Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Durham and Gateshead

It appears that the advice from Mr Cope is that Councils who choose to apply restrictions to saloons and allow unrestricted numbers for WAVs are still operating a restritive policy which is, if unjustified against government recomendations.

Cllr Bollands has therefore been wrongly advised that the councils position if retained will not be sucessfully challenged.

I posted a short time ago that our LO had left Gateshead Council.

It is relevant of note that the LO concerned is now working for Durham City Council as a LO.

Also, on the point of demonstrations in Gateshead, The Journal reported had asked me what the drivers would do if the council didn't suspend the issuance of new HC licenses and adopt a policy of Managed Growth following an unmet demand survey. As my members had already voted to decide further action at the next meeting, which is due to be called after the next full council meeting on Thursday 22nd July, and that if policy change was not in accordance with our application after this date meetings should be saught with the Police to discuss a route for regular demonstration.

That remains the position of the members and supporters of the TGWU branch 8/612.

Then apply for a saloon taxi and when they refuse, if they refuse, take them to court.

You could use the price issue, and ask your council if they think they are restriction free, then why do their plates have value.

And now she is in Durham trying the same thing, looks like the drivers are on their marks for this one. Good luck lads.

Anonymous wrote:

What then happens to the WAVs?

De limitation is intended to offer consumer choice, it appears the government have taken little notice of the OFTs recomendation to make entry into the trade easier.

If anyone can get a saloon plate very few will choose to spend twice as much money on a WAV.

If everyone has to get a WAV you are discriminating against a section of the community who can't get in (DDA).

Its called Managed Growth and the government agrees it should be managed by the council.

And the council has got a million better things to do wioth their time.

You make the council point well.
Thus you have your answers.

"But Gateshead council cabinet member David Bollands said that the advice from central government was to not restrict taxi license numbers."

Funnily Cllr David Bollands, portfolio holder for Transport, fails to achknowledge that Gateshead Council have a Policy of restricting taxi licence numbers issued to saloon cars.

Our Branch contacted Mr Cope this week

Sir

I would like you to clear something up which will help make my understanding of:
Government request to all councils restricting the number of taxi licenses in England and Wales outside London to review Quantity Control policies
Would this request also include councils who run a two plate issue of hackney carriage plates, which are wheelchair accessible and non wheel chair accessible, of which the non wheelchair accessible plated are restricted?

Mr Cope responded

Mr Chambers (branch secretary 8/612)

If the issue of taxi licences is restricted by a council's policies, then that would amount to a quantity restriction because there could well be unmet demand. It would seem that this could well be the case in the scenario you give. What our letter seeks to do primarily is to ensure that consumers are not suffering because of unmet demand. In such cases we are asking the council to justify their local policy in the light of local needs and circumstances. We are not taking away the decision-making from them.

I hope this is helpful.

It appears that the advice from Mr Cope is that Councils who choose to apply restrictions to saloons and allow unrestricted numbers for WAVs are still operating a restritive policy which is, if unjustified against government recomendations.

Cllr Bollands has therefore been wrongly advised that the councils position if retained will not be sucessfully challenged.

Gateshead council in common with a lot of authorities are under ministerial order to get rid of salloons and put on WAVS

Author:	TDO [ Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Durham and Gateshead
Read the article here: http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/durham.htm Discuss the issues below!

Author:	Guest [ Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:50 pm ]
Post subject:
I posted a short time ago that our LO had left Gateshead Council. It is relevant of note that the LO concerned is now working for Durham City Council as a LO. Also, on the point of demonstrations in Gateshead, The Journal reported had asked me what the drivers would do if the council didn't suspend the issuance of new HC licenses and adopt a policy of Managed Growth following an unmet demand survey. As my members had already voted to decide further action at the next meeting, which is due to be called after the next full council meeting on Thursday 22nd July, and that if policy change was not in accordance with our application after this date meetings should be saught with the Police to discuss a route for regular demonstration. That remains the position of the members and supporters of the TGWU branch 8/612.

