Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Apr 26, 2026 6:28 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:55 pm 
A review is due to be carried out of the limit placed by the city council on the number of black cabs in Plymouth. It comes after the Office of Fair Trading recommended an easing of controls on the number of black cab licences issued by councils, which could lead to more taxis on the roads.

There are already 671 private hire vehicles and 359 Hackney carriages in Plymouth.

A taxi firm boss is already set to challenge through the courts the city council limiting the number of Hackney carriages in the city.

Taxifast managing director John Preece had an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit of 359 for Plymouth.

Mr Preece said the Hackney sector needed to expand to meet growing demand, and the existing limit was 'stifling' the modernisation of this part of the taxi industry.

But in a Parliamentary debate last month, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy warned against a taxi 'free for all' if the way that black cabs are licensed is changed.

Mrs Gilroy said that problems with private hire vehicles could be repeated with Hackney carriages if the market was deregulated without proper controls.

Mrs Gilroy told fellow MPs that some new private hire drivers were trained by companies and had their expectations about how much work they would have. In reality, many found they struggled to pay their costs and the fee to their operators because there were not enough fares.

However, Mr Preece, who runs Plymouth's largest private hire company, said his firm was having to turn down 3,000 journeys a week.

He said: "Fares have been forced artificially high because of the considerable cost of maintaining older Hackney vehicles, a penal Hackney plate premium, as much as £20,000 in some cases, brought about by the number capping, and some cab 'landlords' charging extortionate rent for old cabs because of the shortage of Hackneys in comparison to nearly 500 Hackney drivers.

"There would be an outcry if the council imposed only 10 newsagents in the city, or two superstores, or 15 restaurants." A council spokeswoman said: "We have not yet been given official notification of Mr Preece's intention to appeal, but it is correct to say an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence was turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit for Plymouth.

"Plymouth City Council currently places a limit of 359 on the number of Hackney carriage vehicle licences available, set by the licensing committee.

"An Office of Fair Trading report has recently been published encouraging councils who place limits to review this and have given until March next year to do so."


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
What a surprise, a MP that hasn't got a f***ing clue.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:01 am 
Anonymous wrote:
A review is due to be carried out of the limit placed by the city council on the number of black cabs in Plymouth. It comes after the Office of Fair Trading recommended an easing of controls on the number of black cab licences issued by councils, which could lead to more taxis on the roads.

There are already 671 private hire vehicles and 359 Hackney carriages in Plymouth.

A taxi firm boss is already set to challenge through the courts the city council limiting the number of Hackney carriages in the city.

Taxifast managing director John Preece had an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit of 359 for Plymouth.

Mr Preece said the Hackney sector needed to expand to meet growing demand, and the existing limit was 'stifling' the modernisation of this part of the taxi industry.

But in a Parliamentary debate last month, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy warned against a taxi 'free for all' if the way that black cabs are licensed is changed.

Mrs Gilroy said that problems with private hire vehicles could be repeated with Hackney carriages if the market was deregulated without proper controls.

Mrs Gilroy told fellow MPs that some new private hire drivers were trained by companies and had their expectations about how much work they would have. In reality, many found they struggled to pay their costs and the fee to their operators because there were not enough fares.

However, Mr Preece, who runs Plymouth's largest private hire company, said his firm was having to turn down 3,000 journeys a week.

He said: "Fares have been forced artificially high because of the considerable cost of maintaining older Hackney vehicles, a penal Hackney plate premium, as much as £20,000 in some cases, brought about by the number capping, and some cab 'landlords' charging extortionate rent for old cabs because of the shortage of Hackneys in comparison to nearly 500 Hackney drivers.

"There would be an outcry if the council imposed only 10 newsagents in the city, or two superstores, or 15 restaurants." A council spokeswoman said: "We have not yet been given official notification of Mr Preece's intention to appeal, but it is correct to say an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence was turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit for Plymouth.

