The issue arose on a judicial review brought by Wakefield District Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Association against the decision the Wakefield Council’s licensing committee made to include the costs of taking enforcement action against licensed drivers in its fee for licensing vehicles (under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976). The council argued in the High Court that as a general principle of law, local authority licensing schemes are intended to be self-funding rather than dependent upon general funds.
At first instance HHJ Silver rejected this argument; declined to determine definitively whether or not the costs of enforcement action taken against drivers could be taken into account in the fixing of driver licence fees, and refused to accept that enforcement costs against licensed divers could be cross-subsidised by bringing such costs within the scope of the ‘control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles’ in accordance with section 70(1)(c) of the Act.
The council appealed arguing that:
The Court of Appeal considered that the Act clearly provides for three types of licence (1) vehicle licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles; (2) drivers’ licences and (3) operators’ licences, and remarked that “The notion that the fee for one type of licence can reflect the costs involved in another, far from being implicit in Part 11 of the 1976 Act, is entirely contrary to its structure.”
As for (I) the Court of Appeal held that there is no such general principle and in response to the intervention of the Local Government Association on the issue, went on to say that limited resources and the potential adverse impact on enforcement cannot affect proper statutory interpretation; as for (II) that the cost of driver enforcement action is recoverable under section 53, but regardless of the correct interpretation of the section, such costs cannot be taken into account in fixing vehicle licence fees; and as for (III) it cannot have been the intention of parliament to authorise something “entirely alien” to the structure of Part 11 of the Act, which on its face has a “comprehensive, self-contained regime for each category of licence”.
Interestingly the Court of Appeal further considered that, contrary to the argument of the council and without having heard the point argued, the costs of taking enforcement action against (licensed) drivers can be included in the drivers’ licence fee in accordance with section 53(2) which provides for the recovery of fees for the grant of drivers’ licences as are considered ‘reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration’. However, this is not considered to extend to unlicensed drivers against whom the recovery of enforcement costs is likely to remain controversial until such time as the point is argued and authoritatively determined.
This judgement is likely to add to the frustration and argument of those long since seeking the wholesale reform of the entire taxi licensing regime, in the meantime, local authorities may wish to:
Please contact Matt Marsh.
Covid-19 has resulted, on the whole, in a marked co-operation between contracting authorities and their suppliers as everybody focuses on maintaining delivery as far as possible.
As we enter a recession, we have been here before, and a key question is what did we learn and how can we benefit from that learning?
It is anticipated that as lockdown restrictions ease, and particularly with children and young adults returning to education, cases of meningitis will start to rise.
As we continue to emerge from lockdown measures and deal with local measures and the short and long term economic impact of Covid-19, local authorities will need to re-assess how services will be delivered for years to come.
The Government first announced plans for a shared ownership right to buy in October 2019. At the time the sector raised concerns about the impact the plans would have on housing associations ability to borrow. An election and a pandemic later the Government announced, during the CIH Housing Festival last week, the return of the right to shared ownership as part of its Affordable Homes Programme (AHP).
Two final pieces of the possession jigsaw have been published on 15 September 2020. Mr Justice Knowles’ working group on possession proceedings has issued its guidance on the “overall arrangements” for possession proceedings.
One change proposed by the Building Safety Bill is the introduction of a duty holder regime, which will see statutory responsibility for the safety of higher risk buildings placed on key individuals
Throughout this pandemic, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been publishing various “Statements on Coronavirus” (Statements) which provide guidance on consumer rights during this time.
A recent increase in COVID-19 cases in the UK means new measures are being put in place in an effort to reduce the risk of a second wave. Whilst the impact of COVID-19 continues to be felt, it is important to remain focused on the sector’s road to recovery.
Sometimes half an hour at a conference gives you the reality that has been staring you in the face all along. That was my experience watching “Change is on the Horizon”
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.