Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Apr 26, 2026 10:39 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Some members declare all they want is fairness, but how can it be fair that a bloke can be allowed to re-mortgage his family home to purchase something, with the full knowledge and consent of the licensing authority. I don't believe that is fair and I don't believe that any resonable minded person would agree that the purchaser should suffer.


Yes with the full knowledge, but I doubt with the full consent.

Is it fair that someone will lose money, of course not, but if you are going to spend tens of thousands, then you really should double check what you are buying.

Ignorance is not a good enough reason to stop others being treated equally.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Gateshead Angel wrote:
The councils should have insisted that the plates were NON-TRANFERABLE when they were first issued and continued to enforce this regulation, I believe they are responsible because the plates always belong to the council and always remain under their control.


I suspect many would, if it wasn't for the fact that it would be illegal. :(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:18 am 
Sussex Man wrote:
Yes with the full knowledge, but I doubt with the full consent.

Is it fair that someone will lose money, of course not, but if you are going to spend tens of thousands, then you really should double check what you are buying.

Ignorance is not a good enough reason to stop others being treated equally.


The thing is though that ALL plate transfers are conducted with the councils consent.

I'm glad you've finally come out and said that the simple terms you see delimitation taking will cause some a financial burden, these arn't the instigators of plate premiums these are victims of them just as you are. Hence my statement about the councils seeking their costs from the original plateholders, the ONLY real winners in the premium situation, which I note you fail to quote or comment upon.

Everyone risks money to get what they want, when you see a house you want you go and get a mortgage to buy it, you do everything within your powers to reduce that risk by checking that it is OK to buy before you take the plunge. I believe by making the authorities aware of the transfer current plateholders did exactly that, after all you call a National Body for not warning people before purchasing plates, but I know that LA's aren't warning people either, at least ours isn't.

Hopefully there will be a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, I can't see it within the OFT report, and that everyone lives happily ever after.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:38 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Mr Davies, is the "approximate timescale" the "minimum timescale" or are you making an asumption based on the actual time previously taken to fulfil a Regulatory Reform Order.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Angel you're probably a very nice guy but one thing you have to realise I'm not your nurse maid. If you want to know about the RRA go and do some leg work and look it up on the net. All the information you require to make a judgement is contained therein. It is all self explanatory. Good Luck.

I'm off out to surf the streets of Manchester, if you get lost on the Net you can reach me on my mobile.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.


Sorry Mr Davies, its just that you asked another member to quantify a statement yet it seems you are un-willing to do the same.

I asked you, on what do you base your statement regarding timescale for implimentation, this cannot be found on any website. I can, as you suggest, try to work out what I believe would be a realistic timescale for implimentation but that wouldn't answer the question I posed.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:43 am 
[quote="Anonymous"] If you want to know about the RRA go and do some leg work and look it up on the net. [quote/]

I don't remember the RRA actually making it through government never mind parliment.

I know that previously Regulatory Reform Orders have been granted for specific cases, but again I don't recall any relating to taxis. In fact it was suggested that the OFT investigation was intended to suggest some of the changes proposed under the failed RRA.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Gateshead Angel wrote:
The thing is though that ALL plate transfers are conducted with the councils consent.


Well I'm not so sure it is with the council's consent. :?

It's the law, consent has nothing to do with it.

Just cos some council restrict numbers, it doesn't mean they love plate transfers.

But when you have a s*** system, you get s*** people abusing it.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Gateshead Angel wrote:
I'm glad you've finally come out and said that the simple terms you see delimitation taking will cause some a financial burden, these arn't the instigators of plate premiums these are victims of them just as you are. Hence my statement about the councils seeking their costs from the original plateholders, the ONLY real winners in the premium situation, which I note you fail to quote or comment upon.


As I said, of course de-limitation will effect some financial, but it's only a small percentage of existing HC owners.

But what about the tens of thousands of PH drivers and HC journeymen and women, who have been sucked dry by the system?

As for councils gaining from de-limitation, well they might save on enforcement, but it costs the same to license a PH, as a HC.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:28 pm 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Mr Davies, is the "approximate timescale" the "minimum timescale" or are you making an asumption based on the actual time previously taken to fulfil a Regulatory Reform Order.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Angel you're probably a very nice guy but one thing you have to realise I'm not your nurse maid. If you want to know about the RRA go and do some leg work and look it up on the net. All the information you require to make a judgement is contained therein. It is all self explanatory. Good Luck.

I'm off out to surf the streets of Manchester, if you get lost on the Net you can reach me on my mobile.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.


Sorry Mr Davies, its just that you asked another member to quantify a statement yet it seems you are un-willing to do the same.

I asked you, on what do you base your statement regarding timescale for implimentation, this cannot be found on any website. I can, as you suggest, try to work out what I believe would be a realistic timescale for implimentation but that wouldn't answer the question I posed.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Angel I'm trying to help you. If everyone keeps feeding you by the hand your never going to be able to feed yourself. The information is out there and whatsmore If my memory serves me well, one RRO only took about eight month from consultation to becoming Law. The Average is 12 to 14 Month from the consultation document going out.

There have been 16 orders passed since the act came into force in 2001. One in 2001 seven in 2002 and eight in 2003. There are currently four orders under parliamentary scrutiny. There are three consultation documents underway.

There has been a lot of conjecture about what route the Governemt would take if they amended section 16 of the Transport act. Well it should be patently obvious now that the route they were always going to take was by way of the RRO.

