Taxi Driver Online

John,

Thanks for the answer, i still disagree but thanks

I will study in depth are try to answer some of your points

But my gut feeling is that there was never going to be a black and white scenario, because even the rural trade differs from area to area, as does the trade in cities, each place needs to be judged on its merits. Hence the greyness of the legislation.

I dont think in all honesty the govt is saying de limit or else, if the restricted areas through LTPs can persuade the government that to do so would worsen the transport issue.

Theyve been very clever the government, you interpret this different to me, but you come from a restricted area and i dont, so were bound to see it different.

divide to conqueor?

regards

Captain cab

John
I find all you have said on this issue as interesting, and more imformative than most.

I find this almost daily arguments to fit ones personal perspective, almost laughable.

then the crowing starts Im all right said one contributor, I have got everything I want, which was his premium, his local authority always has restricted licenses so always will.

I have tried my best to bring sanity in by redering to transport plan inserts, regretfully these are neither understood or do they want to , unbelievable!

though I have to say I think its possible if taxi drivers act intelligently, unlikely I know, that more authorities could limit by numbers, but as they would say in Manchester, here is where the [edited by admin] pot cracks, and I seeth when I see it, there are a couple that want limits by numbers at a level below that exists.

so they want to increase the quality to reduce numbers then slip on limit by numbers(I might be wrong but I read Gateshead as being like this)

Well if you are drowning in the kitchen for gods sake switch off the f***ing tap!

Either way john in three years time we will be only two years of a General election, no matter what you feel who did what the taxi drivers have now [edited by admin] off the government twice.

I know what it feels like to know policy must be changed but the difficulty of telling an ordinary bloke that he will lose sometimes up to 70 grands worth of premium, its scary people have lost thier legs for less than a third of that.

you say there is a health warning and its not to buy plates they could lose it, John, the other side is where Local Authority members will say, stuff them, its for them to do this desperate act.

Sussex recons most authorities dont limit by numbers, I reckon the opposite, but more importantly over 75% of UK taxi stock is in authorities that dont limit by number, with 35% in London alone.

I started by saying I am interested in your thinking, if I read you right using my nouse am I to understand that the department of transport dont at this time want change?

John this is not the time for another transport bill, will people be warned that there is one in draft, to cover many things including a national congestion charge, My mp has said it will take........................3years

Geoff

I think where it will be very hard to prove latent demand is being met, is in the rural parts of urban areas.

It's always been very easy for the head counters to assess the ranks, or most of the ranks. But they have ignored the path-work that is as much taxi work as anything else.

And if they take into account the taxi work that has been lost in the sticks to the PH trade, then de-limitation is a must.

_________________
IDFIMH

And I will be only too pleased to help.

_________________
IDFIMH

John

I find myself disagreeing with you.

Firstly, the amendment to the 1985 act has been to the advantage of the trade, each case that has gone to court has had the chance to be judged on its own merits, rather than a carte blanche style of means test. I think I can remember reminding you it was Lord Renton that pushed through the amendment via the NFTA.

Section 16 is a line of defence for the trade.

Liverpool for example could in all honesty stop the issue of licenses to ease problems with congestion, which is what I believe their trade mentioned amongst reasons very recently in there repost against the OFT. If it were not for section 16 this could not have transpired.

I notice that you have not disagreed that the trade is inconsistent around the country, the trade in Gateshead is unlike Newcastle and all that separates them is a bridge across the Tyne. I think I am therefore accurate in presuming that each area should be judged upon its merits and permit the dialogue between the trade and local authority prior to any necessity of going to court.

Very often around the country it has been the trades unwillingness to change that has led to the court cases in the first place.

I dont think the topography of each area can be broken down into a simplistic urban and rural scenario, each area has differing nuances to the next. The trades best defence against the large brush style type of legislation has been the very fact that each area is different and there is no idyllic solution.

Your quote with reference to Manchester may not be correct, I understand that Halcrow have on the majority of occasions came back with a unmet demand response, it is therefore due to the 85 act that your local trade was able to successfully negotiate with the council, much to the advantage of the existing trade I should add.

Regarding the draft guidance, I think you do the National Bodies a disservice by suggesting the government will not pay attention to trade advice, if the trade had not been heeded the OFT would have completely have got there way.

