Taxi Driver Online

Are you going to make a stand?


As the clock ticks down towards your impending doom, at least one local taxi association is prepared to make a stand against the damaging desires of the Law Commission. At least one association has taken the time to not only answer the Law Commission questions, but to provide a tacit rebuff of the Law Commission rationale. I’m not talking of three or four pages of well meaning but unsupported words – I’m talking 25,000 words in a response which picks apart the Law Commission consultation bit by bit with citations and evidence to back up statements.

The following is a preface to a document which is to be sent to the Law commission by a concerned taxi association. Elements have been cut, the location of the association which wrote it is not of great significance.

It is very refreshing to see there are some in our trade with this type of dedication, the question you must ask yourself; are you going to make them stand alone?

A response to the Law Commission

The general opinion of the association in respect of the consultation by the Law Commission (L.C.) is one of disappointment. It would appear the Law commission has lost sight of their initial aim of reducing burdensome legislation, by suggesting more regulation.[i ]

It would be neglectful of this association to fail to point out that for the Law Commission, a body emanating from the law profession, to point towards unnecessary regulatory burdens in the taxi and private hire industries is ironic in the extreme; the law profession is seemly awash with arguments about minimum wage[ii] and ‘Tesco Law’[iii].

The Law Society stated the following in respect of the minimum wage;

“The Law Society was concerned that the result of this decision will be that trainees who will be offered the reduced minimum salary, who are likely already to have substantial debts, will find themselves in significant financial difficulty and forced to take on other work which will distract them from giving full attention to the training contract. Alternatively, those trainees who have private means will receive an undue advantage over potentially more meritorious candidates. Neither result will be good for the diversity of the profession.”

Our association had great misgivings about the remit given to the L.C. at a very early stage, coming into the project with a political theory – the recurring theme of a deregulatory objective – in our belief offered only a dogmatic view and prospective outcome. The remit given appears to be one of the LC being advocates of hard measure, one of seeing the taxi trade as an industry in need of serious correction.

In many respects our initial view appears to have been correct, the almost Machiavellian manner in which the rationale of the documents differ from the provisional proposals reek of a type of voodoo very often associated with politics. In this manner it is difficult to disassociate the L.C. as nothing more than advocates of the pre-ordained political agenda – we have always considered a matter as relatively mundane as ‘taxis’ as reasonably aloof from political aspiration – sadly we find ourselves amidst that particular world.

The laissez-faire approach to private hire, advocated by the L.C. is ostensibly not deemed correct for hackney carriages; the LC cites (quite rightly) local control. This stance does not however extend to locals being best placed to decide on a seemingly more controversial issue such as control of taxi numbers – the stance of the L.C. appears to be – locals are best placed to decide, just not best placed to decide certain things – this would appear to be a somewhat duplicitous position.

We found the consultation documents badly structured, thought out and repetitive, with little rationale between questions, the majority of which were seemingly placed in no specific order, a true rigmarole of documents in the original sense. The questions themselves appear to be based upon presumptions therefore they were difficult to answer and in cases misleading – numerous members advised us they believed this was a deliberate ploy.

The structure of the documents have also created concern, an obvious point is at 1.27 where the L.C. point to ‘grey areas’ in the licensing of limousines, these points are rehashed at various areas in the documents, however limousines are mentioned regularly in many parts, thus confusing many of us 3.63, 3.66, 3.77 – 3.84, 4.49, 4.51, 4.52, 8.15, 13.5, 14.3, 14.23 & 20.10

It is patently obvious to anyone with any degree of knowledge or interest in the taxi and private hire industries, that vast swathes of the consultation documents have not been assembled via the route of discussion with the industries, but via a ‘google’ search facility on an office computer. Not that this in itself is wrong, although the impact assessment is giving links via a ‘Google’ search. We would contend that the cab trade is a very diverse industry, however, we would contend that this type of research is not conducive to the best and most accurate results or opinions.

