Taxi Driver Online

Thanks for your reply John,very well written.
"It places the same onus on the Judge as if it was legislation"
Legislation is one thing and goverment advise is another,the Judge will read goverment advise but it isn't law.I agree though that the next important step is what the goverment guidelines are and that will be the next war of words.
You know that to solve all of this is to get legislation through parliament and the fact that they havn't tried is an admitance that they wouldn't be able to.I beleive the reasons are that we have a Labour goverment who have a 100 Labour M.Ps sponsored by the T.G.W.U.Also the cock over bus and especially rail deregulisation hasn't helped the delimit loby.
One last question John has anybody taken Manchester council to court,for a plate,if so were they successful and why doesn't it happen more often.

sometimes government advice is kicked into touch, this happened in section 28 of circular 3/85 where advice was that councils could test the water by passing a few cabs and seeing how it goes beffore another tranch.

the law lords said no thats not what the law says.


the reason taxi legislation is rarely tested is down to legal costs, private hire opperators have much more cash than us!

Geoff

Just because a council de-limit, it doesn't follow that all the PH drivers will go taxi.

Many will be earning just fine at present. They may not like the idea of buying £30,000 WAVs, or the idea of doing a new knowledge.

But even if they all do all suddenly convert to the other side, does anyone really think they are all on mass only going to only work the city/town centers, whislt ignoring buckets full of work in the out-skirts.

Bit stupid if they do.

_________________
IDFIMH

Whats wrong with having an unmet demand survey every two years and having a proper knowledge test.This is a trade and when the public get in a cab they have a right to be taken home in a safe efficient way.For that matter do we need a unmet demand survey if we have a proper knowledge test.If your not prepaired to work hard and learn the knowledge,then why not have an easier knowledge test for the private hire trade who are gaurenteed radio contact if they are lost.
If the system is just completely opened up it will be even more,than it is now, a cowboy trade.Don't forget Sussex there's "bucket loads of work"
in them suburbs.
I'm not trying to annoy anybody from either side i'm trying to encourage proper debate for the sake of everybody in the trade.

SURVEY! SURVEY!,Chris,what is a survey.
Is that the survey to see if there is an adequate coverage of taxis in the area.
Is that when a council receives the facts and figures there is adequate coverage to meet the demand.
WELL,I hope the council in other areas are more honest than Dundee.
Had the Survey,adequate coverage,open the bloody list.
Waste of time and money.

Sad Sammy,nearly Bammy.

If I may be so bold Chris as to remind you that surveys are not law either. The 1985 Transport act gives no indication whatsoever on how to measure unmet demand. The introduction of market research and subsequently surveys was arrived at not by legislation but by way of trial and error.

The interpretation of unmet demand by the courts so far, has been to accept a market research based survey, backed by advice from the Government as being methodically sound.

The validity of these surveys have recently been brought into question not only by the OFT but by the Government itself. Therefore, as we all very well know, the Government have indicated that they will issue new advice.

What that advice will say is anyone’s guess but the very fact they are going to issue it, suggests that it may very well depart from it's earlier advice given in earlier circulars.

Time and time again, case after case Judges have mentioned the Governments intention in this act was for the Hackney carriage trade to be de restricted. That is a matter of fact and it leads us nicely on to the interpretation of the 1985 act.

You are right when you say circulars or Government advice is not law but you fail to grasp the evolution of the relevant section of this law. I must remind you that the absence of clarity in section 16 has meant the courts have had to advice authorities on how to at least try and measure demand.

That past advice from the courts has culminated in the Government issuing a circular stating councils may find relief against challenge if they conduct a market research survey to measure unmet demand. Or words to that effect.

The goal posts have no changed and past market research surveys, have been exposed as being flawed. It would be ironic if the Government issued a circular or advice saying, Market research surveys have been found unreliable and unscientific when it comes to measuring unmet demand and the Government now recommends the following criteria.

If that was the case, do you think councils will carry on having surveys in light of the Governments advice?

