Taxi Driver Online

Whats better...Plenty Available Taxis that 99.9% of the population can use with ease or 50% fewer available Taxis that 100% of the population can use...that is if they can find one in the first place.

The rich operator will get richer and the poor operator the Dole.

I have spoke to many people today. My firend Littlejack3 (of these boards) has spoken to Kieth Jefferies (taxi solicitor). Kieth agree's with us that if this amendment goes through it removes the right to refuse to license a wheelchair accessable hackneys and in effect the whole country will be deregulated. The GMB here in Manchester are to approach Baron Morris (Alf Morris ex Manchester MP) for urgent help. Because of the swift nature of this bill the feeling is if it gets through on Tues next 25, it may be to late to stop it.

How would that affect PCO's CoF, notwithstanding the recent Liverpool case?

The way I read it is that this section will only apply if there are more saloons than approved WAVs in an area that is restricted.

So in my view the likes of Manchester and Liverpool are in the clear, if you are a supporter of restrictions.

Which bits of the amendment makes you think there will be an end to restrictions?

_________________
IDFIMH

The PCO really shouldn't come into it as they don't restrict, but once the Secretary of State eventually produces a criteria for a suitable vehicle, then the PCO will struggle to insist it has the turning circle.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex. The amendment refers to section 16 of the transport act. Section 16 only deals with a Councils ability to refuse to issue licenses IF, BUT ONLY IF etc. The amendment says that section 16 is not "for this vehicle" and refers to the Equality bill and passes powers to limit numbers from the Council's to the Minister. We will know better on Monday 25 because the actual text of the debate will be published on Hansards. To see the text of the debate for tues 19 clck on the link to the debate I placed on the site and search Hansards. I have searched this evening but find no mention of this amendment, I believe this is because the amendment was " Moved" on Tues by Baroness Wilkins. I think it will be debated on 25th. That is why we are trying to get clarification/representation there beforehand.

I think you'll find the one consistent thing about sussex is that he wants nationwide delimitation.....I dont think he'll be particularly bothered about the equality bill implications.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Proposed sec 1 says that this section (being the amendment) will only apply if, amongst other things;

the proportion of taxis licensed in respect of the area to which the licence would (if granted) apply that conform to the requirement in paragraph (b) is less than the proportion that is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

In other words, if there are more WAVs (paragraph b) than saloons (existing regulations), then this section of the act will not apply.

Or have I missed something?

_________________
IDFIMH

I am bothered because I don't want drivers to unnecessarily become victims of the scaremongers.

I do believe though that this amendment has high level support.

_________________
IDFIMH

Are you suggesting if a person wants to be a HC owner he should be able to choose the type of vehicle........or that we should now have limits on licenses?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I'm saying if an existing restricted, predominately saloon, taxi trade don't want others to license loads of extra WAV taxis then best they change their vehicles to WAVs. But most are too thick to realise that.

I'm also asking if 'fit and proper' folks want to license a WAV taxi, then why shouldn't they?

_________________
IDFIMH

Interesting... people starting to wake up.... we must remember that this Bill will also affect Scotland..

If you read it as it is written it clearly says that councils will not be able to refuse any person applying for a licence that provides a wheelchair accessible vehicle, Now that to me is deregulation by the back door, there is nothing else written that states the vehicles should be new or old so if it is obviously open for interpretation.

On this site there are many cases about Council's interpretation of the law, and they go to court, they are judged by the law of the land which is paramount which this will become.

we're being told that there will be more consultations and that there will be trials in different areas, usually people do this before they set things in stone not after.

It is better to place your concerns before your local MPs and have them ask the questions and maybe be proved wrong than to do nothing and watch your livelihood slowly vanish.

PS... I just love it when they use the words.. if.. could... would ... can.. and so on.... all of them mean ..possibly.... there is certainly no certainty...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Thanks for your opinion Mr T. I also believe it may be an attempt to de-limit by the back door. That is why I sought legal advise from 2 solicitors friendly to the trade. They indicate that if this amendment goes through as it is we are delimited. I am not scaremongering as Sussex suggest. I am concered that since I saw this and raised the alarm we only have two working days to do anything about it, IF IT IS TRUE. That is why I have asked GMB to investigate and involve Baron Morris. The GMP rep in Manchester is a close personal friend of Morris and he can get help and CLARIFICATION if anbody can. I will of course keep everybody here posted, if you dont mind a bit of "scaremongering"

Since my above post I have recieved an Email from Wayne Casey of the NTA. He agree's there are two distinct opinions to be gathered from responses all over the country. The NTA consult an MP next week and the general advice is we should all do the same.
I will report further. The NTA Email will be all over the place today I am sure it will be posted on here soon.

I'm not suggesting you are scaremongering, just that we don't want drivers to get the wrong idea that the world will end.

I'm also trying to get the point across that even if this amendment is passed, and enacted within the next few years, the trade has time to do what it thinks best to address any issues arising out of the amendment.

In other words it's not going to apply tomorrow.

I personally haven't got a problem with a 100% WAV taxi fleet, and this amendment could lead to that.

I also haven't got a problem with a free and open taxi trade, in line with what the PH trade has operated in since 1976. IF the PH trade can thrive with an open market, then why can't the taxi trade.

If the amendment becomes law then the trade has a choice, 100% WAVs in most areas, or 100% de-limitation in all areas.

Best the trade wake up from it's 150 year old slumber.

_________________
IDFIMH