The above point was summarily confirmed when the L.C. felt the need within three weeks to rehash their impact assessment, they had made an almost elementary mistake in grossly underestimating the turnover of the taxi and private hire industries. The following was stated on the L.C. website;

“Following feedback we produced a revised draft of the impact assessment stripping out the data which appears unsatisfactory or not robust and to ask further questions. We welcome further comment on the data and would be grateful for further information.” [iv]

The updated figure is £2.585 billion, as compared to £1.4 billion previously, demonstrates quite a dramatic miscalculation. It is obviously illuminating to find out where the LC obtained their original figures, a ‘dot com’ website being cited where an interested party would have to pay to scrutinize. There are some that would suggest this was a deliberate ploy, invariably when faced with a website where money requested, the link is usually closed. A further report from IBIS world recently suggested the figure was closer to £8.85 billion[v], further throwing LC figures into ignominy.

We also wish to point out that to allow a mere three months to answer the consultation – given that all members of our association are working taxi drivers is a serious worry – whilst we appreciate the issue of taxis and private hire are of little consequence to the majority of the UK population – it is of great significance to ourselves – ultimately we will be the ones left to work with any future law.

It is amazing that a law that has stood – practically unchanged since 1847 and is perfectly workable some 160 years later – is subject to the (political) expediency it is currently being seemingly exposed to. An extended period of around 6 months would have been (and still is) appreciated from our association – although we understand the L.C. has extended the consultation period by the somewhat miserly period of one month (the new date being 10th September 2012).

The problem isn’t so much answering the consultation, although that will be troublesome enough; it will be collating the answers by our national body.

As anyone who has ever sown a lawn will know, for every few seeds scattered only a few will actually germinate (unless you use some bizarre pre-germination rouse using cold tea), in many respects the LC document is like this. There are a few ideas of very little merit seemingly punted into the document possibly in the knowledge they’ll be dropped in the future. However, it doesn’t take a genius to realize where the sights are actually aimed at.

We also question the L.C. commitment with regards to the retention of the two tier system, although we firmly believe there is a place in the system for hackney carriages. It is reasonably obvious that private hire covers a multitude of differing business models – a miniscule amount of lateral thinking should lead to the realization that to expect a single tier to cover half a dozen or so differing business models under the umbrella of a single license is foolhardy in the extreme. We will raise this question within this paper.

We are disillusioned to read the view of the L.C. in respect of “market failures that are specific to the taxi market”[vi]. The association considers this view demonstrates a rather alarming lack of understanding of the taxi trade. We found it quite amazing that the LC appear to have trawled Europe in their quest for the deregulatory justification in their documents, but have not gone to the same lengths to seek the true socio economic effects of their policy.

Taxis are a localised form of transport, whilst we acknowledge the L.C. would currently like to continue licensing vehicles on a localised level, we view the erosion of local authority powers in respect of licensing private hire on a national basis as extremely damaging – and without forethought to the consequences.

The comments regarding the night time economy show a total ignorance of the night time economy in the majority of the country – they appear to base their views around metropolises as opposed to the vast majority of the country.

The entire vision of the L.C. proposals would appear to hinge on National Standards being set for both private hire drivers and private hire vehicles. It is clear from the documentation the L.C. has little idea of what these national standards may be, this is a worrying position, as unless people are aware of the standards they have little idea what they are in fact agreeing to.

The above being stated, the rationale behind the standards has been thought out, the thought being if all standards are the same there would be little point in licensees ‘shopping around’ for perceived lax licensing regimes. Of course, and as mentioned, by not actually advising what the standards will be, by leaving that area open to differing interpretation (and suggesting a cheap and cheerful), the general view is that the standards will be minimal. A national standard would after all include not only places such as London, but rural areas where businesses may be run without great profit.

Our association believes the standards mentioned above should be set locally; it is locals that have to live with taxi and private hire services and it is equally obvious they are the ones also best placed to determine the purely localised services for both taxis and private hire vehicles. We believe a deviation from this core principle of ‘localism’ is perverse to one of the coalition government flagship policies and we are highly surprised the L.C. would choose to rule private hire direct from Whitehall.

Indeed, we find it astounding that a large proportion of the issues surround the issue of enforcement, yet the L.C. ‘do not think it appropriate to reconsider the issue of cost recovery’[vii]. One has a huge impact upon the other.

Great swathes of the LC documents hinge upon interlinked policy, these include the national standards mentioned above, license fees, enforcement and so on – it is incredibly complicated and like a house of cards, each piece is very much dependent upon the other.

