Taxi Driver Online

An open letter to Councillor Mowatt. (sent 18th March, 2008)


Dear Councillor Mowatt

You will recall at the taxi licence application hearing on 30th January you made the statement that the applicants hadn't provided you with any proof of the existence of demand, despite the previous incidences where demand information had been suggested and which the council chose not to take any action on.

As a result of this I wrote to Robert Millar, and then again on 15th February asking precisely where the Act provides the requirement for a licence applicant to do so. The emails are below.

Although we have an instance of Mr Millar making a response within 24 hours to another question asked, on this and most other occasions it would appear that Mr Millar feels that the right to ask questions of this council and its legal representatives does not apply to him. In short he is flying in the face of, indeed negating, our democracy and burden of accountability on the elected and unelected representatives of the council.

I now ask that you pursue the response from Mr Millar which is my right to receive, and facilitate the answer to the points raised below, on my behalf.

I'm sure, given your statement at the hearing, that you must be as interested in the formal reply as I am. Both in the interests of knowledge and ensuring the democratic rights accorded to citizens.

Yours

Jim Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Taylor
To: Robert Millar
Cc: Elaine Morris ; Eric Milligan ; Stuart Roy McIvor ; Mark McInnes ; Marilyne Maclaren ; Kate Mackenzie ; Gordon Mackenzie ; Jim Lowrie ; Stephen Hawkins ; Paul Godzik ; Nick Elliot-Cannon ; Paul Edie ; Charles Dundas ; Jenny Dawe ; Maureen Child ; Maggie Chapman ; Ronald cairns ; Andrew Burns ; Steve Burgess ; Tom Buchanan ; Elaine Aitken ; Ewan Aitken ; Robert Aldridge ; Jeremy Balfour ; David Beckett ; Angela Blacklock ; Michael Bridgeman ; Deidre Brock ; Gordon Buchan ; Lesley Hinds ; Allan Jackson ; Alison Johnstone ; Louise Lang ; Rob Munn ; Gordon Munro ; Ian Murray ; Alastair Paisley ; Gary Peacock ; Ian Perry ; Cameron Rose ; Jason Rust ; Conor Snowden ; Marjorie Thomas ; Joanna Toomey ; Stefan Tymkewycz ; Phil Wheeler ; Iain Whyte ; Donald Wilson ; Norman Work
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: Failure to answer the question



15th February 2008

Dear Mr Millar

I refer to my previous email and your response through the Council Solicitor of 13th February which I received to day.

As I have come to expect from Corporate Services, you have failed to answer the questions asked.

I therefore make reasonable request that you answer the specific question now:-

In order to ensure that my application is successful, I would be grateful if you would supply me with precise information concerning the information I would need to provide to the council in order that they could grant me a licence?

I understand that there is specifically a test conducted by the council of whether there is significant unmet demand before any licence would be granted. What information, and to what standard of proof, would I have to provide this information in order to be granted a licence?

Mr Millar, these questions are not difficult to answer. The council is stating that the burden of proof of whether there is any demand is the responsibility of the applicant. It is therefore not unreasonable for you to detail precisely what standard of proof you would need to be given in order to grant the licence.

I now refer to my other email of 30th January and note that despite my request for it to be answered under freedom of information you have failed to respond under the council's procedures for FOI.

These matters, and your conduct concerning them, have been noted and will be brought to the attention of the Sheriff during the appeal.

I therefore reiterate the request here and require that you answer it fully.

30th January 2008

Dear Mr Millar

Freedom of Information

I refer to the meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee where surprisingly, despite the lack of any relevant demand information being provided by the council, Councillors appeared to be under the impression that it was a requirement of the applicant to provide them with detailed information showing an unmet demand for taxis before a licence could be granted to them.

I would be grateful if you could show me where this requirement was detailed to me during my application process, in the original application pack, the application form, the acknowledgement of the application, or in any of the other documentation forwarded to me as an applicant during the extraordinary six months it took for the council to consider the application.

I would also be grateful if you would advise me of the specific Chapter, section and sub-section of the Act which provides for this.

Please also advise me of who precisely advised the councillors on the committee that this requirement for applicants was legal and a statutory burden on them before a licence could be granted.

Please advise me where this test exists in any other area of licensing, and where this is also specifically detailed in legislation.

Thank you for you assistance with this matter.

