Taxi Driver Online

Perhaps so but I wonder how many people had read the full transcripts or even had access to them. I know you hadn't.

I'm more intrigued at David Farmer's reference to the Taxi trade?

I thought you might also be intrigued, especially if it wasn't you or the NTA that DF referred? I think we can safely discount the NTTG and the GMB from being involved so that would leave the TGWU? We haven't heard any noises from that quarter so the plot thickens.

I often wondered why the NTA and the TGWU didn't take the opportunity to exploit this bill to to the full in order rectify many of the anomalies that we have in both acts of parliamnent. In fact I nearly said as much in a post last week.

Has it ever occurred to you that these amendments have been submitted at the eleventh hour, and in the Lords, in the last reading of Bill?

Obviously this amendment is a reaction to current events but it would be nice to know the mindset of the DfT when they say they have taken into account information from the Trade? Perhaps there is a reason why David Farmer failed to be specific?

I suppose eventually we can narrow this down by process of elimination, time will tell?

Regards

JD

Not according to 'brother' Terry!



Move over, there's plenty more room on the bandwagon . . . . .

JD,

In respect of the case law they seem to raise more questions than answers, section 75 (b) is an has been a charter to circumvent licensing law by people who really should be licensed but are'nt.

I think the fact that 75 (b) is being abused, the fact that it no longer is a reasonable piece of legislation and causes undue burden upon licensing authorities is of more bearing.

There has been a bit of dialogue from relevent people via email over the issue.

I raised the question of an RRO (having been reminded by the T&G attempt to address the cross border issue via this route).

However, as stated I think it was a concensus of opinion all in agreement the law was being circumvented.

I dont think he can be specific as there are a number of cases where 75 (b) is used to circumvent. If he were to name one particular company that could be perhaps prejudicial?

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

By evading to answer my simple question, I take it that you or the NTA did not write to David Farmer in respect of section 75 1 B and in particular raise the question about Pink Ladies, Limos and Novelty vehicles, circumventing 75 1 B and that this section should be removed or ammended?



What exactly is a bit of a dialogue via email? And who was doing the dialoguing? Was the DfT involved in this so called bit of a dialogue?



You raised the Question of an RRO with whom and when? Are you saying you wrote to the DfT and suggested section 75 1 B should be removed? Was this on your own behalf or was it on behalf of the NTA?

Regards

JD

Will the exemptions available in Scotland still apply, ie. wedding, funerals & hires lasting over 24 hours ?

The only section being removed is 75 1 B. Which specifically applies to a vehicle used only for carrying passengers for hire or reward under a contract for the hire of the vehicle for a period of not less than seven days.

Weddings and funerals etc come under section 75 1 C. It should be noted that the 1976 act only relates to England and Wales.

Regards

JD

Thanks JD

It appears section 75 1 B is the England & Wales equivalent of section 22 C in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982


s 22 Saving for certain vehicles etc.

Nothing in sections 10 to 21 (with the exception of subsection 7) of section 21 of this Act shall -

(c) apply to any vehicle while it is being used for carrying passengers
under a contract for its exclusive hire for a period of not less than 24
hours.


I wonder if Scottish Ministers need alerted to these developments ?

Surely the public throughout the UK need protected with the same safeguards ?

JD,

I am not at liberty to answer the question, thats why I didnt, although there were more parties than the NTA involved, thats why I have stated its a victory for common sense. There appears to be no downside.

Do you agree that the repeal of 75 (b) is a good thing or do you think its a bad thing?

regards

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I would drop the Scottish Executive a line advising them of the removal of section 75 1 B of the 1976 act and that they may wish to take a look at the provisions in Section 22 C of the CGSA 1982.

Regards

JD

I take it from that coherent reply, you or the NTA did not write to the DfT in respect of removing section 75 1 B.



Then again, from this response one might conclude that the NTA was involved and more to the point you suggest others are also involved?

