Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Dec 05, 2025 9:22 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
MR T wrote:
would you remember what you did five years before. :roll:


Well actually I was calling for increased regulation of the HC trade in Gateshead.

But TDO reminded me of that so it doesn't really count.

B. Lucky :D

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
bolton wrote:
Quote:
Sorry to be a pain ................... but there had to be an investigation for someone to confirm that he had not surveyed his drivers.

SLOPA represents PH operators not drivers, when challenged on the issue of surveying his drivers (not members) he investigated the subject and remembered he had not surveyed his drivers.


Thank you .......... that expalins that then.

B. Lucky :D

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
strange thing to post on your second appearance :roll:

CC


Perhaps Mr Bolton has a valid point to make? Considering the fact that the majority of Taxi proprietors in restricted areas like to distance themselves from the private hire trade by letting it be known that the two trades are infinitely different? Why then in your opinion should private hire drivers pay to subsidise a council's restrictive policy, which has no benefit to private hire drivers whatsoever but every benefit to hackney carriage proprietors?

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
bolton wrote:
Environmental Protection Department
3rd Floor Balliol House
Stanley Precinct
Bootle
L20 3AH
Telephone: 0151 934 2100
Fax:0151 934 4276
Minicom: 0151 934 4657
Email: Epd@environmental.sefton.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Please Contact: David Packard 11th September 2006



Re: £2 Levy for hackney carriage unmet demand survey

I refer to your complaint regarding Sefton Councils imposition of a £2 levy on all private hire and hackney carriage licence fees from April 2001 to fund unmet demand surveys and your dissatisfaction with the Trading Standards Managers response to your complaint into how this decision came about (attached).


Is this a recent enquiry?


Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
bolton wrote:
At the inception of this unreasonable levy only 1 association existed that represented PH driver’s interest SODA, Sefton clearly chose to ignore the objection from the PH drivers to the HC proposal.

The article is published to show the councils domineering procedure.


If you could expand a little, are you saying that the Sefton hackney carriage trade first proposed this two-pound levy? Or did the private hire representatives on behalf of their members magnanimously offer to contribute to the council policy of restricting licenses?

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:
If my memory is correct.


The chances of that are pretty slim.

Quote:
the private hire companies themselves did a in house survey of their own, they asked their drivers if they agreed with the Levy and from my recollection they did,


And the chances of that are even slimmer.

Quote:
in fact the overall consensus was that it was only fair, if my memory serves me correct


Now you are reaching out into the world of Fairy Tales.

Since when have you known Private Hire drivers to volunteer to finance a hackney carriage survey?

Keep on dreaming Trevor.

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37471
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
Perhaps Mr Bolton has a valid point to make? Considering the fact that the majority of Taxi proprietors in restricted areas like to distance themselves from the private hire trade by letting it be known that the two trades are infinitely different? Why then in your opinion should private hire drivers pay to subsidise a council's restrictive policy, which has no benefit to private hire drivers whatsoever but every benefit to hackney carriage proprietors?

Regards

JD


I suppose the fact that its a licensing department.

Are we going down the road of splitting budgets into individual items?

Man hours working on the HC's and man hours working on the PH's?

I thought the cost of licensing were to reflect the cost of the licensing regime.

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
Quote:
Perhaps Mr Bolton has a valid point to make? Considering the fact that the majority of Taxi proprietors in restricted areas like to distance themselves from the private hire trade by letting it be known that the two trades are infinitely different? Why then in your opinion should private hire drivers pay to subsidise a council's restrictive policy, which has no benefit to private hire drivers whatsoever but every benefit to hackney carriage proprietors?

Regards

JD


I suppose the fact that its a licensing department.

Are we going down the road of splitting budgets into individual items?

Man hours working on the HC's and man hours working on the PH's?

I thought the cost of licensing were to reflect the cost of the licensing regime.

CC


The whole point to my question is whether or not Private hire drivers "should pay a special levy" for a policy that has no bearing on how they operate? How a licensing authority utilises its budget is neither here nor there.

It would appear the facts in this case revolve around a special levy on Private hire drivers, which was proposed and supported by the hackney carriage trade? The DfT has already stated that drivers should not pay for surveys and I've always been of the opinion that it is debatable if such action would ever stand up in a court of law?

My point and this thread, is not about licensing departments paying for surveys, its about a special two pound levy being placed on Private hire drivers, to help pay for a council policy of retaining numbers control. A survey serves only one purpose and that is to stop applicants from obtaining a proprietor license, unmet demand surveys have nothing whatsoever to do with advancing a public service or the administration of licensing functions. If it did then every council in the country would be undertaking surveys.

The legislation says it all because it "presupposes" that a council decision to retain restrictions can only be upheld if they are in possession of evidence that there is no unmet demand. Therefore in ninety nine cases out of a hundred a council has already made a decision to retain a policy of quantity control and the survey is just a means to uphold that policy in the light of legal action. You know that as well as everyone else?

