I have a conversation today with a good friend from up north who, sort of, shares the same view of the Law Commission that PH don't need to have a 'knowledge' test as part of the licensing criteria.
However these are some of the reasons why both he and the Law Commission are wrong.
1) Sat Navs are great at getting you to a place, but they ain't great at getting you there in a straight forward manner. And Sat Navs are only good if you have the postcode and/or the punter can spell.
2) Many jobs issued via the radio don't give an accurate destination address. Some give just a zone, or an area.
3) Many jobs issued via the radio are issued via an automatic booking system, so no destination address can be given.
4) Girls and guys in the office sometime make mistakes with destinations when taking a booking.
5) Punters often make mistakes with destinations when they book.
6) Sometimes punters are going to more than one address, or via another address on the way. One might get out at the given address only for another to want to go on elsewhere.
7) Pubs/clubs/restaurants/hotels when booking for a client just give a pick up address and name.
8 ) Sometimes punters don't know the address, just an area and an unnamed landmark.
9) Does anyone believe it is good customer service to keep punters waiting while the driver checks his maps?
10) Does anyone believe it's good customer service to charge via the meter when the driver hasn't got a sound knowledge of the area?
11) There are many 100s, possibly 1000s of firms who have mixed fleets. Does anyone believe it's good customer service to have the same customers charged a different price, and taken different ways, just because the Law Commission believe a PH 'knowledge' is pointless?
For all these reasons getting rid of the PH 'knowledge' is madness.
And once again I repeat my plea to the Law Commission, talk to and take more note of the people who do the job full time.
