Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Tue Apr 28, 2026 4:26 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:53 pm 
Ged,
not every tom dick or harry can register with the commissioners, to o license 2 vehicles they have to register private hire first.

a bus company can register some smaller vehicles to supplement the bigger vehicls Ged Manchester private hire are taking the [edited by admin], they aint the brains or know how to even start.

then they need licenses to drive buses

believe me Ged they are just rumour mongering


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:19 am
Posts: 233
Yorkie wrote:
Ged,
Quote:
not every tom dick or harry can register with the commissioners, to o license 2 vehicles they have to register private hire first.


This may be true as there is another PH co running these buses in Manchester.


then they need licenses to drive buses

Maybe, but AirportcarZ drivers are not ALL licensed, if any of them are.
i.e. PSV Licences.

Ged, Manchestrer Council own 55% of MAPLC, not that it makes any difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:40 pm 
cheshirebest wrote:
Yorkie wrote:
Ged,
Quote:
not every tom dick or harry can register with the commissioners, to o license 2 vehicles they have to register private hire first.


This may be true as there is another PH co running these buses in Manchester.


then they need licenses to drive buses

Maybe, but AirportcarZ drivers are not ALL licensed, if any of them are.
i.e. PSV Licences.

Ged, Manchestrer Council own 55% of MAPLC, not that it makes any difference.



I think you missed my point and its my fault

Airport caz are belive it or not a bus company not private hire with fully qualified and acredited transport managers and depots

the point I was trying to make was other private hire companies would need these costly facilities and it would not be worth thier while

sorry I was not clear.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57343
Location: 1066 Country
If I can merge two threads into one, then what is stopping those that run the MPVs at Manchester airport from simply running under the 1976 exemption? :?

They could have a ticket machine, or a manned booth, and just issue tickets that have been paid for in advance, and operate the way Cgull mentioned a firm in his manor does i.e. have exempt cars contracted to the main operator.

Or have I missed soemthing? :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:47 pm
Posts: 47
Location: Baghdad
The company involved are nothing but mercenaries, acting in a no-mans land of legislation and this must be stopped. However, hear the crocodile tears of the hackney people, who have drivers who will throw out passengers on carriageways, if they find out they are going to Hale, in this respect can you sympathise with their plight? No you cannot.

Look at the history, they try to chase firm after firm from the airport, and this will happen until they are given full control. They asked for people to look at it, the people looked at it and cannot find wrong-doing. If you think the traffic commissioner is wrong, take it to judicial review, dont forget the £30,000 that it costs.

_________________
"Even those who live on another planet, if there are such people, would have condemned this action before it started"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 8:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
However, hear the crocodile tears of the hackney people, who have drivers who will throw out passengers on carriageways, if they find out they are going to Hale, in this respect can you sympathise with their plight? No you cannot.

Look at the history, they try to chase firm after firm from the airport, and this will happen until they are given full control. They asked for people to look at it, the people looked at it and cannot find wrong-doing. If you think the traffic commissioner is wrong, take it to judicial review, dont forget the £30,000 that it costs.


The point is that this company are allegedly operating on the fringes of the law (as mentioned by Yorkie).

Captain cab

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 198
Location: manchester
Dear Comical,
Where we differ is that I have said that we will have to wait until the opinion is in the public domain. Please do not prejudge the outcome.
As for your other comments, shame on you.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:53 pm 
Sussex wrote:
If I can merge two threads into one, then what is stopping those that run the MPVs at Manchester airport from simply running under the 1976 exemption? :?

They could have a ticket machine, or a manned booth, and just issue tickets that have been paid for in advance, and operate the way Cgull mentioned a firm in his manor does i.e. have exempt cars contracted to the main operator.

Or have I missed soemthing? :-k


yes you have and you know you have, they must run under credit that you know not tickets which in this case are prepaid.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 9:55 pm 
Iraq Information Minister wrote:
The company involved are nothing but mercenaries, acting in a no-mans land of legislation and this must be stopped. However, hear the crocodile tears of the hackney people, who have drivers who will throw out passengers on carriageways, if they find out they are going to Hale, in this respect can you sympathise with their plight? No you cannot.

Look at the history, they try to chase firm after firm from the airport, and this will happen until they are given full control. They asked for people to look at it, the people looked at it and cannot find wrong-doing. If you think the traffic commissioner is wrong, take it to judicial review, dont forget the £30,000 that it costs.


man you are an ass hole


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57343
Location: 1066 Country
Yorkie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
If I can merge two threads into one, then what is stopping those that run the MPVs at Manchester airport from simply running under the 1976 exemption? :?

