Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport

It is claiming in the action at Edinburgh Sheriff Court that the system is no longer in the spirit of the pre-booking requirement for private hire cars because passengers now go to the office and then walk out to the rank where their taxi will be waiting.

I was up there on Thursday, and they still have the disabled spaces coned off in the drop off, one of the PH controllers from the rank next to it, move them if required, these bays should be open at all times

The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking.

The CGSA states quite clearly:-
“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and

“private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection.

There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view.

Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic.

This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law.

The CGSA states quite clearly:-
[b]“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then;

swannee wrote:

So in Scotland you can't pre-nook a taxi. Only a PH!

Let me explain: If CRT even manages to get a ruling in their favour, the airport will simply change their mode of operation to affect a new interpretation of how they are complying with the law. And if CRT, are still not happy, once again, they will have to challenge the council or the airport’s present activity to get a new ruling.

In other words, the airport can set up booking offices, put up fences, build roads and car parks and change whatever they like to “comply” with the law or to force a new challenge and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

This is why the Council gives them what they want. The airport can move the goalposts as many times as they choose. The council and CRT, for that matter, could spend years and millions of pounds challenging their operation, to get absolutely nowhere.

Swannee, this pending court case is a minor skirmish to these guys and if truth be told. You don’t have the men or the resources to take them on in open battle, and even if the council rolls over, your troubles are just beginning. :-|

So Swannee, I think it is you who are being a little myopic. :-|

Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed?

The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking.

The CGSA states quite clearly:-
“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and

“private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection.

There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view.

Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law.

swannee wrote:

Swannee, you are a tube. You don't even understand or have any idea what the so called court action is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of how PHC operates it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt.

You are a CRT wannabee Swannee. Your nonsense about PHC were previously and should be behind a fence, feck me, where in law which is the 92 Civic Government of Scotland Act does this get a mention? Can I tell you, nowhere!

Your God Tony Kensnowt should be very careful of what he wishes for, he thinks a judge is going to interpret a law that in Tony eyes was drafted "in the spirit of" again feck me. Tony thinks that the airport operation is instantaneous, again where in the CGSA does it say there is a time slot from booking to acceptance to passenger on board?

Wannabee Swannee like CRT you are out your depth.

it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt.

The Script wrote:

swannee wrote:

Quote:

it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt.

So what the fu*k are they hoping to achieve a re-application where the council rubber-stamps it anyway?

Author:	captain cab [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:29 am ]
Post subject:	Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport A TAXI firm is taking a council to court after a dispute over ranks at Scotland's busiest airport. One black cab firm is launching the legal action against Edinburgh City Council after it granted a licence for a rival private hire firm to open a new pre-booking office at the terminal of the city's airport. Central Taxis, the capital's largest black cab firm, is appealing against the principle of a licence being granted for the company booking office yards from the private hire rank. It is claiming in the action at Edinburgh Sheriff Court that the system is no longer in the spirit of the pre-booking requirement for private hire cars because passengers now go to the office and then walk out to the rank where their taxi will be waiting. Central Taxis previously had a contract for five years, along with another private hire firm, to provide black cab and private cars for travellers at the terminal, which sees 25,000 passengers a day and is 30 minutes from the city centre. City Cabs and Edinburgh City Private Hire won the latest contract to provide black cabs and cars at ranks at the airport terminal last year, but the private hire firm has only now had the permanent base approved. An airport spokesman said it introduced wider changes to the layout to make it easier for travellers to move about the terminal and that its provision was legally sound. One source claimed the distance between the new and old pre-booking offices is negligible, while opponents say it is enough to challenge the rules of pre-booking. Tony Kenmuir, of Central Taxis, said he believed the booking method, which requires people to give a name and destination in an office before it is relayed to the car, is not pre-booking but "instantaneous". He said: "We feel we have a valid argument and we are positive about the outcome of the appeal." Kevin Woodburn, of Edinburgh City Private Hire, said he believed the court action by Central Taxis was motivated by "sour grapes" over losing the contract. City Cabs declined to comment. The council said it was aware of the Edinburgh Sheriff Court action. Susan Mooney, the council's head of community safety services, said in her report to the licensing sub-commmittee that travellers had the clear option of both a taxi rank or hire car booking office at the terminal. She said: "The booking will be logged on a computer and communicated to the driver of a vehicle in the pick-up area." A spokesman for Edinburgh Airport said: "The initial contract had expired. We retendered, informed by our Surface Access Strategy, which allowed us for the first time to put our passengers' requirements at the heart of the decisions we make around taxi provision. "We are observing and will comply with all legal and licensing requirements. Our primary concern is that the excellent service quality for passengers this offers is maintained. We are supportive of the diligent approach the council has taken. "We are confident our taxi provisions are legal and, importantly, easy to use for our passengers. The council and its relevant committees agree with us. "The current situation at the airport is very similar to the previous set-up, which was not challenged legally. It is also similar to many other major transport hubs across the UK." source: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home ... t.23683468