Yours

Jim Taylor

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Taylor
To: Robert Millar
Cc: Colin Keir ; Elaine Morris ; Joanna Mowat ; Kate Mackenzie ; Louise Lang ; Norma Hart ; Ricky Henderson ; Ronald Cairns ; Tim Mckay ; Jim Inch
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: Taxi licence application



FAO Mr Robert Millar
Council Solicitor
City of Edinburgh Council

30th January 2008

Dear Mr Millar

I have been a taxi driver in Edinburgh for 15 years. Recently I have noticed a significant demand for taxis that is being unmet by the current level of provision.

I particularly refer to the queues forming on taxi ranks, and the marshalling of these provided by the council.

In view of this, and in the interests of providing a real service to these customers, I would like to own and operate my own taxi.

I understand that taxi licence plates are currently being sold for £55,000. I also, having made the inquiry to the licensing section of the council, understand that the current licence application fee is £1205.

I have therefore resolved to apply to the council for a licence to operate my own taxi.

I understand that licences are only granted according to set procedures governed by legislation.

In order to ensure that my application is successful, I would be grateful if you would supply me with precise information concerning the information I would need to provide to the council in order that they could grant me a licence?

I understand that there is specifically a test conducted by the council of whether there is significant unmet demand before any licence would be granted. What information, and to what standard of proof, would I have to provide this information in order to be granted a licence?

I have also heard that the council has a list of parties interested in obtaining a taxi operators' licence. I would be grateful if you would advise me of the legal framework, the specific section of the legislation that provides for this, or the council powers which do so, and whether I would be granted a licence before those on this list should I conform to the requirements to obtain a licence that you will advise me of following this correspondence?

I look forward to your earliest reply in order that I, and my backers, may progress with our new application as soon as practicable.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

So, no one is interested in why the council won't answer the question.

They tell you that you can't ge a licence because there are criteria to be met. And you don't meet those criteria.
But they won't say how you can meet those criteria and be granted a licence.

And, no one on TDO thinks this is a problem?

All gone to sleep have you?

Most of us know there's a problem, but when you are dealing with councils such as Edinburgh, we also know the solutions are only obtained via the courts.

_________________
IDFIMH

The problem is that councils for policies that are in the publics interest.

The problem is that no-one other than Edinburgh's "wanna plate" massive are convinced there is any un-met dend that warrants the extra plates you crave for free.

I would suggest that you prove un-met demand and follow the advice of my little southern softy mate, and take that evidence to court.

Alternatively, if every jockey in Edinburgh decided to take some direct action against the plateholders by witholding rental/services more benefit could be gained.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Thing is GA its not up to applicants to prove that there is demand, it's up to council's to prove otherwise.

And that proof has to be robust, not just a few numbers written on the back of a fag packet and passed off as evidence.

Before applying we asked the council to explain what it's methodology for their surveys was, what formula they would use to determine demand levels, and how it arrived at its conclusion.

They didn't answer. But the convener of their licencesing committee did say that the evidence they found was flawed, applied only to the ranks surveyed and that there could be demand elsewhere.

So, having told us that the council didn't know what the real demand level was what did they do? They refuse the applications. You think this is right?

Later in the G5 applications, councillors, before refusing, told us that we hadn't provided any evidence of demand. Notwithstanding that we had pointed to Edinburgh's burgeoning economy, the huge increase in demand for all transport sectors and the council's own bus company recognising increased demand by launching (later expanded) their own taxi bus service, they still refused the licences on 30th January, the day before the six month deadline for consideration under the Act.

I immediately wrote to the council solicitor and asked that given the council's new position of apparently requiring an applicant to provide evidence of demand could he advise me what evidence an applicant would need to provide in order to be granted a licence. I also asked where this was provided for in the Act, and where the council advises applicants of this burden prior or during them taking £1205 application fee.

Surprise surprise, no response from the council solicitor.

I wrote to the councillor who said this to us before denying the licence and asked her to raise this on our behalf. No response.

I wrote to all councillors and asked whether there was one among them who would ask this for me. No response.

I have written again to the council solicitor and asked him to answer the question. No response.

They have no intention of answering. But they will in court.

We're now heading into recession. But these applications were made when Edinburgh was booming. So those are the conditions that will be the focus of the trial.

As for witholding rentals? It aint going to happen. Drivers are chained to the concept of driving for owners. They are self employed. No drive - no wages. Who can afford that?

