Black cabs win court challenge against London traffic rules

United Trade Action Group (UTAG) and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association (LTDA) argued measures announced last year, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, aimed at boosting walking and cycling in London and reducing traffic were "unlawful".

In a judgment published on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lang ruled in the groups' favour, saying that the plan and guidance at the centre of the challenge should be reconsidered and "substantially amended".

UTAG and LTDA brought action over the Streetspace plan, announced by the mayor, Sadiq Khan, on May 6 last year, and guidance published days later by TfL.

These measures aimed to "facilitate walking and cycling by providing more dedicated road space for pedestrians and cyclists, and 'suppressing' motor vehicle traffic, other than buses", the ruling says.

The two groups also challenged a traffic management order, known as the "A10 order", which imposed restrictions on vehicles, excluding buses on the A10 in the City of London, between 7am and 7pm on weekdays.

UTAG and LTDA argued the schemes were unlawful on several grounds, including that in making the plan, guidance and order, the mayor and TfL failed to distinguish taxis from "general traffic" and in doing so "failed to have regard to relevant considerations" including the "distinct" status of taxis as a form of public transport and the role taxis play as public transport for those with mobility issues.

They also argued that the authorities failed to take into account their duties under equality laws, that the plan, guidance and order were a "disproportionate" interference in the property rights of taxi owners and drivers, that these measures breached their "legitimate expectation to pass and repass on London's roads" and use bus lanes, and that the measures were irrational.

Lawyers for TfL and the mayor opposed the challenge arguing taxis have no automatic rights to use all bus lanes and that TfL had carried out a "comprehensive equality impact statement" for the A10 order, and one was not needed for the guidance.

It was also argued that the A10 order was a temporary restriction on taxis that was a "modest and entirely justifiable interference" as part of a response to the pandemic, and that the A10 order, as well as the guidance, were temporary measures which fell within TfL's judgment on responding to the emergency situation.

Mrs Justice Lang concluded the decision-making processes for the plan, guidance and A10 order were "seriously flawed, and the decisions were not a rational response to the issues which arose as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic".

She went on to rule: "In my judgment, quashing orders rather than declarations are appropriate because of the nature and extent of the unlawfulness which I have identified, which affects not only taxi drivers, but also their passengers.

"The plan, the guidance and the A10 order all need to be reconsidered by the defendants and substantially amended in the light of my judgment."

Her judgment also says: "If the mayor and TfL had proceeded more cautiously, monitoring the situation and acting upon evidence rather than conjecture, their proposals would have been proportionate to the difficulties which needed to be addressed.

"As it was, the measures proposed in the plan and the guidance, and implemented in the A10 order, far exceeded what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic.

"It was possible to widen pavements to allow for social distancing, and to allocate more road space to cater for an increase in the number of cyclists, without seeking to 'transform' parts of central London into predominantly car-free zones.

"In my judgment, it was both unfair and irrational to introduce such extreme measures, if it was not necessary to do so, when they impacted so adversely on certain sections of the public."

She said there would be a stay while TfL and the mayor pursue an appeal.