Taxi Driver Online

I think the point is that the Govt agreed that restricted numbers are prima facie detrimental to consumers and excluded drivers, and on that basis recommended de-limitation.

So there's no real need to consider anything, and the Govt clearly didn't believe the kind of rubbish that was spouted at the Trans Comm.

But it left LAs the option to restrict if they wanted, but they had to comply with the law rather than do as they pleased, as many do now.

So in a nutshell, the onus is on LAs to justify restrictions, not to defend getting rid of them.

Clearly some don't like this, but clearly the Govt took a view similar to us.

i dont think you know where im coming from here.

I think councils should be responsible and ask the public and trade and other stakeholders what they want of a taxi service.

this LA is merely guessing that throwing taxis at the situation will work, if it goes to ratshit, the trade will be the ones left to pick up the pieces.

regards

Captain cab

I couldnt agree more. Some areas do clearly need more taxis and some clearly dont, and sussex before u get on your high horse, many people coming into the TRADE will be PART TIME. Some just working during school hours others when they get home from there nine to five jobs during the day. This leaves the hardworking and financially bound owner drivers up s**t creek without a paddle. Dont forget many people coming in to this in places that have deregged will just see it as a way of earning a fast buck and not a long time or full time commitment, where does this benefit the consumer, trying to ring 30 different part time 'Taxi' companys only to get mobile phones that are turned off ??
And with regards to councils not bieng able to justify the cost of a survey, down here in Devon, we the drivers pay for the survey on our licence fees for three years, and i believe many councils do the same so theer is no cost to them in commissioning a survey.
What councild should be doing is asking the trade, do u really think they will pay for a survey if they clearly know that there is unmet demand and the council are going to issue plates willy nilly ?? I think not.
And one other point the council limits the number of plated vehicles , not the number of drivers, so vehicles where there is the work could be on the road 24 hours a day. That just doesnt work down here, it wouldnt pay there wages during the week.

no I deliver the services exactly that.
cheaper fares and better paid drivers exactly that.

the government are enabling councils to make decisions on the subject so they get any blame

whilst ensuring councils follow government policy, read regulatory reform its all about market forces

you captain like the rest have been had

Sorry Yorkie, you may have to explain as your reply seems cryptic, did you used to write the questions for Ted Rogers on 321.

I thought councils were under no obligation to take any notice of surveys?
Would you see a reduction in licence fees if your council decided to delimit?
Did the last survey show unmet demand, and when was it held?

I am not explaining again.
stick to delivering papers

Well you thought wrong.

_________________
IDFIMH

If by 'working' you mean getting rid of premiums and giving drivers the same opportunities, then surely it's a no-brainer?

The Govt cleary agreed that the benefits to consumers outweigh and detriment, the evidence for which seems flimsy at best, thus they clearly thought that there was no real need to repeat the whole OFT/Trans Comm scenario in every restricting LA in the land.

It clearly used to be in the interests of consumers to send children up chimneys, but Govt decided that this was not on. Perhaps they did consult the 'trade' (employers of child chimney sweeps) and those that had there chimneys swept, but in the end decided that the practice should be ended, and that this shouldn't be decided at the local level.

Not a great analogy, I agree, but if LAs think that they can need restricted numbers and that local circumstances mean that this benefits consumers then the Govt has given them the option to retain them.

But as I said, the onus now is to justify retention, not removal.

I agree that this should be looked at more holistically, with other factors considered such as how easy it is to get a badge (as I keep on saying, it's driver numbers that are the problem, not taxis) and vehicle standards.

But the chances of this happening are minimal, and most LAs just haven't got the competence anyway, and the Govt clearly don't want a national approach to regulation, yet, anyway. Except for the DDA, of course, which kind of undermines their 'local level' approach.

Let's face it, there's no doubt that there would be more root and branch reform if the Govt had legislative time, but it's clearly difficult with the amount of competing interests, particularly with law and order, health and national security always at the top of the political agenda.

Of course, to some extent the DfT will be going for a more national approach when it publishes its guidlines, but this may be a bit too late for de-limiting LAs.

I would have personally preffered a phasing in approach to quotas as well, to give investors a chance to recoup their investment, but this looks unlikely as well.

But the bottom line, from my point of view at least, is that quotas should go, so a cack-handed approach is better than retaining them.

I notice you say "drivers as against "owners". Those drivers who are not plate holders may take exception at paying for something that benefits someone else rather than themselves. Would you feel at ease paying for a councils policy decision that only serves to keep a premium on my plate? Do you think it right that Taxi drivers and private hire drivers should pay out of their own pocket just to re inforce a councils policy of restriction? The point that is nearly always missed is that the restriction of licences is not anything to do with a better service for the public, it is based on council policy. When councils change their policy to one of de restriction it is mostly villified by those who have most to lose by the changing of said policy.

Perhaps the Council or the Devon owners should bear the full cost of any survey on their own shoulders and not rely on non owners to help them out financially.

Best wishes

JD