R (Lunt, Allied Vehicles Ltd) v Liverpool City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr JUSTICE BLAKE |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/6158/2008 |
| Date | 31 July 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Blake
CO/6158/2008
Ms Dinah Rose Q, Mr Gerry Facenna and Ms Catherine Casserley (instructed by Bindmans) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Ms Francis Patterson QC and Mr David Hercock (instructed by Liverpool CC) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Ms Yvette Genn (instructed by EHRC) appeared on behalf of the Intervener
This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Liverpool City Council taken through its Licensing Committee in March 2008.
1. Introduction
In 2007 the second claimant, Allied Vehicles Limited, applied to the defendant for approval of its E7 taxi for use as a public hire taxi in the city of Liverpool. The E7 is a vehicle developed in consultation with the second claimant and Peugeot based in France. It is manufactured by the second claimant in the United Kingdom using a chassis base imported from France that is used in the Peugeot Expert Tepee range of vehicle. The Expert Tepee is a commercial passenger carrying vehicle that is also used as a taxi in many European cities. The E7 is a purpose-built design for publicly hired taxis in the United Kingdom.
The second claimant has imported some 800 vehicles from Peugeot in 2008 into the United Kingdom, of which 647 were for use as E7 taxis, and 153 for use as Eurobus private hire taxis.
The first claimant is a resident of the city of Liverpool. She hurt her back some 27 years ago and has a disability that requires her to use a wheelchair. A combination of factors relevant to her medical history means that she has to distribute her weight by reclining the back of her wheelchair and using footrests. This means that that her wheelchair is somewhat longer than what has been known in these proceedings as the reference wheelchair for public transport purposes, that is 1200mm in length. She is not alone in having a wheelchair of greater length than 1200mm. A survey conducted in 2005 on behalf of the Department of Transport Mobility and Inclusion unit of some 1356 occupants and devices showed a range of wheelchair lengths from 775mm to 1604mm; and it appears that a few hundred users had a chair over 1200mm in length. The longest self-propelled wheelchair noted in that survey was 1534mm, which was itself an increase in size of the maximum self-propelled wheelchair by some 177mm since a similar survey in 1999.
The first claimant is the voluntary chair of the Merseyside Coalition of Inclusive Living and the Treasurer of the Liverpool Wheelchair Users Group. These are both voluntary organisations concerned with disability issues in the city of Liverpool and beyond. Amongst other things, she participates in the policy forum of the City Council concerned with wheelchair access issues.
In the autumn of 2007, she became aware of the application made by Allied Vehicles Limited, and she tried out the E7 vehicle in order to access it in her wheelchair. She was impressed with it because she had encountered substantial difficulties in getting into and travelling safely within the public hire taxis presently available in the city of Liverpool. The design specification of the 1400 such taxis approved for public hire, although intended since 2000 to meet the needs of wheelchair users, are confined to the London-style taxi developed in accordance with the requirements of the London Public Carriage Office, as they have developed over the years since the 19th century. There are various authorised models and manufacturers who comply with the specifications, including the “TX” range of vehicles. But in this judgment, taxis that meet these requirements will be referred to generally as the “London taxi” or the “TX”.
When these proceedings were launched, there was an issue as to precisely what and how great the difficulties were that the first claimant faced in accessing Liverpool public hire taxis, and also what precisely she had told the Council and Mr Edwards, its principal licensing officer, about them. Shortly before the hearing of this application in June 2009, there was a demonstration attended by Mr Edwards. Since that demonstration, it has been agreed that the first claimant cannot access the traditional London taxi in her manual powered wheelchair because she cannot turn her chair to face the rear and be secured by the straps and seat-belts provided for disabled use in such a taxi. That means that if she has to travel in such a taxi at all, she can only do so in a diagonal or sideways position unsecured by a seat-belt or a strap on the wheelchair itself. It is common ground that this state of affairs not only creates an uncomfortable ride in the vehicle if it breaks or turn corners sharply, it is an unsafe position and a breach of the local regulations governing the conveyance of wheelchair users.
The reason for these difficulties is the limited amount of space and the configuration of the floor plan of the London taxi as it rises to the side. By contrast, she can readily access the larger E7 taxi; she can face forward in the course of a journey and be properly secured, and moreover the space is such that she can also be joined by three or possibly four ambulant passengers in the other seats available in the vehicle, by contrast again with the London taxi where at most one passenger can travel with the claimant. The court was provided with a DVD showing a comparison with the E7, a London taxi and another vehicle that will be mentioned later in this judgment, from which it appears that the travelling passenger could only travel in a cramped, difficult and uncomfortable position.
