Taxi Driver Online

The thing about delimitation is that it probably doesn't work for those existing owners like me and likewise those owners in every other authority that already restrict numbers. The fact of the matter is that we owners do not have a god given right to have our income artificially protected by councillors. I have said many times before that I believe lifting numbers control will have a detrimental effect on the earnings of existing plate owners and drivers. However in my opinion the greater priority is equality, it always has been and always will be.

I have a distinct problem in excluding someone just because some councillors want to restrict taxi numbers for whatever reason.

Sussex mentioned that not one of those councils that have re imposed restrictions have put forward a sound justification as to why the public will be better served by limiting numbers. That alone speaks for itself.

Although I hold you as a person in high regard, I would like to hear how you yourself could countenance excluding someone on the grounds equality.

Best wishes

JD

it says on the webb that the last post on here was from J.D

ITS GONE HAS DUSTY SCRUBBED IT?

THOUGHT THE AWARDS HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED.

But come the end of April, all those remaining with quotas will be getting a Freedom of Info request asking them for their justification.

I just can't wait for Halton's reply.

_________________
IDFIMH

lol JD,

I was being a little off the wall with my response and pointing out a little off handedly that delimitation may lead owners to find a second income.

Although I very much doubt Nidge has taken on the oldest game in the world.

Captain cab

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

The greatest priority is customer service JD.

In my experience I have found that such customer services are reduced following derestriction as it leads to part time involvement instead of professional involvement.

Higher standards exclude more "fit and proper" people from obtaining their own license than restrictions, because of the extra finances involved.

This is why I argue for balance, a review of policy is required in most if not all authorities, but the biggest argument against balance comes from those who can afford the higher standards, unfortunatly those who can afford to attain these standards are not always the best people to have in the industry or are not "fit and proper" people, these are the people that will look for jockey's and the exploitation will be increased.

The term "fairness" is often used on here, but those who use it want what they believe to be fair to be implimented, with no regard for what others may consider to be fair.

You say how can you justify NOT giving a licence to someone who meets the criteria, but I would say let that person drive PH, after all how can you say to a person who has owned his own HC plate that he must either comply with these increased standards or leave the trade. Do you consider that to be fair.

This issue will never be resolved, give sussex a plate for a WAV and he'll only be happy for 5 minutes, then he'll start asking why he can't have a saloon.

So I'll ask you for the umpteenth time, do you think it's fairer:

1 To be required to buy a plate and a pile of junk for £45k to enter the HC trade;

2 Or to be required to pay £20k for a WAV to enter the HC trade.

You clearly think it's option 1, which perhaps demonstrates your twisted sense of values.

Now this time please answer the point instead of ignoring it then raising it again in a couple of weeks when you think no one will notice

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

By the way, and again for the umpteenth time, part-timers and standards in the trade have got naff all to do with restricted numbers - some restricted areas have more part-timers than full-timers, but they are welcomed with open arms because they line the pockets of the plate holders.

By the way, I agree with your statment:

In my experience I have found that such customer services are reduced following derestriction as it leads to part time involvement instead of professional involvement

But as per the above, it's all to do with quality standards imposed by LAs, not restricted numbers.

But given your part-time status in the trade, I think you're hoist by your own petard there

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Not so, my position currently is that I am still a badge holder currently not driving. I have no plate therefore following your twisted logic should support the councils current position should I which to re-enter the trade in the future. However I have seen first hand the destruction of my local trade caused by allowing an unlimited number of vehicles, with little quality restriction, entering the trade. This method of "no thought" derestriction has seen those with money gaining more power, and the drivers getting the short end of the stick consistantly.



Again you ask the questions with limited options, using figures not relevant to the majority of areas, particularly my own, in order to justify your point.

1 To be required to buy a plate for £10k, a vehicle for £5k to enter the HC trade;

2 Or be required to pay £16.5k for a WAV to enter the trade (New Fiat Doblo or used E7 or similar)

You see how the relevance of the area changes the answer, but your not interested in that are you mush, fighting local issues with National figures doesn't stand up in many areas, Gateshead being one of them.

Does that answer your question, the choice in Gateshead currently is that option 1 IS the better choice but that is because the investment made can be re-couped at any time by selling on the plate for the same if not more than you paid for it.

I know this will not apply to all councils.

What I was trying to illustrate was the principle that you seem to be calling a financial barrier in the form of a quality standard unfair, but a financial barrier in the form of a plate premium fare.

There's no level playing field in Gateshead, so the principle cannot really be illustrated clearly.

But you say that Sussex saying that requiring a £20k WAV is a good idea is unfair on other people, but by implication a £5k saloon and £40k plate is better.

And I don't just mean fair from the narrow perspective of the plate holder, I mean from the perspective of all drivers and the public.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Yes, it's called a level playing field.

An alien concept to you perhaps, but not to people generally.

It's certainly fairer than asking HC drivers to comply with the balooning premiums if they want to enter the trade.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Sounds like areas with inflated plate premiums if you ask me.

But I suspect many drivers would jump at the chance to LOSE £500 in a week, assuming they could earn in excess of that 99+% of the time, so it can't be that bad in Gateshead.

Don't forget that we reported in the summer that:

Frankie Clark, a driver of 15 years experience, told The Journal that he worked 80 hours per week, doing school runs in the morning and then working the clubs at night. He calculated that he takes home £2.60 for every hour worked

I said at the time that it was rubbish.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Firstly neither is of any benefit to the driver if there isn't enough work for the number of HC licensed, Sussex claims he would decide when and where he would work so little benefit should be expected by the consumer.

The narrow perspective of the plateholder is, it could be argued, wider than that of those rich enough to purchase a decent WAV. But as you fall into such a category you see the chance to further exploit those who would like a HC but can't afford one.

B. Lucky

GA,

Can i offer a word of advice, and let me be constructive.

I know where your coming from, why dont you ask JD, politely to compile a list of saloon plate values in derestricted areas?

I am sure JD would willingly oblige, then everyone would be satisfied.

For what its worth, the term justification seems to suit everyone, it would seem a neutral ground, where we can concentrate on the unacceptable, yet agree to differ on the unpaletable.

Captain cab

PS wow i found a new fence!!!!

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

I have a better suggestion Cap, why doesn't he compile one himself?

Best wishes

JD

JD, how can your "level playing field" be conducive to the consumer if it excludes people, who are fit and proper, from joining the trade.

Your theory, will not work to the benefit of the driver, unless that driver has the financial stability to obtain or purchase a WAV of the age or quality demanded by the authority.

Look I'm not saying that all restrictions currently imposed are at even a sane level, to many reports have been posted with ludicrously low HC figures, but this needs to be properly addressed. I think that councils who don't address their policies properly, and choose to derestrict without proper investigation as to what is required are jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Its pleasing to see that some councils recently are undertaking unmet demand surveys before reviewing their policies, I hope that when the surveys are completed the advised increase is introduced quickly then reviewed on a regular basis.