Taxi Driver Online

All this does have parallels to the situation in Dundee, before de-limitation.

On a good, but very basic, forum a similar discussion took place between the existing trade and the mush from 203020.

From what I saw there, and what subsequently happened, the winners were neither the existing Dundee trade nor 203020, the winners were journeymen taxi drivers and PH owner/drivers.

I wonder if in the end Edinburgh goes likewise?

_________________
IDFIMH

Why would I need to identify myself? That would then be a "debate" on your terms. Terms which I loathe!!
As to being informed ( like your applications were submitted to the sheriff on the 10th May?), I know a little more than you about the court case but then, as I said we will wait and see.

Ali T

No, I am interest not only a plate for myself but a number of plates with the view of putting them on as a company, auctioning them or both, if there is a residual value left in the plates. It quite simply comes down to what makes the most money under the circumstances, for me its business.


[/quote]

OK, so at least you are quite open about the fact that its just your own interests that worry you.

What happened in Dundee was that 203020 made big noises about how unfair it was on anyone who couldnn't get a plate.

But when they won the court case there spokesman let the cat out of the bag and said that they only ever wanted plates for themselves. He was sacked shortly after, but I'm not sure if it was because of this.

The point about the case was that only they would get the plates, because unless other applicants had applied at the time and then appealed then they could not do it later, and by then a survey would have been done.

Of course the coucnil pulled the plug anyway, but presumably your strategy is to do what 203020 wanted to do and get your plates but prevent others doing the same?

At least your honest about it though - how many plates are you in for?

Can you auction them without putting a vehicle on?

_________________
Dundee rocks. Almost.

Sorry Skull, but you are a Hypocrite, I cant be bothered with it, for all the posts you have made stating that the council have done this or done that, it's to high a price to pay to buy a job etc, it then turns out you want to perpetuate the whole thing all over again, which is fine by me, I dont care one way or the other, but just stop the duplicitous rubbish, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see through it.

"the market will dictate the level of which it functions through the competition of who competes within it."

Yes we know that Skull, I guess thats why they had the situation monitored, just to ensure the market was still dictating the level that it functioned was commensurate with the amount of plates issued, actually a good advertisment for the SUD,s as well would'nt you say.

Quantify the competition and who competes within the market.

RealCabforce wrote:

Why would I need to identify myself? That would then be a "debate" on your terms. Terms which I loathe!!
As to being informed ( like your applications were submitted to the sheriff on the 10th May?), I know a little more than you about the court case but then, as I said we will wait and see.

Ali T


You are boring, and this is not a debate on anyone’s terms the only thing you have got right is the date. The reason you won’t identify yourself is because I will know who [edited by admin] away the best part of £70,000 on a plate and a Taxi.


That is why you are so bent out of shape about all this, like I said before one way or another we will get our plates. You took your chance now I am taking mine, at a much reduced cost I might add.

My colleagues and I are thinking about going into the house clearance business you might want to keep us in mind.

Dundonian wrote:



OK, so at least you are quite open about the fact that its just your own interests that worry you.

What happened in Dundee was that 203020 made big noises about how unfair it was on anyone who couldnn't get a plate.

But when they won the court case there spokesman let the cat out of the bag and said that they only ever wanted plates for themselves. He was sacked shortly after, but I'm not sure if it was because of this.

The point about the case was that only they would get the plates, because unless other applicants had applied at the time and then appealed then they could not do it later, and by then a survey would have been done.

Of course the coucnil pulled the plug anyway, but presumably your strategy is to do what 203020 wanted to do and get your plates but prevent others doing the same?

At least your honest about it though - how many plates are you in for?

Can you auction them without putting a vehicle on?[/quote]



A similar stratagem but the intent was not to deny anyone a plate, they had the same opportunity as everyone else and 32 took up the challenge so far. Timing was all important and the circumstances covering the legislative frame work concerning application time.

The Council can still save the day by backing down at the last minute and grant the plates but if they roll the dice and blow it on the 14th its game over. On the other hand we still have a shot at the title in the event the council does win it only amounts to a 6 month extension.



They are giving all indications that they are going to go for it, my money was on them backing down they stand more to gain from giving the 32 applicants their plates and completing the SUD.

Only time will tell.

No, I won't tell you how many and no, you have to put on a vehicle.

A restrictive practice operates by limiting the amount of taxis especially at peak time’s artificially creating and unmet demand. This unmet demand is reflected in the waiting times through the availability of taxis. The public are effectively being turned into a commodity to be sold on for a price which is then reflected in Taxi drives/owners profits and the premiums of the license plates. £40,000 plus.


This is the restricted market in which the Edinburgh taxi fleet operate I am talking about a free market for Taxis and PHV. A market based on the quality of service and cost, the market then finds its own level.


