Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Edinburgh you can't be serious III
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4091
Page 1 of 4

Author:  Skull [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Edinburgh you can't be serious III

A curious state of affairs

Letter to Councillor Anderson


Dear Cllr Anderson

Re: Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 - (The Act)

Tonight I learned that a taxi licence plate has been traded for the artificial "value" of £50,000.

It is now around one year since the Jacobs Report concluded that there was no significant unmet demand for taxi services in Edinburgh. City of Edinburgh Council (CEC) seized upon this report to deny licence applicants licences to operate a taxi.

Indeed, the record shows that CEC is going to inordinate lengths to ensure that licences will be denied to licence applicants, even to the point of using the draconian tactic of pursuing the matter to the highest courts in the form of a judicial review. Clearly a tactic designed to inflict the most financial injurious penalty applicants by a Council which can dig deeply in the pockets of licence payers to prosecute a dubious case.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of public record that the "value" of licence plates being traded has been deemed a key criterion in other licensing authorities to demonstrate that a significant unmet demand exists. This factor was specifically excluded by CEC in its remit to Jacobs Consultancy.

Since the Jacobs report, taxi licence "values" have now increased by over a further 25%.

Under the strict terms of the Act, I would be grateful if you would advise me precisely where it permits taxi licences to be traded in this way and an artificial plate "value" to accrue?

Please ask, on my behalf, the Council's legal department to explain the precise sections in the Act which sanctions CEC to allow this?

I would also be grateful if you could ask the Council's legal department to explain why only taxi licences, alone of all licensing types controlled by CEC under the Act, are allowed to be traded in this way?

Additionally Cllr Anderson, please explain the political justification for this "policy".

When did this become official Labour Party policy?

Does this policy have the full support of the Scottish, and National, Labour Parties?

Can you explain when this policy was adopted and what the process for its adoption was?

Specifically, can you, as Leader of the Council, describe how it is politically acceptable for someone who wants to operate a taxi licence to have to pay £50,000 to do so, when every other licence type only has to apply to the Council for a licence, subject to the normal tests of competency to operate the licence in line with Police requirements, in order to operate their business?

Thank you for your assistance with this important matter and timeous reply.

Yours

Jim Taylor


Councillor Anderson's reply


Dear Mr Taylor,

CIVIC GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1982 – A CURIOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS

I refer to your e-mail of 14 July 2006. I note your concern over your understanding that a taxi licence has been traded at a price of £50,000.

I am not aware of this particular situation but any price payable would presumably be to reflect the entirety of the business associated with the licence e.g., goodwill, vehicle, radio circuit position etc.

You will be aware that on 15 December 2005, the Council resolved to:-

i) Adopt the conclusion of the Survey of Demand 2005 commissioned from Jacobs, in particular the finding that there is no evidence of significant unmet demand for taxis at the present time;
ii) Reaffirm the policy of not issuing further taxi licences until there is a substantial change in present circumstances; and
iii) Note the Regulatory Committee's decision to appoint a short life working group to develop a draft strategic taxi action plan.

A member/officer working group has been meeting since 21 March 2006. This has been convened by Councillor Wigglesworth who has since become convener of the Regulatory Committee. The issue of the measurement of demand using significant indicators including the value of taxi businesses has been on the agenda of the group since that first meeting. It is intended to report to the Committee and Council Executive on a taxi action plan, which will address these issues later in the year, hopefully before Christmas.

The Council Solicitor advises that there is no transfer provision for taxi licences or indeed any licences issued under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The report by the task group set up by the Scottish Ministers to review the licensing provisions in that Act which reported in December 2004 stated at paragraph 2.13: ‘in practice, a number of taxi firms are now licensed as companies, which allows retention of the business in the event of bereavement and also enables the business to be sold as a going concern if the owner took the decision to sell, simply by varying the licence to denote the new owner as a director of the company.’ The report went on to recognise that further consideration needed to be given to complete transferability of taxi and phc licences given that to do so might exacerbate the situation whereby taxi licences plates can achieve an artificial ‘scarcity’ value, and that it was never the intention of the 1982 Act that licences should have any intrinsic value.

Since 1997 the Council has provided guidance to existing licenceholders who intend to form partnerships or companies to hold their licences. Such guidance is merely recognising the legality of corporate licence holding and does not condone transfers at value. The current guidance can be accessed on the Council website. The link is as follows:
www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/Business/ ... ences/Taxi

To summarise, this Council has put no policy in place to give effect to transfers. The issue of the value currently attaching to Edinburgh taxi businesses is receiving ongoing consideration in the member/officer working group and that group’s proposals on assessment of demand and possible issue of licences are awaited.

Yours sincerely,

COUNCILLOR DONALD ANDERSON
Leader – The City of Edinburgh Council



A curious state of affairs, please feel free to comment? :?

Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Edinburgh you can't be serious III

Skull wrote:
A curious state of affairs, please feel free to comment? :?

