I wrote this some time ago.....cant remember if I even sent it for publication!
It’s your choiceVery often I‘m asked what’s the point of the National Taxi Association; people seem to fail to understand my dismay when asked such a question. To be honest these questions make my heart sink, in a similar manner to sitting on a cab rank for one hour and getting a passenger wanting to go rtfc, a bitter disappointment.
Let’s leave it to the government and local authorities – we can reeeeally trust them, right? In the grand scheme of things the welfare of the cab trade and cab driver can be placed in between the happiness of homosexual parents and helping our east European ethnic cleansers assimilate into our community.
When it comes to deregulation it appears there are two distinct lines of thinking;
1, the government like us so much they want more and more of us so we can have friends
2, they don't like us at all and want to see us all starve to death.
Perhaps we should leave it to our brothers (and sisters) – or perhaps the union official who has so f*cked up his or her own industry they feel compelled to come into this one and screw up ours? Wanting to be some latter day ‘Red Robbo’ of British Leyland fame complete with sideburns and flared trousers, I’m actually quite surprised we haven’t heard calls for the reincarnation of the Rover SD1 - Show me a union official and I’ll show you a person who talks too much, with terrible dress sense and an over-burning desire for triangular shaped sandwiches.
The taxi trade needs a professional body. I try to point out that the taxi trade need a national voice to communicate with government. I try to point out on a local level you need to be organised, on a professional level by people who understand the taxi trade in your area, who will ensure you are dealt with by councils on the even handed basis that your labours and investment deserve. I try to point out unions, even with the best of intentions, are politicised, fund political parties and have awful design ideas. Politics (like fashion) has no conceivable place in the licensing arena.
Likewise the f*ckwitted people out there who when opposing limitation of taxis – like in one particular person in Leicestershire – will actually write to a council and state such b*llocks as – “when London limited taxi numbers taxis became run by gangsters”.
Too simple? I would have thought any sound minded person would have came to the same conclusion, the simple answer is that its your trade and you need to be involved, with decent advice on tap, is 10p per day too much to join a body such as the NTA (or even less if you’re part of an association)?
Recent times have saw the taxi trade consulted on numerous issues, from the ‘Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing: Best practice guidance’ to the ‘WAV Consultation’. Both documents will have an effect on every single licensed driver, yet I wager less than 5% are or were even aware of them.
Who on earth do some of you think will come along and make the case against some of the irrational arguments held within these consultations? SpongeBob Squarepants?
Well, my name isn’t Patrick, and I don't want my future decided by some aquatic marine animal that lives in a pineapple under the sea. Nor do I want my future decided by a union whose key members appear to wander through a charity shop covered in glue.
A despicable rumour sent around by some was that the NTA don't deal with local issues, I can categorically state the people spreading such malicious bullsh*t spends most of their spare time licking windows and dribbling uncontrollably, indeed, I wager a good deal of money they have some worrying imagery on their hard drives. There are many examples of the NTA giving localised advice to association members, I should know because invariably I’m the one giving it.
This month sees the NTA annual general meeting and conference in Eastbourne. The Annual General Meeting will decide the NTA’s policies for the forthcoming year by virtue of resolutions for the AGM; these resolutions are put forward by working cab owners from around the country.
I point out the following views (as the views above) are not representative of the directors of the NTA, invariably they worry about the perception my views give of the Association, especially to those bodies we meet with on a regular basis.
I appreciate this, I imagine it’s a little difficult for the NTA to sit at a table with a body whom I have maybe / almost certainly at some point will have just called a bunch of salivating imbeciles; I suppose if nothing else it’s a tad embarrassing.
I do of course mean every word I write, but facing facts, my opposition to the many people and bodies I regularly describe in my column, is as ineffectual as the wind turbine on a Lakeland fell to our national power needs.
Transfer EmbargoThe twins of doom last month revealed a situation in Cheshire, where to a casual observer such as myself, the council seem to have dreamed up a licensing policy that appears to have been written by Mr. Hans Christian Anderson.
Sadly, it appears Cheshire isn’t alone in having window licking type policies. In actual fact from the response of many NTA members from a recent email, it would appear a majority of local authorities are not really amenable to at least one (although there are probably many more) potential problem for a licensed driver.
Let’s cut through all the crap here.
If one day I am innocently waiting at a set of traffic lights on red, in my 8 year old cab, and some dozy old sod (who shouldn’t be driving anyway), who is probably driving a Nissan Micra, rams my cab up the backside, writing my cab off, why, when the dust eventually settles, should I be the one who is out of pocket?
I shouldn’t be out of pocket, right?
Well, if my cab is off the road for only a few weeks I should be okay, the majority of LA’s allow me to effectively swap my license to a donor vehicle, under the understanding my old vehicle will be repaired and eventually put back on the road. This is a reasonable policy.
But what if, as alluded to in one of the above paragraphs, my cab is written off?
My insurance might promise me a ‘like for like’ replacement or more likely, pay me out on the value of my old cab. But what if my licensing authority insists any newly licensed vehicle must conform to their age limit on first license? I must for that reason put myself into debt due to a ‘non fault’ accident. I cannot think of one insurance company that will give me the value of a vehicle which suits my LA’s criteria.
The doom twins were right to point to Mr Button’s book, but in fairness to Mr Button (totally out of character I know), he clearly states;”In the absence of a statutory mechanism, a practical approach is required.”
In my own mind what Mr Button is saying is that the act never took into account this type of eventuality (presumably not many horses were written off in 1847) and a council could, nay should, come up with a policy of its own.
Mr Button’s view is little different to the view of NALEO, who state in ‘The Book’
In Dimond v Lovell (House of Lords 2000) it was found that where a vehicle is off the road due to negligence of a third party it was reasonable for a person to be supplied with a like for like replacement. It has been implied that in the case of a licensed taxi or private hire vehicle that the local authority would not treat the owner fairly if they did not allow a replacement vehicle to be used if the original was off the road in such circumstances. Several councils do allow temporary transfers whilst the original vehicle is being repaired, subject to the replacement meeting all the conditions of license. (Insurance, mechanical, MOT etc.). ©NALEOAgain, what Mr Button and NALEO do seem to agree on is a practical approach in terms of a vehicle being temporarily off the road, but permanent replacements seem / are different. I’m not too sure this will be tested in any case going before any court (despite the view of the blue half of the doom twins). I wonder if NALEO’s words could be useful and help the cab trade?
Let’s look at the scenario offered by the doom twins. A driver could be approaching retirement, but due to the council age policy and the stupid f*cker driving a Micra, he is now faced with a choice, spend the best part of £20K on a cab, retire, or go work for someone.
Fair enough, there is a slight possibility I could buy a licensed cab off someone in my area, if they happen to be selling to upgrade, but what are the chances of that happening?
I don't see how the council policy is reasonable in this case, and I don't think for one moment that this is how the good councillors, who presumably approved the policy in the first place, wanted this scenario to develop and, I cannot see the insurance company appreciating the fact that their insured is now in the brown stuff big style, can you?
However, the new vehicle must comply with the council criteria at the time of application, which is obviously when the new vehicle is sourced and license applied for.
Old Aged PensionerAge policies are all well and good, however, if an age policy on first license is overly stringent it effectively means that people hang on to their cabs longer, and to whose benefit is that?
However, the above statement may not be accepted in the same vein if your council is to issue a tranche of licenses or deregulate altogether, in those circumstances you might want an upper age limit in place to ensure the new owners will invest.
I suppose, playing devils advocate here, the trade should perhaps realise that it cannot simply expect conditions for a new hackney owner to be any different to those of existing hackney owners, licensing law simply doesn’t permit it, a hackney carriage is a hackney carriage, and one day such policies will jump up and bite you on the backside.
Yet numerous places appear to having differing rule from one license to another, how can this be right?
I did write once before that an age policy, if brought in, should be seen as intrinsic council failure, they obviously haven’t been able to ensure the vehicles they license and continue to license are of a decent standard.
However, instead of councils accepting their responsibility and revoking the licenses of the main culprits, which they are fully permitted to, the entire cab trade take the brunt with arbitrary age limits being introduced.
It is reasonably clear some council’s are unable to run playgroups (and I actually have evidence of this), never mind licensing departments, we are subjected to, in one way or another, the very worst of it, with little or no flexibility.
Some apparently love the political correctness, health and safety, red tape for the sake of red tape; they’re in a true bureaucratic heaven. Which maybe quite handy for them, after all they get paid the exact same for sitting in a warm office considering ethnic diversity or how many lesbians are in the cab trade, as they do for a wet Saturday night catching PHV’s illegally plying for hire.
But isn’t this the culture our beloved unions (and government) encouraged in the first place?
Friends like theseI should stop this finger wagging at local authorities; in many respects the taxi trade is to blame.
I have seen perfectly good committees ostracised and kicked out, replaced with people whose mouths are far larger than their brains, and the results prove this.
Many people are so interested in this job they don't bother joining local associations or affiliate to our National Bodies. Then they wonder why their councils effectively walk all over them.
I speak from experience here too, you really want to see some of the screwed up conditions some places actually accept and they accept on the basis that they don't actually know what they’re accepting, but are only too proud to ask for advice.
One area recently deregulated because basically it was challenged to issue a license because it didn’t have a survey in place. Call me slightly sceptical here, but if the trade was actually that interested then surely they should have made sure the council didn’t forget the survey?