"Plymouth City Council currently places a limit of 359 on the number of Hackney carriage vehicle licences available, set by the licensing committee.

"An Office of Fair Trading report has recently been published encouraging councils who place limits to review this and have given until March next year to do so."


Interesting happenings in Plymouth. I grabbed this from a plymouth website, it seems the Gentleman who is doing the challenging has a nephew who has just lost his P/H license. I was wondering about the name of this company, I take it Mr Preece has Hackney carriages on his fleet or he wouldn't be calling the company Taxifast.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=10555955

Best wishes

JD


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 9:43 am 
John Davies. wrote:

Interesting happenings in Plymouth. I grabbed this from a plymouth website, it seems the Gentleman who is doing the challenging has a nephew who has just lost his P/H license. I was wondering about the name of this company, I take it Mr Preece has Hackney carriages on his fleet or he wouldn't be calling the company Taxifast.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=10555955

Best wishes

JD


And now he wins it back!!

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=10877563

Best wishes

JD


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:38 pm 
John Davies wrote:
John Davies. wrote:

Interesting happenings in Plymouth. I grabbed this from a plymouth website, it seems the Gentleman who is doing the challenging has a nephew who has just lost his P/H license. I was wondering about the name of this company, I take it Mr Preece has Hackney carriages on his fleet or he wouldn't be calling the company Taxifast.

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=10555955

Best wishes

JD


And now he wins it back!!

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/display ... K=10877563

Best wishes

JD

precisely the council had no right to say he was not fit and proper, as the courts said he will only be unfit for 56 days ending at the end of next month.

without doubt the courts have acted ulra vires

barmy


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:18 pm 
Anonymous wrote:


precisely the council had no right to say he was not fit and proper, as the courts said he will only be unfit for 56 days ending at the end of next month.

without doubt the courts have acted ulra vires

barmy



The court must have concluded that he would be fit and proper after 56 days. The council allowed him to drive his vehicle until the appeal was heard so I assume the courts 56 day ban is a further punishment lol.

I wonder who got it right and who got it wrong in this instance?

Best wishes

JD


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:45 am
Posts: 913
Location: Plymouth, i think, i'll just check the A to Z!
John Davies wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


precisely the council had no right to say he was not fit and proper, as the courts said he will only be unfit for 56 days ending at the end of next month.

without doubt the courts have acted ulra vires

barmy



The court must have concluded that he would be fit and proper after 56 days. The council allowed him to drive his vehicle until the appeal was heard so I assume the courts 56 day ban is a further punishment lol.

I wonder who got it right and who got it wrong in this instance?

Best wishes

JD


Beat me to it john!!

he was sacked from Taxifast as soon as the assult charge was made. looks like the courts have decided he's done his time and he's OK to drive.

belive me there are many who have done MUCH worse driving for other PH companies in Plymouth.

and john, we do have some HC WAV's on the fleet. but not as many as we would like. Mr Preece is trying to challenge the councils restricted numbers policy to get more on the fleet. Mr' preece is not the sort of person who is willing to pay £20K for a plate that someone else got for free. but thats another story that get repeated many times all around the UK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 4:47 pm 
John Davies wrote:
Anonymous wrote:


precisely the council had no right to say he was not fit and proper, as the courts said he will only be unfit for 56 days ending at the end of next month.

without doubt the courts have acted ulra vires

barmy



The court must have concluded that he would be fit and proper after 56 days. The council allowed him to drive his vehicle until the appeal was heard so I assume the courts 56 day ban is a further punishment lol.

I wonder who got it right and who got it wrong in this instance?

Best wishes

JD



Well the council must have got it right, however, how can the courts say he will be fit in 56 days time?

supposing he gives her another crack?

and why 56?
will he be fit in 54, or could he be fit in 60? where has the number been dreamed up from?

Steve says some have done much more misses the point

the act says councils must take every case on its merits

The courts will be in deep trouble if he steps outerline.