Author:	Guest [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:25 am ]
Post subject:
"But Gateshead council cabinet member David Bollands said that the advice from central government was to not restrict taxi license numbers." Funnily Cllr David Bollands, portfolio holder for Transport, fails to achknowledge that Gateshead Council have a Policy of restricting taxi licence numbers issued to saloon cars. Our Branch contacted Mr Cope this week Sir I would like you to clear something up which will help make my understanding of: Government request to all councils restricting the number of taxi licenses in England and Wales outside London to review Quantity Control policies Would this request also include councils who run a two plate issue of hackney carriage plates, which are wheelchair accessible and non wheel chair accessible, of which the non wheelchair accessible plated are restricted? Mr Cope responded Mr Chambers (branch secretary 8/612) If the issue of taxi licences is restricted by a council's policies, then that would amount to a quantity restriction because there could well be unmet demand. It would seem that this could well be the case in the scenario you give. What our letter seeks to do primarily is to ensure that consumers are not suffering because of unmet demand. In such cases we are asking the council to justify their local policy in the light of local needs and circumstances. We are not taking away the decision-making from them. I hope this is helpful. It appears that the advice from Mr Cope is that Councils who choose to apply restrictions to saloons and allow unrestricted numbers for WAVs are still operating a restritive policy which is, if unjustified against government recomendations. Cllr Bollands has therefore been wrongly advised that the councils position if retained will not be sucessfully challenged.

Author:	Guest [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:36 pm ]
Post subject:
The plan is also opposed by Labour MP Gerry Steinberg, who said: "The policies proposed are bizarre and would effectively discriminate against operators who are providing employment within the City. I agree with operators that disregarding established issuing procedures, in effect cherry-picking applicants, is unfair, open to abuse and cannot be justified. Obviously, a reduction in the number of drivers working for full-time operators would create an overall driver shortage and the general public would see a decline in service." Another clueless MP. The whole quota system stops the workers from being the boss. I take it he must be New Labour. He also seems more concerned with the effects to the operator. Maybe he should think more about the residents and visitiors who have longer waits for their cabs than they should.

Author:	Guest [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: It appears that the advice from Mr Cope is that Councils who choose to apply restrictions to saloons and allow unrestricted numbers for WAVs are still operating a restritive policy which is, if unjustified against government recomendations. Cllr Bollands has therefore been wrongly advised that the councils position if retained will not be sucessfully challenged. Then apply for a saloon taxi and when they refuse, if they refuse, take them to court. You could use the price issue, and ask your council if they think they are restriction free, then why do their plates have value.

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Durham and Gateshead http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=785	Page 1 of 7

Author:	Nidge2 [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: I posted a short time ago that our LO had left Gateshead Council. It is relevant of note that the LO concerned is now working for Durham City Council as a LO. Also, on the point of demonstrations in Gateshead, The Journal reported had asked me what the drivers would do if the council didn't suspend the issuance of new HC licenses and adopt a policy of Managed Growth following an unmet demand survey. As my members had already voted to decide further action at the next meeting, which is due to be called after the next full council meeting on Thursday 22nd July, and that if policy change was not in accordance with our application after this date meetings should be saught with the Police to discuss a route for regular demonstration. That remains the position of the members and supporters of the TGWU branch 8/612. And now she is in Durham trying the same thing, looks like the drivers are on their marks for this one. Good luck lads.

Author:	Guest [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: Then apply for a saloon taxi and when they refuse, if they refuse, take them to court. You could use the price issue, and ask your council if they think they are restriction free, then why do their plates have value. What then happens to the WAVs? De limitation is intended to offer consumer choice, it appears the government have taken little notice of the OFTs recomendation to make entry into the trade easier. If anyone can get a saloon plate very few will choose to spend twice as much money on a WAV. If everyone has to get a WAV you are discriminating against a section of the community who can't get in (DDA). Now this is where councils could leave the door open to legal challenge, If they decide to restrict the number of saloons but not the number of WAVs they cannot claim that they are meeting demand. Rupert Cope wrote "If the issue of taxi licences is restricted by a council's policies, then that would amount to a quantity restriction because there could well be unmet demand. It would seem that this could well be the case in the scenario you give. ". Therefore if a council allows WAVs its clearly showing that there is unmet demand and any quantative restriction should be removed to supply that demand. However, if a council restricted all of the plates, undertook an unmet demand survey every three years and released the recomended number of plates each time, but only allowed applications for WAVs, they would be able to justify their policies in court and maintain their obligations under the DDA. With this policy, if an unmet demand was held in Eastbourne (for example) and it showed that HC numbers needed to double then the council should look for that number of new licenses to be issued to WAVs. Then the people who invest the ammount of money required to buy a quality vehicle would be able to make a living and afford to pay for their vehicle for at least the next three years. The next 2 surveys could show no increase but the third may show numbers need to double again and again applications should only be considered for WAVs. Its called Managed Growth and the government agrees it should be managed by the council. B. Lucky

Author:	Guest [ Thu Jul 22, 2004 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Nidge wrote: And now she is in Durham trying the same thing, looks like the drivers are on their marks for this one. Good luck lads. Maybe its worth noting in the councils recomendations or statement they are advocating use of rear loading WAVs, Gateshead doesn't allow this even after the previous LO endorsed their use. Shortly after their decision we had a new LO. Strange world we live in innit. B. Lucky

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:15 am ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: Anonymous wrote: Then apply for a saloon taxi and when they refuse, if they refuse, take them to court. You could use the price issue, and ask your council if they think they are restriction free, then why do their plates have value. What then happens to the WAVs? De limitation is intended to offer consumer choice, it appears the government have taken little notice of the OFTs recomendation to make entry into the trade easier. If anyone can get a saloon plate very few will choose to spend twice as much money on a WAV. If everyone has to get a WAV you are discriminating against a section of the community who can't get in (DDA). You make the council point well. Thus you have your answers.

