Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Apr 25, 2026 12:16 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
But it appears that The Chester Taxi Association are doing a King Canute!

I have to agree. I hope they have plenty of spare cash.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
I think it took two years for the judicial review on the Wirral..... and they have already paid in money for a survey.. which they should get back.....

There are plenty of clues .... I wonder when someone will work out their strategy :roll:

I seem to remember a court case where a certain person bought a number of vehicles and found himself in a similar position.... he took the council to court... he lost. it cost him £100,000 ..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:47 am
Posts: 45
Location: Chester
My information is that the Hackney Association have engaged a Q.C, they have an Association meeting early this week when each member will pay £250 into the "fighting fund" (as already agreed). My guess would be that that is just the first instalment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:47 am
Posts: 45
Location: Chester
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
I'm not a fan of full de-restriction, nor total limitation of numbers.

But it appears that The Chester Taxi Association are doing a King Canute!


Are they in fact going for full de-restriction, surely the requirement to purchase a new cab will limit the number of applications for plates in any event.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
If Chester think they are on stony ground in respect of consultation then all they have to do to circumvent this judicial; review is rescind their decision to deregulate and go through the process properly. It will take them no more than four weeks.

We don't know the terms of the judicial review yet? lol but what I do know is this, at the end of the day the council will do what they want to do and that's a fact. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
bulldogdrummond wrote:
My information is that the Hackney Association have engaged a Q.C, they have an Association meeting early this week when each member will pay £250 into the "fighting fund" (as already agreed). My guess would be that that is just the first instalment.


Fighting fund for what?

If any of you Chester guys can get any of your colleagues who are involved in the local TOA to come on TDO and debate their actions I would be most grateful.

I would like to hear what a twenty grand argument sounds like?

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
They would be foolish to do that wouldn't they
a bit like their solicitor discussing their case with somebody else. she could be struck off for that.. couldn't she :wink:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Better still, get me their phone number and I'll try and entice them on here myself.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:47 am
Posts: 45
Location: Chester
JD wrote:
bulldogdrummond wrote:
My information is that the Hackney Association have engaged a Q.C, they have an Association meeting early this week when each member will pay £250 into the "fighting fund" (as already agreed). My guess would be that that is just the first instalment.


Fighting fund for what?


Maybe a poor choice of words on my part, to fund the Q.C I should think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
bulldogdrummond wrote:
Are they in fact going for full de-restriction, surely the requirement to purchase a new cab will limit the number of applications for plates in any event.


Birmingham did exactly that in 1996 & we all thought it was the correct policy; which it was except we forgot one thing.

There was, & still is, no upper age limit on HCs & now we have 20-21 year old HCs on our streets. There were also no quality checks & there are none now. As long as the cab passes an MOT it is plated; never mind the state of the interior/exterior of the cab.

In the first 4-5 years the take up of plates was phenominal, even with the condition of new plate, new cab. After that it slowed down to roughly half of the number that were licensed in the first 5 years per annum.

There is nothing wrong with a policy of new plate must have new cab, provided that you also have quality assurance. But age limits are frowned upon in the DfT BPG, unless there are exceptional vehicle standards in place too.

But for a level playing field, what you should insist that your council adopt is new plate, new vehicle ....... on Private Hire as well!! And with the same quality standards as for HCs.

That way it is not discriminatory!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
bulldogdrummond wrote:
Are they in fact going for full de-restriction, surely the requirement to purchase a new cab will limit the number of applications for plates in any event.


Birmingham did exactly that in 1996 & we all thought it was the correct policy; which it was except we forgot one thing.

There was, & still is, no upper age limit on HCs & now we have 20-21 year old HCs on our streets. There were also no quality checks & there are none now. As long as the cab passes an MOT it is plated; never mind the state of the interior/exterior of the cab.

In the first 4-5 years the take up of plates was phenominal, even with the condition of new plate, new cab. After that it slowed down to roughly half of the number that were licensed in the first 5 years per annum.

There is nothing wrong with a policy of new plate must have new cab, provided that you also have quality assurance. But age limits are frowned upon in the DfT BPG, unless there are exceptional vehicle standards in place too.

But for a level playing field, what you should insist that your council adopt is new plate, new vehicle ....... on Private Hire as well!! And with the same quality standards as for HCs.

That way it is not discriminatory!!


Don't you have the condition that they must have held a hackney Licence for 25 years before they're eligible :cry:

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 17, 2008 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
MR T wrote:
Don't you have the condition that they must have held a hackney Licence for 25 years before they're eligible.


No we do not.

But I just loooovvve the Manchester points system for allocating new Hackney Carriage licences, with a controlled expansion policy.

Based on a variety of points scoring criteria, it also deducts points for misdemeanours.

That I do like ..... lots!!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:26 pm
Posts: 313
Location: Chester
JDBubbles wrote:
I have just heard a rumour that the Chester Taxi Association has in fact this afternoon got an injunction or stay on the issueing of any new plates. I have not got any details as yet but there are at least 2 drivers who have ordered cabs and now cannot get plates.


It seems the rumour I heard was incorrect and there is no stay or injunction in place.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57331
Location: 1066 Country
JDBubbles wrote:
It seems the rumour I heard was incorrect and there is no stay or injunction in place.

I hope it wasn't a threat of a phone call from JD that did it. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:26 pm
Posts: 313
Location: Chester
Sussex wrote:
JDBubbles wrote:
It seems the rumour I heard was incorrect and there is no stay or injunction in place.

I hope it wasn't a threat of a phone call from JD that did it. :D


I think it was more a case of someone (not in the council btw) misunderstanding the legal process, from what I can gather notice has been served of an application for Judicial review but that is all as yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 141 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 793 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group