They could have a ticket machine, or a manned booth, and just issue tickets that have been paid for in advance, and operate the way Cgull mentioned a firm in his manor does i.e. have exempt cars contracted to the main operator.

Or have I missed soemthing? :-k


yes you have and you know you have, they must run under credit that you know not tickets which in this case are prepaid.

The act just says for 'hire and reward', to me that can mean anything. :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:15 pm 
Sussex wrote:
Yorkie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
If I can merge two threads into one, then what is stopping those that run the MPVs at Manchester airport from simply running under the 1976 exemption? :?

They could have a ticket machine, or a manned booth, and just issue tickets that have been paid for in advance, and operate the way Cgull mentioned a firm in his manor does i.e. have exempt cars contracted to the main operator.

Or have I missed soemthing? :-k


yes you have and you know you have, they must run under credit that you know not tickets which in this case are prepaid.

The act just says for 'hire and reward', to me that can mean anything. :shock:



no it does not you answered under c gulls anazing brass neck question, how come youve changed under this thread?

get dafter


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:39 am
Posts: 400
Location: Manchester Airport
gedmay wrote:
Well they duly arrived with the Unfairport bending over backwards to help them.


The most annoying thing for me is that I pay Manchester City Council all my necessary fees, then I have to pay the Airport a permit fee not forgetting that the Council own 51% of the Airport. So I am paying for enforcement to one body that has completely abrogated its duty and another fee to a company that is shafting me.

Geoff, a point for you to ponder about the council, one or two P.H companies that I know are waiting to see which way the case turns before they apply for O licences themselves.

The forum will be on us soon enough and then we will have to decide whether we roll over or fight on.Ged


Ged I think you have finally hit the nail on the head, the UNFAIRPORT and city council that you refer to, these are the people you should be persuing for exactly the reasons you mention re:you are paying them.

I am a PSV operator that does not go out to "exploit" any loophole, but I do utilise eight seaters for my own company tour shuttles and airport/seaport/seaside transfers. Getting an operators licence is not quite as easy as you may think,
1. You must PROVE professional competence (or employ someone who has this qualification)
2. You must PROVE adequate financial standing, currently
£6200 for the first vehicle and £3400 for every other vehicle or disc required. This amout must be available in ready funds and not in company assets.
3. You must PROVE you are of good repute.

In addition you must also prove you have adequate maintenance facilities or make arrangements for this in the form of a written contract.

All drivers then must have PCV entitlement on their licence, which can be taken away by the traffic commisioner without a "normal court" hearing.

The are now well advanced plans by the EU to ensure all PCV drivers have a minimum amout of training hours within every five year period in order to ensure licence renewal.

It is not any easier to operate as PSV just different. We do have the vagaries of VOSA to contend with but after reading many posts on here that is somewhat better than several different local councils all with varying daft rules.

I have come across an item from DfT regarding PHV but it does not aim the proposal at PSV using eight seater.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_029690.hcsp

Hopefully might see you at Lancaster.

Mike


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 198
Location: manchester
Tulsa/Mike,
Thanks for that info, I did have it on file. Although it is obviously London centred, I would argue it is perverse to ignore the same circumstance in the regions and an older Act is being circumvented.
If the anomaly can be addressed in London I fail to see that it cannot be addressed elsewhere.
Lancaster might be held over, we are trying to get it changed to somewhere more local. We should know by Wednesday at the earliest, keep you posted.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 198
Location: manchester
The hearing went ahead as planned and up to now I have had only a brief phone call so I have not got the full picture.
Basically the commissioner feels that the operation is running between the guide lines.
Several Acts were quoted and their impact on this operation.
The interpretation of seating configuration is open to dispute between the commissioner and VOSA.
When I have the feedback I will try and set out her logic and you all once again for your valued advice.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
gedmay wrote:
The hearing went ahead as planned and up to now I have had only a brief phone call so I have not got the full picture.
Basically the commissioner feels that the operation is running between the guide lines.
Several Acts were quoted and their impact on this operation.
The interpretation of seating configuration is open to dispute between the commissioner and VOSA.
When I have the feedback I will try and set out her logic and you all once again for your valued advice.
Ged


Well whats the SP. How long do we have to wait Mr Ged May ?????? hasn't his masters voice filled you in on why the Commisioner found there was no case to answer for Mr. Taxibus?

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 519 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group