Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Restrictions latest!!!
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1213		 Page 1 of 9
Author:  TDO [ Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Restrictions latest!!!
Read the article here:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/quotalas.htm

Post your views below!
Author:  JD [ Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restrictions latest!!!
TDO wrote:
Read the article here:

http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/quotalas.htm

Post your views below!


And here is that ammended list.

Updated Restricted Quota List Dec 1st 2004.

22 Councils 15.27% have changed their policy either before or after the publication of the 2003 OFT report. Two councils Bolton and Welwyn Hatfield having been unrestricted recently re-restricted. Adjusting the overall figure of 15.27% downwards to 13.88% reflects the overall change in percentage terms.

After exhaustive research the total number of Authorities that restrict licenses is still 124 out of a total figure for England and Wales of 347. The data regarding the total number of licensing Authorities throughout England and Wales was perhaps misrepresented in the OFT report. It quoted the number of licensing Authorities as 376 whereas in the 2001-2 DFT report on Taxi and Private hire vehicles in England and Wales the number quoted is 343.

The DFT states that there were three Authorities that never responded in time to be included in the compilation of that report. It lists the number of Authorities that restrict by numbers as 141 the three absent entries would bring the total to 144. This figure would compliment a later report brought out in 2003 which not only highlighted 144 as being the correct figure it also named those Authorities who at the time, restricted numbers.

Because of the uncertainty of the DFT figures regarding the combined number of licensing Authorities, the compiler of this report has set a margin of error for the total number of Authorities in England and Wales at 1%.

The amended figure of Authorities who restrict by numbers remains at 124. The percentage figure has been adjusted to reflect the actual number of licensing Authorities throughout England and Wales.

Total number of Authorities 347.

Total number of Authorities that do not restrict = 223 = 64.27%

Total number of Authorities who do restrict = 124 = 35.73%

Compiling the DFT statistics of 343 Authorities.

Total number of Authorities that do not restrict = 219 = 63.84%

Total number of Authorities that do restrict = 124 = 36.16%

Compiling the OFT Data from their 2003 report of 376 Authorities

Total number of Authorities that do not restrict = 252 = 67.03%

Total number of Authorities that do restrict = 124 = 32.97%

The number of councils who restrict numbers remains constant at 124. The data shows there is less than a one-percent differential between the compiler of this report’s statistics and those of the DFT. The data which may be inaccurate is the OFT data, which incidentally was taken from figures obtained from the DFT.

The Total number of Authorities that restrict Hackney carriages is 124

The 22 Authorities that have changed their policy since the publication of the OFT report, are as follows.

1 Adur
2 Amber Valley
3 Bassetlaw
4 Calderdale
5 Cardiff
6 Castle Point
7 Chelmsford
8 Crawley
9 East Lindsey
10 East Northants
11 Guildford
12 Harlow
13 Knowsley
14 North East Lincolnshire UA
15 Selby
16 Slough UA
17 Solihull
18 Stratford-upon-Avon
19 Sunderland
20 West Somerset
21 Woking
22 Wycombe

Practically all of the above Authorities have or are setting a requirement that all future licensed vehicles must comply with the DDA good practice policy.

The two Authorities that have re-restricted.

Bolton
Welwyn Hatfield

Of the 144 originally restricted Authorities the net reduction in numbers is 20 or 13.88%. The net percentage of Authorities who still restrict numbers is 35.73% or in numbers 124.

Updated list of Authorities who restrict H/C Vehicles by numbers:

