Taxi Driver Online

T & G Says Watford Taxi’s “Lock Out” Must end after Court Victory.

Hackney carriage drivers belonging to the Transport and General Workers Union in Watford who have been “locked Out” of working the busy Watford Junction Station by Silverlink since January 2004 Have won a significant Court victory.

Hemel Hempstead Court found four private hire drivers of illegally plying for hire.

The Private Hire operator was found guilty of aiding and abetting and was ordered to pay £8,000 in costs.

The court judgement clearly vindicates the T&G’s views all along, that Silverlink was wrong to allow private hire vehicles to ply for trade ahead of the Hackney cabs.

Peter Kavanagh, senior regional industrial organiser at the T&G said, “it is a disgrace that our members were evicted and denied their lawful rights to provide safe and accessible transport to the travelling public. We call on Watford council; the local police and indeed Silverlink to put them back where they belong.”

“This case would never have arisen if the council and Silverlink had honoured their agreements in the first place.


Just goes to show the ignorance of the Private Hire operator, he should have known it would all end in tears, The law is the law and breaking it is not on even if you think you have the councils backing at the time, it will and did in this case back fire.

Sorry to drag this one from the grave but this hearing was fairly recent and this posting was the only one I could find about Watford Stn.


Regards

Eric

TDO

Had to post this as a new subject, it allowed me to post said the posting had been received and bumped the tread back up to the top showing my entry as the last on the subject, however when u go onto the thread it does not show the posting.

Regards

eric

just one question really

Have the PH been moved off the station? or are they still there?

PH drivers get done for illegally plying for hire all over the country all of the time, so why have the T&G claimed victory? it was Watford LO and Licensing department that got the conviction, not the T&G.

I mean, Carlisle won against Accrington on Tuesday night, and I'm obviously over the moon about it brian, but I didnt play so the victory is the teams and not mine!

hehe

Captain cab

Captain cab wrote:



As far as I understand the article the PH contract between the operator and Silverlink no longer exists. The rest of the article reads;

For many years the Hackney cab drivers paid a fee to Silverlink, however the drivers then witheld this arguing they had renegged on the terms of the agreement.



That's two questions.

Watford council had approved Silverlinks actions, The union contested and persuaded the concil that backing the company was wrong.

Yes ultimatly it was the council who took the private hire drivers and operator to court but they were critisised in court for having contributted to the situation by not being clear with their instructions from the start.

That was the bit I assume the T&G are taking credit for, highlighting this.

The T&G go on further to say that this case should never have arisen if the council had ected decicivly in the first place and Silverlink had honoured their agreement.

This article was published in the Dec issue of NTG.

Regards

Eric

Eric,

I am obviously in awe of your question counting ability.

Who negotiated on behalf of the drivers at watford in the first place?

(that is one question this time, see, I'm improving)

regards

Captain cab

Captain cab wrote:



That's three questions, coudn't resist that sorry

If the article I read is to be believed then it was the T&G that negotiated on behalf on the drivers on the basis that they were the ones that highlighted to the council that their actions were wrong and against the law.

But hey, who am I to interperet this, a PH operator and driver!!

hehe

okay so the T&G negotiated the original contract that didnt have all of the drivers concerns covered.

1, Such as bad signage.

2, Such as the contract to take on passengers who missed connections

3, Such as private hire signs in the station.

and the T&G didnt actually take anyone to court, the local authority did.

So after not listening to their members, and not getting their members concerns in the original contract, they claim victory?

It has already been stated that if the concerns of the drivers were included in the original contract, the rail company or its agent, would have been guilty of a breach of contract.

so basically the T&G have got the LA to dig them out of a hole they created in the first place!

regards

Captain cab

Captain cab wrote:


That was not my interpretation, mine was that the taxi's did have the contract, but because they were not willing to agree to the new terms impossed by Silverlink they stopped paying.



The only signage in there was the one for the private hire company that took the contract.



There was something in the article re this and the result was that Silverlink seemed to think they could resolve the reneg agreement by entering into another with PH rather than HC.


That was all part of new contract with PH.



but it was the T&G who pushed them into it apparantly.



Excuse my ignorance but how did they create the hole in the first place?

Is that 20 questions now?

i refer my learned friend to what I stated earlier





lots of questions

regards

Captain cab

No problem Eric, it was probably needing a new thread anyway.

It's a bit of a bug in the software I think - often the first post of a new 'page' doesn't show from the forum list - but if you put another post on the end it usually appears. That's what I've done, with a reply to a post that no one could be bothered to reply to at the time because it was such a yawn!!!!!

This was discussed last month on this thread http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vie ... php?t=1133

The search function can be a bit fiddly, but it often finds what you need.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I think no matter what the arguement about Watford digs up in relation to private hire / signage / who done or said what . . .

What it did show was tha Watford drivers speaking with one voice through a trade organisation which ultimatley led to positive action and that can only be a good thing.

Its a pity here in London our trade reps spend more time de-crying each other for brownie points than fighting for our problems with the PCO.

The problem I see with the Watford situation is the lads were sold down the river by the trade organisation concerned. The local lads were promised the earth, and got nothing.

If they had paid up in the first place, like most cab drivers do outside of London, and for that matter at Heathrow, then there would have been no problem.

However they decided that they wouldn't pay up, thus the train company bought in the PH firm. That PH firm might have been fined a few grand, but next time you are near the station have a look and see what type of licensed vehicle is still 'ranked' up at the station.

_________________
IDFIMH

The bottom line is still you should not have to pay to service a rank, you won't see bus companies paying to sevice the station forecourt stop?

As private hire and hackney in the main go hand in hand (?) in a lot of licensing areas, one would have thought a more united front could be put on resisting the money grabbing b******* from network rail, see how they get on with no taxi service from their forecourts, or would that be me dreaming again?

Still i do look forward when they try it on with one of the London terminals when its blockaded for week.

You mentioned the flyers, we do charge a quid on the extras for fares out of heathrow to recuperate the rank fee

I agree, but alas principle doesn't pay my mortgage.

_________________
IDFIMH