Taxi Driver Online

Evening all,
Surprise,surprise the hearing listed for 1st of November has been postponed till 16th November at the earliest.
Why do I get the feeling that their heart is not in it?
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Who requested the delay, and do you know why Ged?

_________________
IDFIMH

Ged
commissioners only sit if no aggreement can be reached, when I was Deputy Commissioner in your area I sat waiting for weeks.

a commission hearing is the very last resort.

Geoff,
Not to sure what you mean by agreement. Agreement with whom and about what? It is the commissioners that have set the hearing to look at all the allegations about this firm. Whether it is the last resort I do not know, would a hearing be convened if for example a company was warned about its practises and ignored the warnings. I am not aware of any such interventions. I can only assume that the commissioners have weighed the reams of evidence that we turned over to them and think that indeed there is a case to answer. Shades of another case in this forum after an argument yesterday at the airport one of the drivers told us that his manager had given them permission to ply for hire.
In your role as dep. commissioner what would have been your opinion about this firm? Quite honestly Geoff I think that we will not be able to turn the other cheek for much longer, the only saving grace being that they cannot keep their staff. Their turn over in staff is quite funny. A warning letter fell into my hands yesterday and the threats contained therein were risible and were better suited for the playground. I might scan it in so you can all read it (with a few blanks of course).
Sussex,
not to sure why it was delayed again, I can only assume that they want to be 100% correct and get it right first time. We think that there is a communication problem between VOSA and the commissioners. Anyway we have waited this long and we can wait a little longer and hope that they get it right.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

It isnt fair to say what I would have done, as I have learned loads on the other side.

but the commissioners will go out of thier way to ensure the process is not only fair but seen to be so, and so to a certain extent they will be encouraged to ensure plenty of time is given to preparing thier case.

when you get there there will be two deputy commissioners, they are ameatuers and a commissioner hes a full timer who will give if you like the lead, the commissioner holds a hell of a lot of weight

now I am guessing here and I shouldnt guess, but there is sensitivity in the office on this case they are going though us with a fine toothcomb, and I guess the case needs to be bloody good.

remember like it or not jobs are at stake. and none of us like that fact,none will leave any room to be accused of rushing this or not allowing preperation time.

cos this one is certain in my view to go to judicial review.

the above are my opinions, and please treat as such.

Geoff,
Thanks for that. This hearing has come about because of ( I think) the commissioners from the Midlands raising issue with the way this firm is ALLOWED to perform. There is a two tier system of enforcement at the airport, as you know that anybody but our friends are given the bums rush anywhere near the terminals. Traffic tickets are handed out to all and sundry and they feel aggrieved that they can see a firm operating under the same licence being allowed carte blanche to park and indeed ply for hire outside the three terminals.
Because we have complained to Leeds they invited us to properly submit evidence instead of the mainly anecdotal stuff that we had given them. We are of course only on the periphery, all the legal side will be down to the commissioner.
Regarding the plying for hire bit , the other day one of their drivers informed us that they could do so because their manager has given them permission.
My main gripe is that instead of going for the knockout blow the commissioners should have been chipping away slowly, by removing the Taxibus logo, by not allowing them to rank up, by ensuring that they are all psv licensed, by ensuring that they are all employees. All the grey areas that need looking at, and as I have said earlier not applying opinion but getting it to court for a legal definition. Can anybody say with hand on heart that this firm is not taking the mickey with their operating methods, I am only amazed that P.H firms have not seen fit to go down the same route in Manchester.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

I think the fact that this mess is taking part on Airport land, as opposed to the streets, is why it doesn't happen everywhere else.

The Airport issue really clouds this matter.

_________________
IDFIMH

Keep on at them Ged and good luck.

Nidge,
We will keep at it, whether we "win" is another matter. All along I have had my doubts and do not forget this is only an hearing, any "victory" will be tempered by the fact that they will carry on working in their own sweet way. Not wishing to be a wet blanket I have been trying to tell anybody that will listen that wings may be clipped for a while but without the will of the enforcement agencies to finally intervene any ruling may be a waste of time. I only hope I am wrong.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

The same thing is going on at Stanstead Ged, the don't haveTaxis down there all they have is a few minibuses with un-badged drivers, I was down there on Thursday and I had 3 German guys come to me and ask me where the Taxis stood? I said sorry mate I'm not from round here.

Makes me laff all this chit about hearings with the transport commissioner. What the hell do you think will happen over Airportcarz? haven’t you lot read the procedure and outcomes of other hearings, after all it is not unique. I spelt it out in another thread what penalties have been exacted in the past.

I don't know what Joe Thorley is expecting, but he better be prepared for the worse.

Best wishes

JD

Remember where you heard first Joe.

Dear cypher,
Why does it make you laugh? I was asked to keep people informed and that is what I have done.
I will tell you what me makes me laugh... it is a pompous fool so full of his self importance, hiding behind a nom de plume but naming Messrs Thorley and Cohen, perhaps they desire anonymity too.
The driver formerly known as Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Tuesday’s hearing is not a Full hearing, in fact it’s just a “Preliminary hearing” A preliminary hearing is to determine if a full hearing is warranted. If there is to be a full hearing then it will probably be in Manchester. If I had to make a guess I would doubt that it goes any further than the Preliminary hearing.

If anyone wants to go down and listen to the evidence, it’s open to the public, it’s in Leeds and it starts at 11 am.

Best wishes

JD

and how can you come to that Guess

my guess is a full hearing and as the case arises in Stockport, I guess it will be in the offices in Leeds.

Well I can hardly say I’m an expert on PSV legislation and I’m sure you know far more than I but having weighed up the facts I find it difficult to make a solid enough case against Airportcarz that would be good enough to make the Commissioner revoke their licence.

I think the Commissioner will want firm proof that Airportcarz are breaching their licence. I think if the guys at the airport had any proof they wouldn’t have waited over 18 months to get a preliminary hearing. This preliminary hearing is a last act of desperation for the Airport drivers. If the Commissioner decides Airportcarz have no case to answer then that’s the end of the issue. You will know the outcome soon after Tuesday.

But what of the facts and why do I think Airportcarz are standing on firmer ground?

In July 2003, Because of pressure from Airport drivers and Airport TOA committee members, the TOA Secretary made a statement saying he was contemplating taking Airportcarz to court, that challenge never materialised. It never materialised because it was rumoured that Airportcarz had never lost a legal challenge in such cases. The expense of losing a legal challenge scared the chit out of the TOA. Therefore, it is obvious to me that the Cabbies at the Airport weren’t convinced that they had the law on their side.

Enter route two.

Route two went by way of getting the local licensing department involved. The cabbies at the airport thought that because Airportcarz were operating like a private hire company the licensing department should go up there and feel their collar. What the lads at the Airport failed to consider is that Airportcarz are not licensed by Manchester City Council and therefor the Council can’t touch them. You would have thought that with all those brains up there they would have realised this.

Enter route three.

Route three is what your experiencing right now, a preliminary complaint hearing. The reason I think this will fail is for the simple reason that Airportcarz since July have operated on a Flexible license. You should know what a flexible licence is because you plan to operate one yourself with these two Taxi buses in the Kirklees area. I am assuming Yorkie = Geoff.

I ‘m not going to spell it out for these guys at the Airport what a flexible license is, they should already know. I will say this, the commissioner will not be oblivious to the fact that part of this complaint is motivated by competition. I am sure Airportcarz will point that out loud and clear.

That’s my reason for thinking it will all end on Tuesday, what’s your reason for thinking it won’t?

Best wishes

JD