Taxi Driver Online

From a man who promoted fairness as his goal, the acceptance of derestriction without investigation is against everything he has called for.

To be fair you must consider both sides, how can this be done without investigation.

Sussex only wants fairness when he believes he is not given proper consideration, however when the things he wants don't offer others consideration he couldn't give a monkeys toss.

Sussex couldn't give a [edited by admin] about people waiting for taxis, he just wants a HC plate and absolutely nothing else is worthy of his consideration.

Normally people would not complain to the council if they could not book a PH car. they would simpley try to book with a different PH office. or they would walk up the road to flag a HC before it got to the busy part of town and there by leaving thousands stood like muppets on the ranks waiting for taxis that are never going to turn up as they are all taking flaggers up the road, thats the way it works in Plymouth. As mr Preece said we turn down 3,000 or so bookings each week. bookings that other PH offices end up getting not 3,000 phone calls to the council on a monday morning.

Steveo, lets face facts, the number of people unable to get a taxi upon demand is only high on 2 nights a week. There is no way the 3000 people you turned down phoned your company first, and I dare say that most other PH operators accross the country would make similar claims.
This is just more reason NOT to derestrict the HC to illiviate unmet demand, but to offer assistance to PH operators in recruiting new drivers in order to fulfill that demand. I would also suggest that if more PH drivers were available cuastomers would have more confidence in making a return booking and so reducing demand on HC.

The only advantage I can see for deregulation is the provision of plates for those who want them, I just wish people would come out and say it instead of cowering behind this "public service" lie they keep spouting as they couldn't give a flying [edited by admin] about the public or the service they offer, as long as they get what they want.

Ph operators, or the larger one's, want to try and force drivers to pay them weekly fee's. Financially crippling them by flooding the ranks with more and more cars only provokes resentment, independant HC drivers I know would rather leave the trade than work for some of these parasites, and thats jockeys as well as plateholders.

You lot seem to have this ideal about becoming a HC, the strangest quote I ever read on this subject came from this site when someone suggested that a member of the public would be able to walk out of their front door and hail a cab, where the [edited by admin] do you lot live cause around here I'd wait forever before a HC would pass here, unless one of you braindead t***s lives near me and decides to driver around [edited by admin] housing estates looking for work.

Face facts, taxi unmet demand includes PH and something should be done to lift the reputation of the section of the trade I work in. Forget about the HC boys and lets put our house in order before we critisise anyone else.

indeed those who want one should be able to get one. perhaps they should bring in a rule where if you leave the trade you must hand the plate back to the council. outlaw selling or renting of plates. most of the frustration by those who want plates is caused by those who sell plate to those who are willing to pay silly money to queue jump.

if you made the plate worthless then those who have applied for a plate and are waiting on the council list would have a better chance of actully getting a plate issued to them.

i mean lets face the facts, 90% of the time its not the public that bring the delimit issue up in the local council chambers or newspapers it's the people who want HC plates who complain about a never moving waiting lists IE the driver/owners or the operators.

John could I refer you to circular 4/87 section 6 R v Reading council ex parte Egan and same v same exparte Sulliman co 318/86 and co 612/86

this circular amends advice in circular 3/85 paragraph 28

the question before the court to quote from the judgement
"Whether a council which is unsure of the presence or absence of unmet demand, but which fears that immediate and total delimitation may cause over provision , is entitled to issue a limited number of further licenses as a temporary measure, and as a means of obtaining the evidence by which the presence or absence of unmet demand can be finaly be established"

In answering the question Mr Justice Nolan said " that such a Council was "obliged to grant applications for licenses from suitably qualified viehicles without limit of number"
and that Paragraph 28 of the Circular appears to me to incorporate an eronious view of the law"

John could I invite you to check this and revise your opinion?

Geoff

Most PH work has come from customers not being able to gain the services of taxis. This is why the PH trade has thrived in the last 20 years, and the taxi trade stagnated.

If the taxi trade, in restricted areas, were as adaptable and as responsive as the PH trade, then the PH trade would be nothing more than a few exec vehicles.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm assuming you mean phone bookings to be the PH sector. Now we all know that PH are not the only sourse for phone work, so your point is irrelevant.

PH can cope with any demand, in the same way as taxis do in un-restricted areas. They adapt or they lose buisness.

In restricted areas there is no proper taxi flexibilty, which is why they have lost so much work to the PH trade. They are really their own worst enemies.

The plate premium has a lot to answer for.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well they could consider PH demand, but as there is nothing they could do about it, it would be a pointless exercise.

_________________
IDFIMH

I have to give credit where credit is due. You are right to mention Lord Nolan because Lord Nolan was the architect of first instance of the concept of unmet demand and how it should be applied by local authorities.

I'll give you the case and date that Lord Nolan made his ground breaking judgment about unmet demand. You are correct in stating that it was Denis Francis Egan, ex parte Anthony Frederick Sullman.

Mr. Egan was representing the Reading district Taxi owners and drivers association. Mr. Sullman was the proprietor of a firm of private hire operators. They sought on different grounds to squash a decision made by the Transportation committee of Reading borough council.

Mr. Sullman argued that because the council was not sure of the level of demand for taxis that they should issue licenses until such time they were sure.

