UNITE VIEWPOINT...


THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: REVISITING THE CONTROVERSY OVER TINTEDWINDOWS


Once again we welcome Sean Ridley of Unite, who this month is waxing lyrical on a subject dear to our hearts, and one of our favourite soap-boxes, at the NPHTA: tinted windows.


Once again I have to thank you very much for your kind appreciation and the emails that I’ve received providing tangible confirmation from different areas nationally that the intrepid bunch of inexperienced council licensing offi- cers who insist on meddling in areas of licensing where they possess absolutely no expertise whatsoever, are indeed alive and well. They continue to spread their regulatory madness in order only (as far as I can see) to impede and prevent responsible operators, proprietors and drivers from running a safe and cost-effective business. This is of course the polar opposite of what their regulatory role should be! If in doubt, ask the DfT...!


Not only this, but sadly they seem to be increasing in number and most authorities now seem to have a representative from this very select club!


This brings me to the subject of this month’s article. Staying with the main subject of mindless over-regulation, something that seems to be in the national spotlight at the moment – that being tinted windows.


Now when we say tinted windows we are referring to those windows fitted rear of the driver, specifically the rear side passenger windows. For as we all know, the front wind- screen and front side windows are covered by national legislation [Construction and Use Regulations 1986] applied to all vehicles on the UK’s roads.


Sadly once again, we have our happy band of meddlers, one of whom once had what they (and only they) perceived was a “good” idea. ‘...Let’s regulate tinted windows in the rear of licensed vehicles...’


Now, if this all sounds fairly innocuous, sadly it isn’t! As they are not satisfied with a rea- sonable level of tint i.e. those applied as standard by vehicle manufacturers (after all, what do they know???) – applied during the manufacture of the vehicle and/or supplied as standard by the vehicle manufacturer. That’s far too sensible an approach for the meddling over-regulators.


Instead, they


dream up their own arbitrary and discre- tionary (at officer’s discretion – how many times have you heard that term?) maximum level of tint.


56


ty’, do you??? Most local authorities do not even check for window certification and I’ve caught at least one out!


As we have established in my earlier columns, conditions of licence should be proportionate, reasonable and necessary. They should also represent the least ‘restrictive path or alterna- tive’. Moreover, the council’s job as the regulator is to provide a sensible local taxi licensing framework that both meets the demands of the local trade, whilst also assur- ing the safety of the general public locally through reasonable and necessary conditions justified by local evidence from the local area.


Now if you look up the term “arbitrary” in the dictionary the definition is: (1) Based on ran- dom choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. i.e. “an arbitrary deci- sion” and; (2) (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority. In ‘similar words’, it offers: “tyranni- cal”... At this stage I’m wondering if the author of the dictionary has been licensed as a cab driver in the UK!?


By outlawing the use of manufacturer’s fitted tinted windows, not only is the licensing authority (through its officers) saying that it believes that it knows more than vehicle man- ufacturers, but also that they believe that they are infinitely more qualified to set the level for tinted windows in the rear of a motor vehicle.


Perhaps more worryingly, what they are actu- ally doing is requiring proprietors to ‘adapt vehicles from the manufacturer’s specifica- tion(s)’. Apart from the obvious point that this is rarely a good idea, given the fact that these specific tint levels are clearly there for a reason – there is also the question of safety and crash test certification. Would it be rude at this point to ask: what are the documented qualifications, experience and expertise in ‘vehicle design and safety’ of the officers who are requiring these arbitrary levels?


I ask this question against the backdrop of professional vehicle manufacturers who have been in business for many years and spend thousands (if not millions) on vehicle design and safety through qualified engineers, cul- minating in M1 crash test certification, only for the inexperienced meddlers to overturn their safety decisions, in order to placate the officers’ personal whims.


The dark side of this is that some proprietors are now being pushed towards buying cheap replacement windows from China, which do not comply with any of the UK or EU safety regulations. Now I don’t call that ‘public safe-


Let’s just look at that last phrase, ‘...reason- able and necessary conditions justified by local evidence from the local area...’ In effect “Evidence based decision making”.


So with that in mind, I have made FOI requests to many councils in respect of tinted windows asking: “Please would you be kind enough to inform us of how many times your authority has been unable to pursue or pro- ceed with a complaint as a direct result of tinted windows having been fitted to the rear of a licensed hackney carriage or PHV? Please include the details of any such instances...”


Guess what? All have responded with abso- lutely NO evidence of such incidents. What does this say??? Where is the “evidential basis” for the decision???


I have yet to find any evidence of any inci- dents ANYWHERE in the country brought about by darkened tinted windows. So again, where is the ‘policy justification’? This seems truly to be a figment of some council officer’s (member of the inexperienced meddlers club) imagination!


Now I’m no lawyer, but surely if a local authority is embarking upon a condition of licence then it should be underpinned by local evidence (from the local area) of requirement and necessity by way of the pol- icy justification. If it is not, then where does this leave the local authority legally? i.e. How safe legally does this make the decision to implement the condition???


Well, for the answer to this we only need to look to the vast amount of councils that have recently fallen to challenges against this ridiculous condition of licence – routinely copied and pasted into ‘conditions’ by the meddlers. It is true to say, based upon nation- al evidence (I know many officers don’t like


OCTOBER 2019


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