Taxi Driver Online

At last.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 13442.hcsp

_________________
IDFIMH

Quantity Restrictions of Taxi Licences outside London

29. The present legal provision on quantity restrictions for taxis outside London is set out in section 16 of the Transport Act 1985. This provides that the grant of a taxi licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of licensed taxis 'if, but only if, the [local licensing authority] is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet'.

30. Local licensing authorities will be aware that, in the event of a challenge to a decision to refuse a licence, the local authority concerned would have to establish that it had, reasonably, been satisfied that there was no significant unmet demand.

31. Most local licensing authorities do not impose quantity restrictions; the Department regards that as best practice. Where restrictions are imposed, the Department would urge that the matter should be regularly reconsidered. The Department further urges that the issue to be addressed first in each reconsideration is whether the restrictions should continue at all. It is suggested that the matter should be approached in terms of the interests of the travelling public - that is to say, the people who use taxi services. What benefits or disadvantages arise for them as a result of the continuation of controls; and what benefits or disadvantages would result for the public if the controls were removed? Is there evidence that removal of the controls would result in a deterioration in the amount or quality of taxi service provision?

32. In most cases where quantity restrictions are imposed, vehicle licence plates command a premium, often of tens of thousands of pounds. This indicates that there are people who want to enter the taxi market and provide a service to the public, but who are being prevented from doing so by the quantity restrictions. This seems very hard to justify.

33. If a local authority does nonetheless take the view that a quantity restriction can be justified in principle, there remains the question of the level at which it should be set, bearing in mind the need to demonstrate that there is no significant unmet demand. This issue is usually addressed by means of a survey; it will be necessary for the local licensing authority to carry out a survey sufficiently frequently to be able to respond to any challenge to the satisfaction of a court. An interval of three years is commonly regarded as the maximum reasonable period between surveys.

34. As to the conduct of the survey, the Department's letter of 16 June 2004 set out a range of considerations. But key points are:

* the length of time that would-be customers have to wait at ranks. However, this alone is an inadequate indicator of demand; also taken into account should be...
* waiting times for street hailings and for telephone bookings. But waiting times at ranks or elsewhere do not in themselves satisfactorily resolve the question of unmet demand. It is also desirable to address...
* latent demand, for example people who have responded to long waiting times by not even trying to travel by taxi. This can be assessed by surveys of people who do not use taxis, perhaps using stated preference survey techniques.
* peaked demand. It is sometimes argued that delays associated only with peaks in demand (such as morning and evening rush hours, or pub closing times) are not 'significant' for the purpose of the Transport Act 1985. The Department does not share that view. Since the peaks in demand are by definition the most popular times for consumers to use taxis, it can be strongly argued that unmet demand at these times should not be ignored. Local authorities might wish to consider when the peaks occur and who is being disadvantaged through restrictions on provision of taxi services.
* consultation. As well as statistical surveys, assessment of quantity restrictions should include consultation with all those concerned, including user groups (which should include groups representing people with disabilities, and people such as students or women), the police, hoteliers, operators of pubs and clubs and visitor attractions, and providers of other transport modes (such as train operators, who want taxis available to take passengers to and from stations);
* publication. All the evidence gathered in a survey should be published, together with an explanation of what conclusions have been drawn from it and why. If quantity restrictions are to be continued, their benefits to consumers and the reason for the particular level at which the number is set should be set out.
* financing of surveys. It is not good practice for surveys to be paid for by the local taxi trade (except through general revenues from licence fees). To do so can call in question the impartiality and objectivity of the survey process.

35. Quite apart from the requirement of the 1985 Act, the Department's letter of 16 June 2004 asked all local licensing authorities that operate quantity restrictions to review their policy and justify it publicly by 31 March 2005 and at least every three years thereafter. The Department also expects the justification for any policy of quantity restrictions to be included in the five-yearly Local Transport Plan process. A recommended list of questions for local authorities to address when considering quantity controls was attached to the Department's letter. (The questions are listed in Annex A to this Guidance.)

_________________
IDFIMH

Section 31 states What benefits or disadvantages arise for them as a result of the continuation of controls; and what benefits or disadvantages would result for the public if the controls were removed? Is there evidence that removal of the controls would result in a deterioration in the amount or quality of taxi service provision?

I would say that in the case of Gateshead it has been clearly identified that the quality of services offered since the removal of quantity controls has been reduced to such levels which are considered to be of detriment to the taxi user.

I believe therefore that councils should be encouraged to consistantly review their policies regardless of whether they restrict the number of Hackney Carriages or not.

I think the advice from government is quite clear, and after listening to a speech by the minister on Tuesday, the appraoch should definatly be balanced in a way to ensure best service to the consumer.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Just had a glance at this but can you see any changes from the consultation document?

Regards

JD

Tell me, at what point was the quality of service reduced? And what do you describe as quality of service?

JD

Now why am I not surprised by this response, after all the department is now run by the person who was and is in charge of buses, deregulated buses, if he was to agree that restrictions on numbers should be kept it might make people ask why not re regulate the buses as well, and we all know how perfectly that system works...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

If the dft are so keen on derulation then they should also be keen on deregulation of fares to enable market forces to determine the level of fare.

Or could it be that in places around the world that have gone for total deregulation and letting the market find it's own level for numbers of taxis and level of fares, fares have always gone up!

