detailed regimes” for (1) taxi and PHV vehicle licences, (2) drivers’ licences, and (3) operators’ licences.
“The notion that the fee for one type of licence can reflect the costs involved in another, far from being implicit in Part II of the 1976 Act, is entirely contrary to its structure.”
An added bonus in the judgement of this Court of Appeal case is that finally some clarity has been defined as to the power to charge for enforcement against drivers under LGMPA section 53(2). For the longest time, the Audit Commission report in respect of licence fees charged by Guildford Borough Council (and other sources nationally) had maintained that there is no authority to charge for enforcement action on drivers under this part of the legislation, in that enforcement does not come under “recovering the costs of issue and administration” [of a driver’s licence].
The Court of Appeal put paid to this premise, thus:… “The relevant words in that provision are ‘the costs of issue and administration’. The costs of ‘administration’ must be something other than, and in addition to, the costs of ‘issue’. [Administration] naturally includes the costs of suspension and revocation, [which] rest on non-compliance with the requirements and conditions for contin- uing to hold the licence… It would therefore have been obvious to Parliament, when enacting the 1976 Act, that costs would be incurred by the district council in monitoring compliance with such requirements and conditions.”
The Court went on to say that there would be no obvious reason why the costs of monitoring and enforcing the conditions of vehi- cle and operator licences would be recoverable under section 70, and yet not the cost of driver enforcement under 53. “For those reasons… we consider that the costs of monitoring and enforcing the behaviour of licensed drivers can be recovered through the fee under section 53(2).”
Finally! – we get a definitive and binding judgement on this point.
Gerald Gouriet QC, who appeared on behalf of the winning side (the Wakefield Association), has always maintained this to be the case, whilst acknowledging that “academic opinion is divided on the point”.
The tricky part – and the costly part – is for the council and the association now to sit down and negotiate the restitution claims following their misinterpretation of charging for licences. As Mr Gouriet told us: “Wakefield said that it had been charging a fee for vehicle licences on that basis for a number of years. The claim for restitution will obviously go well beyond the year under consider- ation in the judicial review.”
Further, as Mr Gouriet points out: “If other licensing authorities have been charging for vehicle licences on a similarly unlawful basis, they will be vulnerable to similar restitution claims.”
On the back of the Wakefield case, I predict a few FOI requests going into various councils around the country in the new year, for licence holders to examine the taxi/PHV licensing accounts…
But also, it is refreshing – and encouraging – to hear a Court refer back to and consider the original intentions of Parliament when it ratified the 1976 Act. Yes, the Act is now painfully out of date, not tech-friendly and all that; however – and until/unless we get any- thing better – it remains a pretty good piece of kit; and its misinterpretations by local authorities have cost this country a lot of time and money over the years.
That is one ‘paper’ file we still retain: the original Hansard record of proceedings in the Commons and the Lords during 1975/76 when the Act was being debated. Fascinating, and very helpful from time to time.
Oh, and by the way – Happy New Year! Until next time, sayonara.
JANUARY 2020
23
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
