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

BIRMINGHAM; Hackney & Private Hire Cull Proposals
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9360		 Page 1 of 5
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  BIRMINGHAM; Hackney & Private Hire Cull Proposals
B I R M I N G H A M;

Hackney & Private Hire Cull Proposals & More


The Licensing Committee Agenda has now been finalised for the first round of a raft of proposals that will have far-reaching consequences for both the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trades in Birmingham.

There are no less than seven agenda items at this next licensing committee meeting that will be relevant to the Birmingham ‘trade’. The fun begins!

The links is;


Online Main Agenda Page


Referring to the Agenda PDF on this Online Main Agenda Page, the relevant agenda items in order of importance are;

Item 5
Item 7
Item 6
Item 9
Items 3, 4 & 8

Happy reading & may I please request lots of views, posts & debate on this one.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:53 am ]
Post subject: 
The link is broken; repairs in progress.

Sorry, back soon.

ADDENDUM


This link seems to be erratic, for some unknown reason.

If you do not get the Online Main Agenda Page, which is titled Regulatory Meetings – Licensing Committee, & you get the Meeting Search Page instead, proceed as follows;

On the first drop down-menu choose ‘Regulatory’

On the second drop-down menu choose ‘Licensing Committee’ (do not choose A to E)

In the ‘From’ box type in 01/09/2008

In the ‘To’ box type in 30/09/2008

Click on ‘Go’

Click on Licensing Committee dated 17/09/2008.

Sorry about the link, there is no reason that I can find that it erratically chooses either one of these two pages at random.
Author:  MR T [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:59 am ]
Post subject: 
And last time the OFT were about , they were claiming the Taxi Service in Birmingham was perfect..... I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure.... nothing new there than.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:04 am ]
Post subject: 
MR T wrote:
And last time the OFT were about , they were claiming the Taxi Service in Birmingham was perfect..... I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure.... nothing new there than.


There may have been then, but I can assure you there is gubber all perfect about the taxi service in Birmingham now!!!
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:04 am ]
Post subject: 
MR T wrote:
And last time the OFT were about , they were claiming the Taxi Service in Birmingham was perfect..... I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure.... nothing new there than.


You cynic!

CC
Author:  toots [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Tried to read this but it's having none of it. I get to the report but can't click on the relevant sections, so like all good taxi drivers I's gived up :roll:
Author:  gusmac [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 4:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
MR T wrote:
I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure....


Seems to me more of an admission that it was done badly.........
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
MR T wrote:
And last time the OFT were about , they were claiming the Taxi Service in Birmingham was perfect..... I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure.... nothing new there than.

Isn't the recommendation for quality controls not quantity controls? :?
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm confused as to why PH age limits are lower than HC age limits? :?

I see the council is being asked to stop transfers of HC licenses. Clearly the survey folks don't take much notice of the law. :?

And £50 for CCTV must be right? Eh? :?

And I love the 'controlled deregulation' theory. Isn't that just 'managed growth'? :?
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Look I hate benefit fraud as much as every other tax paying mug on here, but I don't believe the council has the right to suspend drivers for benefit fraud. [-X

They are either 'fit and proper' to have a license, or not. If they are not then they have their license revoked.
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
And is there a good reason why the council feels the need to carry forward a £250,000 surplus?

That money is money taken from the trade yet not spent. So give it back. :sad:
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
toots wrote:
Tried to read this but it's having none of it. I get to the report but can't click on the relevant sections, so like all good taxi drivers I's gived up :roll:


You click on the Adobe PDF logo & not the narrative.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
gusmac wrote:
MR T wrote:
I seem to get the impression that the flavour of the report is that derestriction is a failure....

Seems to me more of an admission that it was done badly.........


Both really; it was done piecemeal over many of years by different LOs, & there was no thought or co-ordination with all the different constituents of the Hackney & Private Hire trades.

It was kind of, 'Oh lets do this', & a few years later, 'And now lets try that'.

This seems better at the moment, but this is just the first step, with on-going dialogue.

I'm not happy about some of the proposals, but on the whole it's a step in the right direction.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
I'm confused as to why PH age limits are lower than HC age limits? :? :?


Saloon vehicles versus purpose built commercial vehicles. A lot of councils go down that route.

Sussex wrote:
I see the council is being asked to stop transfers of HC licenses. Clearly the survey folks don't take much notice of the law. :? :?


I don't know where that one is in the report, but I think I know the gist of this.

One of our long standing representatives argued for years that you could transfer a Hackney plate, without a vehicle attached to it. As it happens he was wrong for all those years, because you actually transfer the Hackney Carriage with the plate attached to it. There was a case in Brum in the last few years where a multi-multi-owner had bought in Hackneys with plates, scraped the vehicles & kept the plates in a drawer, ready to put vehicles onto these plates, when he saw fit to do so, before the plate expired, & then had the plate transferred into his name

I think it is that practice the report is referring to.

Sussex wrote:
And £50 for CCTV must be right? Eh? :? :?


The £50 CCTV systems used to be in a Corn Flakes packet, but are now in the Weetabix box. Stupid survey company!

Sussex wrote:
And I love the 'controlled deregulation' theory. Isn't that just 'managed growth'? :?


Is called 'Managed Growth' in Manchester, but in Birmingham we have a posher name for it, hence 'Controlled De-regulation'.

The Hackney trade has realised that plates should be issued if there is a significant unmet demand for the services of Hackney Carriages, but at the moment there is a quite massive oversupply. I particularly like the annual survey idea.
Author:  Brummie Cabbie [ Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
And is there a good reason why the council feels the need to carry forward a £250,000 surplus?

That money is money taken from the trade yet not spent. So give it back. :sad:


No way Jose.

Keep it there as a buffer.

If they've got the money, they can't argue that they are short of funds for a survey, enforcement, more staff etc.

It is when councils run on a shoestring in the licensing department that you get problems about trying to get things done & the answer comes back, 'We haven't got the money,' or worse still, 'We're in deficit'.

No sir, leave it as it is for me.
Page 1 of 5 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/