Taxi Driver Online

Not ignorant at all, simply the truth. You keep missing the point.

No matter what demand is being met, or not being met by PH, councils cannot do much about it other than make driver and vehicle conditions weaker. Is that what you want?

Whereas in restricted areas they can make them un-restricted, whilst in many cases making conditions harder.

_________________
IDFIMH

Wasn't that the case were the judge deemed an application to go on the HC waiting list, was also a valid application for a HC?

_________________
IDFIMH

I don't want to part of your gang or anyone else's thank you very much.

You are unwilling to accept the facts I present, in favour of a blinkered view to get what you want, even telling lies in an attempt to disguise your motives for derestriction isn't beneath you. You talk about numbers not relevant to the majority of the country, 100 total licenced vehicles is a small amount compared with over 1000 in the area I work with currently two thirds of the fleet PH.

You say

but in the area you work you claim a total fleet of 100 with a previous PH provision of only 5%. In the area I work PH accounts for 66% of the total fleet currently, prior to deregulation it accounted for 75% of the fleet.
I believe these figures are more relevant to the majority of the country and you only seek to stop the debate because your motivation for derestriction is only within your own self interests. Your riding on the back of the OFT to get what you want, claiming it recomended things when it quite obviously didn't.

You obviously don't wish to debate anything, you obviously don't care about other opinions, you obviously don't care about providing decent public services, you obviously don't want to work within the recomendations of either the OFT or the government, you obviously don't care about the furture or livlihood of anyone other than yourselves, shame on you all.
I hope you all get your plates, I hope your councils all insist on brand new TX11's to get one and I hope you get your houses repossesed when you can't make the payments.

No, I'm not willing to accept that your points have more relevance than my own.



But they can, by restricting the number of HC new drivers entering the trade licence PH therefore increasing the number of PH. I made no comments on driver or vehicle conditions, I want a stronger trade offering the public more so why on earth would I want to see conditions weakened. Struggling to defend your own greed Sussex?



So how will derestriction increase the number of vehicles if as you say conditions are made harder.
Would people suddenly be able to afford £24k for a brand new TX when they couldn't previously afford £20k for a saloon plate, if the council deem new a new TX must be presented to qualify for a new plate?

Derestriction causes signifigantly more problems than it solves, indeed the only benefit I can see is for those wishing to get a free HC plate when the majority of HC plateholders have had to pay for theirs.
Drivers will shift from one code to another, no extra vehicles will be available and the consumer will see no increase in availability.

No, Cameron challenged the validity of the council to defer his application. It was dismissed by Popplewell but it went to the QBD court of appeal for clarification the appeal court also threw out the application.

The case centered around "the deferment" of Middlesborough council to issue Cameron with a number of hackney carriage licenses, until such time they had measured demand.

When the result of the survey was known the Council refused the licenses on the grounds there was no demand that remained unmet.

"Cameron did not appeal the decision to refuse him a licence", instead he challenged the decision of the council not to grant him a license at the time he originally applied. Cameron was of the oppinion that because the council were unsure of demand they should have issued him the licenses.

That is off course the approach that Nolan took.

The appeal justices totally upheld popplewells decision and went further into a detailed judgement.

As it stands in england and wales the current law states a council may defer issuing licenses until it has measured public demand for Taxi services.

It must be remembered that the current case law was in reference to section 16 as it stood before the recent Government guidance. The Goal posts have shifted somewhat and it remains to be seen how the Judiciary interpret the latest Government guidlines.

I believe a good legal team would have no problem whatsoever in crushing any defence a council could mount on the sole reliance of a survey. There are far too many factors that point towards a good and valid case for not restricting numbers. Thats only a personal view.

Mr Preece and all those councils who still restrict numbers will be well advised to read the following statement of Lord Scarman.

In R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Nottinghamshire County Council 1986, Lord Scarman said "I cannot except that it is constitutionally appropriate, save in very exceptional circumstances to "quash guidance framed by the Secretary of State" and by necessary implication approved by the House of Commons."

Mr preece would be well advised to bring this statement to the attention of his legal team.

Best wishes

JD

Woooooooooooooo !!

I've yet to see any facts, only flawed rhetoric. And TDO isn't Sussex.

That aside, please point out my lies, and show me where in the 68% of the UK that doesn't restrict taxis, and the 100% of the UK that doesn't restrict PH, a free and open system doesn't work.

_________________
IDFIMH

So you now want to limit the number of taxi drivers as well as vehicles. I take it your not that up on Euro employment law then.

Are you sure your not a member of the de-limit gang, because you have just put to bed what the scare-mongering unions have been banging on about for years?