We will in the next few pages carry on dissecting the papers, however it would be folly of us not to point out our belief that this is nothing other than an exercise in futility, we sadly believe the L.C. has a closed mind on many issues and in many respects, irrespective of the persuasiveness of our arguments we face a ‘fait accompli’.

The Law Commission state the customer should be at the heart of legislation; everybody should be free to choose the company they wish to get lost with. In terms of driver safety, the LC appear to have given that the same amount of thought as the bloke on the Clapham omnibus does about his underpants each morning.

It is unlikely, due to the political agenda set out within the remit the L.C. are working to, that they will have an epiphany.

There are numerous difficulties in writing a response, without questioning the reasoning behind the position of the L.C. my association will attempt this over the next few pages. We fear many of those answering will be inadvertently agreeing to statements they do not comprehend, the consultation responses could therefore present a modern day “ragman’s roll” of consent.

Till next month

Wayne Casey




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


End notes



[i] Law Com 330; Eleventh Programme of Law reform (pg 20 para. 2.73)


[ii] Article from Legal Futures website 17 May 2012


[iii] BBC News website story 6 Oct 2011 “Supermarket ‘law shops’ to sell legal services”


[iv] Law Commission website


[v] PR World website; July 2012


[vi] Law Commission Documents 2.32, 2.33, 13.5


[vii] Advisory group document; Nov 2011, page 10

source: http://www.national-taxi-association.co.uk/?p=3976

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I think you posted that already, but if you feel the need to repeat it here's an interesting comment from the York Press article on the LC's proposal. Well worth a read :

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9835334 ... _all_idea/

"is it that time of year again..?

..makes me laugh, if ever the press want to find out if anyone is paying attention - 'Taxi' story/article. Instantly scores of experts hove into view to air their undoubted wealth of knowledge and heartfelt opinions on a matter that many (as usual) haven't got a clue about.

As a person who has endeavoured to earn a living in said trade over the last decade and a non expert, I should just like to add my ‘Ha’ penneth’.

Many many people will fence a compelling argument for and against the de-regulation of taxis, many people have a keen interest in the outcome of said debate. Certainly those who were unfortunate enough to buy a ‘Hackney plate’ at the peak of their worth several years ago (£60 – 65k), may be slightly ‘miffed’ to find that something that may have been financed over a good number of years, that was actually the property of the City of York council, had overnight become absolutely WORTHLESS (save of course for the £107p/a City of York license fee).

You see, as far as I can ascertain, attitudes to the buying and selling of something that remains essentially the property of the City of York Council (Hackney license plates), by a good number of the members of the City of York Council, is in fact liable to remain pretty much in limbo and a largely taboo subject, owing simply to the fact that they themselves officially sanctioned the sale of essentially nothing more than the potential to earn a living, sanctioned BY the Council.

Indeed, many councillors have themselves profited substantially by the essentially ‘free’ Hackney vehicle licenses, I speak undoubtedly amongst others, in particular of the current leader of the opposition, none other than Councilor Ian Gillies http://democracy.yor
k.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.
aspx?UID=1103 (link undoubtedly filled with spaces by ‘the press’ to make it difficult for anyone to simply ‘click’ on a link) , who, I’m guessing, would be strongly opposed to de-regulation. It is no secret to many in ‘the trade’ that when Cllr Alexander (who incidentally I don’t support) raised question to the cause, Cllr Gillies instantly responded to the mere hint of such allegation with, ‘have you got a problem with that.?’, or words to the effect. And how do I know this to be fact, because I heard it from the horse’s mouth during a cab journey!

To Joe public, the reality is that they really and honestly don’t give a fig, just so long as they get to where they want to go, when they want to go there, and they don’t have their leg lifted in the process. At 2.30am blind drunk having been ejected from a night club they’d happily jump in the back of a builders wagon just so long as it gets them to within half a mile of where they think they want to be.. and this simply adds fuel to the fire that there’s never enough taxis in York.. never that is unless you want a taxi at 12.30pm on a Tuesday afternoon when, all joking apart, and to be fair, during many other times through the rest of the week, you could, in all honesty specify a make, model, colour, and indeed (for those so inclined) an ethnic persuasion of driver.! (And before we break off on a tangent, this is not a racist statement, merely an indication of fact).

