Taxi Driver Online

I am suggesting that a national fare formula should be developed, it wouldnt make a standard fare throughout the country but merely a way of properly attaining a fare that correctly takes into account all of the costs involved in operating taxis.

There are certain places where fares are increased as a result of a particular service stations fuel prices reaching a certain level, there are other places where the political whims of a local authority are left to hang over a fare increase.

I take it from your response your okay Jack?

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

So are you saying councils could still implement a fare rise every two or three years regardless of this formula initiative?


Regards

JD

I'm not saying anything other than a national fare formula should be developed and perhaps it should be taken away from being a political football?

regards

CC

PS which was that age restriction case where a council was found to fetter its discretion?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

My response is trying to extract from you exactly what your intentions are? So far all you have done is huff and puff and run around in circles trying to avoid the issue.

Answer me these questions and perhaps the matter can be deleted from the trash can?

Would this formula be mandatory on every council?

Or would the formula act only as a guide or reference point for councils?

Regards

JD

1, The formula would be discussed as an idea with other stakeholders.

2, The forumla would be possibly accepted as a benchmark.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I think the hardest part of this formula is in getting it adopted.

Once adopted by a council, maybe via good practise guidance, it's so easy to amend, and more importantly easy to justify the amendment.

If average wages goes up, then so should ours. If costs go up, then so should ours to cover it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Does that mean the principal is acceptable?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Well you have an audience of thousands stakeholders on TDO why not discuss it with them? lol



We haven't seen the formula yet? lol

You mean the idea of a formula will be discussed with stakeholders?

And what if stakeholders or pipe dreamers say its a great idea, let's go for it?

What's your next move considering you haven't said if this is going to be legislated for?

And what if the majority of the un-represented cab trade doesn't like this formula?

Can I take it that your answer to question one was "NO" and the answer to Question two "YES"

1. Would this formula be mandatory on every council?

2. Or would the formula act only as a guide or reference point for councils?


Regards

JD

I did mention that I had replied to the whole of this message but I hadn't posted it. Here is my response to the other points you made in respect of Cherry pickers etc.

The first point we debated in respect of your idea regarding a fixed Treasury fare formula didn't really achieve anything because you chose to evade answering the pivotal points to the questions your proposal raised. We are still non the wiser if you want this treasury fare formula to be "mandatory" or just a "guide"?

I found your statement in respect of the fare formula interesting because it shows you have moved more to my own position which is taking licensing out of the hands of councillors and implementing a national single fare structure throughout the country, with an annual increase perhaps indexed to inflation? I know you prefer councils to retain controls on licensing but your approach to the fare structure which councils can only introduce by way of bylaws suggests to me that you don't have much confidence in local decision makers getting things right.



Sitting on a road under any circumstances is not against the law.



A passenger who agrees to pay more for a journey that starts and finishes within the prescribed distance is under no obligation to pay the agreed some if it be more than what is recorded on the meter. You know it is an offence to charge a passenger more than what is on the meter when travelling within the prescribed distance, even if the passenger agreed to pay you more and then changed their mind. The law adequately protects the public and gives fair warning to hackney carriage drivers of what might befall them if they transgress this law. The law states…..

55 Agreement to pay more than the legal fare No agreement whatever made with the driver, or with any person having or pretending to have the care of any such hackney carriage, for the payment of more than the fare allowed by any byelaw made under this or the special Act, shall be binding on the person making the same; and any such person may, notwithstanding such agreement, refuse, on discharging such hackney carriage, to pay any sum beyond the fare allowed as aforesaid; and if any person actually pay to the driver of any such hackney carriage, whether in pursuance of any such agreement or otherwise, any sum exceeding the fare to which such driver was entitled, the person paying the same shall be entitled, on complaint made against such driver before any justice of the peace, to recover back the sum paid beyond the proper fare, and moreover such driver shall be liable to a penalty for such exaction not exceeding [level 3 on the standard scale]; and in default of the repayment by such driver of such excess of fare, or of payment of the said penalty, such justice shall forthwith commit such driver to prison, there to remain for any time not exceeding one month, unless the said excess of fare and the said penalty be sooner paid.



Indeed it is.



It would appear the only person that has a clarity issue in respect of taking fares beyond licensed boundaries of the prescribed distance is yourself? The rest of us Taxi drivers "know" full well that a council can only set fares within their prescribed licensed area. It seems ludicrous to me and no doubt to the many other people reading this forum that an official of the NTA and ex chairman of the Carlisle TOA does not understanding the meaning of what is meant by "prescribed distance".

Perhaps it suits your purpose to cloud the issue in order to try and brainwash the gullible into thinking that out of area fares are somewhat of a mystery? The reality however could not be more clearer because the 1847 is totally unambiguous in this respect.