1. Ashford. Restricted, to be reviewed early 2005.
2. Aylesbury Vale. Restricted
3. Babergh. Restricted
4. Barnsley. Survey commissioned on unmet demand.
5. Barrow in Furness. Restricted
6. Basildon. Restricted.
7. Basingstoke. Restricted
8. Bath and North East Somerset ua. Restricted
9. Bedford. Restricted.
10. Blackburn Darwen ua. Consultation on deregulation underway, scheduled to finish end Nov.
11. Blackpool. 256 hacks, 44 horse drawn. Intention is to keep a numbers policy.
12. Blyth Valley. 41 hacks, decision on change of policy early 2005.
13. Bolton. Restricted.
14. Bournemouth ua. Restricted
15. Bradford. Restricted. Policy to be reviewed Before Jan 2005
16. Braintree. Restricted
17. Brighton and Hove ua. Recent licensing report bias towards restriction.
18. Burnley. Restricted
19. Carrick. Conducting a survey.
20. Cherwell. Policy currently under review.
21. Chester. Restricted, licensing meeting on December 9.
22. Chester le street. Restricted
23. Chorley. Review of policy early 2005.
24. Colchester. Restricted
25. Congleton. Restricted
26. Conwy. Restricted
27. Copeland. Restricted
28. Corby. Restricted
29. Denbighshire. Restricted
30. Dover. Restricted
31. Durham. Restricted. Recently issued a quota of new licenses. Policy continually under review.
32. Easington. Restricted
33. East Riding. Restricted
34. Eastbourne. Restricted
35. Eastleigh. Internal report under consideration.
36. Ellesmere Port. Restricted
37. Exeter. Decision imminent.
38. Fylde. Restricted. Unmet demand survey to be carried out, consultation process to follow.
39. Gosport. Restricted
40. Great Yarmouth. Restricted
41. Gwynedd. Restricted
42. Halton ua. A Recent licensing report stated that local plate values stood at 10/12k and this indicated no unmet demand. Possible flawed logic, which does not address DFT guidance.
43. Harrogate. Restricted
44. Hastings. Restricted. Policy change under review, decision imminent.
45. Havant. Restricted
46. High Peak. Restricted
47. Huntingdonshire. Restricted
48. Hyndburn. Restricted
49. Ipswich. Restricted
50. Kerrier. Restricted
51. Kettering. Restricted
52. Kings Lynn. Restricted
53. Kingston upon Hull. Restricted
54. Kirklees. Restricted
55. Lancaster. Restricted to 105 H/C/V
56. Leeds. Consultation on policy change currently underway.
57. Leicester. Restricted
58. Lincoln. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
59. Liverpool. Restricted
60. Luton ua. Restricted
61. Maidstone. Restricted
62. Manchester. Has a policy of issuing 20/25 new licences annually.
63. Merthyr Tydfil. Decision imminent.
64. Middlesborough ua. Restricted
65. Mole Valley. Restricted
66. New Forest. Report for consideration to be presented to committee members in January 2005
67. Newcastle on Tyne. Restricted.
68. Newcastle under Lyme. Restricted
69. Nottingham. Undertaking an unmet demand survey.
70. Oldham. Restricted.
71. Oxford. Recently voted to retain a restricted numbers policy.
72. Pendle. Restricted
73. Penwith. Restricted
74. Plymouth ua. Legal Challenge on refusal to issue H/C licence, Court hearing 2005.
75. Poole ua. Restricted
76. Portsmouth ua. Restricted
77. Preston. Restricted
78. Reading ua. Restricted. Policy change unlikely.
79. Reigate and Banstead. Restricted
80. Restormel. Restricted
81. Ribble Valley. Restricted.
82. Richmondshire. Undertaking unmet demand survey. Halcrow.
83. Rochdale. Restricted
84. Rotherham. 48 H/C. Currently undertaking an unmet demand survey.
85. Rugby. Conducting an unmet demand survey to consider options.
86. Salford. Contemplating local survey.
87. Scarborough. 97 H/C/V review in Early 2005.
88. Sefton. Restricted
89. South Bedfordshire. Restricted. Policy currently under review.
90. South Ribble. Restricted
91. South Tyneside. Restricted
92. Southampton ua. Restricted
93. Southend on sea ua. Restricted
94. St Edmundsbury. Restricted
95. St Helens. Unmet demand survey being conducted early 2005.
96. Stevenage. Restricted
97. Stockport. Commissioning a Mori survey to determine future policy.
98. Stoke on Trent ua. Restricted
99. Swindon ua. Policy under review, consultations being conducted with relevant parties.
100. Tameside. Restricted
101. Teignbridge. Restricted
102. Test Valley. Restricted to 34 H/C, policy to be reviewed shortly.
103. Thanet. Restricted
104. Thurrock ua. Restricted
105. Torbay ua. Restricted
106. Torfaen. Restricted.
107. Torridge. Decision on quotas imminent.
108. Trafford. Restricted.
109. Tunbridge wells. Restricted
110. Wakefield. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
111. Walsall. Review expected on 25 November 2004, Licensing Committee meeting.
112. Wansbeck. Policy under review. 30 H/C vehicles.
113. Warrington ua. Restricted
114. Watford. Preference to maintain a managed growth policy, next survey scheduled 2005/2006
115. Welwyn Hatfield. Re Restricted late 2003.
116. Weymouth. Restricted
117. Wigan. Restricted
118. Windsor and Maidenhead ua. Restricted
119. Wolverhampton. Decision on quotas imminent.
120. Worthing. Managed growth policy. Wav only. Conducting survey to measure demand.
121. Wrexham. Restricted.
122. Wyre.160 H/C/V Survey commissioned for Jan 2005 final report to committee, Feb 2005.
123. Wyre Forest. Provisional decision to de-restrict numbers, ratification imminent.
124. York ua. Policy under review.
Author:  Alex [ Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well done to JD and TDO for sorting out all these numbers. =D>

I'm thinking of running a book on the number of councils that will still restrict this time next year. :shock:

85-90 Evens
90-100 2-1
100-110 100-30
110+ 10-1
75-80 2-1
0-75 5-1

Any offers?

Alex
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Alex wrote:
85-90 Evens

That looks quite good, it's just a shame that I don't gamble. [-X
Author:  cheshirebest [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Alex wrote:
85-90 Evens

That looks quite good, it's just a shame that I don't gamble. [-X


You will be gambling if your local area ever de-limit and you go along in your brand new hackney carriage with hundreds of others chasing work that is simply not there !!
Author:  Alex [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Kettering LO has just confirmed that at their last licensing committee they decided to delimit with effect from 1/4/05, to give them the opportunity to implement quality vehicle standards and review rank provision.