Yet for reasons known only to yourself you say you cannot divulge any information about any of the presumed correspondence or the time frame of events relating to such correspondence?

You mentioned there has been "a bit of a dialogue" but people reading this thread will no doubt have a wry smile on their face wondering what you mean by a bit of a dialogue? Either there was a dialogue or there wasn't? I once again give you the opportunity to inform us all what you meant by a bit of a dialogue?



There is no doubt the swift removal of this troublesome section is most welcome but whether or not you can categorise it as a victory, I do not know. I wasn't even aware we had gone into battle over section 75 1 B except in those areas where it was having an adverse effect?

Personally I expected this issue to be resolved through the courts, as did many others. The DfT intervention has well and truly put to bed any hope we had of seeing this activity remedied through litigation.



Please don't try and change the subject when you find yourself in the rough. My views are well known on section 75 1 B so the question is pointless.

In summary from your responses so far, I've concluded that neither you or the NTA wrote to David Farmer and specifically asked for the removal of section 75 1 B.

Your unclear reference to a "bit of a dialogue" tells me your trying to infer dialogue took place with the DfT, when in fact it didn't.

I take for granted your own recent position in relation to the LO in Carlisle and I would expect you both to have had meaningful discussions but that does not remotely lead us to the conclusion of the demise of section 75 1 B.

I am not trying to score any points here or put you on the spot all I am trying to do is clarify if you or the NTA wrote to the DfT and specifically asked for the removal of this clause in section 75.

That's not a difficult question to answer, is it?

Regards

JD

JD,

A number of different parties have been in dialogue over section 75 (b), the result of which is the repeal via the road safety bill.

You can summise whatever you wish, and you would regardless of what I say.

I cannot answer your question directly because others may wish to keep themselves in the background, indeed, the NTA themselves may wish to make a statement during the near future.

Section 75 (b) has been a highly litigious piece of the act, the actions of the Government have effectively got rid of the loophole.

I think we should thank those involved, including this site and the input from everyone, but your stance puzzles me.

regards

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Courtesty of Taxitalk magazine;

An Act of Trust?



It seems that early summer has created the silly season. We have England hopefully in the throes of either winning another World Cup, or make many thousands of Scots happy at another dismal failure, we have Wimbledon with yet another hope that ‘Tim’ will win it for England or ‘Andy’ will win it for Great Britain (I hope you Scots appreciate my sense of irony). And finally we still have vehicles running around this great land of ours, unlicensed and unchecked by licensing regimes perfectly legally.

A significant number of vehicles operating unlicensed are doing so by virtue of one particular subsection of Section 75 of the local government miscellaneous provisions act 1976. This allows vehicles on a contract of not less than 7 days to operate unlicensed. We have ‘Pink Ladies’ in Carlisle and shortly coming to an area near you, we have airport transfer companies, we have stretched limousines, in many areas operating, to all intents and purposes for hire and reward without and form of licensing whatsoever, all courtesy of 75 (b).

Obviously, I have my own little angle on this, the ‘Pink Ladies’ of Carlisle, which are not a new lap dancing bar (take note North Tyneside HCA), but apparently a members club who transport female passengers for hire and reward.

Whilst the trades seemingly prefer to argue about the rights and wrongs of delimitation, about the rights and wrongs of cross border hiring, we all know of firms, in every area, who really should be licensed, but simply aren’t.

I think we may have stumbled across the one thing to unite the entire licensed taxi and private hire trades here. It seems to me, that whilst we may have disagreements about everything else, the one thing that does unite us is a pride that at least our various local authorities check us.

I therefore contend removing section 75 (b) from the 1976 act, will either force the unlicensed to become legitimate or make prosecution easier for local authorities.

The removal of the seven-day contract rule will not affect a single licensed PH or HC driver in the country, as you are already operating licensed and legitimate. The only people it will affect are those who are using this particular section of the act to circumvent licensing.