I might ask you this, of the 98 councils who currently restrict numbers how many of them have placed a special levy on private hire drivers in order to pay for a survey?

Can you see the difference?

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
The problem with the simplistic analysis employed by the ombudsman is that it treats the trade as one homogenous mass, rather than the competing interests that it in fact consists of.

Of course, that's generally the case with the taxi trade when the views of vehicle proprietors are deemed to represent everyone, but in this case it's the same with the PH side - the operators are deemed to represent the whole trade, while of course their views may be the antithesis of many in the trade, particularly in this case where PH drivers would like a HC plate. But of course like the taxi props, the PH ops have a vested interest in preventing this and keeping drivers in their place.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
bolton wrote:
Environmental Protection Department
3rd Floor Balliol House
Stanley Precinct
Bootle
L20 3AH
Telephone: 0151 934 2100
Fax:0151 934 4276
Minicom: 0151 934 4657
Email: Epd@environmental.sefton.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Please Contact: David Packard 11th September 2006

Re: £2 Levy for hackney carriage unmet demand survey

David Packard
Assistant Director

Local Authority Ombudsman
Beverly House
17 Skipton Road
York
YO 30 5FZ


In this particular instance the Ombudsman was probably not the best route to take to resolve this matter.

I'll get the minutes and have a look at exactly what transpired and see if there is a way to reverse this decision.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37471
Location: Wayneistan
Quote:
The whole point to my question is whether or not Private hire drivers "should pay a special levy" for a policy that has no bearing on how they operate? How a licensing authority utilises its budget is neither here nor there.

It would appear the facts in this case revolve around a special levy on Private hire drivers, which was proposed and supported by the hackney carriage trade? The DfT has already stated that drivers should not pay for surveys and I've always been of the opinion that it is debatable if such action would ever stand up in a court of law?

My point and this thread, is not about licensing departments paying for surveys, its about a special two pound levy being placed on Private hire drivers, to help pay for a council policy of retaining numbers control. A survey serves only one purpose and that is to stop applicants from obtaining a proprietor license, unmet demand surveys have nothing whatsoever to do with advancing a public service or the administration of licensing functions. If it did then every council in the country would be undertaking surveys.

The legislation says it all because it "presupposes" that a council decision to retain restrictions can only be upheld if they are in possession of evidence that there is no unmet demand. Therefore in ninety nine cases out of a hundred a council has already made a decision to retain a policy of quantity control and the survey is just a means to uphold that policy in the light of legal action. You know that as well as everyone else?

I might ask you this, of the 98 councils who currently restrict numbers how many of them have placed a special levy on private hire drivers in order to pay for a survey?

Can you see the difference?

Regards

JD


I dont think the DfT stated it in that type of context JD, I think they meant more a case of financing and paying for it directly themselves.

Manchester has regular surveys, how do they organise funding?

If anything Sefton seems to be more transparent than a lot of places in relation to fees and where the money goes.

To say private hire dont benefit from surveys is a moot point and I would suggest blinkered.

regards

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 9:51 pm
Posts: 5795
Location: The Internet
captain cab wrote:
To say private hire dont benefit from surveys is a moot point and I would suggest blinkered.



I addressed this point last week and again a couple of hours ago, so why not unblinker yourself and address the points I made rather than ignoring them and repeating a point which might merely suit your own agenda?

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
I dont think the DfT stated it in that type of context JD, I think they meant more a case of financing and paying for it directly themselves.


DfT financing of surveys.

It is not good practice for surveys to be paid for by the local taxi trade (except through general revenues from licence fees). To do so can call in question the impartiality and objectivity of the survey process.


Quote:
Manchester has regular surveys, how do they organise funding?


It comes out of the licensing budget but it doesn't levy a special charge on Private hire drivers.

Quote:
To say private hire dont benefit from surveys is a moot point and I would suggest blinkered.


How do they benefit?

If I was a private hire driver I think I would derive more financial benefit from not paying for a survey. What benefit does a private driver derive from paying for a survey?

A council who wants to restrict licenses such as Sefton has no option but to have a survey all they want to do is soften the financial blow by putting part of it on the private hire trade.

Prior to 1976 there were no licensed private hire drivers so there is a strong case for having separate licensing regimes which in effect we have already in restricted authorities.

Regards

JD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
JD wrote:
I'll get the minutes and have a look at exactly what transpired and see if there is a way to reverse this decision.

Regards

JD


and then later in the morning you will stop a volcano from erupting, and stop a schoolbus full of kids from falling over the ledge the bus is balancing on.


:roll:


B. Lucky :?

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:31 pm
Posts: 1761
Location: Commonsense Country
It appears to me that Sefton is clear on what funding is used for what purpose.

If they had just increased all fee's by £2 and then not said anything about what that £2 was for we wouldn't be having this debate.

Just an observation.

B. Lucky :D

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 178 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group