Without trying to reduce you to tiers
(Now that’s great piece of wordplay)
The fact that Carlisle City Council decided to deregulate during the mid 1990’s came as little surprise; a hackney fleet of 33 vehicles, serving a population of around 75,000 is clearly not the best mathematics. What was a total surprise was a decision to licence saloon vehicles as hackney carriages.
To get to the reason behind the decision it is clearly important to look into the history of the hackney carriage licensing system within the City. During the late 1970s early 1980s the City actually licensed hackney carriage saloon vehicles, and had done so for many years.
Due to a major problem in distinguishing hackney carriages from private hire vehicles (echoes of Wirral MBC v Wirral Licensed Taxi Owners Association 1983), the council decided to only issue hackney carriage licenses to vehicles that conformed to the metropolitan conditions of fitness. This was resisted strongly by some within the hackney trade, however, the last saloon left Carlisle’s ranks during 1984 and Carlisle had a 100% purpose built taxi fleet.
In 1989, the council advised that all hackney carriages must be wheelchair accessible by 1992, again the trade offered a reasonable amount of resistance but the passage of time would ensure vehicles would be replaced with accessible vehicles courtesy of natural wastage, the decision was begrudgingly accepted.
The issue of deregulation reared its ugly head during 1993. The association at the time were opposed to any new licenses being issued. The council had done its own survey and it was clear there was no unmet demand, save for the ‘mad hour’ at 2am when all nightclubs closed flushing 4,000 people onto the streets of Carlisle.
Given the previous council policy, making the trade dispense with saloons in favour of purpose built vehicles, the reaffirmation, in making the trade invest in WAVs, the fact saloon cars were mooted by a council report as an option, was never given serious consideration by the trade. I mean, who in their right mind would keep on changing a policy affecting the investments of many people, who indeed?
Hindsight does of course tell us that the trade should have treated the saloon aspect with more seriousness than it did at the time. Cumbria Constabulary did point out if Carlisle were to deregulate, in their ‘opinion’ not enough people would take up the purpose built option and help them ‘clear the streets’. Again, the association did try its best to point out that it wasn’t the job of the police to ‘clear the streets’; it was their job to ‘uphold the law’ (which admittedly went down like a lead balloon, and it apparently was an old fashioned opinion).
To cut a long story short, the council decided to deregulate (although the words delimit were uttered), and they would do so licensing saloon vehicles that satisfied a ’high criteria’. Indeed, some members of the trade were still a bit p*ssed off with having been forced into purchasing purpose built taxis, they advised the council they would trade in their WAV’s for saloons. The disabled lobby (which was then the wheelchair bound, although someone tells me that these people don’t count anymore) for want of a better phrase ‘hit the f*** roof’ when they were told that their taxi service would disappear within a matter of years.
The disabled lobby put pressure on the council, who came up with an idea of partitioning the ‘station taxi rank’ to WAVs only, they attached a condition to saloon hackney carriage licenses that prevented them from plying for hire either on the station rank, or within fifty metres of it.
The first batches of saloon hackney owners were admittedly so pleased to get licenses they didn’t feel any need to challenge the condition.
As time went on, a growing number of saloon owners thought the condition was unfair and they brought it to the attention of the council, who have consistently (consistently and Carlisle, now there’s a new one considering previous history) re-affirmed their policy.
The last time the subject was raised, the National Taxi Association (NTA), on the wishes of the local association, suggested the entire licensing policy in Carlisle needed to be reviewed. The view of the association was that despite the reported accounts of a ‘booming city’, the taxi market had stagnated. The ranking situation needed to be seriously addressed and as Carlisle was a ‘first phase’ licensing area, the vehicle policy would need to be considered. The council agreed to the review, suffice to say the review hasn’t been forthcoming.
