Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:43 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 279 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:26 am
Posts: 14
Location: trafford
Thought I would post this letter that was received this morning, a couple of weeks ago several members were gloating that another council that stands firm on restricting numbers had fell by the wayside. I think the quote used was TRAFFORD THOUGHT THEY WERE ABOVE LAW. Well all those that were out and about banging the drums and beating their chests the battle is yet not won.
"You may be aware that the Council's policy has recently been subject to an indirect challenge in the Crown Court. the effect of the challenge is that the Council is currently being required to consider an applicatin for 5 licences. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that dispite this legal challenge the Councils current policy on restricting numbers remains unchanged. the letter goes on to say that there is no unmet demand. And any new applications must wait until the outcome of the proposed survey in spring 2006.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
ShirlEButt wrote:
Thought I would post this letter that was received this morning, a couple of weeks ago several members were gloating that another council that stands firm on restricting numbers had fell by the wayside. I think the quote used was TRAFFORD THOUGHT THEY WERE ABOVE LAW. Well all those that were out and about banging the drums and beating their chests the battle is yet not won.
"You may be aware that the Council's policy has recently been subject to an indirect challenge in the Crown Court. the effect of the challenge is that the Council is currently being required to consider an applicatin for 5 licences. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that dispite this legal challenge the Councils current policy on restricting numbers remains unchanged. the letter goes on to say that there is no unmet demand. And any new applications must wait until the outcome of the proposed survey in spring 2006.


You have it wrong Shirlee, on the 13/10/05 Trafford were told by Minshull street crown court to issue the five licenses to the applicant because they had unlawfully withheld the licenses. Trafford fell foul of the law otherwise they wouldn't have had to issue five licenses, would they? The announcement that five licenses will be issued comes on Thursday the third of November so you might wish to put that date in your diary. You also might wish to reflect on the fact that if Trafford go around refusing licence applications without being in possesion of up to date evidence of demand then they will find themselves in the same position again. The council originally planned to conduct a survey in Spring 2006 because they wrongly thought they wouldn't be challenged. I think Traford has learn't a valuable lesson, don't you? It also proves how vulnerable plate values are and who you have to rely on for them to be sustainable. It's a good job the applicant didn't apply for 75 licenses or you would have been right in the chit.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
ShirlEButt wrote:
I think the quote used was TRAFFORD THOUGHT THEY WERE ABOVE LAW.

Well it was either that quote or a quote from their barrister stating that they didn't have a clue as to what the law was.

Both just show exactly why councils are the last people who should be deciding on these things.

But if you want to rely on the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker for your living, then more fool you.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:17 pm
Posts: 189
Location: liverpool
210,000 people live in trafford , only 103 Taxis, got to be sud there surely . There comes a time when you no ,councils are takeing the mick . This proves councils are to incompetent , to determine taxi numbers . But councils are becoming responsible for less and less .Housing stock sold off . Servies contracted out ,public toilets closed down . Taxi numbers are one of the few things . Councils have left to lord over . They get this all wrong, as very often they lied to ,by the local trade groups .streetcar


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
streetcar wrote:
210,000 people live in trafford , only 103 Taxis, got to be sud there surely .

Because they have delayed the survey it now means that any SUD survey is going to be under the new guidance (if adopted), and that could lead to many many plates being issued. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:26 am
Posts: 14
Location: trafford
JD
SORRY, BUT I DO NOT HAVE IT WRONG, I PERSONALLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TRAFFORD BOROUGH ALONG WITH APPROX 800 OTHER BADGE HOLDERS IN THE TRAFFORD AREA. SO I DO KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. MINSHULL STREET COULD ONLY RECOMMED NOT I REPEAT NOT ORDER TRAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL. THE ACTUAL WORDS USED WERE ASKING T.M.B.C. TO CONSIDER AGAIN I REPEAT CONSIDER. I DO GET ANNOYED WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THIS BOROUGH AND ARE NOT LICENCED FOR THIS BOROUGH THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. :sad:

FEEL BETTER NOW.
NO HARD FEELINGS
SHIRLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:26 am
Posts: 14
Location: trafford
JD
SORRY, BUT I DO NOT HAVE IT WRONG, I PERSONALLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TRAFFORD BOROUGH ALONG WITH APPROX 800 OTHER BADGE HOLDERS IN THE TRAFFORD AREA. SO I DO KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. MINSHULL STREET COULD ONLY RECOMMED NOT I REPEAT NOT ORDER TRAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL. THE ACTUAL WORDS USED WERE ASKING T.M.B.C. TO CONSIDER AGAIN I REPEAT CONSIDER. I DO GET ANNOYED WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THIS BOROUGH AND ARE NOT LICENCED FOR THIS BOROUGH THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. :sad:

