Taxi Driver Online

No ethics in this trade, when it comes down to the issue and selling of plates.

The ethics issue went out in Scotland when some councils decided that the ban on tranfers in the act, wasn't really a ban on transfers.

Still if and when those plates are issued in Edinburgh, it will be yet another threat to the 'house of cards', and IMHO that's ethical enough for me.

_________________
IDFIMH

Im not a legal expert but the Dundee case added nothing to the Coyle case before it, correct me if Im wrong. I see the Dundee case not as much a case of advancing the law as cynicillay exploiting it.

Outsiders may not know the full story so here it is.

Until the late 90's the Dundee trade had a pretty bad reputation. The standard car was maybe an 8 year old cavalier and jeans tracksuits and trainers were pretty standard dress. There was no seperate PH trade, it was all taxis, and numbers were capped.

Then a couple of local milliionares, who had bougth Dundee FC as a plaything (which almost went out of business by the time they had finished with it) started a new PH company with nearly 100 brand new Eclass Mercs, uniformed drivers and collar and tie. They threw money at it like there was no tommorrow, and they had adverts everywhere, and for a while the advert was never off the radio. This was all at the current taxi rates, which at that time were about 80p a mile after the flagfall - its still only £1 a mile I think. And they offered half price days as well, so 40-50p a mile.

That was about 2000. In 2002 they decided to that they wanted to convert to taxis, so applied for 71 plates for the Mercs. This caused a big stushie and was the front page story in the local paper when the committee met to decide, but they knocked them back, and the taxi trade were on cloud nine.

But even then I think they knew theyd won, because they knew about the Coyled case. Applying for the plates and making a presentation to the committee was just going through the motions because they had to do that to get have the right to go to appeal. But the lack of a survey was never mentioned during the application, because that way maybe the council could have done something about it, but afterwards it was too late, since Coyle said that the unmet demand had to be looked at at the time of the application.

So then all they had to do was launch the appeal and the 71 plates were in the bag. They won and got the 71 plates, but the TOA appealed so the plates were in limbo until the Court of Session decided earlier this year. But by the time they got them the council had deregulated anyway, so they got a fleet of TX2's. They have used a few of the plates though and seem to have farmed out a lot of them to guys in the trade because they are saloon plates rather than WAV plates because that was the policy when they applied.

The council cocked up, theres no doubt about that. I remember after the first survey was done the committee said that they would appoint someone to look at demand until the next survey to meet the Coyle requirements, but nothing was ever done, and this was exploited.

So my opininon is that it wasnt a David and Goliath as you seem to put it, it was a company with deep pockets and clever lawyers and a council with deep pockets and incompetent staff and councillors.

The wee guys on the waiting list were clueless in the main and of course would have done the same if they had been able to afford lawyers and take the risk, but they didnt and by the time they knew the score it was too late.

I think Skull from Edinburgh is one of the wee guys rather than a Dundee Taxi Cab Co, but if hes applied for a pile of plates then hes obviously using his nous to try to make a few grand. Even four plates would net him well over 100k. He just calls this business, but it hardly seems fair.

_________________
Dundee rocks. Almost.

Customers sold on? How? It's businesses that are sold on.
Denied a service? Even you must see that with taxis lying idle, it's taxi drivers who are being denied a living.
How you can talk about free markets when you are obviously opposed to them. In a free market you would be unable to sell on your plates.
Look at your record as a failed businessman. It is certainly not confidence inspiring. Look at your colleagues - everyone a loudmouth, everyone a legal expert, not one who has invested a penny in the trade.
You will not be told, but there are over 3000 Edinburgh taxi drivers who will remember, after your failure to win, what you tried to do to their livelihood. Revenge will out.

Ali T

I wouldn't know where to start on the ethics of buying and selling plates, it has to be remembered that councils create this climate by restricting licenses and therefore prospective owners who want a proprietors license have no option but to pay the going rate for the restricted license.

The number of licensing authorities especially in England and Wales that practice numbers restrictions has decreased dramatically in the past year. Perhaps the issue of restricting licenses is more "Moral than ethical".

Some people might think that selling a license for a large fee after obtaining the license in a free issue is unethical but not in my eyes. I think the person selling the license is just taking advantage of the system created by the licensing authority.

In Scotland I understand the transfer regime is slightly different and there is legislation in place that forbids the transfer of licences. Some would no doubt argue that because of the restrictions in the Scottish legislation instant financial gain is not the sole consideration for wanting a license. I have no doubt that in many cases long term stability factors will be an overriding reason.

