Taxi Driver Online

I wish my local bank would take heed too, because every dinner time when they send their staff for lunch, there is an unmet demand of bank tellers.

Every morning and every evening there is an unmet demand for road space too, but as soon as people get where their going the demand disappears.

The queues to get into our nightclubs show an unmet demand, otherwise why would we queue?.

Every morning and eveing there are commuters standing on buses, there is an unmet demand for seats.

Think about it, why pick on taxis?

There is no way, absolutely no way, we are ever going to have enough taxis or PH or both to satisfy the unmet demand at certain periods, everybody knows this.

I dont know what the solution is, I know from delimitation in my area that the answer isnt delimitation, if anything it makes the situation worse, the end result does not effect the total number of licensed vehicles, it just moves the balance from PH to HC.

Indeed the service is actually worse, because of the shift from PH to HC, former PH drivers (new HC) conveniently ignore radios when there's streetwork.

My experience has been from delimitiation that the new HC owner drivers tend to work when they know they'll make money, if we face facts its Thurs to Sat, try getting a cab Sun to Wed though.

Believe me people theres got to be another solution.

regards

Captain Cab

Believe me people theres got to be another solution.

I'm not a solicitor nor a barister, but surely the legal system in this country relies on facts in order to make judgements.

Surely a judge would ask for evidence that there was unmet demand for HC before he ruled in favour of delimitation.

I wish my local bank would take heed too, because every dinner time when they send their staff for lunch, there is an unmet demand of bank tellers.

Every morning and every evening there is an unmet demand for road space too, but as soon as people get where their going the demand disappears.

The queues to get into our nightclubs show an unmet demand, otherwise why would we queue?.

Every morning and eveing there are commuters standing on buses, there is an unmet demand for seats.

Think about it, why pick on taxis?

There is no way, absolutely no way, we are ever going to have enough taxis or PH or both to satisfy the unmet demand at certain periods, everybody knows this.

I dont know what the solution is, I know from delimitation in my area that the answer isnt delimitation, if anything it makes the situation worse, the end result does not effect the total number of licensed vehicles, it just moves the balance from PH to HC.

Indeed the service is actually worse, because of the shift from PH to HC, former PH drivers (new HC) conveniently ignore radios when there's streetwork.

The law for taxi demand is quite straight forward ish.

A council doesn't need facts to de-limit, just a considered decision.

I am confused by your point though, as surely the only way for drivers there to make a living is by restricting numbers.

But the debate wasn't about those councils who chose to derestrict, but about the capability of a council who chose to maintain a restriction to defend their actions in court.

If we were to believe the word of some, walking into a court and declaring "the government said I should have a plate" would deliver you one without question. I simply pointed out that the exact area of demand would need to be identified and then proof would need to be submitted before any judge in this land would overturn a local authorities decision to maintain restrictions when the government quite clearly stated that they were the best people to decide local policies.

The original point that was put forward was the information that Leeds Council is considering dropping quotas for Cabs. I commented on the fact that all councils are having a hard time getting around the Government proposals for why they shouldn’t limit numbers. I went on to imply that logic defies the assumption that less cabs means a better service to the public. I also added the comment that “any council who can say the public are better served by restricting numbers better be prepared to produce the evidence in a court of law”.

One would assume the only reason Leeds are contemplating lifting restrictions is because of the Government advice.

You widened the debate by introducing the points about “Private hire vehicles not meeting demand” and the fact you didn’t want 3000 private hire drivers having the right to get a Taxi license. You also mentioned that councils should do an unmet demand survey in order to maintain their current restrictive policy. A further point you raised was that de restriction of numbers would bring about unsafe taxis, with a knackered driver. So in essence the debate was widened by your good self.



I don’t know of anyone who has implied that winning a court case of this nature is a formality. What has been mentioned and is widely accepted by some is that the bar for maintaining quotas has been raised substantially. Hence the recent spate of announcements by some councils who are finding it difficult to justify the retention of quotas under of the wording of the Governments advice.

You are wrong in law to suggest that an applicant has to identify an exact area of demand.

Under established case law the burden of proof lies firmly with the restricting Authority. They have to produce evidence that there is no overall demand in their area as a whole that remains unmet. That burden of proof is an established precedent but what we have now is the added burden the Governments advice has placed on council’s shoulders.

One would assume in a court of law that the Governments advice would become a major factor. If we assume that this advice will be considered by the courts then I think you have to admit that it has added an additional element that was not previously available to the courts.

No one knows what weight a court will attaché to the Government advice, I have stated this many times before but I think most would agree that the Government advice is somewhat compelling. I think that is why Councils are acting in the way they are.

A court challenge may well be costly if one loses the case but to some such as Mr. Preece it will no doubt be worth the financial risk.

These are not forums for debating issues, these are forums for forcing opinion, many may be convinced by your clever words but I'm not one of them.