Taxi Driver Online

I was saying you bent figures and came to conclusions not born out of the figures.

it was pathetic but if you do deciphe it you will understand your mistake

Yes Ged, but what I was getting at was that that's the technical legal position as regards the plate, but not the premium, but in practical terms do people buy plates in full knowledge of the real possibilty of the risks of de-limitation? Or do they perhaps assume that it simply won't happen?

For example, a 'guest' poster, who I think is also a T&G man said recently:

"these people decided to invest their money in their own future and the assurance of their plate having a value at the end of their career to give them a lump sum on retirement."

Why would they make such an obviously risky investment with a view to it becomining a 'pension' eventually?

Foolhardy, to say the least?

Or not fully appraised of the facts?

Dusty

Well I'm no too well up with gamblers anon Ged, so I won't disagree with you, but my point was that if you gambled your house in this manner with full knowledge of the facts, then you'd be considered foolhardy to say the least, and thus not deserving of much sympathy?

Dusty

OK Ged, I believe you.

But the point about garages was that the jockies are effectively paying money to rent the plate, and this is clear in a scenario where the plate holder is not involved in driving the vehicle - the principle is the same with any non-driving owner.

Where the owner drives then the transfer of funds for the plate is less obvious and obviously the sums involved will be smaller, but the principle is the same.

Dusty

My apologies if I've lost the thread a bit Mr Scanner, since a few days have obviously elapsed, but further up the thread you said:

"Now, along with our difficult Brief it is very difficult to get new drivers."

You also don't want any new cars in your manor so surely my point was a fair one. You then revealed information about your own personal circumstances, but this was after I made my remark. But in general terms you seem to be expressing the view that the trade in your manor was wanting to recruit more drivers while at the same time keeping the number of vehicles restricted. So even in view of your own personal circumstances you did seem to be in agreement with the general ethos that I was criticising, so I don't thing my remark was unfair.

Dusty

You said:

"Now, along with our difficult Brief it is very difficult to get new drivers."

So this is an observation rather than a complaint?

Sounded more like a complaint to me.

Perhaps in view of you personal circumstances it could be construed as an observation, but you did not reveal those until after my post.

Dusty

Absolutely, but surely you have a lunchbreak or suchlike?

I wasn't assuming than owner does 8-5 or whatever, I was just giving an example of where a jockey could be better off than an owner.

But there is a tendency for owners to work days and jockeys to work nights, but of course this is not always the case. I'm sure I read that recently in some official document, I'll see if I can find it.

I would call anything over 50 'long hours', but I know plenty of owners who are quite happy to see jockeys driving as many hours as they want, up to 100 or so a week, in fact I've never know an owner to cap a drivers hours if the car was available, but I'm sure all are not like this.

For example, my first drive EXPECTED me to do 14 hour shifts, and had absolutely no objection to me doing more.

He'd got a plate for nothing in a restricted area and didn't drive because he had a better job elsewhere.

But I'm not suggesting all owners are like that.

Dusty

Well I try not to Mr Scanner, I'm an owner myself remember

But if you can give me a specific example then maybe I'll see what you mean.

Dusty

Sorry about the delay in replying lads - I didn't have much time in the week before Xmas, and I had a problem with my computer over Xmas until a couple of days ago, and I've just being trying to catch up - and leaving the oldest posts until last!

Dusty

Dusty,
You have completely thrown me because of the delay. Like most cab drivers my opinion lasts only for a couple of days, so I will have to agree with you.
If I wish you all the best for the New Year I will expect your reply in time for Easter. Joking apart sincere wishes to all the contributors and may next year be what you all wish it to be.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Ha ha... me too... I have lost the flow ( no comments there please!!). The trouble is that we can pick at each others statements from here to eternity!!
Never mind... all the best for a safe 2004!

Well, at least I know how to win a difficult debate in future - wait a couple of weeks before replying

But happy new year lads!!

Dusty

Ged, to some It may appear that you gambled twice. Both gambling decisions may have been from an educated assumption that the status quo would remain the same but never the less both your decisions were a gamble.

The first gamble was when you bought your plate, I don't know how long you have been in the cab game but you sound as though you are familiar with its workings, would I be right to assume you have at least ten years service?

I also assume before you bought your plate you were tracking out a cab and paying rent to an owner? I assume that is why you decided to buy your own plate. That is the main reason why most people buy a plate.

Why pay an owner £10 grand a year when you can get a loan to buy a plate at the same cost. All you have to do is put a night man on the cab and he'll pay your loan off for you. Simple isn't it.

However in 1994 the licence plates in Manchester dropped to £10 - £12 grand, they have steadily increased over the years and up to the oft report coming out the Asian drivers were buying plates for between £40 - £45 grand.

Two years ago the biggest fleet consortium in Manchester sold their plates for 25 grand each, I suspect you know who I mean. You could say they saw the writing on the wall.

However, the second bite of the cherry for you came last year when plates were at £40 - £45 grand, You could have sold your plate and made a handsome profit. If your house is at risk, I wonder why you never did so.