I don't buy into your observation that the law is unclear on out of area fares and I doubt anyone else in the Taxi trade would subscribe to that train of thought? I don't need to remind you what a prescribed distance is but here is the legislation just in case we forget?

"The commissioners may from time to time licence to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town, or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance").

And in respect of fares.

The commissioners may from time to time (subject to the restrictions of this and the special Act) make byelaws for fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for such hackney carriages, "within the prescribed distance" and for securing the due publication of such fares.



May I ask what has section 66 got to do with "clarity" of fares for the public?

Section 66 is specific to "Taxi drivers" and makes out the ""offence"" of demanding more than what is recorded on the Meter, for a fare that has not been agreed on a journey which ends outside the licensed area.

What exactly is it that you find unclear about section 66 because it is abundantly clear to me?

In case you or anyone else doesn't understand its meaning, I shall explain?

"Unless the driver of a hackney carriage agrees a fare prior to commencement of a journey ending outside the prescribed distance the rate of fare must not exceed that displayed on the taximeter".

Would you say that is clear, now?



Can you please explain what section 67 has got to do with Hackney carriage journeys ending outside the prescribed distance?

Again Section 67 is specific to hackney carriage drivers and sets out the "offence" of charging more than what is on the meter. In fact it states

No hackney carriage shall be used in the district under contract or purported contract for private hire except at a rate of fares or charges not greater than that fixed by the bylaws.

In other words when carrying passengers under a contract of private hire you cannot charge more than the prescribed fare.

Now to me that is crystal CLEAR and I suppose it is clear to everyone else, excepting perhaps yourself? One observation I have is that your initial complaint was about hackney carriage drivers so called Cherry Picking and yet you end up talking about private hire fares for hackney carriages. Is there some relation between the two?



And what would these two new sections consist of or haven't you considered that yet? I'm all for improving legislation and bringing it up to date but I have the interest of the Taxi driver at heart and I'm not yet convinced where your interests lie? I have a view that quality controls should be the only standard of entry into the Taxi trade therefore my opinion on quantity controls are well publicised.

My only concerns are for cab drivers and the adverse affect any changes the NTA or any other so-called stakeholder might advocate that leads to having a detrimental effect on the working practices of all cab drivers.

The NTA and T&G is mainly made up of owners and owner drivers in restricted authorities. These people are in many cases held hostage to fortune by local authorities who hold the sword of Damocles over their head by virtue of the word "deregulation". Practically every year it would seem the NTA AGM has deregulation as its main topic of importance, so to me that sheds some light on the main preocupation of the majority of your members.

You talk about getting rid of five sections of the 1847 act which appertain to fares and yet you haven't got a clue what you're going to replace them with? The two sections of the 1976 act you mentioned don't even come close to providing an adequate substitute. Any new legislation on fares would need a complete new rewrite and still they would be subject to applying only within the prescribed distance as set out in the 1847 act. Unless of course you intend to re write the whole of the 1847 act, which I and many others recommend.

It alarms me that you want to get rid of one of the most fundamental sections appertaining to Taxi drivers that being section 57, without even commenting on what should replace it. I sincerely hope all these cab drivers reading this forum are taking note of what you advocate.

Section 57 Deposit to be made for carriages required to wait

When any hackney carriage is hired and taken to any place, and the driver thereof is required by the hirer there to wait with such hackney carriage. Such driver may demand and receive from such hirer his fare for driving to such place, "and also a sum equal to the fare of such carriage for the period, as a deposit over and above such fare, during which he is required to wait".

The above reference appertains to drivers legally being able to demand a deposit for waiting time and to discontinue the hire once that deposit has expired, yet you wish to remove this safeguard for hackney carriage drivers.

Most of us would agree that we need modern legislation but your tinkering ideas are as obsolete as the legislation you wish to replace.

You put forward a notion that five sections of the 1847 act should be replaced yet you fail to state what will replace them. There is no doubt that one great big section could accomplish the same as we have now but it wouldn't necessarily make it any clearer?

The two sections you quoted in the 1976 act only relate to offences.

Cherry Pickers are quite adequately catered for in current legislation and if any cherry picker wants to sit around in the hope they get a good job going a million miles such as they do at Airports, then they are more than welcome to live in hope.



I have no problem being a minority of one because that puts me in the same boat as you and everyone else. The difference with this particular minority of one is the fact that I know which side I'm on and as I previously stated I have yet to be convinced, which side you are on?

I suppose it is well documented that I have problems with organisations that say they represent the Taxi trade when in effect they only represent a certain section of the taxi trade. In the case of the NTA and T&G that representation in the main extends to the vested interests wishing to retain quantity controls. Even in that respect the NTA and T&G membership is insignificant when you consider the number of Taxi drivers who choose not to be members of a local association.

