Taxi Driver Online

(Of course, it's the %age rise that's the important thing here, because Perth is a city of 45,000 people or so, thus 24 new plates is quite a lot. And important to note that the current HC fleet largely on saloon plates - I think there may have been some more recent plates issued to WAVs, but only a handful, and not on this scale.)

Where to start with all this?

For a kick off, as regards the legality of transferring plates, both sides are talking out of their backsides...

And the process for allocating new plates etc may look reasonably fair at a superficial level, but in practice it will be anything but. (As anyone who's been involved in that kind of thing will know...)

And, of course, that's assuming all the available plates are taken up, but as there's the predictable WAV requirement that's not clear cut at this stage.

But I'd guess the market in Perth is pretty tightly controlled, so there probably will be a good take up. (Unlike if the same happened in St Andrews, say, but chances of any unmet demand being found in our zone effectively zero...)


New Fair City taxi scheme approved by Perth and Kinross Council despite opposition from Perth Taxi Association

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/loca ... e-36414705

Local cabbies fear the scheme - designed to improve access, grow the city's taxi trade and ensure fairness - could destroy livelihoods.

Perth and Kinross Council's (PKC) Licensing Committee has this week unanimously agreed to a new scheme to allocate 24 additional taxi licence plates in Perth.

Perth Taxi Association warned councillors the "devastating" scheme - being used to implement the committee's October decision to issue 24 more taxi plates in Perth despite strong opposition from local cabbies - could destroy the trade.

The principles of the scheme are to improve accessibility, grow Perth's taxi trade and ensure fairness and transparency.

At PKC's Licensing Committee meeting on Monday, December 15 councillors agreed any of the 24 new licence plates issued will not be transferable and must be returned to the local authority if no longer wanted or used.

Vehicles will have to be wheelchair accessible and priority will be given to taxi operators who do not already have a licence plate in a bid to "grow the local taxi trade". The Perth and Kinross Council report - put before councillors - said the new scheme was designed to "ensure fairness and transparency", allowing only one licence to each new applicant in the first instance.

Councillors were told: "If, after processing all eligible new entrants, licences remain unallocated, the scheme will allow for allocation to existing single-plate operators, and then to other eligible applicants, always on a one-licence per-applicant basis per round."

Addressing councillors in the chambers, taxi drivers said the consequences of the new scheme would be "devastating" for both the trade and Perth residents.

Perth Taxi Association vice-chairman Kevin Kulik said: "We are fighting to save an industry that has been built up over many years by working class people; yet decisions are being made by officials and councillors who - with respect - have little understanding of how a taxi or a private hire business actually operates.

"The consequences of these decisions will be devastating for livelihoods, public safety and the people of Perth."

He claimed the whole process had been "marred from the very beginning" and there were "major flaws".

Mr Kulik - a local cabbie for 32 years - added: "This is not a system in a position to safely expand; it's a system struggling to cope. The trade has repeatedly asked to work with the council and was told we would have an input. Yet we had late notification of this meeting then discovered the decision already appeared to have been drafted up without consent."

He added: "Waiting times have fallen dramatically from 12 minutes, 32 seconds in 2021 to five minutes and 30 seconds in 2024 yet you are being asked to introduce five times the number of plates that were previously added. The figures don't add up."

He added: "This decision will dilute the market to the point where many operators will walk away."

Fellow cabbie Peter Milne claimed the decision was illegal and went against the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

He said: "Excluding existing plate holders is beyond the council's legal powers.

"Making the new plates untransferable is also unlawful."

Mr Milne reiterated Perth Taxi Association's view that a driver shortage was the "fundamental problem" rather than a shortage of taxis.

He said : "The underlying issue is not that we need another 24 licences; the underlying issue is we need another 24 or 40 drivers to cope with the existing fleet that's out there. That's the fundamental problem with our industry at the moment."

PKC's head of Legal and Governance Services Lisa Simpson insisted the proposed scheme was legal.

She said: "Legitimate business transferring going concerns is still not prohibited and nothing has changed around that. There is no breach of that particular provision. It is open to the council to attach conditions. And what we are responding to, in terms of the proposal today, is the unmet demand survey."

The Perth Taxi Unmet Demand Survey - carried out by LVSA in December 2024 - recommended PKC's cap on taxis in the city increase from 80 to 104. It found that while the total number of observed hires of taxis from Perth ranks was lower in 2024 than 2017, the number of people waiting for a taxi was "significantly higher" (despite the number of taxis having increased from 75 in 2017 to 80 in 2024).

