.uk
But that solution relies on the willingness of the licensing authority to be helpful – which, as the Nottingham Crown Court case demonstrates, cannot always be guaranteed.
CARTLEDGE V GEDLING BOROUGH COUNCIL
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
