Taxi Driver Online

Umpteen earlier threads this could be appended to, but...

Thought this was about the usual when I saw the headline below, however

Can't be bothered looking back, but I suspect the councillor here is promoting, er, vested interests

And, once again, never good to play the party politics card when it comes to stuff that is ultimately about quasi-judicial proceedings, in my opinion at least


Nelson councillor objects to Pendle Council taxi app

https://www.burnleyexpress.net/news/pol ... pp-4916766

Nelson’s Bradley ward councillor Mohammed Iqbal MBE will call upon Pendle Council at its full meeting tonight to scrap a controversial taxi app introduced by Conservative councillors.

Pendle Council told Leader Times that the app was agreed due to the trade not improving the mechanical safety of their vehicles over a sustained period of time.

Government advice now requires daily checks of taxi vehicles to be undertaken.

Drivers have until February 12th to register and start using the app. Some 3.7% of drivers are actively carrying out checks in Pendle on a daily basis, according to the council.

Coun. Iqbal, who will raise a motion at tonight’s council meeting, said: “When only 3% of the taxi trade are using the daily app, its shows that 97% of drivers fundamentally disagree with this ill-thought, no consultation approach by the Tories.

“My motion instructs the taxi licensing committee to embark on a constructive dialogue with the trade to help hard-pressed taxi drivers make a living and ensure safety of passengers.”

Pendle Council has disputed the 3% figure quoted by Coun. Iqbal saying that the number of drivers who have registered is around 20%.

A council spokesman added: “We asked them (drivers) to try the app and get used to how to use it before the launch date on February 12th.”

CheckedSafe said it would give each driver a 30 day free trial. After the 30 day trial the app costs £1 per week for vehicle owners. (Drivers who don't own their vehicle do not have to pay.)

Do not think taxi proprietors should be charged for something theCouncil has forced upon them.This is reducing enforcement by the back door and why should a 3rd party have licensing details enbloc.
I

I think this is the app's website here:

https://www.checkedsafe.com

There's quite a lot of stuff to navigate on the website, but this short demonstration video for the van checks is maybe the most relevant to what the trade would have to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhFitIXYCyU

Therefore it just looks like an electronic/paperless version of the sheets of paper many use, thus just as open to manipulation.

Of course, the app would record the time etc that the checks were done, so it wouldn't be possible to go through them all at the end of the shift, for example, or do a whole week's worth in one go, say.

Of course, there may be more to it than that, but I'd guess councillors are just being blinded by technology here

I can't believe a council has actually adopted this.

Absolute madness.

_________________
IDFIMH

As I've said before whilst I get the idea; such systems are reliant on the honesty and integrity of the person inputing the data and as such are not a reliable indicater of safety.

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

Where to start with some of this?

And the app probably a bit of a mirage anyway - just an electronic version of a sheet of paper where the boxes could be ticked without actually doing the checks - which is maybe why some of the drivers think it's a fantastic idea

And it's obviously as much about political stuff and vested interests as substantive safety...


Row breaks out in Pendle after taxi safety app is delayed

https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/news/248 ... p-delayed/

PENDLE Council’s political leaders and parties are divided after a forthcoming deadline requiring taxi drivers to use a mobile phone app for car safety checks was delayed, casting it in doubt.

Pendle Council’s deputy leader, Lib-Dem David Whipp, chair of the West Craven Committee, is now pushing for a ‘no confidence’ motion against council leader Independent Asjad Mahmood, saying the whole Independent group’s decision to delay the app broke a key agreement with Lib-Dems in the borough’s shared leadership.

Separately, a Conservative councillor has resigned, accusing some Pendle Tories of bad conduct or bad decisions. Kieran McGladdery, a former taxi licensing committee chairman, says he will be submitting ‘statements, witness accounts and other evidence’ to the Conservative Association and Pendle Council’s monitoring officer for investigation, and, if necessary, to other relevant bodies.

Taxi safety has been a long-running controversy between Pendle councillors. Calls for routine app checks arose after unannounced vehicle checks highlighted many problems.

At the latest full Pendle Council meeting, rival motions came from different councillors on whether local taxi drivers must use a particular app by the end of February 2025. The deadline was drawn-up earlier this year.

Independent Coun Mohammed Iqbal put forward a motion, saying the early 2025 deadline threatened to cause a huge backlog of work. He said: “Out of 800 taxi drivers, only 30 or so have signed up. If we had that level of uptake in other areas of work, we would be concerned. How are we going to manage this? The taxi committee could face dealing with four or five drivers at every meeting. Councillors would be sitting until midnight, with hundreds of interviews.

“Also, the app fee could rise to £10 a week. That could mean quite a lot of money for people on low incomes who already face a cost-of-living crisis. And if this app is the best thing since sliced bread, why is Pendle the only area doing it? I don’t think it will work. There will be rebellions from drivers and things will grind to a halt. Drivers will go to Knowsley or Wolverhampton. We should scrap the app.”