It's only fair that if you let more taxis chase the same amount of work that drivers are allowed to put up their fares to compensate for the loss of earnings. It will also open up new markets so those owners customers who want the cheepest fares can drive around in battered up old sierras etc and those who want to provide a much better service at higher prices can provide nice new volvos and customers who prefer the comfort can pay for it.

To a dregree fares are deregulated at present.

As we all know PH can charge what they like, and the other side can charge what they like out of town, and up to the council's max in town.

Of course there are two or three councils that let taxis charge what they like within town.

_________________
IDFIMH

The quality of service was reduced as the professional attitude was diluted and quality service is clearly defined by doing the job right.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Assuming under restriction the quality of service in Gateshead was adequate, I asked at what point was the quality of service reduced? Was it reduced when Gateshead added one, two, three or four cabs, after they removed numbers control? In other words, how many additional cabs did it take to reduce the quality of service?

JD

I'm sorry JD but that is a ridiculous request as it was not wholly through numbers that service levels were reduced .............. as is clearly stated service levels deteriorated as the professional attitude drivers adopted was diluted.

This is not an argument about numbers but an argument about driver competence.

If we are to attract the right applicants we must offer some security of a prosperous future otherwise they will be put off applying then investing in the trade as a profession.

Deregulation has allowed part time/stop gap people to enter the trade for PIN money ................... they are not interested in securing a future as they are not reliant on the income received driving their taxi.

This is, in my opinion based on my own experiences, why service levels have reduced.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Ok! Just for those who don't think it was a ridiculous request, here is what you said?

I would say that in the case of Gateshead it has been clearly identified that the quality of services offered since the "removal" of "quantity controls" has been reduced to such levels which are considered to be of detriment to the taxi user.

You will have to forgive me for thinking that all was rosy in the garden before Gateshead lifted quantity controls?

I assume your most recent statement on the matter confirms that removing quantity controls had no discernible effect on Gateshead's already waning quality of service? Therefore why blame falling service standards on the removal of quantity controls and why say removing quantity controls has been identified as the clear factor in the decline of the quality of service?

A second point that needs to be raised is the fact that councils issue licenses and subject to any quality driver controls they can't refuse a license unless the applicant fails to convince them that he is a fit and proper person.

However, what a driver does after that is entirely up to them and unless they transgress the rules there is not a lot anyone can do in respect of how a driver delivers a service?

So I fail to see a link between standards and deregulation of numbers which was the basis of your argument when it was first presented, as I have already pointed out. If you say it wasn't then it means you have backtracked from your original position, which I highlighted in bold.

JD

Again you choose to take part of a post and then ignore the remainder which takes the section you quoted out of context.

You asked me when service levels were reduced.

You claimed, and still claim, it was nothing to do with deregulation.

The whole point here is that we are in a service industry, and the quality of service we deliver decides the future of our trade.
If we have people working in the trade who are not interested in any long term future we have lower standards as they see no benefit in doing the job right.

I would say that before deregulation the garden was rosy, remember the last survey we had showed no increase in numbers was required from 85, but advised that 5 plates be released for WAV's. Following a legal challenge Gateshead deregulated and we now have 330 vehicles licensed.

But you know this JD.

The simple fact of the matter is that within the transport sector deregulation doesn't lead to a better service for the public, just look at the state of the busses and the trains. These services rely on heavy subsodies yet return multi-million pound profits for their shareholders, they are not cost effective and base their services on profitability and not public interest.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

You wrote three sentences in that post and I responded to the pivotal point you made in your first sentence. The other two sentences offered nothing in the way of substance, only to state that you believe councils should consistently review their policies. You never offered a reason why they should consistently review their policies but one would assume it had something to do with the point you made in your first sentence? Therefore by association the first and second sentences are analogous.

Your third sentence was an appraisal of the Ministers speech at the NTA AGM but again you referred to the point you submitted in your first sentence, which was ensuring the best service for the customer. So the whole tenure of your three sentences were consistent in so far as they related to one particular point.

The point in question was the one I responded to, yet you made the bogus accusation that I had taken one point out of context and ignored the rest. If you can show me which points I ignored in those three sentences then I might agree with you but if you can't? Then perhaps you will rectify your mistake.

My question isn't hard to answer especially when you allude to having clear evidence "that in the case of Gateshead it has been clearly identified that the quality of services offered since the removal of quantity controls has been reduced to such levels, which are considered to be of detriment to the taxi user".

So I ask you again, At what point was the quality of service reduced? And what do you describe as quality of service?

I think it should be said, that you made the statement, which you are now trying to defend, all I'm asking is that you define the point in time when the quality of service declined and what you define as quality of service?

Perhaps it is your argument that the quality of service declined the minute Gateshead removed its policy of quantity controls and no doubt you might say that once Gateshead re introduces quantity controls, the quality of service will return? However I think we would all like to know the basis of your statement and in particular the reference to the fact "that it was clearly identified that the reduction in the quality of service has reduced since Quality controls."

If you don't wish to clarify your statement then the matter ends here.

JD

Dear JD,

You asked me to define the moment service levels declined.

I answered as the professional attitude was diluted.

Are you asking me to define a day and date, or a specific number of plates, because that would be impossible to declare.

You ignored the statements "If we are to attract the right applicants we must offer some security of a prosperous future otherwise they will be put off applying then investing in the trade as a profession."
"Deregulation has allowed part time/stop gap people to enter the trade for PIN money ................... they are not interested in securing a future as they are not reliant on the income received driving their taxi." Stating that in your opinion they had no relevance, but in reality they identify why service levels are reduced, the exact timetable is indeterminable, however evident.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.