Best wishes

John Davies
Manchester

John,
The gambling analogy was not mine, I was trying to refute it. I have read your letter twice and am puzzled by the gambling twice part, you say the first time was when buying in but you do not say what the second one was.
Yes I do know who you mean re the fleet sales but surely that had more to do with his poor health at that time than him having the remarkable foresight that you seem to think he had.
1994 was as you know the year that the council were threatening to double the size of the fleet over night. It took a judicial review to get them round the table and to have meaningful discussions and as a result we now have the template that if other councils would have replicated we would not have had Oft involved. I have stated in other threads that it was the Asian drivers desperation to buy in that drove the plate values through the roof. I wanted to change the criteria to allow a small percentage on each issue to be given to the Ethnic minorities because they stood no chance on length of service, needless to say that view did not make me very popular.
Finally, John, the economics of the cab trade can never be reduced to a one line sentence with the tag "simple isn't it", sorry Mate it isn't. When I bought my cab and plate I was buying a job it was not an investment, and how do you know that I do not have a night man? should I sell for a handsome (should that be hansom?) profit and put that driver out of work? The simple answer is that I did sell up a few years back and made a loss on the plate value and I now rent a cab, at nowhere the £10,000 quoted.
You can always get me at my e.mail address in my profile,I would like to discuss some other things with you.
Best wishes
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

I was under the impression you still had your own plate. What I meant by the second gamble was this, anyone holding on to their plate knowing full well that the OFT was investigating the fairness and legality of restricting numbers, had taken a huge gamble on the report coming out in favour of keeping the status quo. This applies to all owners.



It was a combination of things, health was a small factor but he's not doing to bad for his age, in fact yesterday he left for Florida for a few days and he still runs the office. I'm sure you know that he didn't own all those cabs. The decision was a collective one by the directors to sell all of the cabs. Contrary to popular belief he has never owned all the cabs registered under the company banner.



The council never threatened to double the number of Cabs, the figure of 500 came from a Manchester Evening News article on 12 December 1991. What the cab sub committee did say on the 3/12/91 was this.

"Should the sub committee feel that more Hackney carriages are required in the City? The sub committee instruct officers to set up meetings with the Hackney carriage trade, and invite representatives from other interested parties, with a view considering either an increase in numbers or to deregulation of Hackney carriage numbers"

No specific number was ever mentioned at this stage of the game. The reference to deregulation was made because it was an option to consider. If deregulation was not an option then it just remained as to how many licences the council wished to issue.

From the very first meeting with the trade on 21/2/92 the council gave the impression that deregulation was not what they wanted. That meeting was attended by HM, JT, PC, FG, JW, LW, and GS, for the trade and for the Council, Councillors N Warren, R Myers, and J Smith. For the licensing and legal Department, Mike Ankers, Jim Button and Joanne Boyle.

One of the questions asked at the meeting by the trade was "what is the response of the council to the trades suggestion that a survey be undertaken to measure demand" the council replied "they would consider conducting a survey if the Cab trade accepted its findings".

In November and December 1992, a survey was undertaken by TECNECON. It lasted 444 hours and studied 12 ranks in the city. The survey was produced to the council in January 1993. In the main, the survey recommended 40 additional Cabs. The council ignored this and stuck to its original decision off 7/10/92 to issue 100 new licences.

With regard to the judicial review, You may be aware that the TOA was always against a Judicial Review taking place. Indeed, from the 1/9/92 they were in possession of a Brief from Anthony Rumbelow QC that informed the trade of the legalities attached to current legislation regarding Taxi numbers. This brief explained in simple terms exactly what the council could and couldn’t do. It is my belief and that of the TOA that you only go to court if you know you are in the right and can win.

On the other hand, BJ and several other misguided people thought differently, so on behalf of the Manchester TAXI COOP they decided to take the case to Court.

The application for judicial review was presented before Mr Justice Brooks at the High Court on 23/10/92. Cherie Booth represented the Cab drivers; the council did not bother to show up. The application for judicial review was granted by default.

You may know that when the judicial review finally did take place on the 30th March 1993. Lord Justice Macpherson said, “Manchester City Council have the right to do what they want with regard to Taxi numbers” he went on to say that if they wished they could add or deregulate Taxi numbers at any time they deemed appropriate. He then went on to criticise the application for judicial review brought by BJ on behalf of certain elements of the Cab Trade as frivolous and without foundation. Hence, the case was thrown out. Subsequently the council went on to issue 100 new licences.



Yes the proliferation of asians buying in has increased year on year, in the last 4 years it has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. However if they wish to spend silly money on what theoreticaly is a gamble then that is their decision.



I've never had any difficulty calculating profit and loss and I've always found that the economic advantages of owning a cab and employing an additional driver, far out weigh the disadvantages of renting.

Just as in most other areas, rents in Manchester vary, the going rate for a night track with a radio is averaging out at between £200 and £220 depending on the age of the cab. A Day track is between £165 and £175.

My original reference to which you refered to, simplified the reasoning why a person renting a cab would find it economicaly viable to buy their own plate and put another driver on the cab to offset the financial burden. It is that which I refered to as "simple".

I hope that explains my reasoning.

Good luck
John Davies
Manchester.