"Big Bad Wolf says...
11:05am Wed 25 Jul 12
Of course the Taxi companies would think this is a bad idea...."
Howling up the wrong tree there pal. ‘Taxi Firms’ such as ‘Streamline/Local, Fleetways, etc, etc, etc’, have little, if anything to do with the Hackney trade, which of course is the issue being called in to question here. Their level of involvement ends at often a driver or shareholder within the company being granted a ‘free’ plate by the C.O.Y.C (City of York Council) often by virtue of the length of time they have spent on the list (for the first, second or perhaps even third time), and the shareholders of said company (consumed with jealousy at the prospect of someone getting a free ride, plus also being aware that the firm’s rates and that of the ‘Hackneys’ deviate albeit slightly, would cause conflict within the firm). Often this causes one of a number of things, the driver
1. (rental) saves himself between £100 and £140p/w in subs, say’s ‘stuff it’, and goes Hackneying (just pay your annual vehicle and driver license fees to C.O.Y.C (top of my head £250 per year + naturally the usual (taxi insurance, fuel etc))
2. Sells the plate (owned and granted by C.O.Y.C to a willing party who then in the eyes of the council become the legal proprietor of the plate) price currently around £35k, or
3. And perhaps more contentiously, as in the case of a number of shareholders at various firms, they ‘rent’ a freely granted hackney plated vehicle out to some ‘monkey’ for in excess of £250 per week (this of course, due to earlier court issues includes in many cases the insurance (which has to be in the plate proprietors name as does the vehicle) but not of course the fuel and in many cases wear and tear, as, in many cases, so long as the vehicle is netting a handsome profit who cares).

"Yorkshire_one says...
11:19am Wed 25 Jul 12
How will competition be good for customers?"
With drivers not having to earn such huge sums of money before they earn a penny (sweeping aside of course how liquid gold has seen a 100% increase inside 10 years, not to mention insurance which to many almost seems a license to print money in itself – and on a personal note is the only time of the year I feel 17 again), the price to trade for the driver would have dropped hugely – which is likely to be reflected in the fares. Fares are merely regulated, not dictated by local government, and frankly, as a private hire driver, I’m convinced the Council couldn’t care less if we lived or died, so regarding earning a living, well.. enough said.

For me, the most vile and reprehensible blind eye that the council turn is to that of multiple/corporate plate ownership. There are many Hackney proprietors that have 4,5 and 6 plates to their name. The same people who are netting approx £250 per week off each plate and moan about not earning a living. It is these offensive people that in my opinion keep fares artificially high due to the outlay of the average rental driver who, having been on the waiting list for years still has to pay through the nose simply in order to try and earn a living.

It is York’s taxi cartel that calls the shots for this trade in the city, not the council. The Council are merely paying this old chestnut little more than ‘lip service’, however they cannot be absolved entirely from blame. For example only a few short years ago the Council granted a ‘free’ plate to a person registered as blind. When challenged over this mind bogglingly flippant oversight, the taxi licensing officer (who shall remain nameless) said that ‘the City of York Council does not discriminate’, SHE failed to point out that they clearly operate devoid of any common sense or regard to the safety of the fare paying public, owing to the fact that a driver is often forced to spend well in excess of 14 hrs a day behind the wheel simply to try and earn a living.

Then for another example, there are the people who have been granted a ‘free’ plate for a second or third time. How on earth is this any different from people sitting on the list for a council house, getting one, buying it, two years down the line selling it, sitting on the list then gaining another council house to sell? Wrong wrong wrong.!!

Why do I do this job? Believe me, I’m desperately trying to find a way out.. the sums for some simply aren’t adding up any more."

The article wrote has nothing to do with the thread from York.

The people from York maybe a little optimistic in their estimate of a doubling in size.

Deregulation in some areas has led to taxi fleets increasing 6 or 7 fold.

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

There's a certain irony in there that just about sums the article up. But, hey, if it manages to delude the likes of many of the contributors on here then who am I to worry?



Yes, but....oh what's the use.

Why bother endlessly arguing on here when it's completely and utterly pointless, and particulary when it's persistently alluded that I'm a liar, that I'm stupid and an idiot, or that I'm wholly self-serving, "bitter and twisted" blah, blah.

And I'll resist the temptation to go down to that level of personal abuse, but oh the irony.

