Addison Lee update

msmancunia

According to the Guardian's breaking news, Addison Lee has lost it's government contract.

So what goes around, obviously comes around.

jonginge

Also reported here:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... tract.html

Funny last para.

rick_chasey

Expensive waste of time for the boss - didn't he give the Tory party £500,000?

spen666

I'd wondered where Gerald Ratner was these days

notsoblue

Wow, thats interesting news.

Probably more due to the driving in buslanes thing rather than the comments about cyclists though.

mr_ribble

Rick Chasey wrote:

Expensive waste of time for the boss - didn't he give the Tory party £500,000?

Too generous. £254,045.58 since Cam became leader. The removal of the M4 offside bus lane shortly after was a pure coincidence .... hall'edgily

rick_chasey

Mr_Ribble wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Expensive waste of time for the boss - didn't he give the Tory party £500,000?

Too generous. £254,045.58 since Cam became leader. The removal of the M4 offside bus lane shortly after was a pure coincidence .... hall'edgily

Fair enough - not all wasted then!

bails87

from: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... tract.html

The decision could cost the firm tens of thousands of pounds: the Department for Education alone spent over £35,000 on the minicabs between August 2011 and January 2012.

£35K in half a year, from one department, and losing the entire gov't contract could cost tens of thousands of pounds? At least they're avoiding any hyperbole.....

mr_ribble

Im guessing there are referring to losses on the bottom line, as opposed to sales. Profit margins are going to be tight as well, so a 1.5 million contract from the government may acually only generate 100 grand in profits

flimflam_machine

Funnily enough John Griffin came across as quite reasonable on Radio 4 this morning. That's probably because he only spoke about the bus lane things in terms of fair competition with black cabs and didn't mention cyclists much at all.

bigmat

Latest:

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON v (1) JOHN GRIFFIN (2) ADDISON LEE PLC (3) EVENTECH LTD (2012)
[2012] EWHC 1105 (QB)
QBD (Eder J) 26/04/2012
ROAD TRAFFIC - CIVIL PROCEDURE
BUS LANES : INJUNCTIONS : PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES : REGULATION : TAXIS : USE OF BUS LANES BY PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES : INJUNCTIONS TO PREVENT USE : ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984 s.8 : SERIOUS CRIME ACT 2007 s.44
It was necessary, just and convenient for an injunction to be granted to Transport for London restraining a private car hire operator from causing, encouraging or assisting its drivers to use bus lanes, save to pick up or set down passengers, pending the outcome of a judicial review claim that had been brought by the operator. The order was subject to undertakings and cross-undertakings from the parties.

The claimant (TFL) applied for an interim injunction in a dispute with the defendants (D) concerning the use of bus lanes in London.

D had operated a fleet of private hire vehicles and rented them to its self-employed drivers. TFL had made a number of traffic regulation orders designating certain traffic lanes as bus lanes. The effect was that taxis or "black cabs" and private hire vehicles or "minicabs" could use the bus lanes to pick up or set-down passengers, but only black cabs were allowed to use the bus lanes as a through-route. D filed a claim for judicial review challenging the decision of the Parking Adjudicator rejecting its appeal against two penalty charge notices issued for contravention of the bus lane legislation, on the basis that the traffic regulation orders were discriminatory and contrary to EU law. D sent a notice to its drivers instructing them to use the bus lanes pending the outcome of the judicial review and issued a press release which was also posted on its website stating that it would indemnify drivers for any fines or payments resulting from the use of the bus lanes. TFL applied for an urgent interim injunction requiring D to withdraw the notice and issued a warning to minicab drivers not to drive in bus lanes, as that amounted to a criminal offence contrary to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.8.

D submitted that the basis for the judicial review claim was that the traffic regulation orders were unlawful and therefore breach did not amount to a criminal offence. If prosecuted under the Serious Crime Act 2007 s.44 for intentionally encouraging or assisting in the commission of an offence, they had a defence that they had a reasonably-held belief that the orders were unlawful.

HELD: (1) The fundamental flaw in Ds' submissions was that the indemnity given in the notice covered any fines or other liabilities that might result from using the bus lanes as a result of the notice. If D succeeded in the claim for judicial review, there would be no valid and enforceable fines or other liabilities. Thus, the indemnity could only sensibly apply in circumstances where an offence had been committed and therefore was contrary to public policy and void. Although the indemnity was void, there was nothing unlawful in D paying a fine incurred by one of its drivers after such a fine had been imposed or other liability incurred provided that such payment was not made pursuant to an earlier indemnity (see paras 64-65 of judgment). (2) The injunction was in effect seeking to prohibit conduct which would potentially constitute a criminal offence. Although D might have a defence to any criminal prosecution based on the assertion that the legislation was discriminatory and in breach of EU law, it was necessary and just and convenient to grant an injunction until the determination by the Administrative Court of the claim for judicial review or further order and to restrain D from causing, encouraging or assisting any minicab driver to use the bus lanes marked for use by black cabs during the hours when restrictions applied, save to pick up or set down passengers. That was to be subject to a cross-undertaking by TFL that if the court later found that the order had caused loss to the defendants and or any other person and decided that the defendants or any other person should be compensated for that loss, TFL would comply with any order that the court might make. An interim declaration would also be granted on the basis of undertakings by D not to communicate to any person in advance of a fine or liability being incurred by such person for contravention of legislation governing the use of bus lanes on or after April 25, 2012, that they would discharge or reimburse such fine or liability whether pursuant to the indemnity contained in D's notice or otherwise. An order would also be made for the judicial review proceedings to be expedited (paras 66, 89, 95).





Application granted
Counsel:
For the claimant: Martin Chamberlain, Sarah Love
For the defendants: Marie Demetriou QC

Solicitors:
For the claimant: In-house solicitor
For the defendants: Maitland Walker LLP

LTL 1/5/2012
Approved subject to editorial corrections - 25 pages
AC0132240

TheStone

BigMat wrote:

Latest:
...........

Can someone translate. I can't find the Lawyer->English option on Google.

bigmat

Addison Lee told they can't say they'll indemnify drivers for breaking the law. AL argued that they were offering to indemnify drivers because believed the law was wrong, Court said that if law wrong then there will be no fines to pay so the only way in which AL would be required to pay an indemnity is if law proved to be right, in which case would be inciting drivers to break the law which against public policy so injunction granted preventing AL from encouraging drivers to use bus lanes unlawfully / offer to pay fines.

MonkeyMonster

Need a taxi to take me to clam junction from hammersmith area for 6.30 am friday - any suggestions for who to use

bromyG

@MM - Gogreencars!