Taxi Driver Online

I think what you have to consider is would Cherwell grant new licenses to 100 or 200 wav vehicles. If restrictions were lifted they would be obliged to issue those licences, however under their present policy they are not obliged to issue any.

Thats why they are having a survey.

Best wishes

JD

The local LOs are recommending de-limit (AGAIN).

http://www.denbighshire.gov.uk/CE/Counc ... 05PTIE.pdf

Let's hope the councillors agree this time. Oh, and I just love the letters from the trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

Some people using Netscape may have trouble opening this link. If you do, try Internet Explorer it worked for me. I shortened this link but the original link is still effective.

Again, I must say looking at this report and the Brighton report it certainly highlights just how bias that Brighton report actually is. I have read many reports recently appertaining to the current situation and most have been exceptional in balance and accuracy.

This report highlights the decision earlier this year of councillors who left the current policy unchanged, they perceived lifting numbers would impact greatly on drivers incomes.

I commend the licensing department for highlighting the points for and against retaining numbers and suggest Councils such as Brighton should take note of what a balanced report actually looks like.

In their report Brighton offer unbalanced reasoning for retaining numbers. This is reflected in their assessment of Taxi related transport plans. There is no substance in the long meandering statement, which tries to make out a Justification that the public is better served by retaining numbers. The Transport plans are supposed to reflect policy inclusion for taxis and what the local Authority intend to implement with regard inclusion of Taxis.

Brighton just meanders on about the duties and method of work that Taxis already carry out. They suggest that by telling the public something they already know is making taxis inclusive in Transport policy.

Transport plans are supposed to be about physicaly making an impact on the way Transport is delivered. Brighton in their submission in their report has completely failed to deliver.

However the case in point is about Denbighshire and they only mention two zones, don't they have other zones or am I confusing myself? lol

Best wishes

JD

It looks like we may have found the only council so far in Denbighshire that's planning, or their LOs are planning, to de-limit without the WAV proviso.

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't know about that, I think a watching brief is the best policy in this situation. It's a debatable which way the council will jump.

Best wishes

JD

Don't understand how Mark Royden is to blame for Crawley deresricting


The appeal was lost in January 03 Here on the Wirral we went from 126 plates to currently 210 and the problems people generally associate with derestriction, overranking, traffic congestion, arguements between drivers(no fisticuffs yet) overcharging ect have been happening. I'm not and never have been against plate being issued but I believe a managed growth policy rather than derestriction is by far a better and more sensible option

The point being made by the Crawley trade, not me, was that the council may not have de-limited if it hadn't been made clear that plate premiums were not a possession, under the Rights Act.

The point being made by me, is what sort of a c*** gets a plate for f*** all one year, and the next one goes to the highest court in the land to stop his fellow colleagues from also getting one.

That aside, welcome to the forum.

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't think it was sussex who made the quote you are refering to. In fact I think it was me.



The person you quoted was referring to the ongoing appeal against the unsuccesful Judicial review. Obviously you either didn't read the thread properly or you completely missunderstood what was being said.

Just in case you don't know what is going on with regard to Mr. Cummings, I suggest you go back and read the thread again.



Far better for whom? The public, Mr Royden or the Cab drivers of the Wirral? I prefer to call managed growth by its proper name, which is "restricted growth". The purpose of limiting plates for whatever reason, is called restriction. The only thing that is managed is the restriction of plates to suite Cab drivers, not the public.

Best wishes

JD

I'm certainly not Mark Roydens biggest fan but, as I understand it, the Crawley trade or at least someone from there that recommended the Solicitors in London. It was them that came up with the arguement that the plate premiums were a possession, Mark Royden as would anyone that asks a solicitor to reresent them simply followed the advise given. So I'm told Crawley was already intent on derestriction anyway, which was why the Crawley trade got in touch with Derek Cummins (also from the T&G) and Mark Royden, so the Crawley trade effectivly shot themselves in foot.


Dare I say it, no I'll give you a clue people who meet in lodges and wear aprons and have funny handshakes.

Thanks for the welcome

Fair comment but I think it's a matter of opinion. Sure we are there to offer a service to the public but we are also there to make a reasonable living, Managed growth or restricted growth call it whatever you will gives the trade a chance for new license holders to settle in and is in no way detrimental to the public. the old closed shop and deresritiction cause problems all round and both should be binned. Well thats my oppinion anyway.

I'm all for making a reasonable living, whether it be driving cabs or anything else. I suppose Mr. Royden in his wisdom wanted to stop others from making the same type of reasonable living as himself because he somehow felt threatened by increased competition.

It's hard to make a case for equality if your sole purpose in life is to restrict your fellow human beings from obtaining the same benefits as yourself. I understand your point and respect your opinion as i'm sure many more will but finding a halfway house between restricted and unrestricted without infringing on equality is proving very hard to do.

Best wishes

JD

Now there's a question.

A couple of errors in the list Crawley was already in the consultation process well before theOFT report.Knowsley hasn't changed its policy since the oft report.

The OFT simply reiterated the positon since the Transport Act (1985) that a council cannot regulate taxi numbers, it can however opt out of the ammendment to section 37 Town Police Clauses act (1847) provided it can show that there is no significant unmet demand, and the onus is on the council to prove it NOT the applicant. Therefore a council must provide evidence: hence the use of surveys which is the only way that a council can legally have a no derestriction policy.
In other words the oft spent £250,000 of our money to tell us f*** all or nothing we didn't know already

Or maybe they used the money to help the Government get rid of Section 16 in a few years time via a RRO.

And made it easier for dozens of councils to de-limit.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

I suspect you read one of the earlier lists, which put Knowsley in the wrong section. If you had read any of the updated lists you would have noticed that Knowsley had been amended.

With respect to Crawley I haven't got a clue what you are talking about. The list categorically states that the changes represent those Authorities that have changed their policy since before or after the publication of the OFT report and that of the recent November 2004 DFT amended report.

I take it you fail to understand what "before or after" means?

Best wishes

JD