Taxi Driver Online

In Manchester, the councils hand was strenghtened by the comprehensive court victory in 1993 over the cab trade. The judgement by Lord Justice Macpherson was very scathing on the Cab Trade. That Judgement made it quite clear that Manchester City Council could do what they wished regarding Taxi numbers. The trade realised this and had no option but to agree to the wishes of the City Council. It was the Council who laid down the terms of how many plates would be issued each year, not the Cab Trade. The Taxi trade had no option but to agree. The only input the Cab comittee had was in putting forward their objection on how the new licences would be issued.

There was major oposition to the then current criteria which gave new licences to the first person on the waiting list, regardles of how long they had held a badge.

The criteria in 1993 gave the first new plates issued to the first persons on the waiting list. There was several other criteria that had to be met such as being a resident of Manchester.

The old criteria was scrapped and the new agreed criteria came into force.

The new criteria sought to exclude those persons who had in the past been issued free plates and sold them. However it included those persons who already held proprietors licences.

On the very first issue several of the new licences went to people who already had a plate I could name names and plate numbers but I won't for ethical reasons.

Some might think that the disqualification of those persons who had been given a free plate in the past and sold it, was undemocratic, on the other hand, some people might think that giving plates to existing plate holders is undemocratic. I'm not about to offer an opinion on either but I suspsect others might have one.

The current status in Manchester is that the final two plates of the latest issue were issued last week. One went to a person who had held a badge for 15 years so it gives you some indication as to how long you will have to wait to get a plate in Manchester. The waiting list by the way as everyone knows is 800 plus.

Those people who benefited from the scrapping of the old criteria numbered many but some might say it was the right criteria to use? Some may differ, all I'm doing is trying to explain the facts surrounding the so called fallacy that Manchester has a managed growth policy brought about by a Cab trade organisation, when in fact it was an ultimatum from the council.

One thing that really [edited by admin] me off is people who write reports and don't have a clue as to the facts surrounding the subject they are writing about. Every report I've read surrounding the current OFT investigation has been written from a bias position. Not one report has been objective in its negatives and positives when articulating the reaons for opposing the OFT report. Logic dictates that anyone with a vested interest is incapable of seeing anything other than their own position, I'm begining to believe that.

Being able to see both sides of the coin is an attribute that has so far eluded most in the Cab trade. From an unbiased position I could tear apart every report that has so far been written regarding the current situation. I find the reports in oposition to the OFT report lamentable. The only factual report based on competition is the OFT report, after all thats what the report was all about, competition.

The OFT report never set out to formulate a new Taxi direction, it was solely brought about because of the nature of the Government Department and its remit to do away with unfair practices.

What most people in the cab trade fail to realise is that civil servants and most politicians are not stupid. If they are given a report from a vested interest which is bias it will be totally disregarded and confined to the DUSTBIN.

A report has to be factual not hyperthetical, A report that has one theme running it through such as "save our plates" is not going to cut much ice in the halls of power, no matter how many bias reports are written.

So I say to those persons who are invested with the power to write reports with regard to this matter, go and do your home work, don't display the attributes of an ostrich. Be objective but be factual, don't be dogmatic in your stance be accomodating and flexible, see the good points and the bad points in the report you are rebutting. Be precise and accurate in your assesment of the proposals being put forward. Above all else don't inject statements or facts that are meant to mislead. Finally if you can't write a factual report, don't bother writing one at all.

Best wishes

John Davies
Manchester

I couldn't agree more John.

Alas it seems that all of us have a vested interest one way or another, and I'm not sure I have come across a sensible, workable middle ground.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Of course we all have a vested interest Alex, because at the end of the day we all want, not only to protect what we have, but ultimatly to have more.

I'm sure everyone is aware of my opinion, but opinions can change when workable solutions are suggested. I'm concerned about my own business, for the first time in 12 years, I can't see a full time future for very much longer up here in Gods country and its a position I wouldn't want anyone else to be in.

More needs to be changed, and I hope things change soon.