He also said recent taxi committee chairmen, councillors Brian Newman and Faraz Ahmad, had tried to build relationships with the taxi trade. But he claimed this was not the case with former Conservative taxi committee chairman, Kieran McGladdery.

Others including Yasser Iqbal, Ruby Anwar and Naeem Ashraf called for a rethink. Arguments included that the majority of taxi drivers should not be penalised by poor standards among a minority of drivers.

However, David Whipp recommended a different approach. He wanted ‘meaningful talks’ between the committee and taxi drivers to address safety and use of the app.

He added: “We have talked for years with the trade and got nowhere. We have continued to see quite appalling results from spot-checks and tests done in garages. The app is simple to use and cheap. If it became more expensive in future, we could look at other providers and get a better offer.”

Lib-Dem Tom Whipp agreed. He works for a construction company where routine vehicle checks were done, he said. And Lib-Dem Dorothy Lord emphasised: “Some cars are unsafe. We know that. It’s also a poorly paid sector. But I hope we make the right decision tonight.”

However, Conservative group leader Nadeem Ahmed put forward another motion, calling for a ‘middle ground’ approach perhaps with paper checks. He said: “We have been talking about taxis for 20 years without making real progress. It has been used for political purposes time and time again. The administration’s relationship with the trade has broken down. We can see the lack of progress tonight.”

Fellow-Conservative Martyn Stone also queried the app, saying it was untested.

But another Conservative, Richard O’Connor, was unimpressed with the direction of the debate. He said: “I was taxi driver in the Bradford area for 23 years. If we had an issue, we got it fixed. I am now a truck driver and carry out a check every day. It takes around 18 minutes and is part of the job./ You don’t see 50 per cent of lorries failing. If they did, there’d be nothing in the supermarkets.”

He added: “I got two Pendle taxis last week and both drivers use the app. They said it is brilliant and accepted it has to be done. It’s also better for income because drivers are alerted and can fix things sooner, rather than being forced off the road for days by an enforcement officer.”

The Mayor, Coun Mohammad Aslam, runs an MOT testing garage. He said: “If the taxi trade listened, we would not be here tonight.”

Following a vote to delay the app and consider other activity, Coun O’Connor left, saying he was ‘disgusted’.

Not really sure what he's getting at here - I mean, each individual driver signing up shouldn't be particularly onerous, even ignoring all the other downsides.

Then if there's any enforcement issues (which is presumably what he's alluding to) then that can be done on an ongoing basis?

(I think this may be the same councillor who was making ridiculously overblown claims in an earlier thread...)

Yes, and you are getting paid for that, as opposed to the system you are suggesting where the drivers not only don't get paid but actually have to pay out of their own pockets.

All that said, if councillors factor in the £500 annual app charge, and the 10 minutes a day, into some kind of fares formula, then maybe it could be a goer.

_________________
IDFIMH

Taxi row prompts no confidence vote in council leader

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/n ... il-leader/

The leader of an East Lancs council faces a no-confidence vote next Wednesday in a long-running row about taxi licensing.

Independent Cllr Asjad Mahmood faces the challenge from Pendle Council Lib-Dems, part of the borough’s joint administration for the past two years.

Lib-Dems claim a ‘red line’ was crossed last month at a full council meeting when Independent councillors and some Tories overturned a move towards requiring cabbies to carry out routine vehicle checks using a phone app.

Now councillors are to hold an extraordinary meeting to consider the Lib-Dems’ push for a no-confidence vote against Cllr Mahmood, Independents leader. If he is removed, a new council leader will have to be voted in.

Lib-Dem Cllr David Whipp, deputy council leader, said his group's demand for "improved taxi safety measures" was agreed last year but a recent decision, backed by Independents and several Tories, to overturn the introduction of taxi safety checks this February "puts people’s lives at risk".

He added: "This is an unacceptable threat to public safety that must be addressed."

Cllr Whipp claimed to have "amicable relations" with Independent colleagues, other councillors and officers.

He said: "But scrapping taxi safety regulations is a red line."

Cllr Whipp said his group was also calling for a re-set of other council priorities as the new Labour government prepared to reorganise local councils.

Independents and some Conservatives said the taxi safety phone app was untested.

Independent Cllr Mohammed Iqbal said the February deadline threatened to cause a huge backlog of work for the council.

Conservatives leader Cllr Nadeem Ahmed called for a ‘middle ground’ approach, perhaps with paper checks.

Cllr Kieran McGladdery, a Tory ex-taxi licensing committee chairman, resigned in December over the row and a by-election is planned.

_________________
IDFIMH

Just couldn't be bothered reading this all the way through - it's very interesting that taxi inspections seem to have caused such a furore on any council, but I just can't be bothered with the political posturing and machinations over it all

But from what I've read about Nelson (the main town in the Pendle council area), I wouldn't be surprised if this is effectively the taxi inspections equivalent to the grooming gangs - basically much of the trade wants to do their own thing, effectively, with the connivance of many on the council


'Master of mayhem' fails in bid to overthrow Pendle Council leader as row over taxi safety in rumbles on

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire- ... w-30898929

By-election also due to take place

Lib-Dem councillors have resigned from Pendle Council's shared leadership in an ongoing dispute over introducing an app for taxi safety checks.