But it shouldn't come to that anyway. The only reason these cases are going to trial is because the political system doesn't work. There is a cogent argument for the same market principles to apply to taxi licensing as every other commercial sector of our economy. It is only vested interest that has allowed the Government intrusive trade restrictive practice to survive. It has to go. It will go.

If government had listened to reasoned argument we would not be having this fight now.

But government isn't listening. It is dictating. It is failing us all.

And, if you look at other shenanigans of our councils up and down the country, the evidence is there to see that they are intruding into our daily lives to a level that George Orwell's "big brother" predicted.

Orwell gave us the warning, our government is using that as a template for how they are reconstructing our surveillance led nanny state.

Ignore this at your peril. And the peril of those you beget and have begat.

When are the next court dates?????, As i thought there was an appeal on the cards.

BTW, I am getting more runs from Edinburgh to the Borders as I am cheep-er, I had 4 punters on Saturday for the Melrose sevens they told me they where quoted £110 for one way, I picked up at 4 places and the whole fare one way was only £65 on the meter so I got the return run as well

May 5th to 7th.

And, well done. You were happy, the punters were happy. It's a win win for you.

Just a pity that such thinking doesn't apply to the hack trade which has forgotten (assuming it ever knew in the first place) how to provide good service, at a price that's affordable and free from vested interest thinking.

Perhgaps a de-restricted market here in Edinburgh would galvanise innovative thinking and we could all benefit.

And, let's hope that would extend to a single tier licensing system where freedom of vehicle choice would be the only difference between hire car licensing types.

Don't know about you but I'm hacked off with our 19th century licensing thinking.

If by a miracle Edinburgh council ever read the best practice guidance, they will see that they should licence different types of vehicles as taxis and not just black cabs, so maybe you could ask your brief to get that implemented at the same time

We're learning in Edinburgh. We now have Mercs and Peugeots. But I agree, more could be done.

However, this is not the forum for that.

Why not try and dry the tears from your eyes eh!

That's a real pearl of wisdom from the mentally unstable Stu.

Is part of your mental incapacity the fact that you fail to learn from your mistakes Stu, that you can't recognise your inferiority and deal with it?

Go away you horrible insignificant individual.

Go back to the forum for the mental breakdowns.

Oh sorry, I forgot it's also broken down.

Kinda appropriate, eh?

Your full of crap Jim, you think you have all the answers but you have none really, inferiority, insignificant, mentally unstable, what a fanny of a man you are.

You sure your not projecting your own personal attributes again, I see your depressive tendency is once again foremost in your pathetic efforts at personal attacks.I've not really got any time for you anymore, Jim the messiah,Jim the expert'Jim the erudite,Jim the guru, Jim the psychotic needy failure more like.

Your just about the lowest of the low, Skippy will help you, JD will help you, sussex will help you,ffs your like wee laddies, why dont you just get on with it and do it yourself.

Have you ever done anything on your own in your life, have any of you actually got the nous to do anything for yourself and by yourselves.
You go on and on about the herd but when it comes to sheeple your a prime example, your arrogance is only matched by your childish reliance on other people.

Your comment that "we are learning in Edinburgh"!!! well it must be the remedial class.

Your an auld bitchy Jessie and a disgrace to yourself, your as thick as mince as well come to think of it, infact what have you got going for you.

Tit.

Stu, you're a bampot.


Btw, how much did you pay for your plate? You need help Mr. Unstable

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

When it comes to "deregulation of numbers" I'm opposed.

When it comes to "managed growth", providing the right consultees are being consulted, I would have to support.

To few taxis are as detrimental as to many, and the trade needs to develop negotiation skills further than "no more plates or free plates for all".

If the answer was so simple, as the debating genius that is Skull keeps demanding we change our opinions to his keeps telling us, then areas which have seen a free for all actually puts THE DRIVERS in a worse financial position threatening the security of THEIR FAMILIES.

The point is clear .................. after years of the same $hit ................ Skull got a plate for FREE and then sold it ................. and now he's after another FOR FREE.

Now .................. exactly where is the benefit to drivers IN ALLOWING THESE GREEDY SELF SERVING BARSTEWARDS another payday in the name of the drivers who work a dam site harder than they do to make the same money this bloke (or should it be joke) made from the sale of his FREE plate.

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

Did he buy yours ??????????????????

B. Lucky

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.