A restricted licensing authority has the power to remove the practice of buying and selling licenses in an instant but they prefer not to. In that case you can't blame an applicant for taking advantage of the legal system when a council neglects its obligations under current legislation.

We all know that legislation in the UK governing Hackney carriage license restrictions are ambiguous to say the least. Nevertheless, especially applicable to Scotland a restricted authority must at all times keep itself informed to the level of demand or it may find its restricted policy being challenged in a court of law.

In my opinion the ethics question should be directed solely at councils and not individuals, for the simple reason that it is councils who are Lord and Master over their own hackney carriage policy.

Individuals presented with the opportunity of legally gaining something for nothing out of what some might see as a corrupt system, is not unethical.

Regards

JD

The legislation was useless, since all some of the authorities did was allow the seller to hand back the licenses and issue another one in the name of a company, then the company could be bougth and sold without transferring the license.

Of course if the license had been in a company name to start with it would never have been necessary to get a new one. So now many applications are in the name of companies just in case they corporate license swaps are disallowed.

I think Edinburgh charges a good whack for a corporate license, but its worth it if it can then be sold for 30k.

So its just the same as south of the border really. Skull said that he was applying as a company so its not difficult to see what he has in mind, and he did talk about auctioning the plates.

_________________
Dundee rocks. Almost.

JD said

"Individuals presented with the opportunity of legally gaining something for nothing out of what some might see as a corrupt system, is not unethical."

TDO said

"Indeed you might as well make the case that those with a plate in restricted areas are just taking advantage of the legal situation, which seems at odds with your usual stance."



Exactly the point I was trying to make, there seems to be a duplicity with this issue, JD you are right with what you are saying, but the same could easily be applied to those who purchase a plate, or sell one, in what some might see as a corrupt system.

I'm grateful for your contribution it adds to the debate, I have always acknowledged Coyle as being the bedrock of advancing Scottish common law in respect of section 10(3) of the CG(S)A 1982. My main consideration as you probably know is that we debate the facts according to what the law dictates. Your post has concentrated on the legal facts and background surrounding Coyle and Dundee, it is worthy that we discuss what these two cases amount to, in respect of advancing the perception of both the public and licensing authorities not only in Scotland but the rest of the UK.

I think most of the Taxi trade in Scotland will be aware of the significance of the Coyle case especially after Dundee. You mentioned persons on the waiting the list were probably unaware of the significance of the Coyle case but since 1998 the ruling was there for all to see. You mention that Dundee brought very little to the Coyle ruling. What Dundee actually did do is lower the accepted time frame of a survey and establish firmly the ruling in the Coyle case that a licensing authority in Scotland when refusing an application must be in possession of recent evidence that there is no demand which is not being met. The Dundee case also set the precedent in Scotland of the status of applicants on a waiting list.

It is obvious that the majority of the Taxi Trade and indeed most licensing authorities in Scotland were unaware of the implications in the Coyle case, until Dundee came along. The Dundee case probably did more to concentrate minds to the fact that Historical surveys could no longer be relied upon. The Coyle case centred on a survey that was six years old, the courts made the right decision because a six-year-old survey is without doubt historical. The Dundee case lowered the historical level to at least two years and also enforced the ruling in the Coyle case that a council had to always be aware of the presence or absence of unmet demand.

Withought doubt the Dundee case is significant for entrenching the precedents set by the Coyle case, it just remains to be seen if the defence put forward by Edinburgh council that they have kept themselves informed by whatever method, is accepted as a true test by the courts.

I don't think anyone can pre guess the thinking of the Scottish courts in this matter but we can only hope that the common law is advanced by the courts giving a ruling as to what the accepted test must be. One hopes the courts will determine the assessment must be independent, however they may also conclude that the information need only be updated internally. If that is the case then I am sure the independent assessment will no doubt in the future be challenged in a court of law.

I might add that in 2002 Dundee council did ask the Halcrow group to come up with a solution to the sheriff's observation that unmet demand information should be updated every time the appropriate council committee meets. Halcrow advised that to carry out any detailed analysis would likely be an expensive exercise, no realistic alternative was suggested.

Halcrow did not supply a solution and I think this might have been one of the overriding factors that caused Dundee council to eventually lift numbers control.

Regards

JD

My usual stance has nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining a license in a restricted authority and selling it on. I have never offered a moral or ethical opinion on such a practice. I have always stated I believe in equality.

