Taxi Driver Online

Yes, but if there are big plate values then they must be making big profits, so in a few years they would be able to recoup their 'inevestment'.

If clause 1.147c and the OFT report had been widely known about then no one would have paid megabucks for a plate for a year or two now, and by the time of de-limitation they would have held the plate for a few years.

Trouble is that plate values are still rising, because buyers are in the dark about what's going on.

And of course the sellers and the LAs don't seem to be going out of their way to warn them of the dangers.

Hopefully if it goes to the CC then there'll be a big enough noise made at the time to warn everyone of the potential dangers, thus giving them more time to recoup what they've spent.

Dusty

Yes, Westminster knocked it back but proposed some 'liberalisation' of the market, but not what the OFT recommended. I think the Scottish Executive knocked it back totally.

On 17 July the OFT released a press statement, and the Chairman John Vickers didn't seem best pleased:

'While some liberalisation is better than no liberalisation, we see this as a missed opportunity. The pharmacy entry rules do not just impede competition and reduce benefits for consumers, they block new and better ways of delivering medicines to the public. Restrictive regulation should not stand between patients and pharmacists.'

They'll probably just release that one again (with minor amendments) when the Govt knock back the OFT's taxi de-limitation recommendation.

Dusty

What would be a shame is if the OFT write their report to appease what they think the government will accept rather than whats beneficial (in their eyes) to the trade. You stated that John Vickers didn't seem best pleased but couldn't that also be tinged with embarasment, after all an awful lot of time is spent on these investigations and to see the ultimate report sidelined as it seems the pharmacy investigation was.

Whatever the outcome of this investigation, and whatever subsequent changes are made it is in everyone's interest to be made aware of their findings as soon as possible so that we can adjust our working practices accordingly.

I believe its rapidly becoming a farce.

B. Lucky

Well I'll reserve judgement until it's out Mick, but a couple of months delay doesn't really seem that much to me, especially when they added PH at the half way stage.

Dusty

I think this time is different.

Whatever one says about clause 1.1..... of the RRA, it was put there by Government, whom I'm sure didn't put it there through pressure from the trade, they put it there because of all the 'pointless bureaucracy'.

That was in place before OFT, and might have even been what started the whole OFT ball running. Along with the Scottish Act review.

So the Gov really can't say too much about the issues in the RRO following the OFT report, cos in my opinion they started it.

The other issues not in the RRO might be a bit different, but if OFT give chapter and verse big time, then it might well all get passed.

quote Dusty Bin
They'll probably just release that one again (with minor amendments) when the Govt knock back the OFT's taxi de-limitation recommendation.
Dusty


Because the Government knocked back part of the Pharmacy report, and the fact that OFT were not best please, gives me hope that it wont happen with us.

The Gov will be very careful not to keep ignoring something they set up, and gave greater powers to recently.

MPs made a song and dance about rural chemists having to close down. I doubt very much a song and dance will be made in aid of the leeches and queue jumpers.

Mick,
you are teasing! the vast majority of cabbies have no intentions of adjsting and are just ready for a fight.

can you imagine Andy from Brighton Adjusting to he plate having no value?

Jesus just thinking of the possibility leads you to banning!

Wharfie

It's a bit different up here though Sussex Man.

The Scottish Executive's consultation tried to sweep the whole issue under the carpet, in my opinion. In England you had a few words on reform, and 25% of that was proposing de-limitation.

Up here, we had 20 or so pages, and not one mention of restricted numbers.

They even sneaked in a mention of doing the same for PH, but no discussion or reasoning, maybe they hoped no one would notice.

Hopefully the OFT will have noticed!

CC

Good God Wharfie,

Are you so small minded that you can't see that changes don't have to be so dramatic or as immediate as you suggest.

Yet again you berate a former brother member who is also a brother union member, I believe, in the deteriation of his business, however slight, the sad thing is you are so blind you cannot see that your statements are completely unfounded as well as being mis-informative and argumentative.

""ha" "ha" your going down the pan and your going to lose all the money you paid for your plate you mug" is hardly the kind of attitude one would expect from someone who claims to have strong trade union beliefs. Particularly when the same union you profess to support wholeheartedly accept that people have the right to work and through a well constructed policy of managed growth aim to provide it whilst protecting the incomes of those CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE TRADE. Please note the emphasis on the words in capital letters as owner drivers who have bought their own right to work are entitled to protct their investment as is anyone else who has heavily invested in any business.

We have had this argument many times, there will never be agreement between those who have and those who havn't and we will never see it as long as people have no consideration for the position of others, as in the same way as Sussex man and yourself don't seem to be bothered about premiums allready paid those individuals who have paid won't be bothered about you or him not getting a plate. This is why the union have a policy of increasing nubers to allow more plates gradually increasing numbers and gradually decreasing premiums.

The dinosaurs of the trade will become extinct, but I don't think that current attitudes will see progression, and thats attitudes from either side.

B. Lucky

Yes Andy, as mentioned by Caledonian Cabbie, I think that politically Scotland would be a tougher nut to crack since the govt there didn't seem to be pursuing anything like a de-limitation agenda, in fact quite the reverse it would seem.

Looking at the issue in simple terms I think that some MPs will dance up and down about the possibility of de-limitation, but hopefully the OFT will outline how things really work instead of the misleading arguments put forward by the vested interests in the trade.

Indeed, on the issue of MPs dancing up and down, it wasn't that long since some signed an Early Day Motion asking for PH numbers to be limited!!!

Maybe they had been reading the Scottish Executive's consultation!!!

Dusty

It's not what I'd call a business Mick, it's the share of a closed market, a cartel between plateholders and LAs, albeit a legal one.

What sort of proper business has its value wiped out if the market if free competition is allowed??

Anyway, I seem to recall that the plateholder in question had bought his plate a number of years ago, at only a small cost compared to its current value - therefore a good part of the current paper profit he is showing is due only to this cartel, and he has had more than enought time to recoup his original investment through the excess profits he has been making in the meantime. So even if his plate value is wiped out it's arguable that he's done quite well out of it all.

Dusty

As I've said umpteen times Mick, TGWU policy is just the minimum LAs are required to do under current law.

I think it's fanciful to suggest that this will decrease premiums. What about Manchester and Glasgow, for example, where premiums are rising apparently.

The whole test and these surveys are skewed in favour of the vested interests - the grossly distorted number of taxis pick and choose where to work, so punters in most areas have no choice but to phone for a cab - if there's no supply, there can't be any demand, ergo there can't be unmet demand - game, set and match to the vested interests!!

Look at Brighton as well, for example - almost the highest fares in the land, which will stifle customer demand - ergo less unmet demand, so no more plates!!!

But the same profits can be made with less work and less unmet demand because of the higher fares, which boosts plate values!

Dusty

Mr CC you are quite right, but I believe that when the Scottish Review sort of mentioned limiting PH numbers in there action plan, or what ever it was, it may well have woke up the sleeping OFT giant, along with the 30% increase in London early evening fares.

When the Scots went out to consultation, I assume they asked the OFT for there views, or legal advice on their initial proposals. Well I expect they will get them in a few weeks, along with a raft of issues they didn't ask for.

Now who's being cynical?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

In fact Mick, the managed growth policy seems even more restrictive than what is required by law.

Take Brighton, for example, no new plates for years, yet the T&G huffed and puffed when an additional 19 had to be issued to comply with the law.

Indeed, I think they didn't want any new plates at all.

I think this 'managed growth' is just union spin to make them look as if they're doing all and sundry a favour, but they really don't want any new plates at all - but the legal minimum is spun as 'managed growth' and T&G policy!

Dusty