Author:	Skull [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Quote: It is claiming in the action at Edinburgh Sheriff Court that the system is no longer in the spirit of the pre-booking requirement for private hire cars because passengers now go to the office and then walk out to the rank where their taxi will be waiting. Now I could be wrong, but I think CRT, are on a hiding to nothing. It could be argued, that the practicalities of pre-booking have changed somewhat over the years, due to modern technology allowing customers greater access to their service provider and vice versa. It’s a bit like hiring a Ph/taxi by pressing an app button on your phone instead of hailing a taxi in the street. The begging light is losing its status in the customer transport market. Now you don't have to walk the streets or stand at a rank because you can't get through on the phones. I think CRT, are arguing to turn back time. The spirit of the pre-booking requirement is no longer about fettering one's access to anything, let alone taxis or ph. None of the above could have been foreseen twenty or thirty years ago.

Author:	Skull [ Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Here's a thought, what happens to this legal challenge, if the council decided to de-restrict the trade? They've done it before you know....

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Oh and I expect that, if this legal challenge fails, CRT's committee, to a man, will tender their resignations. I am sure the committee would agree. It would be remiss of them to do otherwise under the circumstances.

Author:	skippy41 [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 1:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
I was up there on Thursday, and they still have the disabled spaces coned off in the drop off, one of the PH controllers from the rank next to it, move them if required, these bays should be open at all times

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

Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=24084	Page 1 of 4

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
skippy41 wrote: I was up there on Thursday, and they still have the disabled spaces coned off in the drop off, one of the PH controllers from the rank next to it, move them if required, these bays should be open at all times I wouldn't worry about it, once CRT, have lay waste to the council and the airport are crushed under foot, that will all change.

Author:	swannee [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed? The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking. The CGSA states quite clearly:- “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection. There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view. Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law.

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Swannee writes: Quote: Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed? Well, I suppose that would depend on whether or not, waiting in line, on private land constitutes an official rank, in the eyes of the law. Quote: The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking. So what you are arguing for here is an amendment to their booking system, for it to comply with the current legislation. Quote: The CGSA states quite clearly:- “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection. There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view. And once again, I suppose this would depend on whether or not, waiting in line, on private land constitutes an official rank, in the eyes of the law. Quote: Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. You couldn’t be more wrong and to prove it, why don’t I tell you how all this is all going to end, supposing CRT manages to get a ruling in their favour, which I doubt? Quote: This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law. No, this is about CRT’s incompetent committee getting in out of their depth.

Author:	grandad [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
swannee wrote: The CGSA states quite clearly:- [b]“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; So in Scotland you can't pre-nook a taxi. Only a PH!

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 10:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Let me explain: If CRT even manages to get a ruling in their favour, the airport will simply change their mode of operation to affect a new interpretation of how they are complying with the law. And if CRT, are still not happy, once again, they will have to challenge the council or the airport’s present activity to get a new ruling. In other words, the airport can set up booking offices, put up fences, build roads and car parks and change whatever they like to “comply” with the law or to force a new challenge and there is nothing you can do to stop them. This is why the Council gives them what they want. The airport can move the goalposts as many times as they choose. The council and CRT, for that matter, could spend years and millions of pounds challenging their operation, to get absolutely nowhere. Swannee, this pending court case is a minor skirmish to these guys and if truth be told. You don’t have the men or the resources to take them on in open battle, and even if the council rolls over, your troubles are just beginning. So Swannee, I think it is you who are being a little myopic.

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
grandad wrote: swannee wrote: The CGSA states quite clearly:- [b]“taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; So in Scotland you can't pre-nook a taxi. Only a PH! Not quite

Author:	Skull [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Skull wrote: Let me explain: If CRT even manages to get a ruling in their favour, the airport will simply change their mode of operation to affect a new interpretation of how they are complying with the law. And if CRT, are still not happy, once again, they will have to challenge the council or the airport’s present activity to get a new ruling. In other words, the airport can set up booking offices, put up fences, build roads and car parks and change whatever they like to “comply” with the law or to force a new challenge and there is nothing you can do to stop them. This is why the Council gives them what they want. The airport can move the goalposts as many times as they choose. The council and CRT, for that matter, could spend years and millions of pounds challenging their operation, to get absolutely nowhere. Swannee, this pending court case is a minor skirmish to these guys and if truth be told. You don’t have the men or the resources to take them on in open battle, and even if the council rolls over, your troubles are just beginning. So Swannee, I think it is you who are being a little myopic. How's that for the bigger picture, Swannee?

