Taxi Driver Online

Our little problem at Manchester seems to dragging on a bit, so I have written to the Compliance Officer at the Town Hall.
I have asked a long list of questions,quoted various cases and generally put the ball firmly in their court.
The questions etc have mainly come from you all on here and I thank you all.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Just had the reply and I would like to say that they agree with me. I would like to say that but I can't.
Instead it is a bit like Pontious Pilate revisited, much wringing of hands but, sorry old bean, it has nothing to do with us.
These people are outside of our jurisdiction because we do not licence them, they have passed my concerns to the Traffic Commisioners.
Have Manchester declared open season on the streets because to follow their logic they cannot touch an out of town vehicle illegally plying for hire for it has nothing to with them. Or for that matter, to extend it even further, can they stop P.H from plying for hire because they only have the wherewithal to make sure that they enforce the proper working of their brief,i.e private hirings?
I await the T.Comms opinions with anticipation.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

I think if, and it's a big if, the Traffic Commisioners do act, then it may be better than if the council act.

But I'm not holding my .

_________________
IDFIMH

Ged, you get a lot of credit for trying to get a result on this issue but the councils hand's are tied. They have no juristiction whatsoever over buses.

There are a number things that buses cannot do, including plying for hire but actually proving they are plying for hire is very a difficult proccess especially when they are standing on Airport property.

I did extensive work in the early nineties on buses plying for hire and I even went to Portcullis house to see the commisoners agents with the evidence I had accumulated but although they were sympathetic and they wrote to the companies concerned, they werent prepared to stop what the cab trade deemed illegal activities under the law.

As you know I don't work up there but I know of the efforts that have gone into trying to sort it out. If you wan't my honest opinion there is not a lot that can be done.

GS told me several weeks ago, that the trade wont take Airportcarz to court because they have a record of winning every case they have contested, on appeal. I don't know where he got that chestnut from because I wasn't aware they had ever been taken to court.

The monetary aspect is one fo the reasons why the trade tried to get the council involved. I would think the licensing department have explained to you in that letter, exactly what they have explained to everyone else.

Best wishes

JD

John,
Thanks for that and yes I will keep on trying. I have had sight of a letter today and because it was not addressed to me I will paraphrase:vehicles operating under the provisions of the PPV Act 1981 appear to be exempt from the offence of standing or plying for hire ( Dept of Transport Circular 8/86), The conclusion being that it is beyond their remit.
Further to the above one of our reps asked the other week would the council act if he drove an unplated cab on the streets, they said they would not. I find that very hard to believe.
Ged[/u][/i]

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Yes, I know they must have timetables and whats more they must adhere to those time tables. They cannot stop between designated bus stops to pick up punters and every start and finish point of a service must be applied for. They cannot hang around at bus stops for excessive periods once the route being serviced was underway. That would constitute plying for hire. The only exception to that rule is when a bust stop is a designated starting point.

I'm doing all this from memory back in the early nineties, perhaps there have been one or two changes since then.

With regard to your suggestion about the Commissioner's agents going on a bus and checking tickets. The reference of a bus plying for hire is not one about tickets, it is about picking up or touting for passengers illegally.
That can be done in a number of ways. Once the passenger has entered the bus I would assume a ticket would be given in the normal way. The act of plying for hire is how the Bus Driver came upon the passenger in the first place, issuing a ticket does not fit into the equation.

As I mentioned previously I havent been involved in buses for a very long time and others in this forum are probably far more qualified than I, to answer questions on Buses, including yourself probably.

Best wishes

John Davies.

Well john, first accept my appologies for buggering up my last posting, I do it every so often.

there have ondeed been many changes indeed we had a batch last wednesday.

to paraphrase the smaller the bus the more free and easy it becomes, small buses(please the relevance of this is we are talking man air taxibus)

now they can veer of route to pick up, as long as you announce this via commissioners and you can be flagged down as long as it is safe to do so.

AND YOU CAN HAVE DEMAND LED SERVICE where you dont have to run the bus if no one rings up.

what they stopped last week is these jokers that sent in maps of whole towns, you cannot do that anymore beccause of the [edited by admin] takers.

all this and bus grant too

and the likes of chelmsford taxibus, are wrecking it for small rural patches where we want to run special services for our communities, with thier [edited by admin] taking bending of rules.