As regards to my assumption that the government have been very clever, I think they have, they have fired a shot across the bows to those areas that flatly refuse to look at there taxi licensing policies. They have not changed a single law.

Either way, we will have an interesting few years ahead.

regards

Captain Cab

I won’t hold that against you Cap lol



Yes I havent forgotten that you delivered the name of Lord Renton to me. I really apreciate it. I mentioned previously I had been racking my brains over it every time it cropped up in conversation.

The part of Section 16 you are referring to, the Lord Renton amendment, has without doubt been advantageous to those in the trade who wish to put up a barrier to stop others who are equally qualified, from entering. Did you have another reason why section 16 has been advantageous?

I have never denied that section 16 has been advantageous to those wishing to restrict equally qualified persons from doing the same Job. However, I doubt that the many thousands of applicants sat on a waiting list for a proprietors licence would share your opinion about section 16.

Perhaps it could be said that Lord Rentons clause (B) in section 16 has had a dividing effect on the Trade. Section 16 certainly benefits people such as myself, yet it totally discriminates against the likes of Mr. Sussex.

Under those circumstances and knowing the Governments intention with regard to the 1985 Transport act, would it not be fair to say that section 16 has probably been advantageous to the few, while being disadvantageous to the many.

With regard to your reference of the Courts, I wasn’t quite sure as to what you were inferring. However, we all know the courts have had a hard time deciphering the logic in section 16.

Anyone in our trade who is interested in our “common law process” has been treated to some truly magnificent courtroom encounters. From 1986 to present day, the cases keep rolling off the production line, the latest case being that of Reading. Incidentally, the verdict of that case should be forthcoming this week, should it not?



When you say a line of defence for the trade, do you mean a line of defence for plate owners such as myself, or do you include Journeymen, trackers, non proprietors, private hire drivers, uncle tom cobbly and all?



Manchester is a potential Liverpool, only on a much larger scale.

I take it you are saying, that if Lord Rentons amendment in section 16 was not in place, Liverpool would be unable to restrict licences. That would undoubtedly be the case.

Congestion is a valid point. It sits right at the top of my list of reasons why councils should restrict licences. However, my list of reasons is very small and my other list of reasons why licences shouldn’t be restricted, far outweigh my reasons why they should.

We are all aware that Congestion was the reason why licenses were restricted in the first place. Over provision of Hackney carriage vehicles was catered for in the 1847 act, whether that principle applies in this day and age I have my doubts.

In my opinion, there are only two valid reasons why a council should consider restricting numbers and both have a very big question mark against them.

To conclude on the congestion argument, I’ll let section 27 of circular 3/85 sum it up, it states.

“Overcrowding at Taxi ranks is not in itself evidence that there is no unmet demand”



I was trying to attach a relevance to the word “inconsistent”. Is it the Trade that’s inconsistent, or Local Authorities?

We all work under the same legislation, if there is an inconsistency as you say, then perhaps legislation is at fault. On the other hand, perhaps some licensing Authorities and Taxi associations have a peculiar way of doing things, such as Hartlepool with their four tariffs in 24 hours.

I don’t see what relevance the word “inconsistency” has with section 16. Section 16 is a means to an end. It is just an option that is open to a local authority, should they wish to restrict numbers.

Section 16 has nothing whatsoever to do with the trade, it is in place for the benefit of licensing Authorities not Taxi drivers.



I agree with you it can’t be broken down into simplistic urban and rural definitions as you say but to simplify matters that was the best I could do. We both know that some Authorities have combined urban and rural attributes. I could have mentioned that but I thought it would be taken for granted that that was the case. If you wish to expand on other topographical vagaries, then please do so.



I had a feeling my comments about Manchester may mislead some people. I was specifically referring to my own knowledge about what may happen at the next plate issue. You said this in your first post,



I replied by stating this.

“I don't know about Manchester because I understand the next issue of licences may be substantial”

You implied that aggrieved persons in Manchester may perhaps take the local council to court.

For those who don’t already know Manchester City council have expressed an opinion to reduce the waiting list substantially. I am assuming they are looking to reduce the waiting list by at least a 100 if not 200.

My reason for questioning your assumption that Manchester may contemplate future court action, was based on that particular knowledge.