Now wouldn't it be nice if more councils acted in such a well thought out way?

Alex
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 4:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
cheshirebest wrote:
You will be gambling if your local area ever de-limit and you go along in your brand new hackney carriage with hundreds of others chasing work that is simply not there !!

You could be right, but surely it should be my decision if I decide to gamble or not. Not an out-dated piece of legislation. :sad:
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
You could be right, but surely it should be my decision if I decide to gamble or not.


Exactly, the point is its a persons own business decision

regards

Captain cab
Author:  cheshirebest [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Quote:
You could be right, but surely it should be my decision if I decide to gamble or not.


Exactly, the point is its a persons own business decision

regards

Captain cab


Well then go and make your ''investment'' in a Plate and run your business instead of looking for freebies.
Author:  JD [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Alex wrote:
Well done to JD and TDO for sorting out all these numbers. =D>

I'm thinking of running a book on the number of councils that will still restrict this time next year. :shock:

85-90 Evens
90-100 2-1
100-110 100-30
110+ 10-1
75-80 2-1
0-75 5-1

Any offers?

Alex


I'll take an educated guess and go for a 33% reduction which puts me below 85. lol do we haver any odds for extremists? l

Best wishes

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
cheshirebest wrote:
Well then go and make your ''investment'' in a Plate and run your business instead of looking for freebies.

Oh you mean go buy a plate off someone who got it for f*** all, in the full knowledge that that plate could be worthless in no time at all.

And you mentioned gamble to me. :shock:
Author:  captain cab [ Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Well then go and make your ''investment'' in a Plate and run your business instead of looking for freebies.


My firm has made investments in plates, we have done for 30 years.

Unfortunately, 10 years ago, the council delimited and the "investment" turned to ratshit.

We now invest in quality vehicles, rather than plates. Which begs the question why on earth we allowed ourselves to have wasted thousands of pounds on a plate instead of the vehicle! :shock:

I reaffirm my point, if I have £35k in my back pocket (if only!), why should anyone stop me from obtaining a permit freely from the licensing authority?

Would my £35k TX not be better for the passengers than a 10 year old fairway?

Incidentally, there is a higher standard of vehicle in my area now than before delimitation, another myth killed.


Regards

Captain Cab
Author:  Sussex [ Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restrictions latest!!!
JD wrote:
71. Oxford. Recently voted to retain a restricted numbers policy.

It seems that the council only did this because the local trade offered to stump up £18,000 for a new survey. :shock:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/council/meetin ... ent/11458/
Author:  JD [ Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Restrictions latest!!!
Sussex wrote:
JD wrote:
71. Oxford. Recently voted to retain a restricted numbers policy.

It seems that the council only did this because the local trade offered to stump up £18,000 for a new survey. :shock:

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/council/meetin ... ent/11458/


I wonder how lawful it is for a vested interest to offer a financial bribe to a council? Doesn't Judicial review specifically mention bias as a reason for squashing a decision by an elected body who have taken monies from a vested interest, in order to influence a decision.

Put yourself in the Judges position and ask yourself, is there a possibility that the council may have reached a different decision without the financial input from the Taxi trade. The answer to that must surely be "there is every possibility they may have done".

Then ask yourself did the provision of monies from the Taxi trade to the council fetter the council's judgement in any way as to make the decision bias in favour of the Taxi trade? Because of the councils decision the answer to that may be the same as the previous one.

The survey itself may be found to be inadmissible and the council ordered to refund the money back to the Taxi trade, with the council being made to pay for their own survey.

The judge might rule that the monies offered by the Taxi trade to the council was a bribe that was meant to influence the decision of the Council and therefore the monies should be returned and the process revisited.

At least that way it may bring about a precedent that councils have to pay for their own survey and bribes from vested interests will not be tolerated.

But who is going to spend 20 grand to take this lot to court? Not many. lol.

The price of Justice is akin to a posh hotel, we can all go inside but we can't all afford to spend the night.

Best wishes

JD
Author:  cheshirebest [ Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Restrictions latest!!!
Quote:
The judge might rule that the monies offered by the Taxi trade to the council was a bribe that was meant to influence the decision of the Council and therefore the monies should be returned and the process revisited.

At least that way it may bring about a precedent that councils have to pay for their own survey and bribes from vested interests will not be tolerated.


Best wishes

JD


Doesn't the law state that councils cannot profit from Licence fees etc ?
As I understand it the monies collected from drivers for badges and MOTs etc is ''supposed'' to be ring fenced and has to be spent within that dept.
It could therefore be argued that the Taxi trade by paying for the survey effectively paid a ''one off'' amount for the survey rather than increase the ''badge'' fees etc.
The same argument has been put at Manchester Airport.
Manchester Airport is owned by Manchester City Council (55%) and other councils.
By licensing a private hire co at the Airport are they not then entering into competition with the very people they licence ?
This cannot be legal.
Just as the Airport may be found guilty of ''aiding and abetting'' in AirportcarZ should they be found guilty of any offences.
Page 1 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/