WAV to Saloon?

jimbo · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:56 pm

"Why so many Metrocabs?"

Because Metrocab owners don't have to worry about Coventry Lace. :lol:

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:08 pm

jimbo wrote:

Question One. It is true that a medical exemption from carrying guide dogs can be given. Can a Taxi driver be given a medical exemption from loading and unloading passengers confined to a wheelchair? I have never seen one.

Providing a council are satisfied that a driver isn't fit enough to hump wheel-chairs, or they have a condition that is made worse via dog contact, then that council can issue a certificate of exemption.

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:12 pm

jimbo wrote:

Question Two. Can a proprietor be given a medical exemption from operating a WAV in a district where a mandatory 100% WAV order is in force? Again, I have never seen one.

Councils do many things, but giving someone permission to operate a non-WAV in a mandatory WAV area is un-fair IMO.

I think the likes of OFT would be interested in this, as how can you compete fairly with someone who can buy a £5,000 motor, when you have to buy a £30,000+ motor?

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:14 pm

jimbo wrote:

The Council agreed that Mr X cannot load wheelchairs in his taxi.

Mr X argued that he therefore does not need to operate an accessible taxi.

That does make sense to a degree, but surely the answer must be to allow everyone the option to run a saloon, not just him.

gusmac · **Posted:** Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:20 pm

jimbo wrote:

Can a Taxi driver be given a medical exemption from loading and unloading passengers confined to a wheelchair? I have never seen one.

Yes, several Aberdeen cabbies are exempted from pushing/loading wheelchairs.

jimbo wrote:

Can a proprietor be given a medical exemption from operating a WAV in a district where a mandatory 100% WAV order is in force? Again, I have never seen one.

Not 100% sure about this one. A few have tried this in Aberdeen but all have been refused. Council always use the arguament that someone else could do it if required.
Check this thread
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtop ... mes+wilson
may be of some help

JD · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm **Posts:** 10381

There is only one issue of conjecture involved here and that is the councils decision to depart from their established policy of only licensing WAV's. Jimbo wants to know if a council can do this in isolation? The answer is yes.

On this particular issue Jimbo talks about a level playing field but I find that ironic when I look at some of his past comments in respect of some other licensing decisions such as quantity controls and the obvious council decision of Carlisle to maintain a decidedly unlevel playing field in respect of only allowing certain vehicles to ply for hire at a certain taxi rank.

If this council decision was wrong in law I would be the first to complain but in this particular instance I have no complaint other than the fact that even though the owner is disabled I believe the council were wrong to grant him special dispensation.

My reasoning centres on two aspects, first is the point in respect of wheelchair bound passengers having their own assistance and second is the point that if the vehicle is double shifted then there should be no dispensation for the additional driver.

Regards

JD

TDO · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:52 pm

Good grief JD, don't even suggest that Lincoln taxis are double-shifted [-X

jimbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:35 pm

JD wrote:

There is only one issue of conjecture involved here and that is the councils decision to depart from their established policy of only licensing WAV's. Jimbo wants to know if a council can do this in isolation? The answer is yes.

On this particular issue Jimbo talks about a level playing field but I find that ironic when I look at some of his past comments in respect of some other licensing decisions such as quantity controls and the obvious council decision of Carlisle to maintain a decidedly unlevel playing field in respect of only allowing certain vehicles to ply for hire at a certain taxi rank.

If this council decision was wrong in law I would be the first to complain but in this particular instance I have no complaint other than the fact that even though the owner is disabled I believe the council were wrong to grant him special dispensation.

My reasoning centres on two aspects, first is the point in respect of wheelchair bound passengers having their own assistance and second is the point that if the vehicle is double shifted then there should be no dispensation for the additional driver.

Regards

JD

Well done for not overlooking Carlisle and Quality Controls. Never miss an opportunity...

I don't see your point in respect of Whelchair passengers having their own assistance. Trained in loading them in to a taxi?

Your second point is an onorous condition, not allowed to double shift... :lol:

jimbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:05 pm

There is no requirement in Lincoln for drivers to have a medical until they are 65. I did not make the rules, the council seem to make them up as they go along.

But in areas where a medical is a regular requirement, I wonder if any drivers are refused a badge due to poor health? If not, what would be the point of a medical?

If other drivers in Lincoln who have a medical exemption (and I know there are more,) from loading wheelchair bound customers into a taxi seek exemption from driving a WAV, how could the Council say no?

By the way, you have not asked the nature of Mr X's Disability.

If you find out, let me know, because I haven't a clue.

I wonder if TfL would let Mr GBC run his Smart Car as a Taxi if he produced a sicknote?

jimbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:10 pm

And by the way, Lincoln is listed on the DfT's list of first phase Authorities for the Implimentation of the 1995 DDA.

Because Lincoln is 100% mandatory WAV.

Should I ask for Lincoln to be removed from "First Phase?"

TDO · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:10 pm

BTW Jimbo, I'm still not entirely clear as to how a Doblo or converted Sharan or whatever can't meet the Lincoln accessability criteria?

Sussex · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:50 pm

jimbo wrote:

There is no requirement in Lincoln for drivers to have a medical until they are 65.

I can't believe that. :shock:

jimbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:54 pm

Sussex wrote:

jimbo wrote:

There is no requirement in Lincoln for drivers to have a medical until they are 65.

I can't believe that. :shock:

Believe.

For it is so.

jimbo · **Posted:** Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:57 pm

TDO wrote:

BTW Jimbo, I'm still not entirely clear as to how a Doblo or converted Sharan or whatever can't meet the Lincoln accessability criteria?

If it's accessible it can be licensed. Where did I give you the impression that it was otherwise?

echo15 · **Joined:** Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:40 pm **Posts:** 1046

Well around here they got Doblos coz it was a cheap option on getting a plate from the council as they had to be WAV.

When a wheelchair passenger approaches the rank and a Doblo is front on they pull off leaving the W/C passenger to get in a E7 or TX. :sad:

Taxi Driver Online

WAV to Saloon?

Who is online