Geoff


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Maybe he has been banned from driving full-stop for those 56 days, not just driving a PH. :sad:

But what a f***ing mess. :sad:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:53 pm 
Anyone who has been convicted of any offence and found guilty in a court of law can appeal against the councils decison to revoke their badge, in the meantime they can still drive a HC or PH until their appeal is heard.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 11:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:45 am
Posts: 913
Location: Plymouth, i think, i'll just check the A to Z!
Anonymous wrote:
A review is due to be carried out of the limit placed by the city council on the number of black cabs in Plymouth. It comes after the Office of Fair Trading recommended an easing of controls on the number of black cab licences issued by councils, which could lead to more taxis on the roads.

There are already 671 private hire vehicles and 359 Hackney carriages in Plymouth.

A taxi firm boss is already set to challenge through the courts the city council limiting the number of Hackney carriages in the city.

Taxifast managing director John Preece had an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit of 359 for Plymouth.

Mr Preece said the Hackney sector needed to expand to meet growing demand, and the existing limit was 'stifling' the modernisation of this part of the taxi industry.

But in a Parliamentary debate last month, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy warned against a taxi 'free for all' if the way that black cabs are licensed is changed.

Mrs Gilroy said that problems with private hire vehicles could be repeated with Hackney carriages if the market was deregulated without proper controls.

Mrs Gilroy told fellow MPs that some new private hire drivers were trained by companies and had their expectations about how much work they would have. In reality, many found they struggled to pay their costs and the fee to their operators because there were not enough fares.

However, Mr Preece, who runs Plymouth's largest private hire company, said his firm was having to turn down 3,000 journeys a week.

He said: "Fares have been forced artificially high because of the considerable cost of maintaining older Hackney vehicles, a penal Hackney plate premium, as much as £20,000 in some cases, brought about by the number capping, and some cab 'landlords' charging extortionate rent for old cabs because of the shortage of Hackneys in comparison to nearly 500 Hackney drivers.

"There would be an outcry if the council imposed only 10 newsagents in the city, or two superstores, or 15 restaurants." A council spokeswoman said: "We have not yet been given official notification of Mr Preece's intention to appeal, but it is correct to say an application for a new Hackney carriage vehicle licence was turned down because it took the number of licences over the agreed limit for Plymouth.

"Plymouth City Council currently places a limit of 359 on the number of Hackney carriage vehicle licences available, set by the licensing committee.

"An Office of Fair Trading report has recently been published encouraging councils who place limits to review this and have given until March next year to do so."


This was in court last week for the first hearing. the council have until 10th November to submit evidence for its refusal to issue more plates.
our old mate Les "nothing to do with Silverline" Palmer was also in the court listening in.

i'll post more details once thing become public knowledge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
steveo wrote:
This was in court last week for the first hearing. the council have until 10th November to submit evidence for its refusal to issue more plates.
our old mate Les "nothing to do with Silverline" Palmer was also in the court listening in.

If the council doesn't have the evidence now, then they wont have it by November 10th.

However what they should have had was the evidence before them when they refused the licenses in the first place.

Methinks they could be f***ed. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
steveo wrote:
i'll post more details once thing become public knowledge.

I have a PM address. :wink:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 10:45 am
Posts: 913
Location: Plymouth, i think, i'll just check the A to Z!
Sussex wrote:

However what they should have had was the evidence before them when they refused the licenses in the first place.

Methinks they could be f***ed. :shock:


going by their track record with court cases, thats a forgone conclusion!

maybe they could save themselves another court bill and just de-limit.

of course they could always shock us and hold a survey between now and the 10th Nov, but, with 30K+ students recently returned to the city, the cold wet weather and darker nights, the lead up to Xmas and the traffic chaos that is being caused by the city centre being dug up and rebuilt, all means its very busy on the streets at the moment, and the results of a survey held now would be more likely be in the favour of Mr. Preece.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
steveo wrote:
maybe they could save themselves another court bill and just de-limit.

Well that does have it's plus points. =D>

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 238 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 800 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