Taxi Driver Online

Taxi drivers protest in Burton over controversial emissions ruling



Taxi drivers in Burton today took part in a protest over a controversial ruling by the council on emissions. The drivers were protesting against the ruling that all cars in East Staffordshire have to meet new low emissions standards by Friday, September 30.

A spokesperson from Burton Taxi Drivers' Association said they felt they are being let down by the council over the move as they will have to pay thousands to make sure their vehicles are compliant with latest European lower emissions standards.

Taxi drivers protested outside East Staffordshire Borough Council's licencing office in the town demanding an extension so they can get their cars compliant to 'Euro Six' emissions standards. Drivers from the say they feel 'let down' and discriminated against compared to drivers governed by other councils which do not have similar restrictions in place.

Up to 60 cabbies took part in the protest demanding the deadline was extended and council bosses meet face to face with drivers to discuss the matter.

Asif Hussain, who has been a taxi driver in Burton for over a decade, said: "We are protesting today as we feel let down by ESBC. They are not supporting us.

"The Department for Transport said it is not a national requirement for taxis to meet the Euro Six standard. The decision that has been made is unfair and unjust. The Euro Six standard is for manufacturers, its got nothing to do with us. The council went with the Euro Six ruling and ran with it.

"We wanted to know if it a national requirement because we have done Freedom of Information requests asking if councils including Derby City, South Derbyshire, Birmingham, North West Leicestershire, Bolsover and Derbyshire Dales aren't following their Euro Six standard but instead the age of the car. Why is ESBC following this Euro Six policy unlike any other council near us?"

He added: "Lots of our drivers have school contracts but those are being ripped up because they can't afford it. A lot of drivers have bonds with school pupils, the ones who go to special schools. Some of us are considering to go work in Swadlincote and get registered by South Derbyshire instead with their cars which are compliant there but not here."

He said Burton was a "small town who don't have a clean air zone, like Birmingham, why is this being forced upon us? There are around 40 million registered vehicles in the UK and taxis [both private hire and hackney] are around 300,000. We don't make even one per cent on the roads so why is ESBC targeting us?

"We're not running steam engines, we have Euro Five engines which are only one down from the one they are trying to force onto us. We are being discriminated against."

He said drivers would struggle to avoid the expensive upgrades to their taxis due to the cost of living crisis. He added: "After the pandemic and soaring energy bills, a 40-year high inflation rate, how are ESBC supporting the trade? Why are they pushing for this 2022 deadline when the government's own net zero policy which ESBC have claimed to be in line with isn't until 2030.

"We want our 'grandfather rights' [standards for cars set by the government] back and we want the discretion to be exercised now. Some drivers are having to shell out £25 to 30k to upgrade their cars to make them compliant. The whole thing makes no sense. The buses got £7million from Staffordshire County Council after they were facing a tough time. What is ESBC doing to help taxi drivers? It is unfair.

A spokesperson for East Staffordshire council said: "The council can confirm that all due process was undertaken in this matter, from the point of the original amendment to the Euro emissions element of the relevant policy in 2020. As the matter is now subject to legal proceedings, the council will make no further comment at this time."

_________________
IDFIMH

Really?

The chances of the council changing policy in a few days are less than nil.

_________________
IDFIMH

Still demonstrating.

https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/ne ... rs-7635073

_________________
IDFIMH

Are they saying that none of their vehicles are less than 7 years old?

_________________
Grandad,

I suspect one or two will not meet the criteria from Friday, and the rest are supporting them.

_________________
IDFIMH

they knew this was coming why wait till now to protest they have had time to get ready for the new rules

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I'm certainly no expert about this kind of thing, but seems to be an important detail missing from this article.

Very interesting development, though


Taxi drivers win fight after two days of protests as judicial review takes place

https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/ne ... er-7638881

Council agreed to deadline extension over emissions upgrades to cabs

Taxi drivers in East Staffordshire have won their fight to extend the deadline of the introduction of controversial emissions rules for their cars. It comes after two days of protests in Burton which saw dozens of cabbies gather to vent their upset and anger.

