edders23 wrote:
I have not gone through the documentation as thoroughly as everyone else but it does occur to me that from what I have read so far the LC haven't given this much thought
As I work in an area where hackney Fares are deregulated but this deregulated market does not work very well because it confuses customers and you get a chicken and egg situation as to who dares put up fares first. this is an issue which I personally think should be addressed by any new legislation
There is often a major conflict of interest between licensing departments and drivers over the setting of fares and my thoughts are that perhaps the setting of maximum fares for HC should perhaps be removed from local authorities and done on a regional basis perhaps by county councils with prescribed review periods such as every 2 years and some sort of formula for calculating increases based on actual operating cost rises (fuel,insurance,fees etc) and not the RPI
Does anybody else think this is practical or do you all think the current situation is acceptable
As I work in an area where hackney Fares are deregulated but this deregulated market does not work very well because it confuses customers and you get a chicken and egg situation as to who dares put up fares first. this is an issue which I personally think should be addressed by any new legislation
There is often a major conflict of interest between licensing departments and drivers over the setting of fares and my thoughts are that perhaps the setting of maximum fares for HC should perhaps be removed from local authorities and done on a regional basis perhaps by county councils with prescribed review periods such as every 2 years and some sort of formula for calculating increases based on actual operating cost rises (fuel,insurance,fees etc) and not the RPI
Does anybody else think this is practical or do you all think the current situation is acceptable
Indeed, and that's the other major aspect of taxi(HC) regulation that the LC seems to have brushed over/copped out of, in addition to the quality control aspect.
I mean, in a nutshell, they say that the market doesn't work so well for taxis as opposed to PHVs, which I'm sure most would agree with to a greater or lesser extent. But accepting that, and having regard to what the LC says about over-and under-regulation, then why leave the current taxi mish mash of inconsistencies as it is?
The Knowledge of London is perhaps the most obvious example of qualitative over-regulation, yet it was perhaps instructive that even in their press release the LC had effectively given it a clean bill of health.
And to that extent they would look ridiculous if they were to criticise taxi quality control in the provincial jurisdictions.
And what does all this bring to mind? Oh yes, the good old OFT report, which barely mentioned the London trade other than to say what a great idea the T2 fare increase was for increasing supply at night, and which also provided a largely superficial analysis of fare regulation, and effectively gave that a clean bill of health as well.
Of course, one of the OFT's key recommendations was that quality control should be 'proportionate' and that LAs should 'encourage' fare discounting in the trade, both which recommendations have been a complete and utter waste of time, as was largely self-evident when the report was published.
All of which suggests to me that the LC's approach is born of political expediency rather than anything like independence, say, thus to a large extent a rehash of OFT ten years ago.
Of course, unlike the OFT at least the LC has acknowledged that its remit is based on politics, at least as far as its committment to 'localism' is concerned.
Equally, localism is perhaps what might be described as 'soft' politics, and perhaps the more hard-edged nefarious political dimension is what has to be sought between the lines, rather than stated explicitly by the LC.
