Taxi Driver Online

Indeed plateholder isn't a legal or official term, but I use plateholder and badgeholder because we all know what they mean, and they're unambiguous to anyone who knows the trade. On the other hand, 'taxi licence holder' maybe more strictly correct, but easily confused with 'taxi driver's licence holder'. By the same token, I usually use the terms HC and PH rather than taxi, because again 'taxi' is ambiguous, particularly in press reporting.

I mean, how many times have we read about taxi licences being revoked or whatever, which in as per your usage means a taxi *vehicle* licence, but it turns out to be a PH *driver's* licence?

By the same token, taxi vehicle licence holder and taxi driver's licence holder is a bit of a mouthful, so 'plateholder' and 'badgeholder' does for me, and it's less likely to be cause confusion.

So when I say that the first Scottish taxi grant was given to badgeholders but not plateholders (both HC and PH) then everyone on here knows exactly what I mean. Or at least they should


I assume the term operator derives from the first section in the Act on trade licensing, which states:


So a licence is required for the *operation* of a *vehicle*, hence the term *operator*

And, as you say, the taxi fares consultation and appeals stuff specifically refers to 'taxi operators', so that's presumably why it's considered that drivers aren't included in the process, unless of course they're also an operator.


Indeed, but presumably that's because it's not licensed in that area? To that extent the plateholder isn't the one doing the operating, because they are the plateholder with regard to another area.

So if an Edinburgh-plated HC works in Glasgow, then the Edinburgh plateholder isn't relevant and the cab is deemed unplated, thus the driver is operating in Glasgow and committing an offence?


As per the above, only when it's operating in an area that it's not licensed in, surely, and not in the normal course of events.

So if a rental driver takes an Edinburgh-plated HC to Glasgow and plies for hire there, then it's deemed unlicensed in Glasgow, so who's operating it illegally? The driver, apart from if the Edinburgh plateholder is involved (see below).

But that's not the same as saying the driver is operating the cab in the normal course of events.

The offence refers to 'operate' or 'permit the operation of', and the latter is where the Edinburgh plateholder comes in. The circular states:


So an Edinburgh-plated HC plies for hire in Glasgow, thus the driver is deemed to be operating it, thus committing an offence. But if the Edinburgh plateholder is aware of this, they're thus permitting its operation in Glasgow, therefore also committing an offence. I think


Well hopefully we'll see very soon. I doubt whoever drew up the policy knew precisely what they meant, and they'll all be working it out now. I'd guess that in the end it'll come down to plateholders rather than booking offices, but who knows

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... -hire-cars

https://www.gov.scot/publications/circu ... s/pages/2/

So a grand a plate it is, then

Thought it might be a tad more, but certainly never thought it would be the £10k figure, which was obviously the upper limit.

But looks like a lot of angry and disappointed people out there, at least on social media, although the drivers in my gaff are totally in the dark, as usual

Nice graphic from Unite, but I suspect the Covid grant well is now dry

So that's £2,500 for you then?

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, and that's what the average owner-driver will get, so £4k in total with the first £1.5k grant.

So it's definitely favoured the small fry like me and those with fleets have gotten hardly anything. Someone with 20 cars will get £350 per car, 40 cars will get the same grant, so half that per vehicle - £175.


But they're still debating what happened to the unclaimed cash last time round, although I'm assuming that's academic now. But according to this the take up rate in Glasgow was less than 50% of the badges

Surprised it's so low - think Aberdeen and Dundee were more like 70%, and I think that was roughly the national claim rate, so not sure why Glasgow might be so low, although we discussed the claimant rate at length previously, so no real point revisiting that. Anyway:


Fears over Covid taxi grant after more than half of drivers did not claim

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/193 ... not-claim/

A DELAY in awarding further funding to taxi and private hire car drivers is causing concern amongst union leaders and city councillors.

