toots wrote:
Why is it that only thing that concerns others about limited areas is whether or not there are 'barons'. The same people who rent out vehicles in a limited area will be the ones who rent out vehicles in a delimited area.
Sadly, though many choose to disagree, toots has a point, as per the example she gives of barons in her own delimited LA. People who, in recent times, could not afford, or were unable get a loan to "purchase" a licence (plus say, a 5-10 year old vehicle, as was often the case) in a limited area, are usually unable to afford a new WAV and end up simply paying rent for radio & vehicle to the only people who can afford a new "fleet" under delimitation....your friend Mr T. Baron again.
Interestingly, as regards "licence premium costs", the majority of these values in restricted councils have been fairly static in recent years (assuming the lists included
on this very website to be correct) and even if we were to add the cost of a 5 year old vehicle onto it, were still considerably lower than having to purchase a new purpose built WAV to obtain a licence after delimitation (should this be made a requirement). Also, providing the LA's enforcement team ensure a high standard of vehicle maintenance, there should be no problem with running a "non new vehicle".
However, let's not get bogged down with these old arguments again. As Doom alluded to in another forum recently, people on either side of the delimitation argument, are pretty much unwilling to change their stance, so why waste our breath....or typing fingers. However, to move on....
gusmac wrote:
If you are an owner driver, you are the one who has to compete with these guys to make a quid.
You want one driver, one plate. What you want is not something any council can give. It needs a change in the law, a change which is no where near ever happening. Restrict the number of cabs without changing the law and you play right into the barons' hands.
So....if a change in the law were possible (and we could possibly go back in time!), a limit/restriction would be OK, providing it was one driver, one plate??!! 
Trouble is....the horse has bolted. Going back in time is not an option....but neither should allowing a free for all that would destroy the trade.
Strangely enough gusmac, there are hackney owner/drivers...within restricted areas...that would also love there to be "one driver, one plate", being that as more cabs have become double shifted through the years, earning a living has become harder. Whilst some hacks, arguably unfairly, may also want a slice of the PH market, many only work the ranks and some might, surprisingly, even like hacks not to be on a radio circuit at all, so that unmet demand surveys would not be distorted in any way and an accurate number of cabs needed would be maintained, lessening the threat of delimitation. And yes...this would in turn, protect their "investment"...but let's not forget, most licence holders will have borrowed or put their savings into "buying" a licence...not many, in overall terms, got a freebie.
They don't expect this investment to rise, but equally they don't expect the value to be wiped out, just to pacify people who pretend they are fighting for the "little guy", but simply want something for nothing themselves.
People seem to be using "delimitation arguments" as a cure for taxi barons...or poor souls unable to afford a licence...or foreigners entering the trade...etc etc etc, when far from being a panacaea for the taxi trade's ills, there is evidence all over the country that, at best, it simply allows one set of problems to mutate into a different set of at least equal proportions.
There is no doubt that both PH and hacks have some legitimate reasons to complain. It is also the case that the job has more than its share of a$$holes. BUT...the job's f****d unless a better solution than delimitting, at least in the formats we've seen, is found. I'd like to believe that the trade is sensible enough to see the dangers of not working together to find answers, or even compromises...but sadly, it seems nigh on impossible.
Fae Fife wrote:
So some people run a fleet of vehicles and rent them out, big deal, that's the way of the rest of the world - just because someone runs a bigger business than you hardly makes it a crime.
There's a difference between that and the blatant profiteering of restricted numbers.
What's the rental/resale value of a PH plate? Jack.
So...addressing your first point, what's the difference between an owner driver, who possibly rents to one other person occasionally and a baron then? Just a bigger business? Furthermore, if it's OK for someone to rent from a PH baron, then it should it not be OK for a hack baron too?
Also, please can you show actual evidence/statistics of the prevalence of this "blatant profiteering" you mention. Whilst I have no doubt that there are indeed some scum of the earth taxi barons, I have grave concerns that
most of the suffering after delimitation would actually be caused to owner/drivers and families. How would...or even should...these people be protected?
Finally, the resale value. I would agree that laws should have been in place from day one to restrict sales between individuals, number of licences owned by an individual etc...but they weren't. Demolishing the trade completely, is not the answer.
Let's face facts. "Freebie" plates are not commonplace (possibly excluding southampton
). What is more likely, is that person A (a sole trader), might buy a licence from person B for say, £20k and in todays uncertain world, decides to sell up 5 years later (these days, they'd probably be lucky to see any gain at all). So anyway, let's say they sell to person C for £20k, so no profit, but probably having paid interest on a loan during that time, so they may actually have lost. In any event £20k-£20k = 0, which is the same nett total profit as your PH plate.
When people stop using excuses and start showing glowing examples and success stories of deregulation, with evidence and significant improvement, then fair enough....but there is far more evidence to the contrary.
As I've stated before, the number of hackney licences should be determined by the need of the customer (rank and hail), not the needs of existing, or "wannabe" drivers. This should then be combined, at a secondary level, but nonetheless very important one, that sufficient rank space for the licences issued should be provided.
But, as I ponder hitting the delete button, I ask what's the point of falling into the trap of debating this over and over again
. The people, on all sides of the debate it must be said, are like listening to the dogs in Battersea dogs home. They all just bark louder and louder at each other to get their message over, thinking they are proving a point, when in reality, it's point
less.
Not a bad post... but it would have been nice if you had remembered the reason people are licensed... to provide a service to the public..... and it would also be more balanced if you had considered the traffic problems that come with over ranking....Ps.. there are many drivers who are quite happy at renting a vehicle and have no intention of purchasing one . for a system to work well.. you need a balance of owner drivers, shift drivers.
Login
Register
FAQ