Anyway, rather than continuing with this exercise in futility perhaps it would in fact be a good idea to submit something to the LC after all, because if I'd used the time I've spent on here recently towards a formal submission then I could have managed a few dozen pages by now.

Unlikely to have much of an impact, admittedly, but certainly more chance of making a difference than 'debating' on here.

I know exactly how you feel

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

I dont think I went "to that level of personal abuse", as for misleading, which bit?

The article doesnt mention an increase in the number of taxi licenses. Which you allude that it does.

As for the length of any document.....now aint you the chap that during the OFT enquiry did a 70-page paper (containing 32,000 words) examining the issue of restricted taxi numbers......and may I be as bold to point out that it covered purely the issue of taxi regulation......not an entire act?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I was talking in general terms.



You mean from the other thread?

Well you said I was a "PH baron". Nonsense. And I've never said anything to suggest otherwise. The only dosh I've ever made out of the trade has been that handed to me directly by passengers. End of.

You said I had mentioned buying a cab and plate for £12k. Nonsense. The car alone cost a lot more than that. And I've never bought a plate.

You also said:

"You want deregulation because you know what it leads to, drivers being forced by debt to work PH circuits."

What a load of schecht. And a bit rich for someone who promotes a system which means people can get into debt several times the value of a vehicle to risk it all on a piece of plastic that could end up valueless at any time.

And weren't you the one who had a circuit with both HC AND PH on it?



Where?



Not sure what your point is. Are you complaining about lengthy documents or what? It was me who was saying the other day that the documents had to be lenghty to adequately deal with the issues when others were complaing about the amount of material.

And the paper was done after the OFT enquiry, not during it

Another quality self absorbing reply from good ole Dustssex

self delusional more like, he stated on here a few months ago he had a plate in a regulated area....now all of a sudden he hasnt.

he was alluding to the length of my response.....yet 9 years ago he did a 32,000 word response covering one single subject.
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/reality.htm

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Exactly, fundamentally dishonest and own agenda driven,

Lets ask him this

If things stay regulated who lost any capital investment

If things de-regulate who loses any capital investment


He will use the HR denial of tools to work issue, but he has no feeling for the people who not only became cabbies but invested long term in the job, yet he wants our tears because in his eyes the shopkeeper said no you can't have some sweets you don't have enough money for them,

I've another one to blow our genius out of the water, if he desires a HC plate so badly why doesn't he travel to a de-regulated area to work, lots of folks in all other jobs travel miles a day to work their chosen job, why is it Dustys think they should be provided with a local job of choice, his argument only stacks up if cab driving was the only job in the world and he was being told no, but as it isn't and the only thing stopping him being a plate holder his his inability to pitch his tent further away from his house I don't think he has a case myself, I'd considered this myself tbh, I was going to sell up as the risk looked greater and simply go 10 miles up the road and apply there, now I'm not sure what to do, I have plans for the worst but I don't see why I should pay for problems that PH caused anyway.

Do you make up these things on purpose, do you not bother reading things properly or do you simply not understand the basics of how the restricted trade works.

Have another read or ask someone else to work it out for you



Thanks for the free promotion.

But again you'll have to point out what I was saying about the length of your response.

I can't recall any more than making a simple remark or enquiry about the length, but you seem to have got a bee in your bonnet about it for reasons unexplained.

But perhaps you could try actually reading things in future and/or refraining from stirring things up.

I mean, look at the state you've got Doom in, and he's just adding fuel to the fire with all his silly accusations and allusions. I would accuse him of but I'll be charitable and assume you're just leading him on.

I would steer clear of being Mr C's lapdog if I was you, after all his own confusion and misrepresentation makes him look bad enough without you embellishing it with that tosh above.

But all this type of stuff gives me a good laugh, just a pity I can't be bothered posting all those fancy smilies again

But my arguments must be pretty good if the two of you are getting so bent out of shape about what's said by a person posting on a little-read internet forum under pseudonym.

You know what they say, misrepresentation is the sincerest form of flattery

I think you mean self-absorbed. You make it sound like kitchen roll or something.

Looks like all of Dustys chickens are coming home to roost..

Fortunately I'm not the one with a £100k plate resting on the outcome of the LC's process.

You are.