Sussex wrote:
Barrier causes anger among taxi drivers
He said Silverlink wanted to use a private firm, as it allowed them to regulate the taxi service running from the station for their passengers.
Silverlink are wrong to call members of the public their passengers?
There are many members of the public who use Watford station who are not passengers and have no intention of becoming passengers. They might use the Station facilities for an entirely different purpose to that of rail passengers and perhaps make use of the Taxi service as they see fit?
A passenger only becomes a passenger when they are travelling in or on something. For example Virgin trains cannot be held responsible for a passenger once that passenger has left their train. What we have here is a company that runs a Rail station who wishes to maximise its profits by charging Taxis and or Private hire operators for the privilege of having a presence on the station.
A train passenger who purchases a ticket to travel from A to B is owed a duty of care to by the train company who supplies the service to get them where they are going. Silverlink are under no such obligation.
If I was on Watford station for any reason other than taking a train I would take great exception at Silverlink categorising me as one of their passengers. The use of the word "passengers" should perhaps be redefined as "persons using Watford station".
On the issue of bylaws, if the forecourt is part of Railway property then it comes under Railway jurisdiction, the simple fact that Silverlink has the authority to put up a barrier demonstrates that the forecourt is on Railway property.
Mr Sardar is incorrect to infer that it he can legally ply for hire there.
Regards
JD