Taxi Driver Online

No legislation has been passed out-lawing taxi quotas. Not yet that is.

However the courts have taken the 1985 Act to mean the government doesn't like taxi quotas, but will put up with then if they can prove SUD.

Thus many councils have decided they can't be bothered to prove SUD, and the gov are now trying to make it even harder for the ones left to prove SUD.

Basically the gov want rid of taxi quotas, but can't be bothered (at the mo) to legislate them away, so they are getting councils to do it for them.

Sort of on the cheap.

_________________
IDFIMH

It is common knowledge that the Governments "intentions" in the 1985 Transport act was to remove quantity controls on Hackney carriage licenses. This they did but they also inserted an amendment courtesy of the House of Lords which stated "councils cannot restrict numbers, unless they have evidence to prove there is no demand which is not being met".

70% of councils have decided to treat the 1985 legislation as it stands and not enter into the "Option" of trying to find out if demand does or does not exist. So the presumption is to remove quantity controls.

You may consider reading up on a few of the court cases that you will find on this website, you will find that the judiciary in every instance interpret the Government Intentions in the same way I have.

You may also consider reading the 1985 Transport act in particular sections 10 to 19. Or if you reside in Scotland the 1982 civic Government Scotland act.

If you have any further questions on legislation I recommend you search the archives of TDO.

Regards

JD

Thank you, sorry and thankyou.

Anyway very useful to know.

I will not ask any more questions.

Before the Transport Act 1985 councils could limit numbers to 'as they think fit', which basically meant that they could limit numbers to whatever they wanted.

As mentioned above, the Thatcher Government was intent on delimiting, but a late amendment by Lord Renton (who was doing the NTA's bidding, I think) qualified things to the test we know today.

Clearly, the test adopted was a compromise to balance the unfettered discretion of LAs to limit numbers to whatever they wanted with the laissez faire approach intended - there could still be limits, but these would be qualified - as one judge put it, the intention was to let market forces play a greater part. Obviously the intention of the test was to allow some protection for plate holders, but at the same time ensure that people weren't standing around for hours waiting for taxis, thus no SUD was allowed.

Of course, the test turned out to be ill-thougth out IMHO, because it could easily be manipulated (by raising fares, for example) and probably did not envisage that fettering taxi growth would just lead to PH growth to compensate.

And, of course, many LAs just ignore the test anyway and effectively still control numbers 'as they think fit'.

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

Annex A: Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance 2005
02 August 2005
Introduction

3. However, it will be appreciated that it is for individual licensing authorities to reach their own decisions both on overall policies, and on individual licensing matters, in the light of their own views of the relevant considerations. "Discuss"

BUT I DID ASK BETTER OR WORSE OFF!!!

Funny how everything on this forum is turned around to the views of the proprietor.

Then why would they let you put the alternative view?

Have you ever had anything deleted on here?

_________________
IDFIMH

What’s your angle Jimbo, why don’t you tell us about the utopia of restricting numbers from the Customers, drivers, and owner’s perspectives?


What is your great taxi view of a restrictive market and a privileged existence for a few that have spent a lot of money buying a job.


BETTER OR WORSE OFF, YOU TELL ME?


PRESONALLY I WOULD BE BETTER OFF AND I AM NOT THE PROPRIETOR

I ASKED THE QUESTION, "Better or Worse" Because I do not know the flipping answer. I am lucky enough to work in a City with a council with BACKBONE. I AM NOT A POLITICIAN. I asked a straight question, and not one that is retorical. My angle is that if a licensee has paid 30k or more for a vehicle, they should reasonably expect to be able to get a return on their investment.

Macclesfield are unrestricted they earn as much if not more than Manchester on a Friday and Saturday, maybe that answers your question.

Regards

JD

A reasonable point, but if I bought a piece of plastic for £30,000, off someone who got it for nothing, then should I be surprised if one day that piece of plastic reverts back to being worthless?

_________________
IDFIMH

The "piece of plastic" I reffered to is a Metrocab sussex. i suppose you think the only piece of plastic you will have to buy is a toplight.

I wonder whats worth more, the piece of plastic or the Metro?

Regards

JD

As usual the point in being is disregarded.

HOW IS A NEW ENTRY TO THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE TRADE, HAVING PAID UP TO £30K FOR HIS CAB PLUS ALL OTHER EXPENSES GOING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IF DE-LIMITATION WERE TO HAPPEN NATIONWIDE?

AND WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON BUY A NEW CAB IN THAT CLIMATE?

WHERE WILL "QUALITY CONTROL" BE THEN?

Sorry for "shouting" but I need to get your attention.(NO, not you Sussex)

And it (De-limiting) IS still a matter for individual authorities, until there is a change in the law, is it not?

Jimbo Wrote:

HOW IS A NEW ENTRY TO THE HACKNEY CARRIAGE TRADE, HAVING PAID UP TO £30K FOR HIS CAB PLUS ALL OTHER EXPENSES GOING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IF DE-LIMITATION WERE TO HAPPEN NATIONWIDE?

Who cares! In the big bad world you pay your money and take your chances just like everyone else.

AND WHY WOULD ANY SANE PERSON BUY A NEW CAB IN THAT CLIMATE?

You tell me, why would any sane person buy a new taxi in that Climate?


WHERE WILL "QUALITY CONTROL" BE THEN?

Where it’s always been in the hands of the Authority and the Trade.


Sorry for "shouting" but I need to get your attention.(NO, not you Sussex)


Sussex, give him a slap


And it (De-limiting) IS still a matter for individual authorities, until there is a change in the law, is it not?

That much is true, for how long no one knows but that's the chance you take.