Resignations came after a failed 'no confidence' motion by Lib-Dems against Independent Coun Asjad Mahmood, Pendle Council's leader. The motion did not win enough support in a crunch vote by councillors.

Independents, formerly in the Labour Party, voted against the motion while Conservatives abstained.

But taxi safety checks and enforcement remains a controversial topic. A Pendle Council by-election is due in Colne in March after Conservative Kieran McGladdery resigned in protest over taxi issues. He intended to raise concerns with the local Conservative Association, Pendle Council’s monitoring officer, and, if necessary, other organisations,

This week, the no-confidence vote was dealt with by an extraordinary full council meeting. Lib-Dem Coun David Whipp, still the council's deputy leader as the meeting began, said: "I have no pleasure whatsoever in doing this. My group is quite proud of the impact we have had in the current shared administration. At the start of this administration, we had a list of objectives and there have been some achievements."

He said examples included work on leisure centres, a new local plan, empty houses, Colne Market Hall and Colne Municipal Hall, West Craven town centres and the council sacking 'licence-to-print-money contractors' who handed out fines for alleged littering.

But Coun Whipp said an agreement in March 2024 for new taxi safety measures was stalled in December by some councillors at a full council meeting. He added: "That decision by the Independent group and several Conservatives has put public lives at risk. It undermined the agreement between Lib-Dems and Independents. We have worked well together and have amenable relationships. But scrapping the taxi measures crossed a red line.

"Let's not under-play that December vote or the app's significance. Keiran McGladdery resigned over taxi matters, gave a damning verdict about the Conservatives and, I understand, has reported the issue to the council and police.

"I have no personal animosity to Asjad Mahmood, the leader. The wording of this no-confidence motion reflects council procedures. We Lib-Dems would have been prepared to withdraw this motion if things were different. We regret councillor Mahmood's decision not to withdraw as leader. We would embrace an administration that shares the borough's breadth of geography and political opinion."

Lib-Dem Coun David Hartley supported the no-confidence call. He said: "I am a new councillor. My election was a vote of trust by the people. I speak with lots of people regularly. I've not heard one person say they don't support introducing the taxi app. We want safety. Taxi drivers do a good job but we must know vehicles are 100 per cent safe."

He added: "Kieran McGladdery resigned over this. He complained, saying personal relationships were more important than public safety. We know councillors tend to vote in groups. But we have got to consider whether our vote echoes the views of the people?"

'Forcing leader into a corner'

Independents and Conservatives opposed the no-confidence motion. Independent Mohammed Iqbal said: "This meeting is not about taxi safety. It's about removing the council leader. I'm disappointed Coun Whipp has done this. He has years of experience and our groups have worked well together.

"We've had our differences but never gone to extremes. But tonight, Asjad Mahmood, the leader, is being forced into a corner. The December taxi vote was not his decision. It was taken in a vote by all councillors in all parties.

"We did not cancel the taxi safety app. We suspended its introduction. We also called for meaningful talks. Currently, only 30 of over 800 drivers have signed-up. How can the taxi committee deal with 800 drivers who haven't signed-up? It'll be impossible. Let's be pragmatic and not play politics. Councillors should reject this motion."

'Chaos'

Conservative Martyn Stone said: "When the current shared administration began, our group predicted a coalition of chaos. Councillor Whipp always said it's not a coalition, it's a shared administration. But he has not denied the chaos.

"This motion seems purely political. Coun Whipp spoke about successes of the Lib-Dems. But these are successes of all councillors working together.

"No councillor would ever vote to overturn taxi safety checks. We were talking about an app that has never been used. We suspended it for six months.

"This motion is blatant electioneering. Political theatre. Coun Whipp is a doyen of disorder. A master of mayhem. This is an attack on the leader and an attempt to sow chaos. But councillors want to work across parties with each other."

Conservative Nadeem Ahmed said: "We've got really important things coming up including the budget, devolution and a new damning audit report. These are what we should be discussing. Then there's the cost of holding this meeting - £1,000.

"If Coun Whipp put his name forward for leader, the Conservatives wouldn't support him. Nor the Independents. No political group has a majority here. Asjad Mahmood should remain leader."

Yasser Iqbal of Pendle True Independents said: "Some councillors are trying to take down the leader who was agreed by the Independents and Lib-Dems. But if Asjad Mahmood is removed, we would not support David Whipp or Nadeem Ahmed to become leaders. That's not personal. It's political. We might support Asjad because he is an independent. If he was Labour, it would be a different matter."

Independents left Labour last year over disagreements with the national party including Israel-Palestine issues, councillors' rights to voice opinions and Labour suspensions.