Taxi Driver Online

(This is referring to another post at the bottom of the previous page...)


...which is all very well, and good that these arguments are being made on a national platform by people with a bit of clout.

On the other hand, that's exactly some of the stuff some of us have been banging on about for around 30 years now - pretty sure I had a few letters published in the Dundee press about age rules and vehicle inspections back in the 1990s.

And also sure I mentioned age rules in a submission I made to the OFT's investigation more around 23/24 years ago now. Mention of age rules in the OFT's near-1,000 page report, published in 2003?

Pretty sure the answer is a big fat ZERO

This is what the TransComm report from 2011 said about Berwick - it just about writes the script for what Wolves have been saying in recent years in defence of their PHV equivalent

Kind of losing track of all these additional submissions to the Trans Comm enquiry. But Taxi Point is on the ball, and the latest one seems to be from the NTPHA.

Haven't read the latest submission in its entirety, but noticed this part via the Taxi Point summary. This is the orginal text from the NTPHA's submission:


So the NPHTA is trying to say it's illegal for a Wolves car to be passed a booking unless it's actually within the Wolverhampton Council area? Really?

I suspect that's wrong, at least under long settled law.

And, in fact, why would an intended use policy be required if all that's needed is enforcement of the current legislation - Wolverhampton would collapse overnight if the current law was enforced, presumably. And who would enforce it, precisely

And if there's no enforcement at present, who would enforce intended use requirements?

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 61731/pdf/

And they have been saying that for many moons, sadly, for them, no one is taking a blind bit of notice.

_________________
IDFIMH

Also noticed this on a related point - it's mainly about the first two paragraphs, but have included the whole section here to contextualise it:


Not sure what the claim is here - they're saying what's going on is incompatible with the triple-lock requirement. But where's the evidence those cross-border cars working in Manchester - but badged and plated by Wolves or Knowsley - aren't complying with the triple lock by working in conjunction with a Wolves or Knowsley operator's licence.

That's not really incompatiable with 'onboarding' all taking place in what the Uber rep called a 'very large greenlight hub' in Manchester and used for 'onboarding' and customer complaints, or whatever. Rightly or wrongly, that's how the whole cross-border thing worked even before 2015, as Delta demonstrated on Merseyside.

In my opinion the NPHTA might have had more of a substantive point if they'd claimed that the 'operator' in terms of cross-border cars is more of a sham/artificial construct/brassplate office or whatever, as opposed to anything more substantive. But not that the law isn't being complied with per se.

Maybe in fact that's what the NPHTA is saying, effectively, but the point could maybe have been made more precisely, and more focused on exactly how the operator thing works in the context of cross-border working.

Of course, the likes of Wolverhampton licences 400+ operators other than Uber. So 400+ operators largely from the legacy trade working cross-border. And quite possibly members of the NPHTA

To that extent, maybe the NPHTA doesn't want to draw too much attention to the whole cross-border operator thing, and instead concentrate on Uber in Manchester

...couldn't understand this claim by Uber's rep, though


Uber doesn't used the provisions of the 2015 Act, and doesn't subcontract?

But surely, in terms of strict legal position at least, a booking must be received by one operator and subcontracted to another for cross-bordering to work?

They are basically saying that they are right, and the rest of the trade is wrong.

I wonder if they are using the same ChatGPT as the Captain.

The thing is, I would be thrilled if they were right.

_________________
IDFIMH

My understanding is that once a punter presses the booking button, the system works out which car is best placed for the job, and then directs that booking to the server based in the operating area to which the car is licensed. If that driver rejects the job and is assigned to a vehicle licensed somewhere else, then that job is then issued via the server based there.

So in effect, the job isn't subcontracted, and the 2015 act issues aren't at play.

_________________
IDFIMH