Taxi Driver Online

I have it down as being unrestricted but there is a ? mark against it. I'm awaiting confirmation.

Best wishes

JD

It does seems a strange going on, but according to this report, recommending de-limitation, they operate a dual plate licensing system.

http://www.solihull.gov.uk/wwwcp/LicSub/2004/040802.pdf

_________________
IDFIMH

It would appear that the dual licensing rule was introduced to facilitate the Birmingham cabs who worked the Airport. Solihull took two Birmingham drivers to court and lost. It would appear the same year as they lost the case they introduced this rule. It would appear they don't license any other Birmingham cab in the same way.

If they remove dual status from the existing Birmingham cabs I wonder if they will try again to get them removed from the Airport. If they deregulate it could be very interesting as regards the Airport.

Best wishes

JD

I just had confirmation they are restricted. It is not envisaged to issue any further licences until at least 2006 when they will have a survey.

Best wishes

JD

I was just in touch with conwy, they have 4 or 5 zones. I was told they would license a wav but not a saloon. However when pressed on how many WAVs they would license? they were non committal.

Best wishes

JD

So they are restricted, but the DfT don't know they are.

Thus they haven't been asked to review those restrictions.

You couldn't make it up.

_________________
IDFIMH

I would assume they had a survey either last year or this year. I supsect that's what they will put in their reply to the Governments advice.

Best wishes

JD

The thing is that Mid Sussex didn't appear on the list of councils that needed to review quotas.

_________________
IDFIMH

It appears in the March 2004 data of Taxi and private hire data. Yes equals restricted. You will see it says Mid sussex 154 yes.

West Sussex 810
Adur 69 No - - - Yes 5 .. District Request
Arun 357 No - - - Yes 5 10 District Yearly
Chichester 36 No - - - No - - District Request
Crawley 79 No - - - Yes 4 .. District Yearly
Horsham 55 No - - - No - - District Other
Mid Sussex 154 Yes 154 - - No - - District Request
Worthing 60 Yes 60 1986 - Yes 7 10 District Request
Brighton & Hove UA 479 Yes 479 1986


Best wishes

JD

Table 4
Quantity control of taxis at 31 March 2004
Region Licensing Licensed Control Max. Year Effect on Age Max. Max. Tariff Timing
Authority Taxis of taxi no. of in which taxi limit age age set by of tariff
(District or numbers taxis control numbers applies at first at end auth- change
Unitary at allowed of taxi when any to licens- of ority (e.g.
Authority) 31 March by the numbers limit had taxi ing service or by yearly, on
control began been (Yes/ life taxi request
(number) (Yes/No) removed No) (years) (years) trade of trade)
London Transport for London 20,816 No - - - No - - PCO/TfL -
England outside London 42,248
North East 3,833
Northumberland 356
Alnwick 10 No - - - Yes .. 10 District Yearly
Berwick on Tweed 50 No - - - Yes 5 17 District Request
Blyth Valley 41 Yes 41 1993 - Yes 4 8 Borough Request
Castle Morpeth 95 No - - - No - - District Yearly
Tynedale 130 No - - - No - - District Yearly
Wansbeck 30 Yes 30 1976 - Yes 7 7 District Request
Darlington UA 176 No - - - Yes 3 6 UA Yearly
County Durham 688
Chester-le-Street 92 Yes 92 1998 - Yes 3 17 District Request
Derwentside 118 No - - - Yes 10 11 District 3 years
Durham 55 Yes 55 - - No - - City Request
Easington 93 Yes 93 1987 - Yes 5 6 District Request
Sedgefield 141 No - - - Yes 5 .. Borough Yearly
Teesdale 23 No - - - Yes 5 17 Trade Request
Wear Valley 166 No - - - Yes 5 7 District Request
Tyne & Wear 1,648
Gateshead 168 No - - increase No - - District Yearly
Newcastle on Tyne 819 Yes 2000 2000 increase No - - City Yearly
North Tyneside 131 No - - - No - - District Yearly
South Tyneside 224 Yes 224 1986 - No - - District Request
Sunderland 306 Yes 306 1999 - Yes 5 7 District Request
Hartlepool UA 150 No - - increase Yes 2 6 UA Request
Redcar & Cleveland 300 No - - - Yes 3 .. UA Yearly
Middlesborough UA 270 Yes 190 saloon cars, others no limit Yes 3 6 UA Request
Stockton-on-Tees UA 245 No - - increase No - - UA Request
North West 7,379
Cumbria 859
Allerdale 135 No - - - Yes 5 .. District Yearly
Barrow-in-Furness 150 Yes 150 1988 - No - - District Request
Carlisle 190 No - - - Yes 3 5 District Request
Copeland 143 Yes 143 1995 - Yes 7 7 District Request
Eden 71 No - - - Yes 7 10 District Request
South Lakeland 170 No - - - Yes 5 .. District Yearly
Blackburn Darwen UA 64 Yes 64 n/k - No - - UA Request
Blackpool UA 256 Yes 256 1999 - No - - UA Yearly
Lancashire 1,181
Burnley 34 Yes 34 1998 - Yes 9 10 District Request
Chorley 30 Yes 30 1978 - Yes 4 8 District Yearly
Fylde 97 Yes 98 n/k - No - - Borough Request
Hyndburn 62 Yes 62 1998 - Yes 5 8 District Request
Lancaster 105 Yes 105 n/k - Yes 5 10 City Yearly
Pendle 67 Yes 70 1986 - Yes 7 10 District Request
Preston 187 Yes 187 1987 - No - - Borough Request
Ribble Valley 49 Yes 49 1996 - No - - District Yearly
Rossendale 155 No - - - Yes 5 8 District Yearly
South Ribble 189 Yes 189 2000 - No - - District Request
West Lancashire 46 No - - increase Yes 4 17 District Request
Wyre 160 Yes 160 1974 - No - - District 2 years

In the letter sent out from the DfT requesting a review, they listed out the councils that restrict. PHM printed out the letters and list http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1089271676.pdf and Mid Sussex wasn't one of them.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well as you can see the march data drom the DFT is up to date, more or less.

I don't know the background to where PHM got their data but someone has ommited Mid Sussex I had an email from their head of licensing explaining their position.

Best wishes

JD

Latest Council to remove limits on numbers.

Merthyr Removed limit on numbers on 1/12/04.

Best wishes

JD

Great Yarmouth are the latest Council to deregulate. Last nights executive meeting voted to deregulate numbers with a compliance on WAV vehicles only. Spot the trend? Under the council procedure the decision cannot be acted upon until a grace period of some 18 days has been reached, this grace period is ends on January 10th 2005.

If you wan't news you know where to come.

Best wishes

JD

oh by the way don't expect any decision on Airport carz anytime soon.

Well this is a strange one.

According to this review report http://www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/files/dem ... licy%2Epdf Chewell don't restrict WAVs, but just to confuse the issue, they are still going ahead with a SUD survey.

_________________
IDFIMH