Taxi Driver Online

Yet another Derby Telegraph piece on this

Looks like it maybe explains the age rule better than previously, but can't be bothered looking back.

And although a lot of it is rehash and straightforward, some of it is quite nuanced in that it's about a policy change that's been implemented, and this is essentially about dumping the policy currently in force and reverting to the previous policy


Big Derby taxi decision set to be made on controversial new rule

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... t-10290131

Councillors are set to decide if a controversial new rule should stay in place or not

Pros and cons have been weighed up by council officers over whether a U-turn on taxi licensing rules should be made in Derby. Councillors will be presented with a petition signed by dozens of private hire vehicle drivers at a meeting this week which calls for Derby City Council to scrap a controversial new rule.

In April a new policy came into force ruling that private hire taxi vehicles should be five years old or less when licensed by the local authority for the first time.

Licensed vehicles, no more than 15 years old, can be used for taxi hire in Derby if they have been previously registered by the local authority.

Derby City Council said the new age limit was “to ensure vehicles are in good condition and more likely to meet current safety and emissions standards”. The authority claimed most drivers would not be affected by the change. The rule does not apply to Hackney taxi vehicles.

But private hire drivers in Derby have been far from happy. They claim the "strict" rule change could see them go out of business or look for other work.

They say if they were to have an accident and the car became a write-off then they would have to buy a new car less than five-years-old - costing them thousands. Taxi boss Maddy Ahmed, who runs city-based PJ Cars, said it would be fairer if the age limit was extended to eight years old or less.

Drivers across the city attended a protest rally last month and handed over a petition to the council calling for change. The council responded saying it would give the matter “careful consideration”.

The council’s licensing committee will discuss the petition at a meeting on Thursday (June 26). They will either accept or reject it and then consider appropriate next steps.

A report ahead of the meeting states: “If the licensing committee accepts the petition, the existing policy would remain in place until proposed amendments to the vehicle age and emissions policy are brought to the next committee meeting following an assessment of the policy’s effectiveness. If the petition is rejected, the current policy would continue unchanged.”

The report says keeping the five-year rule in place will remain “ambitious for Derby and create the right impression”. It also states keeping the rule will help “reduce city-wide emissions" and removes "older and more polluting vehicles from the licensed fleet”.

But the council says keeping the rules may increase costs for vehicle owners as to the purchase cost of a vehicle, vehicle tax and insurance. Additionally, there is risk individuals will license with other authorities, creating an unregulated and disparate private hire offer in the city.

However, the council says changing the rule could lead to “a perception of inconsistent regulatory decision-making that impacts those who have complied and may open the door to compensation claims”. The meeting will be held on Thursday, June 26 from 6pm and will be available to watch on Derby City Council’s YouTube channel.

Don't all rush at once - the whole internet could collapse

Made the mistake looking at some of the comments. This is one of the more sensible ones


(For any newbies that don't get the reference, it's a bit like using a black cab photo to illustrate a piece about Wolverhampton private hire vehicles )

Anyone know the precise legal basis of any possible compensation claims here?

Made the mistake looking at some of the comments. This is one of the more sensible ones



I wonder if Skippy made that comment

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I suppose a claim could be made if a driver were mandated to buy a £15,000 car and a few months later that rule was removed.

But isn't that the case for any condition or requirement?

_________________
IDFIMH

I can't really think of any obvious law or precedents though, Sussex

Which kind of reminds me of the UTAG stuff, or whatever it is, and the action against TfL and how they regulated Uber.

But if it's all a goer, I reckon I must be due millions

A few years back B&H legal stated that they couldn't license any new saloon hackneys (new not renewals) because of what's being discussed here.

IMO it was a load of old fanny, which has proved to be the case as they will now if the driver is medically exempt from WAV work.

_________________
IDFIMH