Looking through the minutes of that meeting it is easy to surmise;
Can we include those wanting larger licensing areas in this number?
CC
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| The Law Commission say they ARE looking at some points: http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=17440 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Richard1 [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | The Law Commission say they ARE looking at some points: |
The Law Commission have said that they are looking at e.g.: The proposition that: “The concept of ‘plying for hire’ causes problems”, [is using a mobile to call a cab from a pub doorway ‘hailing’ a vehicle for public hire-surely it is?] Boundaries Quantity & quality control Radio circuits Licensing areas Over regulation The Chair of the Commission, Mr Justice Munby was the ‘lead’ judge in the Stockton v. Fidler case reported in October last, he delivered an analytical judgment covering the history of ‘taxi & PHV regulation’. When will our representatives deal with these core issues of economic importance to drivers & individual cab owners? When will they set out our vision of where we should go (No one appears to represent PHV drivers ?). Minutes available of meetings with the Law Commission show trade priorities to be: the training “industry” & the enforcement lobby? The examining body, Edexcel, is unable to answer subject inquiries. Writing in response to a query they said they did not have the expertise to deal with the matter, wow. Now licensing officers are gaining their own BTEC award via NALEO as an accredited training centre in its own right with the awarding organisation Edexcel. Is it plausible that Edexcel are now capable of regulating the training of regulators? “Enforcement” often lacks understanding even of the “Enforcement Concordat” (& most important demonstrably lacks judgement, see “Berwick” et al)? Suspending licenses for parking offences (carried out on advice from NALEO members) would have seemed vanishingly improbable until it actually happened, & so on. God (?) help us if these people are allowed to issue fixed penalties without proper procedures being in place, (which could happen if the Regulatory Reform Act 2008 is brought into force). The Select Committee and the National Association of Taxi Users [in giving evidence to the Select Committee] ask that public opinion be obtained before change is effected. This is recognition that evidence based decisions are preferred. We are happy to ask for statistical surveys to be carried out? We could ask for a national survey? There is no reason why that should limit itself to fares obtained under the existing meaning of “plying for hire “? Telephonic requests should be included, if not why not? Any comments, any ideas? |
|
| Author: | bloodnock [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Regardless of whether you called to book a PH Company by mobile phone who's nearest vehicle was 5 feet or Miles away should not make any differance to the legitimacy of its booking...It certainly wasnt hailed, it was pre booked. The Mobile Phones Signal probably travelled several thousand miles off communication satellites and other relay points and that simply makes mockery of any percieved distance made by a user of a Mobile phone. That said, if the PH was sitting there with a Bloody big sign saying on its Winscreen "PHONE ME NOW ON ***-****-****"...well that might be different! |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking through the minutes of that meeting it is easy to surmise;
Can we include those wanting larger licensing areas in this number? CC |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|