I know there are many local associations allied to the NTA who reside in areas where council's do not restrict numbers, so before you remind me of that fact you can take it as being acknowledged. My opinion of the NTA is that they are far from transparent to the Taxi trade as a whole and they lack imagination.

That is not to say that you personally lack imagination but the NTA membership as a whole has demonstrated by their past actions that they lack transparency and foresight.

Are they or for that matter any other organisation competent to take the Taxi trade forward to a higher level in the future? I would like to think so but I'm having serious doubts?



I suppose the competence of these individual bodies as you put it can also be brought into disrepute when you consider the T&G has a policy of favouring LTI vehicles over driver choice. The T&G is another body that suffers from a distinct lack of support from the ranks of the Taxi trade yet this minority grouping has manoeuvred itself into a position of influence which some might say gives cause for alarm?

I doubt many cab drivers would agree to join an organisation that publicly advocates removing vehicle choice for drivers.

I like your reference to stakeholders because there are two hundred thousand stakeholders in England and Wales who might feel a little peeved at your implication that the word stakeholder only applies to cab drivers that belong to an organisation. What type of mandate do you have from the thousands of stakeholders who outnumber members of trade organisations by ten to one? Will you be considering their opinion when you advocate removal of certain sections of legislation that you feel hinders the declining progress of freedom of choice for taxi drivers? Will you consider them, when you advocate the imposition of private hire operator licenses for every hackney carriage driver in England and Wales, which your resolution in respect of operator licenses might well achieve?

I doubt it.

Regards

JD

JD. a very interesting post which when I read it seems to be all about yourself, and what you want, you make it perfectly clear what you want, but do not explain how you would realistically achieve it, a new act, interesting, not new, people have been shouting this for years that I know of, and probably for a hundred years before that,

The trouble is that many people are happy the way it is now, and make a great deal of money from it, divide and conquer the oldest principle in war, it is used continuously to stop new acts going through, similarly create diversions then burn up parliamentary time,

You go back on the old track of criticising associations and unions that protect their members and even non-members, for without them the trade would be at the mercy of licensing officers, many without training and most with their own personal agenda .

You have the audacity of accusing the captain of putting forward ideas that are already obsolete, his ideas and suggestions regarding bringing the national associations together are far from that in my opinion, and I would suggest greatly beyond something you could achieve,

Not a thing the captain has said is fixed in stone , so debate by all means, and for once try to be positive.

A simple quest For You I'm sure, how many new laws have been made in the last hundred years, and how many of them were put into force in the lifespan of this Government

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Why don't the NTA and NPHA publish a 'Green Paper' of their proposals so that every stake-holder can have a look, a moan, a well done, add a suggestion or two etc, once they have finalised them?

My fears are that the few will decide what's right for the many, and, more often than not, that's not what the many want.

_________________
IDFIMH

So we let 2 proprietors orgs lead the way? Or do the drivers orgs take the lead?

_________________
The views expressed by this contributor do not neccesarily reflect the policys of The GMB Nationally or of the GMB London Region.

This statement of yours is why it hasn't happened before, the last thing the trade Needs at present is a dinosaur.... especially one from an orther extinct trade.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Stake holder is a phrase that the Government uses when it is referring to bodies who represent certain majorities, the NTA is a stake holder,, National private hire Association is a stake holder, I am trying to clarify the meaning of the word.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Jd,

Thanks for your answer, even if it is a tad long.

A couple of points, I have never been chairman of any taxi association, and the NTA isn't mainly made up of associations from regulated authorities.

Deregulation is a point of great importance to many people within the trade, the theory seems to be that it doesn't work, but that's another issue, the NTA AGM didn't mention deregulation this year, and I don't think it did last year.

Irrespective of deregulation, I don't believe I have referred to it (well not advertently) in this thread. I don't feel the need to remind an intelligent chap such as yourself why the thread was put up. I am glad for your input though.

I choose not to be a member of any political party, yet invariably my life is effectively controlled by politicians....I should also point out if I were to be in a political party and they were not in power....could it therefore be said that the people in power were acting against my will?

You claim the NTA lacked transparency and foresight, yet as you know fine well, it is the membership that are supposed to drive policy, and its a lame excuse I know because I am a member.

You make reference to membership numbers, yet even this site which has free membership and is of value to those of us that use it, has over 850 members, of which about 10 - 20 seem active. All I can really state about NTA membership figures are that the NTA is an affiliate organisation, changes in the membership rules permit member associations in for a set fee, in other words we could have a member association in with over 100 members, yet they wouldnt declare their membership and would only be required to pay the set fee.

In answer to your final paragraph the NTA membership have directed the NTA to work with others setting out the parameters towards non contentious change. I know you understand what non contentious means, so no items which are contentious would be put forward.

I think you need to consider what is more likely, complete new taxi legislation or changes to the current system, I know what I believe.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin