Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Apr 29, 2026 5:47 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Who is bright enough to spot the deliberate mistakes in this article by D Cummings on the Wirral plate issue.

http://www.taxitalk.co.uk/pages/issue10 ... mmings.htm

Lets see if Mr Cummins spots them before you do? lol

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
TDO wrote:
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'


This is the best, it epitomises the lack of legal knowledge of the author in respect of the Taxi trade. Never let fact get in the way of fiction when you are preaching to the faithful.

This has given rise to the use of surveys, which LA's with a no-deregulation policy use, and abide by. e.g. if a survey suggests 15 plates that is what the council issue. No more no less, because, to reiterate, they cannot issue plates as they see fit, that has been abolished. If you hear the latest rumour that the council are going to issue 15 or 20 plates, ignore it. The only people who can put a number on the issue are judges or a survey.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
Never let fact get in the way of fiction when you are preaching to the faithful.


Hmm, seems to be the way things are going here dont it? :sad:

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: Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
I'm glad I came late into this, cos its saved me repeating what has been said. :wink:

But can I just say that a council can issue one plate, or one hundred and one plates, if they see fit. Surveys are there only to ensure councils issue the bear minimum.

In fact the proof in the pudding is in Mr Cummings own manor, or ex manor, Wirral. There the survey found 'no significant unmet demand'. :sad:

Thus if Mr Cumming's article was accurate, then the council could only have issued none. However they decided to issue as many as was required. :D

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Sussex wrote:
I'm glad I came late into this, cos its saved me repeating what has been said. :wink:

But can I just say that a council can issue one plate, or one hundred and one plates, if they see fit. Surveys are there only to ensure councils issue the bear minimum.

In fact the proof in the pudding is in Mr Cummings own manor, or ex manor, Wirral. There the survey found 'no significant unmet demand'. :sad:

Thus if Mr Cumming's article was accurate, then the council could only have issued none. However they decided to issue as many as was required. :D


Makes me wonder why the councillors of Hyndburn ignored Mr Cummins sound reasoning. I think we should write to them and advise them that they can't issue 5 plates per annum over 3 years and review their policy in 2008 without first having a survey.

Then again it would be hilarious if they got a challenge anytime soon. lol

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:34 pm 
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Cgull wrote:
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.


lol or Ribble valley who thought it best not to survey and just go ahead and issue one plate per year until such time they deem otherwise.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 11:06 pm
Posts: 87
Location: Seaford
I know I shouldn't ask this, but what is the point of restricting taxi numbers?

Flyer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 11
TDO wrote:
A fundamental one is that an LA can only stop a plate issue on the basis of NO significant unmet demand, but the article puts it the other way round:

The Government however still wanted market forces to control the taxi trade, but inserted a clause that a LA could only stop a plate issue on the grounds of 'significant unmet demand'


That was a typo (and I didn't type it out so blame the proof reader) however that ia just being bithchy because the piece states clearly that delimitation is the natural order the taxi trade has been deregulated/delimited since 1 jan 1986) and if a council is so minded to follow a limited numbers policy the onus is on them to justify it not the applicant. PS I've spelt January with a small j so you can say how twisted and how I distort the facs


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 11
Flyer wrote:
I know I shouldn't ask this, but what is the point of restricting taxi numbers?

Flyer

Go and have a look at Liverpool 21 years after it re-regulated with ranks full to overflowing and drivers getting done by the minute.
They have a local authority court in Liverpool and you get prosecuted for " failing to proceed to the nearest available taxi rank" which is a £100 fine. This is the reason I'm against delimitation in certain areas obviously some ares wont be adversly affected by delimitation so I'm not totally oppossed to it but my aversion to it comes out of being a Liverpool hack and paying one too many failing to proceeds. And it was pressure from the chief constable that stopped the issue in Liverpool not 'vested interests' I'd like to add that the long term affect of the delimitation policy was the rise of the multi-owners(which is consistant with any delimitation/deregulation policy, now if you want to rant and rave about any issue in the taxi trade it's multi-owners.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:05 am
Posts: 11
JD wrote:
Cgull wrote:
or the councillors of Brighton that had to issue 19 right away. But decided to issue 5 extra a year until they decide not to.




Regards

JD[/lol or Ribble valley who thought it best not to survey and just go ahead and issue one plate per year until such time they deem otherwise.quote]

This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 12:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

I get them feelings sometimes too DC

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: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
Non D. Plume wrote:

This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan


You mean its only unlawfull if someone decides to challenge Ribble Valley. Ribble can do what they wan't but if they wish to stave off a challenge they are going to have to have a survey.

I've read the Reading case more times than I care to mention just what are you implying? it might help if you quote Nolan then we might know exactly what you're referring to? No doubt you have it azz upwards as per usual.

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57347
Location: 1066 Country
Non D. Plume wrote:
This is unlawful read R v Reading ex p Egan

So what exactly is 'managed growth' then? :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 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