However, a certain trade union went in to sort it out and they managed a deal, ten plates issued per year for three years.
I wonder about this, a union goes in without any evidence whatsoever and convinces an LA it needs 10 taxi licenses per year? I wonder that they did for the next trick? Saw the LO in half? Nevertheless, great! A result you might think?
The figure of ten plates was plucked from thin air and whatever the union thought or thinks, the council could not and can not legally stop at ten. The only way a limit can be defended is by having evidence that there is no significant unmet demand, but hey! They stopped the issue of further plate’s right?
I find it quite amazing that individuals will join a union at a cost of £120 per member plus (which is a colossal amount of money) for this type of stupidity, ffs I’ve forgotten more about taxi law than most of them f*ckers (I sense that maybe slightly controversial?)
Friends like thoseI have written before of how I consider myself privileged / the most unlucky man on earth to be in the position I am. As mentioned before, on a daily basis I try to help locals overcome licensing problems they have on a local level. This free service has now ceased and will only apply to NTA members, so please phone someone else and cry on their shoulder.
It seems to me that many people only ever think about joining the national bodies when they reach the proverbial “brick wall” in negotiations, they then expect a rabbit to be pulled (or perhaps a LO sawn in half).
This is like trying to buy insurance after you’ve smashed your cab.
The major problem I have with all of these differing issues is taxis are a local issue, whilst this is a blessing in some respects; in others it seems to be a burden.
You see very often I come across licensing departments who consider themselves as god, in many respects, due to delegated powers, they actually are in so far are you’re concerned. Strange, a few centuries ago we’d have burned these people at the stake for being witches.
Take section 52 of the road safety act 2006 for example, this came about basically to allow councils to immediately suspend drivers.
I am convinced it only came about due to two possible reasons, these can be summarised as;
1. We were so excited about the contact exemption being rescinded (it came in the same act) we didn’t read the small print.
2. People like me have decent licensing departments who still work under licensing committees.
If you work with a committee system with decent licensing departments, where licensing departments don't perhaps have as many delegated powers, the effect is that they are responsible to a committee. With delegated powers the same departments are responsible to a cabinet member, who may otherwise wish to be known as God, they may well / almost certainly will have as much clue about taxi licensing and indeed life in general, as your pet hamster.
The problem is with delegated powers, what happens if you get a complete egocentric maniac running a department, as seems to be the case in a number of areas. This coupled with a cringe-worthy councillor who craves power due to an overbearing wife or being bullied at school, or the licensing officer with a Napoleon complex who considers the licensed vehicles as his fleet?
From 16 March 2007, Section 52 of the Road Safety Act gave licensing authorities the power to suspend or revoke a HC (D) or PH (D) licence with immediate effect where they are of the opinion that the interests of public safety require such a course of action.
Here’s the problem, the DFT didn’t at the time define what they considered to be an offence / allegation where a suspension could nay should, be in the interests of public safety.
To me and you perhaps we can concede a driver who is maybe out on bail following a rape / armed robbery allegation could be worthy of an immediate suspension, but we’re dealing with local authorities here, some seemingly haven’t got the first clue how sparingly they should use this power. It’s like giving the sea cadets full use of the US sixth fleet.
You see, one of the problems I have with this power is across the country we see and hear about drivers being suspended on a monthly basis for arguably trivial offences. The only reason a driver can be suspended is they are no longer considered to be ‘fit and proper’; the license is suspended or revoked in the interests of public safety.
Basically everything a council does is or should be in the interests of public safety, so saying a council must use a rule when they believe the public are at risk, in effect means that every offence will be treated in the same manner as they have always done, invariably they leave this decision to one person who facing facts isn’t going to put his b*llocks on the block if he or she makes a wrong decision.
We maybe talking politics here, invariably the press get hold of stories and I wager they’d love a story about a licensed driver being permitted to drive if such allegations are in place, it is obviously far easier to immediately suspend given the political implications to the incumbent council of negative press!
Arguably councils didn’t need this power because prior to it being introduced they already had them / still have them by virtue of the 1972 local government act, where they could / still can apply to a court for an injunction against the driver.
I expect we will be told that guidance is on its way, to help guide councils in how to use this power, but we already have guidance in respect of best practice in taxi licensing, and in respect of that, a good number (well almost all) effectively cherrypick the bits they like, and ignore the bits they don't.
So what can you do about it? Well, forming a local association and joining the NTA would be a decent start, or maybe even getting your already formed association to affiliate would be better, either way it gives the NTA more strength, which is what is actually needed.
The application form is on the NTA website;
www.national-taxi-association.co.uk
Login
Register
FAQ