If an applicant gets a free plate for whatever reason It is not up to me to determine what he does with it. My sole concern is about equality in obtaining a plate and that councils when restricting plates abide by the law when applying those restrictions.

I have never involved myself with denying anyone the right to Transfer or sell a plate.

Regards

JD

I will clarify my position on the Edinburgh scenario and any other Authority that has a policy of restricting numbers.

Each licensing authority has a right to restrict numbers if they can demonstrate that there is no demand for the services of Taxis that remains unmet. We all know that to be the case so there is no ambiguity in that area. Authorities such as Edinburgh who choose to limit numbers and do it legally can at all times be more or less assured that their policy will remain impregnable.

It is therefore folly to try and imply that the Edinburgh policy can be changed without the will of the councillors on Edinburgh council.

Those people who would like to see a policy change can either lobby for such a change or await an opportunity to show Edinburgh Council that their policy is not as impregnable as they think. Such an opportunity has now presented itself in Edinburgh as it did in Dundee.

I am inclined to believe that the ruling in the Sheriffs court caused Dundee council to take the view that their policy of restriction was unsustainable.

Doing nothing in Edinburgh will just result in the status quo carrying on as it has done in the past, by taking legal action when the council may be in breach of current legislation is without doubt placing Edinburgh in a similar position to that of Dundee.

If TDO sits on the fence and does nothing then the position in Edinburgh doesn't change. But if TDO grasps the opportunity to show Edinburgh council that their policy is unstable then that in itself is a major contribution to the doubt Edinburgh council might have in retaining a policy that can be challenged at any time in the future. I believe that is why Dundee did what they did and that is why I say that every other council in Scotland who are living outside of the law should be brought into line.

The only way of bringing these councils in from the cold is by taking legal action once a license has been refused. If a council abides by the law they have nothing to fear but those who find themselves living in the same house as Dundee better have a quick rethink on their current policy.

So there you have it. You either sit back and let the status quo carry on as normal, or when the opportunity arises you make a council sit up and take notice that their policy is not as water tight as they think it is

Regards

JD

For councils to act they usually have to have a reason to act. If nobody sticks their head above the parafet then councils will just plod along as normal.

Some may disagree with the morals of the lads in Edinburgh, some may also disagree with the chap in the West Country, but if in the end councils are forced into doing what the law says they should, then that will do for me.

Restricting taxi numbers is not good in my most polite opinion, and if you have a not very good system, then you are going to get some not very nice things happening in it.

All that aside, I wish the lads well in Edinburgh, in the West Country, and even those lads in the North West.

_________________
IDFIMH

you are right again sussex, dundee council had no interest in anything regading taxi,s or licensing, when people went down with their application money they refused to take it pointing to the waiting list we now know this was illegal and everyone is entitled to a hearing this was pointed out by 203020 briefs, even now they are still finding rules the council couldnt be bothered looking into, five individuals who have had hacks for years in company or joint names are now allowed to transfer them, one an ex toa representative has supposidly sold his for five grand, this was all on the back of 203020 asking to transfer the day to day ownership of their 71 plates which they recently won in a court case , from larry duncan under the name 203020 to mike rattery and dundee taxi company,every cabbie has to push their council to the limit it probably wont even cost much, go above them and contact mps and their bosses by email,tell your council you need a receipt for your emails to pass on this will have them sxxxtting their undergarments, the edinburgh situation is never discussed in dundee due to nobody being interested in taxi politics apart from those on this site,edinburgh cabbies should not use dundee as an example if things do change, things are tough , and cabbies are blaming plate numbers, but ask for some figures for this year its usually one to three hundred less than forty have been issued, but the amount of badges are different, one plate last meeting, twenty badges applied for, mostly 203020,anyone on the dole with a driving license must take 203020 training ,and remain for a year, once the year is up they join the other offices so 203020 just train more,the cabbies dont complain because they get a driver,dundee cabbies have always suffered from short sightedness
but they will end up paying the price

Because of the ruling in the court of session I can't see Dundee council ever going back to a policy of restriction.

Regards

JD

restriction is well and trully finished in dundee, fifteen years too late, plate restriction has caused all dundees problems in my view

You get situations like Dundee when councils don't plan ahead. Some councils think that the world stands still and what applied yesterday will apply for the rest of eternity. The law evolves and legislation moves on, any council who buries their head in the sand and thinks that change wont happen could very well end up like Dundee.

The Epitaph for Dundee should read "here lies a council dead and buried by its own ineptitude, self importance and complete disregard of the law".

Regards

JD