Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:41 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Rebel cabbies in High Court battle

REBELLIOUS cabbies took their fight against dozens of extra taxis in Reading to the High Court yesterday.

Reading Borough Council decided last summer it needed to increase the number of cabbies by almost a quarter because passengers are waiting too long, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.

But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.

They blasted the council's decision as irrational, and yesterday took the borough to the High Court to persuade Mr Justice Goldring to quash it.

Mr Justice Goldring was told the council ordered a study on taxis in late 2002, and Parishil Patel, for Reading Taxi Association, said its findings showed a significant unmet demand.
Three-quarters of the week there was no problem but 16 per cent of the time there were too few taxis.

It said eight extra taxis were needed to cut waiting times to less than a minute.

Mr Patel said the survey put up four options: issue eight licences; increase licences by 30 a year to move towards a totally deregulated market with no limits; issue more than eight licences but do not have a deregulated market; or do
nothing.

He said the survey also confirmed problems of minicabs illegally picking people up at the roadside.

Despite pleas from drivers there was only room for eight more taxis, councillors decided on increasing taxis by 30 but not to deregulate the market. They also ordered a survey after a year to discover the effect of their decision.

Mr Patel said: The decision taken was irrational in that the decision to award 30 licences was arbitrary and unsupported by any evidence.
There was no explanation or evidence on how they arrived at 30 or how they decided it could be absorbed.

The survey and views of the Reading Taxi Association indicated the opposite. It was not a reasonable figure.

He said councillors had used a hunch to make their decision and saw it as a way of stopping minicabs illegally plying for hire.

But Peter Harrison, for the council, said legal decisions showed courts should be slow to interfere with council's decisions unless they were illegal.

The council made its decision following some horse-trading and councillors were entitled to use their knowledge of the town's
problems to come to that ruling.

Whilst this is a decision that has disappointed the claimants, the Reading Taxi Association, there are no grounds to quash it, he said.

Mr Justice Goldring said he would decide within the next week.

Outside court, Reading Taxi Association secretary Keith Johnson said: We had no option [but] to go down this route to protect our living.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
I had a little bit of sympathy with the Reading lads, in agreeing with them about the way the councillors picked the number of new licenses out of the hat.

But that sympathy ended with the statement;

Sussex wrote:
But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.


And unless the council have messed up by acting illegally in getting to their views, then the drivers will lose a shed load of money.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:42 pm 
Sussex wrote:
I had a little bit of sympathy with the Reading lads, in agreeing with them about the way the councillors picked the number of new licenses out of the hat.

But that sympathy ended with the statement;

Sussex wrote:
But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.


And unless the council have messed up by acting illegally in getting to their views, then the drivers will lose a shed load of money.





the drivers will lose a shedfull of money :wink:


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:58 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I had a little bit of sympathy with the Reading lads, in agreeing with them about the way the councillors picked the number of new licenses out of the hat.

But that sympathy ended with the statement;

Sussex wrote:
But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.


And unless the council have messed up by acting illegally in getting to their views, then the drivers will lose a shed load of money.


the drivers will lose a shedfull of money :wink:


Reading revisited, who remembers 1987? It might all be academic after tomorrow. :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
I would also like to know why they arranged the timing of the hearing for this week? :?

The Reading lads could win their case, and lose it, in the same day. :shock:

Surely it would have made sense to delay it for a month, to see the outcome of OFT. Delay is not a hard thing to arrange, and most of the time it happens anyway.

Or perhaps they have been guided by the legal eagles of CTN. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:24 pm 
Sussex wrote:
I would also like to know why they arranged the timing of the hearing for this week? :?

The Reading lads could win their case, and lose it, in the same day. :shock:

Surely it would have made sense to delay it for a month, to see the outcome of OFT. Delay is not a hard thing to arrange, and most of the time it happens anyway.

Or perhaps they have been guided by the legal eagles of CTN. :shock:


Sussex you know better that that?
a court connot consider new evidence during write up?

you are having a laugh.

do you think reafing cabbies could win?
nobody else does!