Manchester airport is owned by manchester councils, and when manchester city who own over 50% of the airport and voting rights say they can do nothing, I think to myself the lying [edited by admin].

Geoff/John,
We have plans to call their bluff and careful note is being kept of the various replies.
The situation I think will soon come to a head (John GS will keep you informed). I would like to say more but you can understand if I don't.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

John,
We must really meet up one of these days. Trouble is Nidge will smell a rat if he finds out that I do not know you.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

I doubt there is anyone alive who hasn't made a mistake, it happens to us all.



It just shows how right I was when I said you probably know far more about Buses than I do. I wasn't aware of any of the above.

There are nine other subsiduary councils who supply services and have a say as to how the airport services operate at the Airport. In 1993 I sent a letter asking some very searching questions of Manchester city Council and its legal position with regard to the Airport and its Taxi service.

I'm going to reveal to you now what very few people realise about Manchester Airport.

As I said, back in 1993 I wrote a very searching letter to Manchester city council, that letter never got a full reply, instead I received a phone call from someone at the Council who shall remain anonymous, asking me not to pursue the line I was taking.

However, here is the reason why. Section 24 - 25 of the 1986 Airports act states "any subsiduary Council can supply services to the Airport".

Services includes Taxi services. That means all the nine subsiduary Authorities can if they wish ask Manchester Airport to allow their Hackney Carriages to ply for hire at Manchester Airport.

Looking at section 24-25 at face value one might be lead to think that it couldn't happen but when you marry that section to the Birmingham case of Young V Scampion where Birmingham Airport allowed two different licensing Authorities to ply for hire on Airport property then you can see how dangerous section 24-25 really is.

The Airport could invite H/C licence holders from those other Authorities to ply for hire at Manchester Airport, and legally there is nothing the Cab trade can do about it.

Manchester city council realise this and under the law, although they have a majority shareholding in Manchester Airport, in my opinion there is nothing they can legally do to stop it happening.


Food for thought.

Best wishes

John Davies.

I'm off out for an hour to earn a few bob.

John,

Up to Local Government Re Organisation in 1985, the airport was owned 50-50 between Greater Manchester Metropolitain Council, and Manchester City council,

Upon abolition of the former, discussions went on under the threat "that if no aggreement was made, the resiuary body would pass Greater Manchesters stockholding with the Passenger Transport (I am a little unsure whether it was "Authority" or Executive" eother way it was not the other

I understand the concern was that Manchester City, on getting thier share of the stockholding could control the airport.

Manchester city are licensing agents for the airport purely beccause they licensed taxis and Greater Manchester did not.

Now you say John that all 9 could cupply services to the airport,(tongue in cheeck I say it would be nice if snow clearing was supplied)
But I say that does not and cannot be the licensing of taxis, at the end of the day the land is city of manchester land, they hold the deeds for all the shareholders and they hold the Administration.

What has happened over the years and it hit home loudly in your post, is the airport (if not the most profitable in the world one of the most profitable) is that instead of control by aggreement its controled by feer.

you see I think its bullshit that taxis from Manchester can lose thier franchise, its unthuinkable it can only be done by members sleepwalking.

the 8 have a lot to lose, its questionable if challenged that thier shareholding is valid, it could be that it should have gone to the PTE, BUT THERE IS A BIG STING IN THE TAIL, IF THEY GOT STOCKHOLDING THEY WOULD HAVE TO SELL THIER SHARES ON THE OPEN MARKET BECAUSE THE THATCHERITIE LAW says they cannot hold ownership in transport undertakings (i.e the sale of bus undertakings in early 80s)

The airport itself had an order put upon it to go to the private sector, a Labour Government has not enforced this.
ironically other Local Authorities have sold thier airport shares under these orders to...............Manchester Airports Limited.

Ironic, wonders me does Manchester City Taxis ply for hire at Bournmouth Airport, one such Airport?

John feel free to correct my mistakes in thinking, but I think you have been had!

But is it Manchester land?

And if it is Manchester land, what are they doing allowing those buses to ply for hire on it.

And what am I doing talking about Manchester?

_________________
IDFIMH

I couldn’t depart without responding to Yorkies post.

Yorkie refers to Manchester city council as owners of the Airport land. Manchester holds the land in trust, on behalf of all ten councils. Who owns the land is not the issue.