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:17 am ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: Its called Managed Growth and the government agrees it should be managed by the council. And the council has got a million better things to do wioth their time.

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:15 am ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: And the council has got a million better things to do wioth their time. It has obviously escaped your notice but you pay a fee every year for the council to administer Taxi and Private Hire Licensing. In Gateshead that figure in over £200,000 per year. I propose that sufficiant monies exist to provide a dedicated officer, at the moment we have only shared resourses. Also bear in mind that a council is only obligated to review policy, on this issue every three years. This would mean, in Gateshead, that over £600,000 would have been collected in plate and badge fees, more than enough to pay for an unmet demand survey. Time is not something we have in abundance either, deadline have been issued by government, March 2005 for justifying restrictions, 2020 for having a accessible fleet with that work starting in Gateshead in 2010. B. Lucky

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:27 am ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: You make the council point well. Thus you have your answers. What on earth does that mean. If you refer to our warnings that by limiting the number of vehicles the council are operating a restrictive policy which must be justified by March 2005. Also that at that time justification would be difficult if they are still issuing liceses to WAVs as it would suggest unmet demand. Then if challenged in court the restriction of saloons would be lifted and some WAV drivers would replace their WAV with a saloon, reducing WAV provision. I haven't had my questions answered, some people have let their personal objectives superseed the best interest of the people of the borough. B. Lucky

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 2:30 pm ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: "But Gateshead council cabinet member David Bollands said that the advice from central government was to not restrict taxi license numbers." Funnily Cllr David Bollands, portfolio holder for Transport, fails to achknowledge that Gateshead Council have a Policy of restricting taxi licence numbers issued to saloon cars. Our Branch contacted Mr Cope this week Sir I would like you to clear something up which will help make my understanding of: Government request to all councils restricting the number of taxi licenses in England and Wales outside London to review Quantity Control policies Would this request also include councils who run a two plate issue of hackney carriage plates, which are wheelchair accessible and non wheel chair accessible, of which the non wheelchair accessible plated are restricted? Mr Cope responded Mr Chambers (branch secretary 8/612) If the issue of taxi licences is restricted by a council's policies, then that would amount to a quantity restriction because there could well be unmet demand. It would seem that this could well be the case in the scenario you give. What our letter seeks to do primarily is to ensure that consumers are not suffering because of unmet demand. In such cases we are asking the council to justify their local policy in the light of local needs and circumstances. We are not taking away the decision-making from them. I hope this is helpful. It appears that the advice from Mr Cope is that Councils who choose to apply restrictions to saloons and allow unrestricted numbers for WAVs are still operating a restritive policy which is, if unjustified against government recomendations. Cllr Bollands has therefore been wrongly advised that the councils position if retained will not be sucessfully challenged. Gateshead council in common with a lot of authorities are under ministerial order to get rid of salloons and put on WAVS the councillor is well advised, once again the trades unions know not what they do. if the unions push this it will cost a packet and has no chance of success read case law fellows/

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:
Anonymous wrote: Gateshead council in common with a lot of authorities are under ministerial order to get rid of salloons and put on WAVS It would be helpful to others if you could keep your "ministerial orders" up to date. Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles may provide transport solutions to wheelchair users however they are not accessible to people with all disabilities, and as no one vehicle type is capable of carrying any perspective user a mixed fleet is required to properly offer provision to all. A saloon car in Newcastle was fitted with a adapted front seat which swung out of his Granada allowed the wheelchair user to tranfer onto it then be lifted electronically and safely into the car, yet this is not deemed to be accessible transport. Before the DDA is implimented the government should produce a list of approved vehicles which all issuing authorities should adhere to accross the country. I hope that if we are all forced to drive WAVs that the government abolish the car mobility scheme with immediate effect and issue current users with vouchers to use accessible public transport.

Page 1 of 7	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Guest [ Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:
I couldn't give a [edited by admin] if some spacker can't get a taxi to get out, they should be in a home or locked away so decent normal people don't have to look at them. [edited by admin] em all.