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
Sussex you know better that that?
a court connot consider new evidence during write up?

you are having a laugh.

do you think reafing cabbies could win?
nobody else does!


If the council's procedures were fine, then the cabbies have no-chance.

But from my experience, councils often get their procedures wrong. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 3:54 pm 
Same old story Friday and Saturday Nights, what about the other 5 days when drivers are sat about doing nowt.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Nidge wrote:
Same old story Friday and Saturday Nights, what about the other 5 days when drivers are sat about doing nowt.


Nigel, case law is crystal clear on that subject.

If un-met demand is just present on Friday and Saturday night, then demand is not being un-met. :? :? :? :?

Or put simply, demand is being met. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:45 pm
Posts: 62
Location: Perth Scotland
Sussex wrote:
Nigel, case law is crystal clear on that subject.

If un-met demand is just present on Friday and Saturday night, then demand is not being un-met. :? :? :? :?

Or put simply, demand is being met. :wink:



Any chance of you quoting the case law. I know it's not relevant up here but the arguments may still hold good. And Alex is pretty good at sending me copies of the case


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:04 am
Posts: 725
Location: Essex, England
What I thought was absolutely hillarious about the case, was the claim that with another 8 taxis, they could achieve a maximum 1 minute waiting time (I emphasise: one minute).

Don't ya just love these cloud cuckoo land statements?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:49 pm 
Sussex wrote:
I had a little bit of sympathy with the Reading lads, in agreeing with them about the way the councillors picked the number of new licenses out of the hat.

But that sympathy ended with the statement;

Sussex wrote:
But the town's 200 taxi drivers claim the competition would drive them to financial hardship.


And unless the council have messed up by acting illegally in getting to their views, then the drivers will lose a shed load of money.


Illegally? I take it you mean if they arrived at their decision in an unreasonable way. For instance, did the council reach their decision by considering information which was irrational, or did they exclude information which was rational? Do we know anything about this case other than what has been written in the press?

Case Law dictates a council can increase the number of Cabs as and when they think fit. A council is obliged to issue licences up to at least the level of demand which is unmet. It is not restricted in issuing licences above that level, if it so wishes.

If the council do lose this case on a technicality, they could if they had the mind to, go back and do it correctly, perhaps next time the number of licenses may exede 30 or perhaps they might have a mind to Deregulate numbers completely.

But I suppose the Reading lads know all this, they have been through it all before back in 1987, they got it wrong then and it's my educated guess they will get it wrong in 2004.

Back in 1987 Reading had 50 Hackneys. I suppose Some of these owners who are complaining now might even be by-products of the 1987 fiasco.

In 1987 Lord Nolan told Reading council they had to issue licenses to any fit and proper person who wanted one, Simply because they hadn't measured demand.

It won't be the first time that people who have been issued with free plates, have tried to deny others the same privilige.

Best wishes

John Davies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 53921
Location: 1066 Country
Mr Royden of Wirral, being the latest. :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:08 am 
Railway child wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Nigel, case law is crystal clear on that subject.

If un-met demand is just present on Friday and Saturday night, then demand is not being un-met. :? :? :? :?

Or put simply, demand is being met. :wink:



Any chance of you quoting the case law. I know it's not relevant up here but the arguments may still hold good. And Alex is pretty good at sending me copies of the case


you will never guess where it happened? Brighton!

the judge said you cant expect taxi drivers to work at 2 oclock in the morning!

you cant expect them to work at 2pm your honour, they are [edited by admin] about jamming the traffic and stopping bins emptied!

when will they work?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:11 am 
Andy7 wrote:
What I thought was absolutely hillarious about the case, was the claim that with another 8 taxis, they could achieve a maximum 1 minute waiting time (I emphasise: one minute).

Don't ya just love these cloud cuckoo land statements?


trouble is Andy, the 8 would never see the light of day they would be holed up for 12 months flogging the rights to claim the plate.

Brighton cafes would be like the stock exchange!


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 61 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