With respect to My original post I would like to say, the question is not one of, (can cabs from other authorities legally ply for hire at Manchester Airport) because that is a qualified yes. If and only if, the roads at Manchester Airport meet the criteria of Birmingham Airport as per the Scampion case. The other part to that question is, would it ever be allowed?

The question was meant to stimulate thought and perhaps debate. I raised the question in 1993 in order to qualify what constitutes a public road on private land with regard to H/C licensing laws. At the time, I submitted questions that couldn’t be answered by Manchester city council without placing them in a very precarious situation.

I submitted the following questions to the council.

Extract. From 1993, regarding Airport status in reference to airport permits and what constitutes public highway.

The future implications for the Manchester Hackney carriage trade and the licensing department are far reaching. Implications which the vast majority of the trade will be totally unaware.

I have set out several points that I hope you can address and thereby clarify the situation once and for all. It is better to do this sooner rather than later.

The focal points are:

1. The introduction of a permit for all Hackney carriage drivers wishing to ply for hire at Manchester Airport, and the exclusion of all other licensed Hackney carriage drivers who refuse to pay for said permit.

2. Whether the Taxi ranks at Manchester Airport are public ranks under the provision of the Town police clauses act (1847) and the miscellaneous provisions act (1976)

3. Whether or not the Airport roads are deemed public enough to qualify them as public roads or streets under the 1847 act.

4. With regard to the status of public ranks on private roads, will the licensing department clarify the present situation with regard to Manchester Airport?

5. If the status of the Taxi ranks at Manchester Airport are not within the confines of the 1847 act, what jurisdiction if any, does Manchester city council have over these ranks.

6. If the Airport ranks are deemed to be under the jurisdiction of Manchester Airport, can the Airport Authority invite any licensed Hackney carriage driver and vehicle from any outside Authority to ply for hire at Manchester Airport?

7. Section 24-25 of the Airports act (1986) states that any subsidiary council can supply services to that Airport. Manchester Airport has nine subsidiary councils beside itself, all enjoying equal status as regards section 24-25. The word services can be interpreted broadly, especially in today’s cosmopolitan free market. Supplying services could well encompass Taxi services. Therefore, It would appear if the status of Manchester Airport did not come under the Jurisdiction of the 1847 Act, then all the other nine subsidiary councils could supply public carriage vehicles at Manchester Airport as of right.

8. At what point does a conflict of interest arise with regard to the following points? Payment of licence fees to Manchester city council, additional fee levied for permit at Manchester Airport, a subsidiary of Manchester city council, ability through its political power to render impotent or suppress any or all dealings the licensing department may have regarding Manchester Airport.

9. Finally, I draw your attention to what constitutes a public road on private land. I have enclosed the two most relevant judgements with regard to this peculiarity. The relevance of this question should concern you greatly because in years to come you will most definitely be confronted with the above question.

In the Birmingham Airport case, Judgement was given in favour of young solely because the road Namely Airport way was deemed not to be public. Three years later in regard to Heathrow Airport the DPP argued successfully a similar case to that of Solihull council, about Airport roads being public.

An interesting factor is the widely differing interpretations of the publicness of an Airport expressed by the different Judges.

If the Birmingham view is to be upheld then the licensing Authority for Manchester will have no jurisdiction over those roads at Manchester Airport, which come under the definition of the Birmingham Judgement.

The situation at Manchester Airport is that Manchester city Council hold a 55% share with nine other local councils each holding a 5% share. There is now only one Board, this being the Manchester Airport Group. There used to be two boards, MAG and Manchester Airport plc.

There are eleven or twelve Members on the board, only two of these represent the local councils. There is one councillor from Wigan. Then Brian Harrison represents Manchester city council. There are three executive members, five external professional non-executive members, and the Chairman Alan Jones.

I could give you loads of info about the shareholder committee and the various arms of the Manchester Airport Group but I’ve said enough already.

Good luck and all the best, that’s it from me.

Byeee

JD.

John,
Unforgivable walking out mid debate, ah well its been fun having you, its a wrench that you have gone.

one last point, Local Authorities do not provide taxi services, we do, so that clause cannot cover taxis.

now Ged get out your notebook and please take note.

Geoff

(bye the way the land is not held in trust, there a big plc on it, it isnt a bloody charity)

its a hard nosed buisness document by Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Council.

Geoff