The body also said It was 'not necessary' to require all firms to offer seven day advance bookings.
strange or is this a dig at Uber
| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Government department raises concern over Sheffield http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29997 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
Government department raises concern over Sheffield Council's new policy on private hire A Government department has raised concern at Sheffield Council's changes to its taxi licensing policy. The Competitions and Markets Authority raised a number of issues as plans were laid out on new policy for private hire taxi firms in the city. The CMA said they were concerned about new rule restricting drivers to work for one private hire operator and making firms have a permanently staffed helpline based in the city. The body also said It was 'not necessary' to require all firms to offer seven day advance bookings. CMA acting chief executive Andrea Coscelli, sent a letter to Sheffield Council's licensing boss Steve Lonnia expressing their worries consumers could end up paying more through the extra restrictions. But Sheffield Council said they had taken on board the CMA's and passed the new private hire policy with some amendments. A CMA spokesman said: "Last year we looked at the Sheffield market and cleared a merger of major taxi/private hire firms because we expected competition from app-based operators. The letter explains why some planned Council measures may stifle competition without necessarily benefitting consumers. "It is not necessary to require a permanently staffed helpline within the city – this increases costs for operators, which passengers will then pay for; "Only allowing owner-drivers to work for one operator means they are all likely to choose the biggest operator, so passengers could end up with only one operator to choose from, and thus there is no competition." Councillor Bryan Lodge, cabinet member for the environment at Sheffield Council said: “The Licensing Committee approved a new Private Hire Operator & Vehicle Policy with some minor amendments. "We listened to the concerns raised against some of the proposed conditions and made changes to the policy to address this. We will continue working with the Government and taxi operators to ensure our residents and visitors feel safe when travelling in Sheffield.” Letter to council - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -09-16.pdf Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/governmen ... -1-8164714 |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
Is there anyone outside of Sheffield who actually believes restricting private hire drivers to one firm at a time is legal? This is the kind of policy that either eminates from the daily taxi rank numpties meetings, or the spivs cartels. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
Sussex wrote: Is there anyone outside of Sheffield who actually believes restricting private hire drivers to one firm at a time is legal? This is the kind of policy that either eminates from the daily taxi rank numpties meetings, or the spivs cartels. Drivers here are supposed to hand their paper copy of their Council license to the base that they work for which would effectively mean that they can only work for one operator at a time. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
I very much doubt that reason would be acceptable to anyone with a brain. A council could issue copies, or a driver could do the photo copy themselves, or the council could put up on their site a list of drivers names and numbers. A public authority cannot restrict a driver to work for only one firm, that's pure and utter madness. A firm can say you work for us and no one else, no issues with that. But not a licensing authority. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
Sussex wrote: I very much doubt that reason would be acceptable to anyone with a brain. A council could issue copies, or a driver could do the photo copy themselves, or the council could put up on their site a list of drivers names and numbers. A public authority cannot restrict a driver to work for only one firm, that's pure and utter madness. A firm can say you work for us and no one else, no issues with that. But not a licensing authority. On our driver application form it asks which company you intend to work for. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
I've got no issues with that as clearly it will help the council contact the operator if need be. But that doesn't stop a driver working elsewhere if they wish to. |
|
| Author: | edders23 [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
The body also said It was 'not necessary' to require all firms to offer seven day advance bookings. strange or is this a dig at Uber
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
The seven day thing is almost certainly a dig at Uber. But it will have an effect on the smaller firms. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
doesn't an operator have to retain the drivers license? |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
captain cab wrote: doesn't an operator have to retain the drivers license? Which licence? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
toots wrote: captain cab wrote: doesn't an operator have to retain the drivers license? Which licence? the drivers PH license |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
captain cab wrote: toots wrote: captain cab wrote: doesn't an operator have to retain the drivers license? Which licence? the drivers PH license Yes, but, there is nothing stopping a driver having more than one to lodge with all operators they work with |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
toots wrote: Yes, but, there is nothing stopping a driver having more than one to lodge with all operators they work with would have to check the act but I'm actually uncomfortable with this. |
|
| Author: | toots [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
captain cab wrote: toots wrote: Yes, but, there is nothing stopping a driver having more than one to lodge with all operators they work with would have to check the act but I'm actually uncomfortable with this. Why? |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Government department raises concern over Sheffield |
toots wrote: Why? the license is taken for good reason |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|