Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 4:49 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 pm
Posts: 745
Location: Guess?
Saltmarket wrote:
What?

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?


Well I don't normally do, but initially you said:

Quote:
Their only duty is to ensure those who are issued licences meet and adhere to the standards and conditions set out in them.


But now you're saying:

Quote:
I'm saying the Councils have no business in the market beyond ensuring demand for taxis is met by the number of licences, that those licenced are fit and proper people and the ongoing enforcement of standards.


Then you said:

Quote:
Is that clear enough?


Crystal :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 pm
Posts: 745
Location: Guess?
And I'm surprised that you seem to think that profiteering caused by a council's policies shouldn't be an issue for them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Currently Unknown
Fae Fife wrote:
Saltmarket wrote:
What?

Are you having trouble with reading comprehension?


Well I don't normally do, but initially you said:

Quote:
Their only duty is to ensure those who are issued licences meet and adhere to the standards and conditions set out in them.


But now you're saying:

Quote:
I'm saying the Councils have no business in the market beyond ensuring demand for taxis is met by the number of licences, that those licenced are fit and proper people and the ongoing enforcement of standards.


Then you said:

Quote:
Is that clear enough?


Crystal :roll:


OK, you want to play semantics, that's fine. Before we get into it can I ask one thing, though?

What are YOU saying?

Are you saying the Councils should be the ones who act as the market place and therefore set the prices of the licences?

OR

Are you saying the status quo should apply with the Councils only issuing the licences and the market dictating the prices of the licences?

I'm sorry if I confused you by not saying that I believe Councils should monitor and issue licences based on demand as part of their LO functions.

And, finally, as a humorous aside:

What's the best thing to come out of Fife?

The A90. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Currently Unknown
Fae Fife wrote:
And I'm surprised that you seem to think that profiteering caused by a council's policies shouldn't be an issue for them.


Again, the two things are completely unrelated.

The Council knows if it deregulated the streets would be choked with cabs so it [hopefully] restricts the numbers of licences issued with some correlation between those same numbers and demand for cabs.

It's this restriction which creates the marketplace and allows licences to change hands for more than face value. That value is the perceived earning potential and if it's deemed a fair price then the licence will sell. If not it won't. The Councils fees have no relation to what those licences will fetch once they're issued because they then pass into the marketplace created by those licencing conditions. You can't restrict someone's earning just because you don't agree with the circumstances in which they're doing that earning.

Just because the licences fetch a few bob when they hit that marketplace doesn't mean the Council deserve more than a fair fee for discharging their functions.

I also think the fairest way to issue the licences is via a waiting list. If you're at the top of the list and the Council release new licences then you get them. If you're at the bottom; tough titty. This, I believe, would stop chancers throwing in an application to the lottery because they thought they could make a fast-buck by flipping a licence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 19651
toots wrote:
This seems to be a bit of a lottery type draw to get a license and whilst I appreciate there is no price for the ticket so to speak there is still a prize. I'm just curious as to whether that's legal :?


They probably have a gaming license but it would be worth checking. Could you imagine them having to withdraw the plates and getting a fine for not issuing themselves with a license. :mrgreen:

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 19651
I am not sure that the council is "crying" to the press about having to give the plates away.
I am not sure that there is nothing that they can do to stop the sale of the plates. I thought that they were not transferable anyway.

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Southampton union bosses to ballot drivers over licence controversy



A CONTROVERSIAL secret lottery draw for lucrative new taxi plates in Southampton could be the spark for a strike by cabbies.

Union bosses are to ballot drivers, who are furious that yesterday’s draw for 20 hackney carriage licencees was held behind closed doors.

The plates could be sold for up to £35,000 on the open market, but by law the city council can only charge to cover its costs, which amount to £180 per licence.

The row comes amid anger in the trade over the council’s introduction of compulsory spy cameras inside every cab and private hire car in the city.

Council legal chiefs said the draw was held in private to avoid falling foul of the Data Protection Act, as personal and financial details of individuals were involved.





Tory councillor Edward Osmond picked 20 winners, plus a reserve list of 40, from 346 raffle tickets in a tin, each assigned to one of the 346 applicants.

But Perry McMillan, chairman of the Southampton T&G taxi section of the Unite union said: “They are hiding behind data protection instead of being open and transparent. “No one would have had any problem with their name being called out in public.

“We are going to be balloting the trade about how they feel about what’s going on here and if they feel there has been a lack of consultation.

“They have needlessly created an atmosphere of suspicion.

“People will be saying how do I know my name made it into the hat?”

There were also complaints that a requirement for applicants to prove they had access to £20,000 to put a wheelchair-friendly taxi on the road had been overly restrictive.

Mr McMillan said once the strength of feeling had been tested drivers could be balloted on strike action.

It could see cabbies staying away from the ranks or refusing to carry out school runs.

The last draw for plates was held in public in the council chamber when 44 were handed out in 2001.

Councillor Osmond, who sits on the council’s licensing committee, said he was satisfied the draw, which lasted around 90 minutes, was fair.

He said it was overseen by a council solicitor, with a licensing office and other council staff present.

“I was there to ensure fair play, which there was throughout. I’m completely satisfied it was all above board,” he said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
I think the good folks of Southampton better aquaint themselves with the reasons why Cardiff deregulated.

CC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 pm
Posts: 745
Location: Guess?
Saltmarket wrote:
[
What are YOU saying?

Are you saying the Councils should be the ones who act as the market place and therefore set the prices of the licences?

OR

Are you saying the status quo should apply with the Councils only issuing the licences and the market dictating the prices of the licences?



I'm against profiteering, whichever body/person is benefiting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Currently Unknown
Fae Fife wrote:
Saltmarket wrote:
[
What are YOU saying?

Are you saying the Councils should be the ones who act as the market place and therefore set the prices of the licences?

OR

Are you saying the status quo should apply with the Councils only issuing the licences and the market dictating the prices of the licences?



I'm against profiteering, whichever body/person is benefiting.


Why?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Fae Fife wrote:

I'm against profiteering, whichever body/person is benefiting.


After all local authorities have such a fine way of spending and raising cash from us;

be this through excessive license fees.

Silly litter prosecutions

failing to shop around for the best deals!

£800,000 council logo!

Town Hall publicity bills £450 million!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:07 am
Posts: 2596
Location: Hampshire (HC)
Saltmarket wrote:
The Council knows if it deregulated the streets would be choked with cabs so it [hopefully] restricts the numbers of licences issued with some correlation between those same numbers and demand for cabs.



Instead of being choked with cabs, Southampton is, in fact, choked with cabs and PHV. My old argument about the demand being served by the supply of cars, regardless of whether they are HC or PHV.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54026
Location: 1066 Country
Saltmarket wrote:
Fae Fife wrote:
I'm against profiteering, whichever body/person is benefiting.


Why?

Possible because when one person profiteers, one person suffers. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 192
Location: Currently Unknown
Sussex wrote:
Saltmarket wrote:
Fae Fife wrote:
I'm against profiteering, whichever body/person is benefiting.


Why?

Possible because when one person profiteers, one person suffers. :sad:


Who suffers out of someone selling a taxi licence on?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Saltmarket wrote:
I don't see anything wrong here at all. Councils are in the business of serving the public, not making a profit. I also worked for one long enough to know that any profit is used to plug perceived funding shortfalls in other services or areas

License fees are 'ring-fenced' & cannot be legally used to prop up other council services.

_________________
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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 136 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 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