B. Lucky

John,Please correct me if I am wrong but did you not say a few weeks ago that the open ended issue of plates came not from the council but from the local rag.
If the Judicial review was so scathing about the cab trade can you tell me which party was awarded costs? I repeat that the council were told that they could not do a complete about turn on policy without discussion and furthermore thet discussion had to be meaningful. Your last post but one gave the impression that there was some cosy relationshp between the council and the trade, your last one then goes on to say that they have achieved everything through diktat, which one is it?
The criteria surely to any fair minded person must be that any issue of plates must go to the people who have the length of service. If you think otherwise enlighten us as to what you would want.
From memory I think the criteria was ;
Length of service.
Resident of Manchester. (Which was deemed to be unlawful)
Not already issued with a free plate.
Non-holder of a current licence.
Ability to fund a cab.
Promise to work weekend nights, to meet the unmet demand. ( not enforceable)
I was involved with the committee at the time but I must be a bit naive because I did get a free plate, and I am at a loss to think of any of my colleagues that got one either. Your penultimate para in your first letter casts doubt on the integrity of a lot of hard working people. You say that you are not implying anything but your words say otherwise, what interpretation could you put on "naturally this criteria suited the cab committee because most of those on the committee along with a lot of their friends were long serving badge holders". I have no doubt as to what you meant. The subsequent follow up from SM led me to believe that he thought so to.
I will repeat what I said earlier if you feel that a forum is not the place to name names my e.mail address is listed.
Honestly John if you feel that you have been let down in any way, perhaps not getting the leadership that you think you deserve, why not put your name forward. If you have served in the past I am sure that the present guys would welcome your input and would willingly share the load.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

Is that whats called "from the horses mouth" or what.

B. Lucky

I think that the whole waiting list system stinks.

But if you are going to operate one, then it should be based on time in the HC/PH trade, and plates should only be issued to those that have never held a HC vehicle license.

_________________
IDFIMH

Or, if you are gonna run a waiting list system anyway, then why nop keep upping the quality standards until you dont have a waiting list anymore?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

I would sooner have that than my proposal.

Restricting by standards is far more sensible than restricting by numbers.

_________________
IDFIMH

So we'll adopt Manchester as the flagship with regard quotas ?

Brand New TX11's all round then.

A quota is a quota, you have got to decide whether you are for them or against them.

B. Lucky

Andy,
Waiting lists do stink, whats wrong with interviews where you can spell out your plans?

but the last part was wholy vindictive and that cannot be fair or reasonable and councils must be that.

and b4 you say but if they sell a plate......thats nothing to do with the council.

I never mentioned any reference to an open ended issue. The only mention I gave to a newspaper was that of the Manchester Evening news who reported on 12/12/91 that the council wanted to double Taxi numbers.

The actual quote from the evening news is as follows.

Councilors decided at a private meeting that the city's present level of almost 500 cabs is not enough. And they are considering granting licences to double those numbers.

Members of the council environmental committee never put a number on the amount of cabs that they wished to see on the streets of Manchester at that particular time. The Manchester Evening News sensationalised the comments, it was this article that brought it to the attention of the majority of the Cab Trade that an increase in numbers was being contemplated.

I think you may be confusing what happened in 1991 - 1994 and subsequent events after 1994. What took place leading up to the 1994 issue was completely seperate to what transpired after 1994.

To re clarify the events, between 1991 and 1994 there was near complete opposition to any increase in plates. What transpired after 1994 was that oposition voices were raised but there wasn't a thing the Cab trade could do about it because Macpherson had already given the cab trade a kick up the azz in March 1993 by telling them that Manchester city Council could do what they wanted regarding Taxi numbers.

I must reiterate that the TOA advised the manchester Taxi Coop that they didn't have a cat in hells chance of winning in court and that it would only exacerbate the situation in years to come.

Indeed if you have access to the Manchester Cab Committee report of 18/9/92 you will see it laid out quite plainly in black and white from begining to end as to how the whole scenario of increased Taxi numbers came about.

An exstract from that report states,
"To make certain that we had no legal redress against the council's decision we decided to consult Mr Anthony Rumbelow QC. His immediate views, followed by his written opinion, concurred with the legal advice we had already recieved. This persuaded us of the FUTILITY of taking legal action against the council. Mr Rumbelow thought that the strategy of the trade Delegation to consult, rather than confront, was correct.

Your Delegation was very dissapointed at the decision to increase by 100 Cabs, but balanced against a possible 500 or even total de-regulation, it is a decision we must reluctently agree".

The capitulation of the Cab Committee in 1992 to accept the councils directive that they would put 100 new licences on the town, was the right one.

You may be aware that certain owners did not subscribe to that view. Hence the resulting court case which was brought by BJ on behalf of the Manchester Hackney Carriage Cooperative on 23rd October 1992 and ended on 30th March 1993 with victory going to the council.