Ms Simpson added: "The consultation process was not flawed. It was on the back of the unmet demand survey, which was accepted by this committee. The proposals on the back of that unmet demand survey were that the status quo wouldn't take us any further and address that unmet demand."

She stressed the consultation process was extended to allow those within the trade to "provide evidence that there was no unmet demand or contradict the evidence of the unmet demand survey".

She added: "No evidence was produced and despite the extended consultation period, the independence survey has found there is an unmet demand and the proposal is around how we meet that unmet demand."

PKC's legal chief told councillors: "In terms of the process that's been followed, I'm satisfied that it's legal, it's competent, it's appropriate and lawful to attach reasonable conditions around that.

The committee unanimously agreed to approve the scheme.

In fact, the intention of the legislation was to make plates untransferable, so it's surely the status quo that's unlawful, if anything


Basically she's saying they're continuing with the scam for existing plates, but adhering to the legislation with any new plates issued


Same old...who'd have thought they actually want more drivers on the road, but as long as any new drivers are lining their pockets, as opposed to driving their own motors

Not something I've ever noticed at all, even after five minutes in the trade nearly 30 years ago

Anyway, could say a lot more. But the council here once went through a huge review process when it was 'discovered' plates were changing hands for £50k, and that was maybe 20+ years ago now

But obviously it was thought that a can of worms might be opened up, and it was all swept under the carpet... (mixed metaphor alert ).

I'm guessing the SNP has made a special act just for that council then? Or maybe they are talking utter bo******.

_________________
IDFIMH

No wonder existing owners are upset; these plates, if indeed anyone takes them up, will be going to journeymen.

Do they not know their place?

_________________
IDFIMH

No.


Yes.

_________________
IDFIMH

Never heard that one before.

What he is indirectly saying is that his members only want non-owner drivers to drive their vehicles; they don't want drivers to have their own plates.

As I said above, journeymen need to know their place.

_________________
IDFIMH

And that's the crux of the issue; legally, the council has no option other than to issue those plates.

All the huffing and puffing from the local trade means SFA.

The law is the law, and even Perth taxi owners have to abide by it.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm pretty sure plates are actually non-transferable under the Scottish legislation, so what's being proposed with the new plates is actually the default position, and adhering to the letter of the law. And it's the legacy plates which are being bought and sold under, er, dubious arrangements.

I suspect that's why it's being proposed that the new plates shouldn't be transferable - they know the old arrangement was iffy

And, as per what I said yesterday, I suspect that's one reason they swept it back under the carpet when it was all reviewed around 20 years ago - the can of worms stuff

It's section 10(6) in the legislation:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/45/section/10

My understanding is that although the act forbids direct transfers, it's quite easy (ish) to get around it.

By incorporating the license, owners can add prospective owners to the license, and then the old owners remove themselves.

Leaving the new owner.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well, yes, but I think we're at cross-purposes here. And it's certainly a loophole, and not in keeping with the spirit of the law.

But with historical plates most of them weren't issued to companies (or partnerships in a similar process).

So to do the incorporation/partnership thing a new plate is swapped with a surrendered old plate. So it's not a transfer as such in terms of the licence, and actually a swap

So although the intention of section 10(6) was to prevent transfers by requiring the plate to be surrendered, the way councils got round that was by swapping the surrendered plate for a new one

In fact, some councils have been quite brazen about it, and just swapped an old plate for a new one, without the incorporation malarkey. And the buyer and seller just sort out the cash between themselves.

To that extent the incorporation thing is just a smokescreen - why not just swap the old plate for a new one? So the incorporation process is just a bit of of convolution to befuddle councillors and anyone outside the inner circle who happens to look into it

I think the crux of the issue is that you can't change a licence like mine in the name of sole trader/sole licensee StuartW into a company or partnership.

So if I sold my taxi, in terms of s. 10(6) I'm required to surrender my licence.

To that extent I couldn't sell the plate. But a council can easily get round that simply by issuing a new plate in the name of whoever is willing to give me £20k. Or however much it's worth

So that's a straight licence swap, effectively, to get round the intention of s. 10(6), and is what some councils in Scotland actually do.

But instead most councils go through a bit of a charade by swapping the old licence for one in the name of an incorporated company, or a partnership. So that bit all seems unnecssary, and to that extent a smokescreen to cover up what's actually going on