During April 07, the council re-affirmed their decision to keep the station rank for WAVs only, stating in their view it was ‘positive discrimination’. This decision was challenged during May 07 in Carlisle Magistrates Court by a number of saloon car owners. The district judge accepted the argument of saloon owners that the condition only assisted a ‘minority of disabled’ those being wheelchair users. Surprisingly the decision of Maud vs. Castle Point, where a similar scenario was envisaged but not adopted, but doesn’t seem to have been given much credence in the Judges decision.
The council report on the subject states:
‘ It can be seen that the District judge placed great weight on the fact that not all disabled persons are wheelchair bound and that the condition only assisted a minority of disabled’
I should really state at this point that I have both WAVs and saloon hackney carriages, I personally couldn’t give a flying fig what vehicles are on the ‘station rank’. I do wonder what kind of defence Carlisle City Council’s legal team actually put up in court? A number of WAV owners tend to believe the defence was about as effective as the Newcastle United back four last season.
Did they call the vehicle manufacturers to answer to the opinion that their vehicles can only do wheelchair type disabilities? Nope. I wonder what LTI and Cab Direct (to a point) think about their vehicles only catering for the wheelchair bound? Those hearing aid loop things in the back of their vehicles are they for hard of hearing wheelchair bound passengers only? And those steps they attach, they must be for collecting dust. Did they call the wheelchair groups to find out their opinion? Nope.
Did they raise the question as to why major cities of the UK such as: London, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh, all with larger disabled populations than little Carlisle only licence WAVs therefore allegedly discriminating against the majority of disabled people who cannot get into that type of vehicle? No.
Indeed, did they contact the DFT mobility and inclusion unit to find out if they were having a laugh about the first phase? To suggest a WAV only carries the wheelchair bound is about as incorrect as suggesting a saloon vehicle only carries the able bodied. Whilst a level playing field is desirable, how can you have a level playing field when one vehicle costs almost three times more than another?
Irrespective of the above, all hackney owners in Carlisle actually knew about the condition attached to the licences upon making a decision as to what vehicle they chose to buy. A simple (if not entirely legal) situation, buy a WAV and work the ‘station rank’ or buy a saloon hackney and work anywhere except the ‘station rank’. Fair play to the saloon hackney driver who actually beat Carlisle City Council’s legal team in court though, a mere mortal taxi driver with little legal experience ‘kicking the butt’ of a highly paid professional, it does have a certain degree of irony.
In all of this mess, I guess the people I feel sorry for are those who have chosen to invest on the basis of the consistent council policy, they will face 110 extra vehicles (over and above the 100 WAVs currently using the rank) all vying for one of the ten current ranking spaces. It’s a little like deregulation all over again, but instead of a gradual influx, more of a massive swamping.
Indeed, a good number of the WAV owners are part way through finance agreement’s, they are stuck with their vehicles with no option of buying a saloon replacement with substantially cheaper finance agreements. They will be faced with, not only 110 extra vehicles, but also competing with people who are paying substantially less in terms of operating costs.
A number of WAV owners have already changed vehicles to saloon cars; I cannot help but wonder how the wheelchair bound community are going to benefit from the anticipated change in policy. I do have sympathy for saloon owners, they feel victimised and discriminated against by being prevented from operating outside the station.
To compound matters the station rank has a dedicated wheelchair loading point at the top of the rank. An alleged ‘safe area’ that eases the loading of wheelchair bound passengers. Obviously, if the top few spaces are occupied with saloon cars, then the WAV cannot utilise the ‘safe area’. The rank is on a hill, the loading of wheelchairs further down the rank, as opposed to the top may create health and safety issues.
It has been suggested that all hackney carriages should be excluded from ranking on the wheelchair loading point, unfortunately this creates two major issues. Firstly, if there is no vehicle on the top ranking space, then due to a rather large wall and poor signage, nobody standing at the station will know there’s a cab rank. Secondly, the council propose to attach a ‘condition’ to the hackney proprietors licence prohibiting taxis from standing on the wheelchair loading point (which is an integral part of the hackney carriage stand).
Call me a little cynical, but having just lost in court for attaching an illegal condition, now it’s proposed fix is attaching another illegal condition?