As I said a few days ago, if I was in the shoes of those that want a free and open taxi plate market, then I would bang on about the £50,000+ plate premium until I was blue in the face. :wink:

Author:  Ross [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Why no comment from yourself Garry ?

Oh ! I forgot, you already knew all that having sold your plates.

"simply by varying the licence to denote the new owner as a director of the company."

Thats how you done it Garry wasn't it ?

Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Why no comment from yourself Garry ?


because that way its easier to attack others who may disagree silly!

:lol:

CC

Author:  jasbar [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:52 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have to say that I wonder whether you read the post Sussex.

The artificial £50K value of a plate is secondary to the fact that it is the council allowing plates to be transferred which allows the artificial value to accrue.

Even the council's own legal department acknowledges that the Act does not allow transferability, yet here we have them declaring unequivocally that it is going on. They've even quoted from a Scottish Executive report which describes the process.

Now, it strikes me that it is reprehensible for a council to have established a procedure, and allowed it to continue in the now certain knowledge that it is not proscribed in Law.

In short, they are facillitating an illegal Act. Shouldn't this concern us?

I have no doubt that even when incorporation was first permitted, the council knew it was, at best, a dodgy deal. But then, no one was going to complain about it were they? The trade sheep fell neatly behind the trade shepherds in believing, stupidly, that it was right and proper.

Now, with £50K plates, and £300 plus rentals, excluding a prime weekend night if you're with one of the big companies, and fares being hiked till it drives business away, it very much is an issue. And, lo and behold, the council agrees that it is not a legal situation.

Strikes me that Cllr Anderson's response is carefully worded to distance the council from the process. It is a series of "we don't know anything about it ...", "the Scottish Executive says ..." and "The whole thing is being looked at by the special committee set up and will report in December ...".

I think this clearly spells that the writing is on the wall for artificial plate values. What the council has lacked to date is three things.

First, the desire to make change.
Second, the means to enact change.
Third, the justification for that change.

I reckon all three will slip into place in December.

Should be a "nice" Christmas present for the boys, eh?

Author:  187ums [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

how much profit did you make on your "free plates"?

got a drive yet?

Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I have to say that I wonder whether you read the post Sussex.

The artificial £50K value of a plate is secondary to the fact that it is the council allowing plates to be transferred which allows the artificial value to accrue.

Even the council's own legal department acknowledges that the Act does not allow transferability, yet here we have them declaring unequivocally that it is going on. They've even quoted from a Scottish Executive report which describes the process.

Now, it strikes me that it is reprehensible for a council to have established a procedure, and allowed it to continue in the now certain knowledge that it is not proscribed in Law.

In short, they are facillitating an illegal Act. Shouldn't this concern us?

I have no doubt that even when incorporation was first permitted, the council knew it was, at best, a dodgy deal. But then, no one was going to complain about it were they? The trade sheep fell neatly behind the trade shepherds in believing, stupidly, that it was right and proper.

Now, with £50K plates, and £300 plus rentals, excluding a prime weekend night if you're with one of the big companies, and fares being hiked till it drives business away, it very much is an issue. And, lo and behold, the council agrees that it is not a legal situation.

Strikes me that Cllr Anderson's response is carefully worded to distance the council from the process. It is a series of "we don't know anything about it ...", "the Scottish Executive says ..." and "The whole thing is being looked at by the special committee set up and will report in December ...".

I think this clearly spells that the writing is on the wall for artificial plate values. What the council has lacked to date is three things.

First, the desire to make change.
Second, the means to enact change.
Third, the justification for that change.

I reckon all three will slip into place in December.

Should be a "nice" Christmas present for the boys, eh?


A couple of minor points.

Your fares according to PHm are 164 in the country, which isnt exactly high considering your the capital of Scotland with a large tourism industry.
http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1152000725.pdf

The 'high' rental is surely depentant upon what the 'rentee' actually earns. Which if it is the alleged £1000 to £1300 per week, wouldnt appear too excessive.

How can the plate value be 'artificial' if someone is paying for it?

Now this illegal act you're on about. I was under the impression (albeit perhaps incorrectly), that the process of transferring plates was to do with transfering a license into another company possibly via a partnership agreement (although perhaps not). Is that correct?

CC

Author:  Skull [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

captain cab wrote:
Quote:
I have to say that I wonder whether you read the post Sussex.

The artificial £50K value of a plate is secondary to the fact that it is the council allowing plates to be transferred which allows the artificial value to accrue.

Even the council's own legal department acknowledges that the Act does not allow transferability, yet here we have them declaring unequivocally that it is going on. They've even quoted from a Scottish Executive report which describes the process.

Now, it strikes me that it is reprehensible for a council to have established a procedure, and allowed it to continue in the now certain knowledge that it is not proscribed in Law.

In short, they are facillitating an illegal Act. Shouldn't this concern us?

I have no doubt that even when incorporation was first permitted, the council knew it was, at best, a dodgy deal. But then, no one was going to complain about it were they? The trade sheep fell neatly behind the trade shepherds in believing, stupidly, that it was right and proper.