Mr. Egan on the otherhand disagreed with the council who suggested that a small number of 30 licenses should be issued until such time a demand for licenses could be measured.

Nolan said that a council that wasn't sure of the level of unmet demand should issue unlimited licenses until it had satisfied itself of the level of demand.

That was back on the 11th June 1987. Since then things have moved on a little, you may be surprised to here that the catalyst of the current legislation is a bye- product of your own nearby area, namely Wakefield West Yorkshire.

First it needs to be pointed out that there are several cases that many people in our trade may not be familiar with. I'll take you back to Regina v Midlesborough council ex parte I J Cameron holdings ltd. The case was heard before our good friend justice Popplewell in the Queens Bench division Nov 13th 1991.

Mr. Cameron challenged the Councils legal right to defer an application for a Hackney carriage license, until it had measured demand by having a survey. The application was dismissed.

Mr. Justice Popplewell said that under section 16 a council had to ascertain whether there was a demand for more Hackney carriages. If it failed to carry out a proper enquiry it would be liable to find itself the subject of a judicial review for failing to be properly satisfied that there was no unmet demand.

Now here comes the vital part of the Judgment.

Read this very carefully.

Popplewell said.

If it was not for the decision of justice Nolan in R v Reading Borough council ex parte Egan. His Lordship would have had no doubt that a deferment for a short period to carry out a proper enquiry into need could not be called a refusal. As it was he found himself in the invidious position of having to disagree with Lord Nolan.

A refusal meant saying "no" not saying we are going to consider your case in a short period of time after we have made the requisite enquiries.

Now I draw your attention to the Wakefield case of Wakefield district council v Ghafoor on 18 July 1990.

The case was about Wakefield District Council's refusal to grant Hackney carriage licenses.

The Case called upon the court to reconsider Lord Justice Nolan’s view of the Dept of Transport circular 3/85 in R v Reading Borough Council, where it was deemed that section 16 obliged local Authorities who were unable to feel satisfied that there was no significant demand, to issue new licenses without limit of number.

"The court subsequently disagreed with Lord Nolan’s decision. The appeal was dismissed.

The case centered on the decision of Wakefield DC to issue only five licenses and defer issuing any more licenses until demand could be measured.

Webster disagreed with Nolan to the extent that a council who was not sure of demand could issue a small number of licenses until it was sure of demand. This ruling was upheld by three appeal court judges Namely Lord Justices Brown and Dillon and Lady Justice Butler-Sloss, in the Cameron case.

So the circular 4/87 which was issued on the 16th November 1987 is somewhat out of date.

You are free to research the cases I have mentioned but you will find the facts correct

Best wishes

JD

The real problem is that derestriction is about supplying to consumer need. The OFT didn't investigate the trade to benefit drivers it investigated the trade and made recomendations to benefit the public.

The problems of meeting the demands of the public will not be solved by derestricting the HC sector, in my opinion it will have a more detrimental effect on the sector providing the better customer service.

If the PH sector cannot cope with the demands placed upon it without any restrictions, what makes you think that by removing restrictions on HC consumer demands will be met.

Consumer demand for HC is ONLY unmet 2 nights a week, the same 2 nights where PH demand is highest, so by derestricting you are just moving the unmet demand from one sector to another.


Thats a very ignorant comment Sussex, my point is irrelevant but your points aren't, consider proportions of phone calls to PH against phone calls to HC and maybe you'll find that well over 75% of phone calls are taken by PH, now remember that I'm not saying that all unmet demand is PH only a proportion of it, so my point is very relevant it just doesn't fit with your argument or previous ideals.

No it would be a fair exercise Sussex, looking into the taxi trade must involve both sectors equally as the public percieve both sectors to be the same, you claim people are trying to "muddy the waters" by pointing out the fair and resonable way to view the trade.
Oh and they could do something about it Sussex, they could maintain a restriction on HC licenses then anyone entering the trade would licence PH.

Remember the OFT report investigated CONSUMER DEMAND not the demands of a small section of the trade.

If I may echo your opening remark, Mr Guest, that's a very ignorant comment.

You're using figures from a distorted market and using them to make your case, but all this does is base your argument on false premise and blinkered view of the market.

In both unrestricted areas where I've worked PH have constituted less than 5% of the total fleet, so guess which sector does most phone work?

Where I work now out of a fleet of almost 100 taxis ALL do pre-booked work, and people never have a problem phoning for one, and the effective single-tier system suits the public as far as I can tell, and also creates a level playing field for the trade.

This point has been made umpteen times before on here, so isn't about time the debate moved on, unless you can provide evidence that minimal PH provision means no cover for pre-booked work.

For those interested in the Plymouth case I can tell you that I spoke to Plymouth Licensing dept this morning and it appears the case is going ahead in the crown court.

The recent questionaire sent out to licensed owners and drivers seems to be a knee jerk reaction by the council to present some type of evidence to the court that something is being done to measure demand. How these questionaires are interpreted and what other evidence the council puts forward is anyones guess.

Best wishes

JD

Whilst councils can defer decisions, in the main they decide there and then.

If they admit that they need to defer to gain evidence, then really they are admitting they have failed in their duty.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well if you are right, then every taxi union that opposes the lifting of quotas, has nothing to worry about.

Welcome to the gang.

_________________
IDFIMH

Absolutely, my council defered for 12 months!