They spent Monday and yesterday, Tuesday, September 28, protesting outside East Stafford Borough Council's licensing office in Derby Street demanding an extension to the deadline of Friday, September 30. The council wanted all taxis to conform to the latest 'Euro Six' European lower emissions standard aimed at helping the environment, but drivers said the upgrades needed would cost thousands and in some cases would mean cabbies shelling out for new cars. They also said other councils including neighbouring ones were not imposing the same rules on their drivers

Now, the council has extended he deadline while it says legal proceedings are taking place. A Judicial Review, is taking place into the council's decision. A judicial review is a type of court proceeding when a review takes place to look at the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

Taxi association leaders have today welcomed the decision and thanked those involved in the protest. However, they have said more work is to be done to ensure a "level playing field." Up to 60 cabbies took part in the protests demanding the deadline was extended and council bosses meet face to face with drivers to discuss the matter.

Asif Hussain, from Burton Taxi Drivers' Association, said: "Firstly we would like to thank our Lord for His Divine intervention and Grace. We would like to thank all the operators, drivers, our customers, people from all walks of life." He said they had all come together to show their supported when needed. He said after the covid pandemic and now the cost of living crisis means drivers would struggle to foot the bill to confirm with the new emissions standards.

He added: "We would like to thank those in the council who helped us reach some kind of resolution. This is a positive step in the right direction but we still have so far to go.

"We just want a level playing field, it's our trade and we have more than enough right to voice our concerns on how it's governed. We don't want our rights violated, or our voices subdued; our livelihoods destroyed by unfair policies that don't help anyone.

"Moving forward, we would like the council to support us and listen to us. To make things fair, so that the policies are not unjust and discriminatory towards us."

A spokesperson from the authority said: "The council has agreed to extend the deadline whilst legal proceedings are taking place. The council will not know how long the extension is until the Judicial Review has been completed. We are initially saying a period of three months, however, it may well end up being longer than this."

That's what I say when I get a £30 run to Anstruther at the end of the night, which gets me partly home

Anyway, who initiated this judicial review? Presumably not 'our Lord'. It all seems a bit mysterious


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it may be that the court ordered the council to extend the deadline until the judgement, so the council just spinning it here to make it sound like they're doing it voluntarily rather than on the order of the court.

But because the article is silent on even the most basic details of the judicial review (other than the simple fact that it's taking place), we can only speculate

I wonder who ordered/requested the judicial review, they’re not cheap if it’s privately funded.

Yes, and the article gives the impression that the HCA isn't involved, and there's been no mention of legal action up till now.

Unless, of course, by the 'Lord's Divine intervention and Grace' the HCA chair means some fancy pants lawyer they've hired

But, yes, they're not cheap, and difficult for the smaller firms and associations to get involved in such a process, unless they've got deep pockets like Uber and the LTDA.

Or one of those class action things, assuming someone could organise one. I wonder what happened to the London thing about suing because Uber was acting unlawfully?

But, of course, even the class action stuff requires a critical mass of drivers with a bob or two to spare, and the numbers required to make it feasible probably just aren't there in the average local authority area.

Anyway, in the legal sense it's a more suitable process than the Plymouth driver who tried to take on the council over the dress code by engineering his suspension and then appealing to the magistrates. But only if you've got very deep pockets

It will never reach court.

The costs, should it reach an actual JD rather than just a hearing, would be in excess of £100,000. And if they lose the council's costs will more than likely be double that.

_________________
IDFIMH

The ill fated “Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review” that Chester Licensed Hackney Association asked for almost 15 years ago (ref de-restriction) ended up costing them £35,000. £25,000 for the councils legal fees and the rest was their own.

The thing with a Judicial Review is that you can spend 10s of 1000s, and win.

Yet the council can merely readopt the same policy the following week.

_________________
IDFIMH