Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.

The council’s case collapsed in March because it lost its records.

So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate?

roythebus wrote:

So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate?

How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers.

grandad wrote:

roythebus wrote:

So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate?

“It is alarming and extremely shocking that AVDC licensing officers have no power or authority to stop and check these vehicles. “They have no way of knowing that the drivers being used are fit and proper. “We are pleased that AVDC are taking legal proceedings against them but in the meantime they continue to operate in Aylesbury.”

Sezitall. They could always phone Rutland and find out.

grandad wrote:

Is their office there?

Sussex wrote:

Is their office there?

I don't know. One of the company's from here that plates some PH in Rutland have their Local number on the vehicles and not a Rutland number.

grandad wrote:

Sussex wrote:

Is their office there?

I don't know. One of the company's from here that plates some PH in Rutland have their Local number on the vehicles and not a Rutland number.

The issue currently is where the call is answered.

But not for much longer if the LC have their way.

It is answered in our LA.

grandad wrote:

It is answered in our LA.

100% illegal then, hope the council find their paperwork.

Sussex wrote:

grandad wrote:

It is answered in our LA.

100% illegal then, hope the council find their paperwork.

But which council? Our council or Rutland council?

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
Taxi drivers call for private hire firm to be kicked out of Aylesbury Taxi drivers have expressed their anger that a private hire firm with vehicles licensed by another council are still operating in Aylesbury. The Aylesbury Private Hire Association has demanded a ‘level playing field’ and called for all Call a Cab vehicles to be thrown out of the town. It was revealed last year that licences issued by Rutland County Council were being used by Call a Cab. In March Aylesbury Vale District Council’s court case against the firm collapsed, but the authority is hoping to have an appeal heard at the High Court later this year. The private hire association raised its concerns after the latest round of Vehicle and Operator Services Agency inspections in the town. The group said in a statement: “There is a lot of anger in the trade. “Whilst our members are always under scrutiny and at the forefront of any enforcement action by AVDC, it is very frustrating to see a taxi firm, namely Call a Cab, allowed to flout the law and openly use private hire vehicles and drivers that are not licensed here. “It is alarming and extremely shocking that AVDC licensing officers have no power or authority to stop and check these vehicles. “They have no way of knowing that the drivers being used are fit and proper. “We are pleased that AVDC are taking legal proceedings against them but in the meantime they continue to operate in Aylesbury.” The council’s case collapsed in March because it lost its records. Peter Seal, the council’s licensing services manager, said: “The council has lodged an appeal to the High Court and it is hoped that the matter will be heard later this year. “In the meantime AVDC is still of the opinion that Call a Cab Limited require an operator’s licence and will continue to pursue the matter through the proper legal channels.” The private hire association has also moved to quash rumours that drivers are planning strikes in the coming weeks. It said: “We are in dialogue with AVDC and are not preparing to cause any disruption or go on strike.” Call A Cab did not wish to comment.

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
Sussex wrote: The council’s case collapsed in March because it lost its records.

Author:	roythebus [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate?

Author:	grandad [ Wed Sep 11, 2013 11:09 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
roythebus wrote: So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate? How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers.

Author:	roythebus [ Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:07 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
grandad wrote: roythebus wrote: So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate? How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers. “It is alarming and extremely shocking that AVDC licensing officers have no power or authority to stop and check these vehicles. “They have no way of knowing that the drivers being used are fit and proper. “We are pleased that AVDC are taking legal proceedings against them but in the meantime they continue to operate in Aylesbury.” Sezitall. They could always phone Rutland and find out.

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

Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=23021	Page 1 of 1

Author:	grandad [ Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
roythebus wrote: grandad wrote: roythebus wrote: So AVDC are accusing Rutland District council of allowing unlicenced drivers and unchecked vehicles to operate? How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers. “It is alarming and extremely shocking that AVDC licensing officers have no power or authority to stop and check these vehicles. “They have no way of knowing that the drivers being used are fit and proper. “We are pleased that AVDC are taking legal proceedings against them but in the meantime they continue to operate in Aylesbury.” Sezitall. They could always phone Rutland and find out. Rutland will tell them that the drivers have been checked correctly and that the vehicles have been checked correctly to the Rutland standards. We have some Rutland drivers and vehicles operating here and as far as I know, our Council are not even looking into it. I may even get myself a Rutland office and work PH from there as well. Oakham is only 10 miles from me and the county border about 5 miles away.

Author:	edders23 [ Thu Sep 12, 2013 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
we used to have a firm operate with a mixed fleet of Rutland and SKDC plated cars but as PH doesn't exist in our district all cars are plated SKDC but most operate including ourselves across much of Rutland on a booking only basis as much of the traffic is Stamford centric not oakham as Stamford is the bigger town I cannot see how AVDC would have a case though as this PH firm are doing nothing illegal under the current legislation as far as I can see. But this is proof if ever we need it that a National or regional system of taxi licensing and testing would improve things leaving local authorities to stick to enforcement.

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
grandad wrote: How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers. Is their office there?

Author:	grandad [ Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: How do you come to that conclusion? The operator, drivers and vehicles are all licensed in Rutland. Rutland do not have any age restriction on vehicles and when they are plated they must have an MOT certificate issued not more than 2 months before hand. There is no knowledge test for PH drivers. Is their office there? I don't know. One of the company's from here that plates some PH in Rutland have their Local number on the vehicles and not a Rutland number.

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
grandad wrote: Sussex wrote: Is their office there? I don't know. One of the company's from here that plates some PH in Rutland have their Local number on the vehicles and not a Rutland number. The issue currently is where the call is answered. But not for much longer if the LC have their way.

Author:	grandad [ Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: Sussex wrote: Is their office there? I don't know. One of the company's from here that plates some PH in Rutland have their Local number on the vehicles and not a Rutland number. The issue currently is where the call is answered. But not for much longer if the LC have their way. It is answered in our LA.

Author:	Sussex [ Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
grandad wrote: It is answered in our LA. 100% illegal then, hope the council find their paperwork.

Author:	grandad [ Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:33 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: It is answered in our LA. 100% illegal then, hope the council find their paperwork. But which council? Our council or Rutland council?

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:04 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Aylesbury PH not happy with non locals working there.
grandad wrote: Sussex wrote: grandad wrote: It is answered in our LA. 100% illegal then, hope the council find their paperwork. But which council? Our council or Rutland council? The council they are operating in (i.e. answering phones) does the prosecuting.

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