Just for the record how many council charge tens of thousands for plates?

So you think that those working in the trade for years, either as a journeyman or a PH owners, should be queue jumped by those with plenty of money?

I take back what I said, you are definately a union man.

_________________
IDFIMH

a vindictive little so and so aint you?

if you buy a plate its buyer beware, and you call Sussex greedy? he is but you are a racketeer

No, I claimed PH provision of around 5% in the past, present and (probably) future, because the area has never been restricted.

Even this 5% can effectively be ignored for present purposes, because they only exist because the owners (proprietors of otherwise taxi-only offices) simply don't want to slum it on the ranks with the taxis, so there's no point in running one as far as they're concerned.

As pointed out in this site's Myth and Reality document, the evidence suggests that in unrestricted areas there will still be a large PH provision since other regulatory factors (such as knowledge tests and purpose built taxi requirements) deter PH drivers from moving to the taxi sector.

But the point is that where these barriers do not exists (such as in my area) then PH provision will be minimal or even non-existent.

Thus even where with de-restriction a significant PH sector exists then it does not follow that if PH largely disappeared then pre-booked work would be neglected, which is your basic premise, because what will happen is that more taxis will be attached to booking offices.

Again, if you look at Myth and Reality you'll see figures from Scotland for Aberdeen, Falkirk and Dundee, where for the former two taxi provision is around 90%. In Dundee it's a slightly smaller proportion, but it seems that at one point (when it was unrestricted) PH provision was precisely zero.

It seems that in those areas around 70-80% of vehicles are attached to offices and do mostly pre-booked work, thus although the vehicles are not called PH, the ratio of PH to the total fleet is in fact HIGHER than the figures you cite from your area.

But it does show that where drivers have the choice, they will give themselves the option of doing street work, even though this might constitute only a small proportion of their total work. Likewise, I've never met any member of the public who does not prefer vehicles to have the dual ability to do both pre-booked and street work - many prefer securing a taxi in the street rather than faffing around phoning for one.

Don't know where you get the self-interest bit from, my area is unresticted, always has been, so I can't work out where you're coming from.

As for 'stopping the debate', the problem is the vested interests in the trade don't want to discuss things! We've spent considerable time (and money) on this site, but the only substantive contrary argument we see is like yours, which is mis-informed and self-serving to say the least.

As for 'riding on the back of the OFT', again Myth and Reality offers 60 pages of arguments against restricted numbers and barely uses any of the stuff used by the OFT - I think the arguments we use are a lot better!!

Oh dear, if you want to see lack of debate, have a look at the T&G's Cab Trade News, or anthing else that represents the vested interests in the trade.

Both the OFT and Governement recommended de-restriction of numbers, so what are you on about?

Yes, you are clearly very concerned about the welfare of other people, as long as you are afforded preferential treatement and others do as you tell them, then that's your idea of caring!!

Oh dear, the true colours are showing through.

Not only attempting to misrepresent things, ill-informed and self-serving, but also petty and vindictive as well.

All taxi plates have been issued for free. Anyone who has bought one has done so in a private transaction and have taken a risk, and if they were not aware of it then they should have been.

But there are plenty in the trade willing to mislead in this regard, whether deliberately or through ignorance. The T&G's "OFT KO'd" headline is a classic of this genre - they should hang their heads in shame. The only question is whether this was a case of or

So more taxis means no increase in taxi availability? I don't think so - the point taxis are more flexible and can service both markets, which experience suggests is preferred by almost 100% of the trade, and clearly much of the public supports this as well.

How can you say you have virtually zero PH when the HC guys are doing pre-booked work. like the idea or not as soon as you put in a radio or data pad your doing PH work.

Going back to Plymouth, many of the HC lads down here do pre-booked PH work as well. namely Plymouth taxis ltd (606060) and central Taxis (363636). both of these between them have at least 1/3 of the plymouth HC driving around with PH booking numbers on the side of their cabs.

Surely when it is busy these cabs are getting booked as well thus effectively remove up to 1/3 of HC cabs from the streets at peak times. no wonder punters moan they cant get a cab off the ranks.



im sure that if Plymouth council do increase numbers then they WILL insist on all brand new 100% WAV, i hope they do, as there are a lot of old knackers on the streets at the moment. Surely it is better to have a £30K cab and a free plate rather that a £30K plate and a smokey old wreck of a cab?

That was the point steveo - the claim was that fewer PH vehicles meant less provision for pre-booked work, but in reality more taxis means more taxis doing pre-booked work.

When I mention PH I always mean the vehicles to avoid confusion, for the mode of hiring I usually refer to either pre-booked work or street work, or suchlike.