Now, with £50K plates, and £300 plus rentals, excluding a prime weekend night if you're with one of the big companies, and fares being hiked till it drives business away, it very much is an issue. And, lo and behold, the council agrees that it is not a legal situation.

Strikes me that Cllr Anderson's response is carefully worded to distance the council from the process. It is a series of "we don't know anything about it ...", "the Scottish Executive says ..." and "The whole thing is being looked at by the special committee set up and will report in December ...".

I think this clearly spells that the writing is on the wall for artificial plate values. What the council has lacked to date is three things.

First, the desire to make change.
Second, the means to enact change.
Third, the justification for that change.

I reckon all three will slip into place in December.

Should be a "nice" Christmas present for the boys, eh?


A couple of minor points.

Your fares according to PHm are 164 in the country, which isnt exactly high considering your the capital of Scotland with a large tourism industry.
http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1152000725.pdf

The 'high' rental is surely depentant upon what the 'rentee' actually earns. Which if it is the alleged £1000 to £1300 per week, wouldnt appear too excessive.

How can the plate value be 'artificial' if someone is paying for it?

Now this illegal act you're on about. I was under the impression (albeit perhaps incorrectly), that the process of transferring plates was to do with transfering a license into another company possibly via a partnership agreement (although perhaps not). Is that correct?

CC



Did you miss this bit CC?

The Council Solicitor advises that there is no transfer provision for taxi licences or indeed any licences issued under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The report by the task group set up by the Scottish Ministers to review the licensing provisions in that Act which reported in December 2004 stated at paragraph 2.13: ‘in practice, a number of taxi firms are now licensed as companies, which allows retention of the business in the event of bereavement and also enables the business to be sold as a going concern if the owner took the decision to sell, simply by varying the licence to denote the new owner as a director of the company.’ The report went on to recognise that further consideration needed to be given to complete transferability of taxi and phc licences given that to do so might exacerbate the situation whereby taxi licences plates can achieve an artificial ‘scarcity’ value, and that it was never the intention of the 1982 Act that licences should have any intrinsic value.

Author:  Skull [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Sussex is right, Ross on the other hand shows fear and you CC are as predictable as ever. :wink:

Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Did you miss this bit CC?

The Council Solicitor advises that there is no transfer provision for taxi licences or indeed any licences issued under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The report by the task group set up by the Scottish Ministers to review the licensing provisions in that Act which reported in December 2004 stated at paragraph 2.13: ‘in practice, a number of taxi firms are now licensed as companies, which allows retention of the business in the event of bereavement and also enables the business to be sold as a going concern if the owner took the decision to sell, simply by varying the licence to denote the new owner as a director of the company.’ The report went on to recognise that further consideration needed to be given to complete transferability of taxi and phc licences given that to do so might exacerbate the situation whereby taxi licences plates can achieve an artificial ‘scarcity’ value, and that it was never the intention of the 1982 Act that licences should have any intrinsic value.


Scotland is of little concern to me, but its nice to see that you have infringed on these self same rules you now cite.

I'm kinda intriged by the two points you missed though

CC

Author:  Skull [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:14 am ]
Post subject: 

captain cab wrote:
Quote:
Did you miss this bit CC?

The Council Solicitor advises that there is no transfer provision for taxi licences or indeed any licences issued under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. The report by the task group set up by the Scottish Ministers to review the licensing provisions in that Act which reported in December 2004 stated at paragraph 2.13: ‘in practice, a number of taxi firms are now licensed as companies, which allows retention of the business in the event of bereavement and also enables the business to be sold as a going concern if the owner took the decision to sell, simply by varying the licence to denote the new owner as a director of the company.’ The report went on to recognise that further consideration needed to be given to complete transferability of taxi and phc licences given that to do so might exacerbate the situation whereby taxi licences plates can achieve an artificial ‘scarcity’ value, and that it was never the intention of the 1982 Act that licences should have any intrinsic value.


Scotland is of little concern to me, but its nice to see that you have infringed on these self same rules you now cite.

I'm kinda intriged by the two points you missed though

CC


I wrote:

Quote:
A curious state of affairs, please feel free to comment?


I missed nothing CC but I think you did :shock: why don't you tell the people in power where they have it wrong :D


As I said before "please feel free to comment"? :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hoist by your own petard me thinks :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  captain cab [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I missed nothing CC but I think you did why don't you tell the people in power where they have it wrong


As I said before "please feel free to comment"?

Hoist by your own petard me thinks


because i dont speak to the people in power :shock:

hoist by what? sounds painful

CC

Author:  Skull [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:21 am ]
Post subject: 

This is brilliant:

http://fastblacks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1032.0



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  Skull [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Sorry but :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Author:  captain cab [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 

Predictable?

hows about the edinburgh dereg / its so unfair thread.....now thats predictable :lol:

CC

Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/