Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

I can't remeber the exact case, but someone down south will tell us.

The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's.

I'm disappointed,

All of this talk about town and district councils will surely go out of the window if these regional assembly's are intoduced.

The OFT report was a complete waste of resource, but some of us knew that anyway.

The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's.

I'm disappointed,

B. Lucky :twisted:

Although i have driven a taxi for only about 6 years, I have never known anone apart from my fellow taxi drivers who think quotas are a good thing.
So its not really surprising that the oft slammed them as it says on the headlines.

Where I work, not only to customers have no idea that a restrictive numbers policy is in operation, they couldn't care less.

As long as they get home, be it legally or illegally, it matters not how they get there.

Does that say something about our trade, our customers, our system of licensing, or all three?

Alex

Author:	Taxi Driver Online [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:	OFT slams quotas
Read the story here: http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/oftreport.htm Discuss the issues below!

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:
I agree with the frontpage, the OFT where quite forthright on the stupidty of quotas, I just wish the report was on the other issue concerning the HC/PH trade. It didn't touch on most things, and said that the DOT should issue guidelines. Well what the flip did we need to spend the last year on a study, if they ain't going to give the DOT a rough idea on what those guideline should be? If they have, and I suspect a lot of behind the scenes action has occurred, then put it in the report. One day someone in authority will work out that if you give councils carte blanch, it means you have 400 different sets of conditions. This is what costs those in and out of the trade fortunes. Now we all have to wait 120 days for something that should be out now, for goodness sake the authorities have had nearly 150 years to get it right. As I have said, in my manor vehicle and drivers conditions are spot on, the only thing that stinks is the quotas, and if they go, then I might lift a drink over the OFT report. But I wont for anything else.

Author:	Guest [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:
Among the handful of recommendations is the one about setting fares, and not fixing them. Surely there can't be many LAs that don't set fares. I thought Andy7's was about the only one! And fixing fares is illegal isn't it? - I cant remember the case, but there is one. Dusty

Author:	Alex [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:39 pm ]
Post subject:
I think only a handfull of LAs don't fix fares, probably no-more than 3 or 4. As for setting fixed fares within a district, and not allowing discounts, that has been seen as not on. I can't remeber the exact case, but someone down south will tell us. However if I remember right, the court said that having set rigid fares, that would lead to a prosecution if a driver took less, was crazy. The court said that if you had a £10 (not the sum involved) fare, and the customer only had £9.99, if the driver took that, he would be liable to prosecution. I think. Alex

Author:	Tom Thumb [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:
No. Me as well. Always been the same in our district. A roadworthy car with four doors, a roof and just about enough back seat for three modest backsides can get a licence. A ford Fiesta and several Escorts have been licenced in the past. Anyone without serious convictions and a non-suspect medical history can go to work. You can charge what you like as long as you have a sign on the dashboard indicating how you quantify your charges. Practically same rules govern HC's and PH. The only reason you go PH is if you are running an Exec car and want to apply for exemption from signs.

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

OFT slams quotas http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=134	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Guest [ Wed Nov 12, 2003 11:22 pm ]
Post subject:
Alex wrote: I can't remeber the exact case, but someone down south will tell us. i'm not from down south but the case was Liverpool v Curson 1983. Alex you are right but the the person Mr Cuson wanted to charge the day rate at night. Liverpool council said no and suspended him. the judhe said that providing he didnt charge over the council rate he could do what he liked.

Author:	Mick [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:16 am ]
Post subject:
All of this talk about town and district councils will surely go out of the window if these regional assembly's are intoduced. The OFT report was a complete waste of resource, but some of us knew that anyway. The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's. I'm disappointed, B. Lucky

Author:	Dusty Bin [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:25 am ]
Post subject:
Mick wrote: The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's. I'm disappointed, Aren't we all Mick, to some extent at least AFAIK the only change that will require a law change will be de-limitation, which can be done via an order made under the Regulatory Reform Act (clause 1.147c and all that), which would take a lot less time. All the rest are just recommendations to LAs - ie the best practice guidelines from the DfT, which have been in the pipeline for a couple of years or so. As I said in another thread, a cynic might suggest that the OFT recommended only enough that could be done without needing a new Act of Parliament. Indeed, since the best practice guidance was in the pipeline, and the de-limitation proposal had been published, then nothing's changed. Dusty