Less than 50% of Glasgow’s driving workforce claimed the £1500 they were initially entitled to from the local authority, forcing council leader Susan Aitken to return the leftover money to the Scottish Government. Aitken had been in discussion with Holyrood to try and award the money to those entitled but who had not put in a claim, but was unsuccessful. A further round of £1500 for drivers and £10,000 for operators is now available but trade union Unite says this “falls short” of the measures needed to stabilise the trade.

At a recent council meeting, councillor Thomas Kerr asked about delays in the funding becoming available. He said: “There seems to be an issue with the Scottish Government not being able to give us the green light. Has there been any updates on the pressure the administration is putting on the Scottish Government to ensure we can get this funding out to taxi drivers as soon as possible?”

Labour councillor Malcolm Cunning also raised concern that grants would only be available to those who were successful in the first round of payments. He said: “A very significant amount of that money had to be returned as drivers either didn’t apply or didn’t succeed in their application and 50% of the trade got the initial £1500. For the night-time economy taxis are essential.”

Members were informed discussions were ongoing with the Scottish Government and that an update would be circulated to the committee after the meeting.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The Economy Secretary met with Unite the Union this week to discuss additional funding for taxi drivers and operators. With this additional £62m of funding, the total support for the sector during the pandemic is now more than £90m.

“We worked closely with sector stakeholders to develop the support for taxi drivers and operators.

"For taxi drivers, local authorities will automatically provide a second payment to those who received the first grant, meaning eligible drivers will have received a total of £3000.

“Some taxi operators will get the full £10,000 grant and those with more than 50 vehicles will get £15,000.

“Local authorities will contact all eligible vehicle licence holders this month to brief them on their potential ­entitlement.”

Well I can live with that.

_________________
IDFIMH

Protest planned in Glasgow today, but nothing particularly new in this article:


Taxi protest in Glasgow today: Go Slow convoy to highlight lack of support for city drivers

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/taxi ... o-20772620

The Go Slow protest is in response to a lack of aid provided to drivers during the pandemic.

I appreciate the response but also that it is written without consideration the misuse term


I agree ‘plateholder’ and ‘ badgeholder’ are unambiguous and have no issue with either term.
Taxi is a defined term and the laziness or possibly intentional misdirection of the press is no excuse for the Taxi trade to succumb to it.
That for another time.

The issue here is the denial that Taxi drivers who happen to rent the plate are not the operators of taxis.
In some cases they also own the vehicles and tax and insure them.
Plateholders in either case simply taking income from rental with no primary interest in the meter rates.
In this grant funding exercise the Govt are ill informed, consulting equally ill informed trade reps, and will provide funding to plateholders when it is the driver operator who rents the vehicle and/or the plate has borne the costs and the loss of income.

A more common misuse of the term ‘operator’ indulges
some Taxi driver/ plateholders who see themselves as more entitled than a ‘renter’ and Councils abuse the term ‘operator’ to avoid consultation with renters in fare reviews.




Here lies the crux of the issue. The legislation you correctly quote requires that a Licence is in existence for a Taxi to be in operation.
But it does not necessarily follow the the holder of the Licence is doing the operating. Or can be taken as the operator.

I argue that it is the taxi driver who is the significant operator in the knowledge that the Licence exists for the vehicle.




I find nothing that supports that the driver is only operating when it is done unlawful but not when it is lawful which what in take to be your argument here.

I refer you also to the very same


It covers “ plying for hire” the very essence of what a taxi driver does whether named on the plate owns rents or borrows the vehicle.
I do not accept that it was the intention of the drafter of the legislation or the guidelines that it should be read in any other way.
The drafter could have used the term Taxi Licence Holder , mouthful or not. But uses the term ‘operator’ and ‘operators of’ clearly intent on the wider and inclusive definition.

I would just add that I do hold plates drive and rent but find the notion that any taxi driver is less entitled to consultation on meter rates whilst a non driver plateholder is consulted as an outrageous injustice.

And it is wrong to perpetuate this myth.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... -hire-cars

https://www.gov.scot/publications/circu ... s/pages/2/