FEEL BETTER NOW.
NO HARD FEELINGS
SHIRLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
ShirlEButt wrote:
JD
SORRY, BUT I DO NOT HAVE IT WRONG, I PERSONALLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM TRAFFORD BOROUGH ALONG WITH APPROX 800 OTHER BADGE HOLDERS IN THE TRAFFORD AREA. SO I DO KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. MINSHULL STREET COULD ONLY RECOMMED NOT I REPEAT NOT ORDER TRAFFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL. THE ACTUAL WORDS USED WERE ASKING T.M.B.C. TO CONSIDER AGAIN I REPEAT CONSIDER. I DO GET ANNOYED WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FROM THIS BOROUGH AND ARE NOT LICENCED FOR THIS BOROUGH THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS. :sad:

FEEL BETTER NOW.
NO HARD FEELINGS
SHIRLEY


With all due respect Shirley do you understand what an appeal is? The judge has to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong? In this particular case Justice Lyons told Trafford council on the 3rd October to produce evidence of no unmet demand by the 13th October or change their policy.

The judge is sole master in his own court and he doesn't reccomend anything he "directs". This case is not a judicial review of a decision it is an appeal.

When Trafford went back to court on the 13th October they told justice Lyons that they had no evidence to offer, therefore the applicant will be granted his five licences and they will no longer be defending the appeal.

Now I know you weren't in court because if you were you would know that the trial date was set for the 20th October you would also know what transpired.


You will also know that Trafford told the applicant his licenses would be granted on the 3rd November at the relevant committee meeting.

It doesn't matter what Trafford stated in a letter to all owners about future policy, the fact of the matter is that they threw in the towel on the 13th October. You may not wan't to believe that but come Thursday the applicant will have his five licenses and an instant 175 grand in plate values that goes with them. As I said previously you are lucky that he never applied for 75 licenses.

On appeals such as these judges don't make recommendations they find for one side or the other, it's as simple as that. In other words there are winners and losers.


It is common knowledge that In this particular case Trafford threw in towel before the full case ever got to court, the reason being is that Judge Lyons told them there was no point in them proceeding because they had no evidence to support their case.

Has it ever occurred to you why they did throw in the towel and decided not to go to appeal on the 20th October?

Now you know the facts, why don't you phone up Mr Bridge on Monday and ask him why did Trafford council not defend the appeal for five licenses on the 20th October. Then ask him if their legal team took the applicant to one side at Minshul street crown court on the 13th October and told him he could have his five licenses?

From your comments it would appear you are saying the applicant didn't get his five licenses, where you get that information from I don't know? It can't be in the letter you received from the council so it must be an idea of your own making.

By the way, if Trafford sent you a letter saying they are keeping their restricted policy it presupposes they have already made a decision and they see the public as an irrelevance. Considering the Governments guidance of 2004, that letter will make interesting reading the next time Trafford are hauled before the courts.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
I assume that the letter means that Trafford will be keeping its restricted numbers policy apart from the 5 plates in question, thus this isn't inconsistent with the result of the legal challenge?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
What some people can't work out is that the likes of Trafford make it so much easier for folks who don't like taxi quotas. :wink:

When the gov and OFT have another look, they will see how pathetic some councils are. They will see useless councils being made to look stupid in front of the courts. They will see how some surveys are full of lies. They will see how much time, money and trouble are taken up by keeping taxi quotas.

They also see how many councils have decided to end taxi quotas, far more than I ever imagined would. They will also see that the world hasn't ended in those districts. They will see proper drivers owning taxis.

And it's that that sticks in the throats of the likes of the T&G and NTA. Unions for the bosses, as my new good friend Mr Cummins so eloquently stated.

Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
TDO wrote:
I assume that the letter means that Trafford will be keeping its restricted numbers policy apart from the 5 plates in question, thus this isn't inconsistent with the result of the legal challenge?


Trafford has a long history of limiting taxi numbers so it is no surprise they wish to continue that policy. I am surprised they didn't have a survey but not so surprised to hear that they didn't mention in their recent letter to the trade that they were not going to defend the application for five licenses. On Thursday it will be common knowledge that the applicant was successful and Trafford's play on words in their recent letter will know doubt be seen for what they really are? It is understandable the document was worded in such a way as to imply the appeal was under consideration because the whole exercise from the 13th onwards was to keep the issue quiet until it was officially announced on the 3rd November. Perhaps we should have written a full-blown article ourselves on the sequence of events, at least that way the full facts would have been out in the open sooner rather than later.

