Taxi Driver Online

No way Jose.

Keep it there as a buffer.

If they've got the money, they can't argue that they are short of funds for a survey, enforcement, more staff etc.

It is when councils run on a shoestring in the licensing department that you get problems about trying to get things done & the answer comes back, 'We haven't got the money,' or worse still, 'We're in deficit'.

No sir, leave it as it is for me.

Look I hate benefit fraud as much as every other tax paying mug on here, but I don't believe the council has the right to suspend drivers for benefit fraud.

They are either 'fit and proper' to have a license, or not. If they are not then they have their license revoked.

Is the surplus already there?

Yes it is, & it has been there for years.

We have been in substantial surplus & never been in deficit since we called in the District Auditor some 7-10 years ago.

We like it that way.

But if the cull works, there could be a sizeable downturn in income in the Licensing Department, & the buffer will come in very handy, & will allow the council's treasurer's department to re-assess the required funding for future licence fees, instead of panic measures & huge rises in fees to try & prop up a shortfall in licensing funds.

As I said, we like it this way.

Surely the point is...that if they done their job properly there wouldnt be a substantial surplus. You were saying PH plying was rampant and your LA has more money than sense......wheres the enforcement....they have the cash to pay for it...sorry your cash to pay for it.

In my opinion your LA is as bad as your reps for allowing it.

I know thats a tough stance....but thats the way I see it.

You're right, no argument there.

What we want them to do is employ dedicated, night-working enforcement officers.

The problem in Birmingham is probably un-enforceable, purely because of its huge size, both in area of the city & volume of illegal standing & plying.

They told Elliot Ness that about Chicago

That's a good quote to use.

Thanks for that.

Remember, they cleaned up Chicago by making the illegal activity legal

Saloon vehicles versus purpose built commercial vehicles. A lot of councils go down that route.



I don't know where that one is in the report, but I think I know the gist of this.

One of our long standing representatives argued for years that you could transfer a Hackney plate, without a vehicle attached to it. As it happens he was wrong for all those years, because you actually transfer the Hackney Carriage with the plate attached to it. There was a case in Brum in the last few years where a multi-multi-owner had bought in Hackneys with plates, scraped the vehicles & kept the plates in a drawer, ready to put vehicles onto these plates, when he saw fit to do so, before the plate expired, & then had the plate transferred into his name

I think it is that practice the report is referring to.



The £50 CCTV systems used to be in a Corn Flakes packet, but are now in the Weetabix box. Stupid survey company!



Is called 'Managed Growth' in Manchester, but in Birmingham we have a posher name for it, hence 'Controlled De-regulation'.

The Hackney trade has realised that plates should be issued if there is a significant unmet demand for the services of Hackney Carriages, but at the moment there is a quite massive oversupply. I particularly like the annual survey idea.