Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - taxitalk/SCATA article Jan 05 issue

In this months issue of taxitalk it is claimed by SCATA that local authorities that restrict numbers are under no obligation by the government to comply with the governments desires.

In the light of the shortcomings of that which SCATA believes tobe a flawed OFT document that has been laid before the DTI, the urgent pleas of the DTI to conform with its recommendations is not a possible recommendation that SCATA could make to others to duly fulfill.

Whilst the DTI is insisting that those local authorities that intend to continue with there previously adopted policies of controlled entry must submit to the general public and the government their reasons maintaining such a stance, it has been made clear that there will be no mandatory requirement at this time to comply with those recommendations.

In this regard it's important to remember that many LAs have effectively ignored their legal obligations for years in respect of assessing any unmet demand.

with its recommendations is not a possible recommendation that SCATA could make to others to duly fulfill.

[okay, so SCATA are saying this, and most people will be saying who are SCATA. :wink:

Hmm...I hear they think you are a bit of a cuckoo in the HC nest el Capitano

And that all PH are cuckoos in the nest.

Poor old Douglas Friswell. He tries so hard and all you lot can do is critisize him and SCATA. He does mean well you know even though he get's a little muddled and confused with government legislation from time to time. But so does that NTTG lot!!

I SAY GOOD ON YOU SCATA (brains) I believe that the NTA love you!

No Snooty looks please. :roll:

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:	taxitalk/SCATA article Jan 05 issue
In this months issue of taxitalk it is claimed by SCATA that local authorities that restrict numbers are under no obligation by the government to comply with the governments desires. I Cannot be bothered to type in the whole article. regards Captain cab

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxitalk/SCATA article Jan 05 issue
captain cab wrote: In this months issue of taxitalk it is claimed by SCATA that local authorities that restrict numbers are under no obligation by the government to comply with the governments desires. Copy and paste not work on your computer then?

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
less of your cheek young man, it aint on the website yet, just in the magazine regards Captain Cab

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:
I hope your happy now! summing the story up; Despite the worst fears of the taxi industry, Secretary of State of the DTI, Patricia Hewitt's statement on behalf of the government did not set down immediate mandatory requirements for delimitation of entry of taxi vehicles in areas of local authority control. It did however, make firm recommendations that delimitation within the context of the OFT's recommendations to the DTI should be applied wherever and whenever possible. In the light of the shortcomings of that which SCATA believes tobe a flawed OFT document that has been laid before the DTI, the urgent pleas of the DTI to conform with its recommendations is not a possible recommendation that SCATA could make to others to duly fulfill. Whilst the DTI is insisting that those local authorities that intend to continue with there previously adopted policies of controlled entry must submit to the general public and the government their reasons maintaining such a stance, it has been made clear that there will be no mandatory requirement at this time to comply with those recommendations.

Author:	TDO [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:
Hmm....looks like SCATA has finally caught up with what TDO said last spring (see below). PHM was trumpeting this view as well months ago but had to write to the DfT first to confirm it. As I said to Mr T about a week ago when I posted the passage in bold below in a thread, read it on TDO first!! But one fundamental point is that the process does not envisage any immediate legislatory change, thus local authorities will be under no legal obligation to adhere to the DfT's new guidance. Of course, the current unmet demand test in the legislation is fleshed out by case law, and to that extent the judiciary could use the DfT's guidance to amend the legal obligations of local authorities, but without new legislation only the courts can change the law, not the Government. But even assuming that the courts fall into line and incorporate the DfT's new guidance into the law, this would first require a legal challenge if local authorities decide not to follow the guidance, and even then individual authorities could still choose to ignore the amended law, as some clearly choose to do currently, on the assumption that they won't be challenged in court.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

taxitalk/SCATA article Jan 05 issue http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1403	Page 1 of 2

Author:	TDO [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:40 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: In the light of the shortcomings of that which SCATA believes tobe a flawed OFT document that has been laid before the DTI, the urgent pleas of the DTI to conform with its recommendations is not a possible recommendation that SCATA could make to others to duly fulfill. For crying out loud, if the OFT report had contained the Holy Grail SCATA would still not have...err...recommend others to duly fulfill the DTI's urgent pleas to conform with its recommendations. No, I didn't understand it either, but I think I know what he's trying to say

Author:	TDO [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:54 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: Whilst the DTI is insisting that those local authorities that intend to continue with there previously adopted policies of controlled entry must submit to the general public and the government their reasons maintaining such a stance, it has been made clear that there will be no mandatory requirement at this time to comply with those recommendations. Except to the extent that part of the DfT's stance was intended merely to encourage restricting LAs to adhere to current legal requirements lest a legal challenge should be mounted. In this regard it's important to remember that many LAs have effectively ignored their legal obligations for years in respect of assessing any unmet demand.

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: In this regard it's important to remember that many LAs have effectively ignored their legal obligations for years in respect of assessing any unmet demand. Hence the current problem (and the NTA press release ) regards captain cab

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:03 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: with its recommendations is not a possible recommendation that SCATA could make to others to duly fulfill. okay, so SCATA are saying this, and most people will be saying who are SCATA.

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:22 am ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: [okay, so SCATA are saying this, and most people will be saying who are SCATA. And most of us couldn't care less who they are, if it takes them a year to understand what most of us realised one day after the Gov's statement.

Author:	TDO [ Wed Jan 19, 2005 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: [okay, so SCATA are saying this, and most people will be saying who are SCATA. Hmm...I hear they think you are a bit of a cuckoo in the HC nest el Capitano And that all PH are cuckoos in the nest.

Author:	captain cab [ Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:36 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Hmm...I hear they think you are a bit of a cuckoo in the HC nest el Capitano And that all PH are cuckoos in the nest. I heard that, do you think they'll accept my application? better still, Yorkies? even better, you and sussex's hehe Captain cab

Author:	Lord Snooty [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Poor old Douglas Friswell. He tries so hard and all you lot can do is critisize him and SCATA. He does mean well you know even though he get's a little muddled and confused with government legislation from time to time. But so does that NTTG lot!! I SAY GOOD ON YOU SCATA (brains) I believe that the NTA love you! No Snooty looks please.

Author:	Yorkie [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Lord Snooty wrote: Poor old Douglas Friswell. He tries so hard and all you lot can do is critisize him and SCATA. He does mean well you know even though he get's a little muddled and confused with government legislation from time to time. But so does that NTTG lot!! I SAY GOOD ON YOU SCATA (brains) I believe that the NTA love you! No Snooty looks please. Mick tries very hard but we critisize him too, what point are you making snotty? that magazines you sponsor should not be critisised? man, you are an ass.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	captain cab [ Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: He does mean well lol Ghengis Khan mean't well Regards Captain cab