A Judge will weigh the evidence as it is put before him. What weight a Judge puts on a survey is going to be influenced by the OFT report and Government guidance. I'm sure anyone challenging a survey would have ample ammunition in the OFT report to question a surveys validity.

So, in the absence of any reference to surveys in section 16, what actually is the law?

Best wishes

John Davies.

The problem in Dundee was the council did the survey too late.

203020 had better lawyers than the council.

Without surveys there is no sec 16.
Our recent survey had a customer questionairre. In it some said they werent very happy with the survey. Some had stopped using taxis and some had gone over to ph in the estates.
Despite that the sureveyors didnt use those stats in the final outcome.
So why the f--- did they ask?

yes it happened here! "we did not witness it so we discounted it" is a line in the report.

so why do they ask? beccause the law state that a council has to assess latent demand, that need in outer areas that may exist if there was a taxi>

purely and simply! and surveyors line it away because they are expert witnesses and if asked have to account for it in court, if they havnt answered it in the report!

Geoff

Lest we forget, the bulk of the Oft report was based on findings that were extrapolated from Halcrow Fox findings. So when it suited they were experts but when it came to the results of the surveys it did not fit the brief ( delimit no matter what you find ) so they rubbished them. I find it hard to give creedence to both parties, Oft and Halcrow, and the word charlatan springs to mind.
Our trade is too complex and hide bound by outdated legislation, my fervent wish was for a report that arrived with insight not the mish mash that we finished with. I agree that the 85 Act was intended to delimit but let us not forget that it was the spawn of the most reactionary party that I have ever seen, the result of which is a transport system that exists for shareholders and only survives by dint of massive subsidies. On another thread I said that last year Virgin received £ 12.50 per passenger out of the public purse. I can only dream that one day that that will happen to us.
We seem to be going round in circles in our deliberations on what will
happen, some of us wish what may happen but in the meantime we are left in limbo.
My reaction is and was that an opportunity was lost to get us into the 21st century and we are being left to drift at the whims of our elected councillors. Is there any chance of us ever singing from the same sheet? I think not!!
A starting point would be a complete overhaul and legislation that covered the whole gamut of the hire and reward trade, no grey areas for limos,operators licences,hospital patients being carried by parasites and many more of these people who are on the edge of legitamacy. One trade and one trade only.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

hell Ged a bit reactionary!

the government or trade is not ready for it, fighting in lumps over every proposal, and soon we will loose the whole trade.

because with satelight navigation there are more possibilities!

Geoff

Well I'm up for a fight.

Sat Nav maybe something that could effect us, but treating one side of the trade as [edited by admin] will be the ultimate down-fall of this trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

As it stands at the moment, thanks to everyones opinions on this debate, i
feel i have an idea where the trade will be in five to ten years time.But it is my veiw and like everybody else it is JUST my opinion and in all honesty nobody is for sure where the trade is ultimately going.
What i ask is why can't we have two KNOWLEDGE tests.One for Private hire who are in contact with a radio if lost and then an harder test for Hackneys who might not have the help of a radio.If we had proper knowledge tests what percentage of drivers do you know would actually get off their buts and work hard enough to pass a test. This would prevent the trade from being flooded with drivers.
Of course this won't happen but there ya go,i'd still like your opinions on this though.

As it stands at the moment, thanks to everyones opinions on this debate, i
feel i have an idea where the trade will be in five to ten years time.But it is my veiw and like everybody else it is JUST my opinion and in all honesty nobody is for sure where the trade is ultimately going.
What i ask is why can't we have two KNOWLEDGE tests.One for Private hire who are in contact with a radio if lost and then an harder test for Hackneys who might not have the help of a radio.If we had proper knowledge tests what percentage of drivers do you know would actually get off their buts and work hard enough to pass a test. This would prevent the trade from being flooded with drivers.
Of course this won't happen but there ya go,i'd still like your opinions on this though.

I think a number of councils do this.

In fact I suspect the numbers of councils that have the same knowledge for both taxi and PH is the minority.

A lot of councils have no knowledge for the PH side. Which is more in tune with the 1976 act.