It is fairly obvious that certain people know the turn of events while others are merely basing an opinion on the policy letter sent out by Trafford licensing dept. I suggest those people should wait until the committee meeting on Thursday to see what Trafford's reaction is to the application, they can then huff and puff as much as they like once they are in possession of the facts.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
For the Benefit of Shirley Butt and the Sefton Clown.

AGENDA ITEM NO.

TRAFFORD METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PUBLIC PROTECTION REGULATORY LICENSING COMMITTEE – 3rd November 2005

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PUBLIC PROTECTION

REPORT REF. NO.

Application for Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences

PURPOSE

To determine an application for a Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Members note the report, and that a further report will be circulated prior to the meeting. Recommendations will be included in the updated report.

Iain Veitch
Head of Public Protection

Further Information From:
Name: Mr M Bridge

Proper Officer for the purposes of L.G.A. 1972, s.100D
(background papers): Head of Public Protection

Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Transport Act 1985
Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions)Act 1976

Background

As Members will recall this matter was considered on the 21st July 2005. On this date it was resolved that the applications be refused, it was further resolved that a report be brought to the Committee stating that a new unmet demand survey be completed by early Spring 2006 to include the any possible effects of the Licensing Act 2003.

An appeal against the decision to refuse the licence was then lodged at Manchester Crown Court by the applicant. After consultation with the barrister representing the Authority is it was decided that the Authority would not oppose the appeal.

Current Position

Following a hearing at the Crown Court, the Judge "directed" that the matter be referred back to the Public Protection Regulatory Committee to consider the grant of the five Hackney Carriage Vehicle licences in accordance with established criteria. In light of this decision a letter has been sent to the applicant by the Council’s legal department, (copy attached) outlines the procedure that the applicant must follow in order for the vehicle licences to be determined.


Although this constitutes a challenge to Council’s policy has been challenged by the applicant, the decision that restricts the number of hackney carriages vehicle licences issued by the Authority still remains.
A further survey will be undertaken in early spring 2006. Any further applications received by the licensing section for Hackney Carriage Vehicle licences, will be recommended for deferral pending the outcome of the proposed survey

Recommendations

That Members note this report, and that a further report will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Perhaps certain people from Sefton who like to think they know anything and everything about the law and local Government administration should weigh their words before they decide to make complete and utter fools of themselves.

Now what was it that Miss Butt and Mr T was saying?

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
I have no doubt that within the hour the agenda and comments I have just posted will be stolen by one of the motley crew who have either been ejected from this site or no longer post here. However, it will no doubt highlight what complete buffoons they are when it is compared to what some of them have written on their own site concerning this subject.

Now they know the facts they can pontificate as much as they want. Have fun children.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: F.A.O. J.D.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:26 am
Posts: 14
Location: trafford
J.D.

Please can you explain to me why you have such a patronising manner with people whom you do not even know, I admit my ignorance with regards to any postings made by "SEFTON CLOWN" as you call him or her, so not sure whether that remark is justified or not, but if your attitude is aimed at myself I am offended.

Firstly I did not post anything which was not true i.e. the letter which was received by approx 800 badge holders, even though in your follow up you said plate holders, oh dear was that a mistake made by you. Secondly you state "I must have had an idea of my own making" when referring to the applicant not being granted his 5 licences, oh dear mistake number 2 where did I say that? Again I repeat myself just like you do to children I only stated what was in the letter. With regards to my comment using the word recommend the most I am guilty of is repeating what I was told by an offical of T.M.B.C.
Finally I do admire your intelligence because you are obviously quite an educated person, but your maths are not very good, 5 licences worth 175 grand equates to 35 grand each licence, well whoopeee do, where did you pull that figure from or was it an idea of your own making. The last licence to change hands in the Trafford Borough was 3 months ago which included a P reg Metro Cab and was transferred for the value of £22,000.
Oh dear time to get out the calculator.
I had decided to keep shtum for the next couple of days and just wait for the outcome of Thursdays meeting but come on J.D. you are being a bit personal and in my opinion rather aggresive in your attitude, but ok thats only my opinion and you may not think its worth anything.
But are we not missing something here, we all have the interests of the trade at heart, even though we may have different opinions, and different interpretations, but thats what makes the world go round.



[/b]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: TRAFFORD AGENDA.
PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 12:26 am
Posts: 14
Location: trafford
Oh by the way, forgot to mention already had a copy of the agenda.
S.B.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 279 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chris the Fish, Google [Bot] and 102 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group