I have already laid out the time table of the legal events surrounding the issue in 1993/4 but in case it was unclear here it is again.

23/10/92 BJ goes to the high court to get an injuction to stop the issue of 100 new licenses. Manchester city Council decline to appear and the case went by the way of default.

Mr Justice Brook ruled that Manchester City council cannot issue new licences until the people of Manchester have been consulted whether they want them.

Mr Justice Brook also granted BJ Leave to appeal for a Judicial review of the City's bid.

11/1/03 An application was made to the high court by Manchester city council to discharge the outstanding injunction and to have the main application heard urgently.

Mr Justice Hutchinson declined to discharge the injuction but agreed that the matter should be heard urgently. It was subsequently set down for hearing on 29/30th march 1993.

30/3/93 In the Hight Court the judicial review was heard before Lord Justice Macpherson. The application by BJ to stop the council issuing 100 new licences was thrown out.

The exact comments attributed to Macpherson in his judgement are not on my files but I recall from memory that he was very scathing. I will however make it a point to get the law report and let you have a copy if you so wish. With regard to costs, if my memory serves me well I recall that the Council were not awarded costs.



I'm not sure what reference you are refering to but if you would like to post the quote in question I would be more than happy to clarify the query.

The situation in 91/94 was completely different to the one from 1994 onwards. It is best not to confuse both situations as being the same, they are both different.

In 91/94 certain elements of the cab trade wanted no plates at all, hence the court case. I have stated that from the years after 1994 onwards the council told the trade they wanted a substantial increase in numbers.
I have also explained that there was very little oposition to this initiative because the Cab Trade new they couldn't do a thing about it. The trade had to eat the increase and lump it.


I never gave an opinion on criteria I just stated facts. It is not my remit to
to determine why one person should be favoured over another.


Which criteria are you talking about? present criteria or the criteria which applied in 1993/4 If it was 93/94 the criteria as I recall it from memory is as follows.

lenght of service was not in the criteria. I'm not saying it wasn't taken into account but it wasn't in the criteria.

Position on waiting list was in the criteria.
Resident of Manchester was in the Criteria.
A requirement to Double track the Cab was in the criteria.
existing plate holders were excluded except for one person who had extenuating circumstances. I bet you can't tell me who that was lol.
Ability to fund a cab is in any criteria no matter what.
I'm practically certain that Promise to work weekend nights was not in the criteria.

The present criteria requirement is lenght of service and that you live in Manchester. I have previoulsy stated that those people who have had free plates in the past and sold them are excluded from applying again.



Involved to what respect? If you were involved then you will obviously know that the change of criteria benefited those people who had been in the trade the longest. I also stated that it was the only input the cab comittee had with regard to the issuing of new licences. I don't know who your colleagues are or what organisation they belong to but I'm not going to mention names just to prove a point.



I thank you for offering me your email address Ged but I would prefer to keep my involvement in these discussions purely passive.



To be quite honest Ged I have seen so much infighting and upheaval in the past that I never get involved now. I leave that to others. In this latest scenario regarding the OFT report I have made a decision to let the die be cast. You know as well as I do the effect deregulation will have on those areas that are restricted such as Manchester. However I can't get away from the fact that Cab owners such as myself are a priviliged lot. It is that what makes me ask the question of myself, why should I be able to pick up off the street when many others are denied that privilage.

This latest offering from the OFT is not about the 1985 act, its about competition law. Its a new avenue being opened up. For those of us who follow European legislation its plain to see that it's only a matter of time before restrictions placed on numbers by councils will be a thing of the past. If you think you can fight that, then by all means try but in the end change will eventually come.

Good luck

John Davies
Manchester.

Perhaps the greatest law lord we ever had namely lord Denning once said "being placed on a waiting list is tantamount to a refusal and should be treated as such".

Those comments have been tested many times in the past sometimes succesfully sometimes not, but its an interesting thought.

Best wishes

John Davies
Manchester.

This trade ended when the compensation culture entered.

Do what I want or I'll take you to court.

Its a very sad state of affairs.

B. Lucky

Yes a quota is a quota, and I decided long ago that quotas are crap.

But if a really strict vehicle or driver criteria was put in place, then that makes far more sense, cos it is still open to all that are prepared to meet that criteria.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well if you only go by driver's years in the trade, then there is nothing stopping a driver getting a plate one year, then selling it the next day, and then getting a plate the next year, then selling it straight away...........................

I can't believe you would support that.

_________________
IDFIMH