What are you going on about, SUD’s in a free market; you don’t need one the public are left to decide. The public become your survey of unmet demand if there is no demand there is no increase in taxi numbers it finds it’s own level.


I am not sure how you are going to respond to this, you have got me guessing now.

If they are auctioned will it be on Ebay ?

If so will it be for 'bids' or 'Buy it now' ?



Joking aside I don't see how anyone can complain. When a L.A. adopts a policy limiting numbers it is up to them to prove to a Court that they had reasonable grounds to believe there was no unmet demand when refusing applications. It is also up to them to ensure that the situation is properly monitered & if they cannot do so then I do not believe the law intended that they should be able to defer applications until some indefinate time in the future when they think they might know.

All the best

What one must remember about a restricted license is that it only retains a monetary value courtesy of the scarcity factor. If the body restricting such licenses does not abide by the law then they only have themselves to blame when they are brought to account by the very same law they chose to ignore.

The reasons for challenging a licensing body doesn't really matter, the thing that does matter is the fact that the licensing body will be in breach of the law if it fails to carry out certain duties as is required by law. Some people obviously don't like licensing bodies being challenged but if a licensing body does things right it will nearly always be in a position to successfully defend a legal challenge.

Being granted a hackney carriage proprietors license is a right by law and only under certain circumstances can an applicant be refused such a license. It does not matter what the applicant intends to do with the license once he has obtained it, if the license in question has an inflated value then a successful applicant may prefer to sell the licence in order to make an instant profit. It is not the applicants fault that an artificial value is placed on a license.

It would seem that If anyone want's to make money from the licensing system in Scotland all they have to do is keep themselves informed of the current situation with regard to surveys in those authorities that restrict numbers. What an applicant should also do is apply for more than one license. If anyone is going to go down this road they may as well make it worth their while by applying for at least five or six licenses and use the current system to transfer those licenses for profit under the present license transfer conditions.

In short one can't blame individuals for taking the legal route in order to obtain what is a given right, if anyone is to blame it is the licensing authority who wishes to retain numbers control but lacks the intelligence to maintain such a policy in line with the law.

The incidental side issues such as increased competition should have no bearing on the legal application of current legislation. A licensing authority is well equipped to inform itself of the legal framework surrounding current legislation. The blame for Dundee is placed squarely on the council's own shoulders, the same applies to Edinburgh and any other Authority who thinks they can make their own law in the way licenses are issued.

Perhaps the only good thing that will come out of these court cases in Scotland is that the public and licensing authorities will know where they stand in respect of surveys. It is then up to licensing authorities to get their act together and abide by the law. For those persons who are taking this court action I say this, If the case in Edinburgh goes in your favour as I expect it may well do, you may wish to look further afield at other authorities who are flouting the law. I'm sure there are more Edinburgh's and Dundee's out there, you certainly have nothing to lose.

Regards

JD

I think some of the points being made are more about the ethics of the situation rather than the narrow legal tests.

It all sounds a bit mercenary to me John, and while you make it sound like it's the LA who are being made to pay, ultimately it's those to whom restricted numbers are deterimental who will pay. If Edinburgh are legally obliged to issue a few more plates then it may hurt their pride a bit, but that's a about all, and having co-opted one of the dissenters into the vested interest group then at least they'll have achieved something.

Indeed you might as well make the case that those with a plate in restricted areas are just taking advantage of the legal situation, which seems at odds with your usual stance.

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

I wasn't making an ethical judgement on restricted licenses in Scotland, I was making the point that in order to sustain a policy of restriction a council had to do what is right by law. We have seen Dundee fall foul of the law and more than likely Edinburgh will succumb to the same fate. The chances are that there are probably other councils in Scotland that will be challenged under the same circumstances and rightly so. I think councils who wish to restrict numbers should be under no illusion as to what is required of them by law. The Scottish courts have lead the way in this issue and those councils in Scotland who choose to ignore the Dundee ruling deserve all they get.

My post is about clarifying the law, not making a moral statement on the rights and wrongs of restricting licenses, my views are well known on that score. I hope the Edinburgh case enforces the Dundee judgement, perhaps then everyone will be a little wiser.

Regards

JD

Personally I think this guy deserves a lot of credit

It takes b*lls to stand up to the establishment they whey he is

He's also prepared to use his own full name & email address on here


Good luck Skull

Anyone who takes legal action against a body that has very deep pockets such as a council and wins, deserves a huge amount of credit. It should not be forgotten that if it wasn't for the Dundee judgement the Edinburgh case may not have been contemplated. The applicant in the Dundee judgement should not be forgotten because without his involvement it may have been a very long time before the scottish courts ruled on the time frame of a survey.

Regards

JD

Thanks TDO, my head was getting sore bashing it of a brick wall.

Does anyone want to enlighten me as to the ethics of the situation, perhaps we can start from the perspective of the customer who is being sold on in a restrictive market while being denied a service?