They could have used the 1994 deregulation act but it appears that was ruled out from an early stage. The tell telling sign was the publication of the Regulatory reform action plan published in December last year. I wasn't aware one existed until Dusty mentioned it. If you scroll down to page 38 you will see quite plainly the plans Government have in mind for section 16.

There is an interesting foreward written by Tony Blair and it seems to me that it is inconceivable to think that he and the Cabinet were not aware of the 650 regulatory proposals submitted in this Action plan. Therefore would it not be fair to sumise that the Cabinet had already taken a view on this matter?

Considering all the available facts up to this moment in time I would say the Statement from the Minister of state to be published on or before the 9th of March will say one of two things. (A) The Department needs more time to consider the proposals laid before it by the Office of Fair Trading. or (B) The Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry unanimously agree with the findings of the OFT Report and reccomendations will be put before the Cabinet. If they come out with anything stronger the H/C trade is right in the chit.

More food for thought.

If you've not found what you want by this afternoon Angel I'll come hold your hand. lol

Be good and stop worrying about something that may never happen lol
If the worse comes to the worse Angel you can always come down here and work the Airport with Ged. There are some knowledgeable folk up there I'm sure they will keep you entertained.

Best wishes

John Davies
Manchester.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:02 pm 
Gateshead Angel wrote:


I don't remember the RRA actually making it through government never mind parliment.

I know that previously Regulatory Reform Orders have been granted for specific cases, but again I don't recall any relating to taxis. In fact it was suggested that the OFT investigation was intended to suggest some of the changes proposed under the failed RRA.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Here you go Angel. http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/regulation/act/Index.htm
You won't need to ask anymore Questions about RRO now because I assume you would have informed yourself about it.

In fact there is no need for anyone to ask questions about RRA because everyhting you ever wanted to know about the RRA is there on the Cabinet office website.

Do you ever get the feeling that the TGWU should be feeding all this info to the Cab Trade. Or have they already published this information?

Best wishes

John Davies
Manchester.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:36 pm 
Thanks Mr Davies for that information.

I hope that they just decide something so that we can all make some plans as to whether we see a furture in the trade for ourselves.

Hopefully it will include a gradual implimentation plan to ease the transition but as long as we are all made fully aware of the situation, allowing time to consider any objections, I cannot see why it cannot be introduced quite quickly.

BTW, I limit myself to as little time in Manchester as I possibly can, even the outskirts like Wigan make me queezy, and the dizzyness doesn't stop until I reach Scotch Corner on my way back.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:40 pm 
Sussex Man wrote:
As I said, of course de-limitation will effect some financial, but it's only a small percentage of existing HC owners.


Sussex please understand that in areas outside your own the percentages could be completely reversed, here in Gateshead for example the majority of plateholders are independant owner drivers, the very people who would be effected most by the implimentation of the changes you suggest.

Just a modecum of consideration please.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:45 pm 
Sussex Man wrote:
But what about the tens of thousands of PH drivers and HC journeymen and women, who have been sucked dry by the system?


I don't understand why you feel as though P/H drivers have been "sucked dry" by the system as they have been excluded not exploited.

Again in some delimited areas, there are NO vehicles to jockey, they are all taken, so the jockey's jockey because they want to jockey. I understand that in some areas that is not the case, but it is what I see every day and it is on what I base my opinion.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:52 pm 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Thanks Mr Davies for that information.

I hope that they just decide something so that we can all make some plans as to whether we see a furture in the trade for ourselves.

Hopefully it will include a gradual implimentation plan to ease the transition but as long as we are all made fully aware of the situation, allowing time to consider any objections, I cannot see why it cannot be introduced quite quickly.

BTW, I limit myself to as little time in Manchester as I possibly can, even the outskirts like Wigan make me queezy, and the dizzyness doesn't stop until I reach Scotch Corner on my way back.

B. Lucky :twisted:


lol Angel, I'm sorry to here that about Manchester. I know the uncertainty of not knowing what is going to happen, must be traumatic for you, especially if you have recently invested a substantial amount of money in buying a plate.

Good luck and good reading.

Best wishes
John Davies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:53 pm 
Sussex Man wrote:
As for councils gaining from de-limitation, well they might save on enforcement, but it costs the same to license a PH, as a HC.


Again you make asumptions, and you base your opinion on them. I know that in Gateshead following delimitation more people enter the trade as a H/C than move from P/H. In fact many of the drivers who changed from P/H to H/C have reverted back to P/H, as you know I myself went P/H for a time last year.

The number of licenses issues by our council TOTAL, has increased by over 100%, and that includes an increase in P/H numbers.

You see SM I don't have to imagine what would happen, I don't need to guess I see it every day, of course thats what happened here, I wouldn't be so presumptious to assume or suggest that it would happen this way anywhere else.

B. Lucky :twisted:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57334
Location: 1066 Country
Gateshead Angel wrote:
Sussex please understand that in areas outside your own the percentages could be completely reversed, here in Gateshead for example the majority of plateholders are independant owner drivers, the very people who would be effected most by the implimentation of the changes you suggest.


Are saying that OFT will mean more drivers coming into the trade, following the ending of quotas, thus effecting existing drivers?

If you are, then that's what happens in the majority of HC areas, and 100% of PH areas at the moment.

It also happens in 99.99% of every other business in the land. They manage to survive, why shouldn't the HC trade in restricted areas.

Any trade that needs a monopoly to survive, is in a poor state. :(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 817 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group