Author:	Yorkie [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 6:23 am ]
Post subject:
Mick wrote: All of this talk about town and district councils will surely go out of the window if these regional assembly's are intoduced. The OFT report was a complete waste of resource, but some of us knew that anyway. The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's. I'm disappointed, B. Lucky I think Mick we can all echo those sentiments, but on what are you disapointed in? the abolition of numbers or that it will take 3 years for legaslative change. our authority are starting with avengence and given our licensing committees comments last night Halifaxs opening is well on the cards my worry is the rush and the uninformed comment is frightening and I think 3 years all will be gone. trouble is when the gene leaves the bottle its difficult to get back in, driving tests from april subject to councils say so, and they have not a clue about the problems elsewhere. I will give it 10 years before private hire and taxis are wiped out in our town.the little companies will fold first. Wharfie

Author:	Cgull [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:17 am ]
Post subject:
Although i have driven a taxi for only about 6 years, I have never known anone apart from my fellow taxi drivers who think quotas are a good thing. So its not really surprising that the oft slammed them as it says on the headlines.

Author:	Yorkie [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:34 am ]
Post subject:
Cgull wrote: Although i have driven a taxi for only about 6 years, I have never known anone apart from my fellow taxi drivers who think quotas are a good thing. So its not really surprising that the oft slammed them as it says on the headlines. thats my experience too, however the oft will trigger massive change and is doing on subsidary issues, and its being implemented on the run. the report is 2 days old. we need to attempt to get it right first time. Wharfie

Author:	Alex [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Where I work, not only to customers have no idea that a restrictive numbers policy is in operation, they couldn't care less. As long as they get home, be it legally or illegally, it matters not how they get there. Does that say something about our trade, our customers, our system of licensing, or all three? Alex

Author:	Yorkie [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Alex wrote: Where I work, not only to customers have no idea that a restrictive numbers policy is in operation, they couldn't care less. As long as they get home, be it legally or illegally, it matters not how they get there. Does that say something about our trade, our customers, our system of licensing, or all three? Alex Alex how do you work? have you a list of regulars? Wharfie

Author:	Mike Smith [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 3:41 pm ]
Post subject:	OFT Report on de-regulation
The idea of forcing taxis to reduce prices for the customer by bringing more cabs on the road would be fine if the government would treat taxis as transport and let us run on red diesel ay 20p a litre instead of 80p! The other problem they don't mention is that drivers already will not work the unsociable hours and do not like picking up drunken customers for obvious reasons. I run 70 vehicles with PAYE, Contract and Hire drivers and have trouble covering our work!

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Guest [ Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Consequences of "jumping" too soon
Quote from Mick The tthing to remeber is that LAW changes (required to impliment the majority of recommended changes) will probably take at least 3 parlimentary years. That is of course if there isn't a leadership challenge or other International incident which will obviously take priority for all MP's. I'm disappointed, Quote from Dusty Aren't we all Mick, to some extent at least :\| AFAIK the only change that will require a law change will be de-limitation, which can be done via an order made under the Regulatory Reform Act (clause 1.147c and all that), which would take a lot less time. All the rest are just recommendations to LAs - ie the best practice guidelines from the DfT, which have been in the pipeline for a couple of years or so. As I said in another thread, a cynic might suggest that the OFT recommended only enough that could be done without needing a new Act of Parliament. Indeed, since the best practice guidance was in the pipeline, and the de-limitation proposal had been published, then nothing's changed. Dusty Quote from Guest I agree with your comment about the "possible" speed of a change. Any Council that thinks about "jumping" the gun before the Govt unveils a legislative change could well face compensation claims from existing licence holders. If Councils wait until the Govt does force their hand then any compensation actions in the courts would be against the Government not the Councils. Many OFT reports are entirely rejected but somehow, being cynical, I don't think that's quite as likely this time!