The first claimant has a large family and would like to travel with more members of her family than just one person if that were possible. She therefore supports the second claimant's application that would relax the defendant's present policy that generally only authorises the London taxi for use as a public hire vehicle in Liverpool.
The policy was spelt out in a report of Mr Edwards. The first such report being on 31 October 2007, but it is repeated in the second report that he made in March 2008. He says as follows:
“Before a type of vehicle may be licensed as a hackney carriage it needs to be approved by the City Council as a suitable vehicle for use as a taxi cab in Liverpool. The Council has accepted that purpose-built taxis which comply with the conditions of fitness of the London Carriage Office are suitable for such use. Other types of vehicle are considered on their merits, but to date no vehicle which is unable to meet the conditions of fitness has been approved by the Council.”
Mr Edwards also referred to the policy of the defendant Council in a document that he had prepared in March 2008, which was the Equality Impact Assessment document. He notes that the standard of the London conditions of fitness:
“lays down critical standards which vehicles must attain before being licensed as a hackney carriage. The Licensing Committee makes reference to those standards. If a vehicle falls short of those standards it will generally not be approved for use as a hackney carriage”.
2. The impugned decision
On 31 October 2007, the defendant's Licensing Committee first considered the matter. It heard a presentation from Mr Fryer, an employee of the second claimants. It heard from the first claimant, Mrs Lunt, and from a Mr Bruce, who was chair of the Liverpool Wheelchair Users Group.
The minutes record in summary form the gist of what they were being told, which includes the following:
“They are in favour of the E7. Not all TX vehicles are wheelchair accessible.”
Other people, including the manager of the TX range, opposed the application. It was adjourned for further information to be obtained and consultation with others, including other authorities on the types of vehicle they licence.
On 4 March 2008, there was a meeting of some few hours in length between Mr Edwards, Mr Bruce and Ms Price, who was another wheelchair user active in disability issues in the city of Liverpool and its surrounding region, and Mrs Lunt, the first claimant. As already indicated, there is some difference of recollection between those three on the one hand and Mr Edwards on the other as to precisely what was said at a meeting. Mr Edwards does not recollect anyone saying to him that wheelchairs could not be safely secured in the taxis as the statements of the three wheelchair users indicate they did inform them. But I am satisfied that it is at least clear that the difficulties created by the physical limitations of space were emphasised by all three, although not everyone had the scale of difficulty that Mrs Lunt, the first claimant, had.
Following that meeting, Mr Edwards completed the Equality Impact Assessment to which reference has already been made. He said as follows:
“A specific application for the approval of a Peugeot E7 vehicle to be used as a hackney carriage presents the potential for a dis-benefit to wheelchair users if the vehicle is not approved. Those wheelchair users who wish to be accompanied by several of their ambulant friends have move manoeuvrability and be able to travel in a forward as well as a rear facing position would not be able to do so by access to the current wheelchair accessible fleet. The Peugeot E7 is a larger vehicle and by virtue of its size creates more space for manoeuvre and placement of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finnigan v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
...It is common ground that a six-step approach is required to be adopted to section 21 of the DDA as endorsed by Blake J in R (Lunt) v Liverpool City Council [2009] EWHC 2366 (Admin) at para 53 and that, mutatis mutandis, the same approach should be adopted to section 20 of the EA. Lunt was a......
-
Hamnett v Essex County Council
...his submissions on behalf of the Claimant that this court does have jurisdiction Mr Hogan relied on the decision of Blake J in R (Lunt and Another) v Liverpool City Council [2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin). In that case a complaint made under the predecessor provision to section 29 (section 21 of t......
-
MM and another v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mind and Others intervening)
...[2011] UKSC 28; [2011] PTSR 1053; [2012] 1 AC 663; [2011] 3 WLR 107; [2011] 4 All ER 127, SC(E)R (Lunt) v Liverpool City Council [2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin); [2010] RTR 38Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Allen [2009] EWCA Civ 1213; [2010] 1 EGLR 13, CASecretary of State for Work and Pensions v Ala......
-
Sinclair Collis Ltd For Judicial Review Of The Tobacco And Primary Health Services
...AC 719, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at paragraph 30 (cf. Lord Hope of Craighead at paragraph 68); R (Lunt) v Liverpool City Council [2009] EWHC 2356 (Admin), paragraphs 65 - 74). In order to come within the Keck exception the measure in question has itself to constitute a selling arrangeme......