Author:	The Script [ Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
swannee wrote: Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed? The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking. The CGSA states quite clearly:- “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection. There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view. Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law. Swannee, you are a tube. You don't even understand or have any idea what the so called court action is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of how PHC operates it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt. You are a CRT wannabee Swannee. Your nonsense about PHC were previously and should be behind a fence, feck me, where in law which is the 92 Civic Government of Scotland Act does this get a mention? Can I tell you, nowhere! Your God Tony Kensnowt should be very careful of what he wishes for, he thinks a judge is going to interpret a law that in Tony eyes was drafted "in the spirit of" again feck me. Tony thinks that the airport operation is instantaneous, again where in the CGSA does it say there is a time slot from booking to acceptance to passenger on board? Wannabee Swannee like CRT you are out your depth.

Author:	Skull [ Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:11 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
The Script wrote: swannee wrote: Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed? The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking. The CGSA states quite clearly:- “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection. There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view. Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law. Swannee, you are a tube. You don't even understand or have any idea what the so called court action is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of how PHC operates it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt. You are a CRT wannabee Swannee. Your nonsense about PHC were previously and should be behind a fence, feck me, where in law which is the 92 Civic Government of Scotland Act does this get a mention? Can I tell you, nowhere! Your God Tony Kensnowt should be very careful of what he wishes for, he thinks a judge is going to interpret a law that in Tony eyes was drafted "in the spirit of" again feck me. Tony thinks that the airport operation is instantaneous, again where in the CGSA does it say there is a time slot from booking to acceptance to passenger on board? Wannabee Swannee like CRT you are out your depth. Quote: it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt. So what the fu*k are they hoping to achieve a re-application where the council rubber-stamps it anyway?

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	The Script [ Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Taxi firm in legal fight over ranks row at city airport
Skull wrote: The Script wrote: swannee wrote: Skull, even you know that the legal challenge is about the legality of PH ranking in public view, as well as the operation not complying with the law. We all know that the previous PH operation was behind a fence in order to comply with the law - so what's changed? The booking system in use by ECPH whilst noting passengers name and destination to comply with the booking office licence terms, does not record the full details required by the PHC operators and drivers licence terms. They are also accepting bookings for a hire commencing there and then which is NOT pre-booking. The CGSA states quite clearly:- “taxi” means a hire car which is engaged, by arrangements made in a public place between the person to be conveyed in it (or a person acting on his behalf) and its driver for a journey beginning there and then; and “private hire car” means a hire car other than a taxi within the meaning of this subsection. There are also numerous legal precedents, some of them quite obscure, which make it clear that PH cannot rank in public view. Your hatred of CRT does tend to make you a tad myopic. This is not about CRT v the council, it is about ECPH and the airport authorities thinking they are above the law. Swannee, you are a tube. You don't even understand or have any idea what the so called court action is all about. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legalities of how PHC operates it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt. You are a CRT wannabee Swannee. Your nonsense about PHC were previously and should be behind a fence, feck me, where in law which is the 92 Civic Government of Scotland Act does this get a mention? Can I tell you, nowhere! Your God Tony Kensnowt should be very careful of what he wishes for, he thinks a judge is going to interpret a law that in Tony eyes was drafted "in the spirit of" again feck me. Tony thinks that the airport operation is instantaneous, again where in the CGSA does it say there is a time slot from booking to acceptance to passenger on board? Wannabee Swannee like CRT you are out your depth. Quote: it's about whether or not the council had the right to give ECPH a booking office licence which was on a variation of the original ECPH application which was for a licence on the outer forecourt. So what the fu*k are they hoping to achieve a re-application where the council rubber-stamps it anyway? You got it in one Skull, the absolute absurdity of it all is that ECPH were granted a booking office licence for the multi story 4 weeks ago. This was a fresh application and grant, Central are currently going to court because the council gave ECPH a temporary licence to operate based on the variation of the outer forecourt application. Regardless of the current outcome and CRT IMHO are 100% certain to lose in order for them to achieve anything they will have to go back to court with an action to take on the council over the issuing of the new licence! How much money can they waste? Nobody in power at CRT appears to see that the current court challenge and possible subsequent challenge does absolutely nothing to question the validity of how PHC operates. This can only be clarified by a judicial review and this will cost £75+k to get anywhere near a ruling. At the moment the best legal brains in Central (Tony Kensnowt) comments in the paper about how ECPH are not operating their business correctly because they are not booking or complying in " the spirit of how the act was meant to be" I can't wait to hear a judge comment on that.