My response had nothing to do with surveys or future Government guidance; it was based purely on the premise that issuing more licenses cuts down the prospect of future court action.



In my opinion, the only National bodies the Government should take notice of in this instance are those National bodies that represent the Public.

You keep referring to the trade, but I suspect what you really mean is the restricted part of the trade. I am part of the privileged restricted part of the trade and I have to inform you that we don’t even make up half the numbers of the trade.

In the main the restricted part of the trade is only ever united when it effects their livelihood.

Take Manchester Airport for instance, the majority of the trade here in Manchester who don't work the Airport couldn't really care less what happens up there. Thats how united the trade is.

Taxi drivers have no right of expectation to influence governmental guidance. They do have a right to offer suggestions and the Government may or may not wish to take those suggestions onboard, “but that’s all they have”.

I would just like to say that I’ve been in this game quite a long time as an owner and the only issue that concerns the majority of my colleagues is that they will be economically worse off. That is the only real issue with regard to Deregulating numbers, there really is no other?

Best Wishes

John Davies.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Mr Yorkie, please go to;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/intradoc-cgi/nph- ... &x=21&y=13

and click on the first item.

There you will find in all it's glory, enough stats to keep you happy, and of course prove beyond any reasonable doubt that young Sussex is right, yet again

_________________
IDFIMH

Captain, I think when different areas go to court over sec 16, they don't ever question sec 16 itself, but the procedures that different councils take to get to their decisions.

So to me, sec 16 is quite clear, it's just that different councils interpret it in various, often illegal, ways.

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
IDFIMH

John,

Thank you for your eloquent answer, however I fear you are twisting the meaning of my words.

My interpretation of section 16 is that LA's are obligated ensure that there is significant unmet demand, my viewpoint of this is that the reason this is done is not to safeguard the plate values of the existing trade, that isn't a consideration for the LA, it is to ensure that the quantity of work for the existing trade and the potentially newly licensed trade will be there post delimitation.

It is not to discriminate, it is to safeguard both new licensees and the existing trade.

When I state that section 16 is a line of defence, I mean it makes any LA decision open to scrutiny, I feel this is only correct.

I will not refer further to Manchester, but it is my belief that the hackney trade in this area has benefited through the existing system, the plate issue is being addressed.

With regards to the government guidance, point 16 of the government response clearly states that the government will consult both local authorities and other stakeholders in order to develop best practice. It is my estimation that the national trade will be consulted, as stakeholders.

Finally, you say I keep referring to the trade and you suspect I mean the restricted part of the trade, this is not the case, I come from a delimited area. I see your point regarding the apathy within the trade and I am very conscious of the trade only unifying when things directly affect them. Unfortunately we live in selfish times, where the attitude of self is the apparent attitude of society.

There is not a lot any of us can do about this, as depressing as that is, however what local associations and national associations do is for there members, if it helps a non-member on route so be it.

I should perhaps add as a final, final point, that I don't believe in plate values, for me the government should act on this at some point, perhaps local authorities, perhaps customs and excise or the inland revenue and for those businesses that finance the purchase of plates perhaps the financial regulators, the ever decreasing circle of plate values will have to end at some point.

Unfortunately our experiences of delimitation in my part of the world is that hackney licenses are no longer being used for the benefit of the public, they are being used to the benefit of the owner-driver, used 2-3 days per week usually during the busy Friday and Saturday nights. The member of the public who wants a cab on a Monday morning must wait or find alternatives, the service wasn't this bad before delimitation.

(I thought you were retiring, coming on here and giving me grief!)

Regards

Captain Cab

We agree

regards

Captain Cab

From whatever angle we all look at this don't you think its been a disaster.
We are now lets say eighteen months on and absolutely no clearer as to where the trade is going than a year and a half ago.People in there right mind would not invest in the trade i.e new cabs or in there domestic lifes until this was cleared up.The goverment should have come up with clear conclusions and they havn't,it amazes me that we have one of the strongest economies in the world.

those that dont limit by number 61

those that do limit by number 62

cant you count?

Geoff

Now we both know that there are more than 123 councils in England and Wales.

However I refer you to page 2, 141 councils out of 343 apply some sort of quantity control to their taxi fleet.

_________________
IDFIMH

you refered me to the page and I counted them.

not all councils have taxis,

like counties and those who dont license

solicitor is missleading