I suppose we should ask the question why try to ‘get around’ licensing laws which are set in place, first and foremost to protect the public? Why was this section put in the act in the first place? Bearing in mind I was seven years old when the 1976 act came out, I cant honestly tell you, perhaps Derek Cummins will tell you at some point in the future.

Regardless of why it was put in the act, it is reasonably clear it has created a problem for local authorities, an unnecessary burden. Whilst the onus is upon the person claiming exemption to prove they can have exemption, making sure they don’t impinge on the rules is the remit of your LA. So either way, the licensee has to pay through operating legitimately for the LA to ensure the person with exemption actually remains exempt!

Companies operating under section 75 (b) may wish to tell all and sundry their employees and people under their control have CRB checks, correct insurance and roadworthy vehicles, but without a regulator, such as a local authority checking these documents, we have only their word for it, an act of trust if you like. Personally, when you have people prepared to operate on the fringes of the law, I wouldn’t trust these people as far as I could throw them.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Considering this subject was and still is a long standing debating dish on TDO I'm surprised it took you until July 2006 to actually pen an article about it. I made a reference back in May that you would do this article especially now you had had the input from TDO. lol. Nevertheless every accurate comment on the subject is welcome no matter what quarter it comes from. I'm very surprised however that the NTA or the TGWU haven't seized on the opportunity of the Road Safety bill to amend some of the more outdated and unnecessary legislation from both acts that Govern us. I wonder if this was an oversight or was it a case of those that put themselves forward as representing the Taxi trade were not aware of the bill and the prospects it presented for limited change?

I'm glad you posted that article because I was getting rather concerned at the number of articles appearing in TaxiTalk magazine that originate from TDO. It goes without question that what is written on TDO can be found several weeks later in most Taxi magazines excepting of course those that concentrate on the London area. I suppose that is down to the reality of the Internet? I've noticed on several occasions that TDO produces more news in one day than any Taxi magazine produces in one month. I wonder why that is? The added bonus of course is that most news-worthy items are debated to the full in a matter of days and in many instances a consensus is reached which either resolves the matter or explores the many avenues of opinion.

I can tell you now what your going to write in TT next month providing you don't miss the deadline and that is the very subject we are discussing now. I don't blame you for that because right now it is a news-worthy item but once again the item will have well and truly been done and dusted by this website by the time your article gets an airing so by the time the next issue of TT comes along it may not be that News worthy?

Perhaps TDO should start its own online magazine? with the advertising revenue that's readily available from likes of LTI etc. I think we would do quite well. lol

Regards

JD

Your partially correct, but here goes for you;

Sorry to remind you but….

National Taxi Association Conference, Carlisle 2006

Unlicensed Vehicles

***** Stop Press*****

The Need to unite behind one banner

I think the articles in the trade press for the most part are worthy, because not everyone has computers.

Of course this site puts more stuff on than whats in the trade press, but it doesnt have to work to deadlines, and isnt limited and any real sense.



Perhaps you would, I havent seen taxi today this month perhaps its considering it?

Captain Cab

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I have to say I congratulate you on your balanced approach in much of this debate and I don't blame you one bit for writing what you deem to be news worthy, even though some of us may think many of the articles written are past their sell by date. As you rightly say not everyone has access to the Internet and for them a monthly or weekly magazine is a welcome additive.

In respect of Pink Ladies I have already stated that those who made the effort to bring this anomaly to the attention of those who can effect change deserve a huge pat on the back and that goes for those people in Warrington and the rest of the UK including those in Carlisle. I think regardless of the way this event came about is perhaps shaded into insignificance by the end result.

One final point for those people who undertake hire or reward, there are only two sets of legislation outside of Scotland that can accommodate such an activity and they both have mandatory licensing conditions. The removal of clause 75 1 B means EVERYONE needs a license no matter what activity of hire or reward they undertake.

In reality, we should all now know where we stand.

Regards

JD