Gosport taxi operator given green light to operate two private
hire vehicles
Blake Lapthorn was contacted in April 2012 by Bryn Gibson, the
proprietor of Col's Cars, after his application for two private
hire vehicle licences had been refused by the Licensing Sub
Committee of Gosport Borough Council.
Mr Gibson had previously been granted licences
in respect of two Ford Transit mini buses. However the two
vehicles were more than eight years old. Under Condition 3
(ix) of Gosport Borough Council's Licensing Conditions 2008, a
vehicle would not be eligible for a private hire licence if it was
more than eight years old at the time the application was
made.
However Condition 74 of Gosport Borough
Council's Licensing Conditions provided that where a vehicle could
not meet one of the criteria referred to (as in this case) the
vehicle would have to be licensed as an Exceptional Vehicle, if it
was to be licensed at all. Mr Gibson contended that both of
his vehicles were not able to meet one of the conditions (the age
condition) and therefore sought a licence on the basis that they
were Exceptional Vehicles.
The Licensing Sub Committee met on 3 April
2012. Mr Gibson handed in copies of the service records and
MOT certificates for each vehicle. He sought to demonstrate
that the vehicles were mechanically sound and he also sent the
vehicles to be examined as required by the Borough Council.
Both vehicles passed each test, however his
licence was refused. The Licensing Sub Committee decided that
the vehicles were not Exceptional Vehicles and to depart from the
'eight year rule' would set an unacceptable precedent.
Mr Gibson appealed that decision to the
Magistrates Court and instructed Blake Lapthorn, who represented Mr
Gibson at Portsmouth Magistrates' Court on Friday 21 September
2012.
The basis for the appeal was that the
Licensing Sub Committee was wrong to hold that the vehicles were
not Exceptional Vehicles when plainly they were within the meaning
of Condition 74.
It was further contended that the Licensing
Sub Committee was wrong to refuse the licenses on the basis that
any exception to the age condition would set an unacceptable
precedent; it was clearly written down in Condition 74 that there
could be exceptions. The Licensing Sub Committee ought to
have considered the merits of Mr Gibson's application based on the
quality of mechanical evidence as to the state of the vehicles
rather than any other factors.
Finally Mr Gibson argued that the Licensing
Sub Committee had not paid sufficient attention to the
aforementioned engineer's report.
The Magistrates agreed with all of the
arguments put forward on Mr Gibson's behalf, noting that Condition
74 was quite plain: it provided that ANY vehicle that could not
meet ANY of the licensing conditions were within the category of
Exceptional Vehicles. There was no basis for trying to work
out what the Committee might have had in mind when it drafted
Condition 74. Further it was not in dispute that the vehicles
were both mechanically sound. The Magistrates accepted that
it was plainly envisaged in Condition 74 that there would be
exceptions to the conditions and there was no basis for denying Mr
Gibson his licences given the sound mechanical state of the
vehicles.
Mr Gibson's appeals were allowed and he was
granted the licences that he had sought in respect of both
vehicles. After further submissions he was also awarded his
full costs in the case, which Gosport Borough Council has now paid
in full.
Tim
Williamson, the head of Blake Lapthorn's Motoring Offences team, who
acted for Mr Gibson, said: "This was an important case because it
was never in dispute that the vehicles for which Mr Gibson sought
private hire vehicle licences were capable of being classified as
Exceptional Vehicles. Mr Gibson had provided full records
demonstrating the soundness of the vehicles and he did not
understand why the Licensing Sub Committee had not granted his
application accordingly."
