A name is important, but it's the number that matters.
Some firms I know have great numbers, but their service is utter poo.
But it must have been a ruck and a half when that mush defected to the other side.
Reminds me of someone on here.
| Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Whats in a name? http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5825 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | JD [ Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Whats in a name? |
Evening News (Norwich) March 20, 2007 Tuesday Whats in a name? Work for cabbies at a city firm has all but dried up after one of their bosses defected to a rival company. Drivers working for Z Cars in Barrack Street are either sitting around bored or doing leaflet drops as their once busy phone has suddenly stopped ringing. Former partner in their business Meryvn Collen walked out a week ago and took a job at Beeline and Dolphin Taxis in Prince of Wales Road, taking their prized phone number 01603 490490 with him. He sold the number to bosses at Beeline who grabbed the opportunity to advertise it with the name Z Car Taxis and watch their business boom while Z Cars was left struggling. David Douglas, the other partner at Z Cars, has been left to pick up the pieces and faces a fight to save his company. He said: "Mervyn left and then suddenly on Friday night and all weekend we had no phone calls and we realised something was wrong. Eventually a regular customer came around and told us they had rung our number and got through to Beeline. All of my drivers lost a weekend's work and I have lost hundreds of pounds. "Our drivers are sitting around not doing anything. They are not taking any money. Some of our loyal customers have been very upset because they have rung the number expecting Z Cars and got through to Beeline. "Beeline wants the name because of the loyalty of our customers. "I don't want a taxi war. All I want is to be left alone to rebuild my business. I've got staff unable to pay their bills and I've got a mortgage to pay," the 56-year-old said. Beeline placed an advert in the Evening News last week which read: "Z Car Taxis welcomes customers old and new. Beware of cheap imitations." Customers who rang it got through to Beeline, not Z Cars. Beeline bosses contacted Mr Douglas last week and told him to take his Z Cars signs down and stop using the name as they owned it. But at the eleventh hour Mr Douglas registered the name Z Cars Norwich Ltd in Fiennes Road at Companies House. He has now got a new number, 01603 666999, but is having to pay hundreds of pounds advertising it. Mr Collen defended his actions to the Evening News. He said he had the right to sell the number as the bank statements and number were registered in his name. He said he had managed the taxi side of Z Cars while Mr Douglas had managed the rental side. He said he left because Z Cars was in debt and, as he was personally liable, the only way to get out of it was to sell the number. "Since I've been at Beeline my earnings have doubled," he added. Mel Cooke, who owns Dolphin and Beeline Taxis, said he had offered jobs to all the Z Cars drivers but none of them accepted. "If I bought the company with a telephone number then I don't think they can legally register the name. I am taking legal advice," he said. "We are taxi company and our business is to earn a living. If someone wants to sell a number then they are quite entitled to do so." A spokesman for Companies House said Z Cars Taxis Norwich Ltd could take legal action if another firm used a similar name. Is your business in a legal wrangle? Call Naomi Canton on 01603 772418 or email naomi.canton@archant.co.uk ____________________________ |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A name is important, but it's the number that matters. Some firms I know have great numbers, but their service is utter poo. But it must have been a ruck and a half when that mush defected to the other side. Reminds me of someone on here.
|
|
| Author: | TDO [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sounds like a casual business arrangement that went pear shaped. The moral of this tale is always to make sure that a proper agreement is drawn up to cover things like this - things may be fine when things are going well, but if there's a bust up it can get messy. |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have been there with a partnership and it can get quite nasty. But on this issue I would not have thought that one partner could take a very integral part of the business away without the permission of the other. I would also have thought that he could be liable for loss and damage caused, of course I could be wrong, but I would certainly pursue it. People love an underdog and it might just be the making of the company left behind. |
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I suspect the number was registered in the name of the mush who jumped ship, and the bloke from the original firm was a tad naive not to see it coming. But methinks a price war is on the cards. 
|
|
| Author: | TDO [ Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
cabby john wrote: I have been there with a partnership and it can get quite nasty. But on this issue I would not have thought that one partner could take a very integral part of the business away without the permission of the other.
I suppose it depends on what the agreement was or whether there was any agreement - although the claim that the number belongs to the person with his name to it and with his name on the bank statements sounds as if there was never any proper agreement. I could just see it - two guys start a taxi office, one says I'll sort out the number etc and it ends up in his name but the other always assumes that it's a partnership asset. Then things go wrong and because there was never a proper agreement the person with his name to the telephone number claims that it's his alone. Of course, we don't know exactly what's the score in the current case, since it's probably not straightforward, and it's one for the lawyers to sort out. |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
TDO wrote: cabby john wrote: I have been there with a partnership and it can get quite nasty. But on this issue I would not have thought that one partner could take a very integral part of the business away without the permission of the other. I suppose it depends on what the agreement was or whether there was any agreement - although the claim that the number belongs to the person with his name to it and with his name on the bank statements sounds as if there was never any proper agreement. I could just see it - two guys start a taxi office, one says I'll sort out the number etc and it ends up in his name but the other always assumes that it's a partnership asset. Then things go wrong and because there was never a proper agreement the person with his name to the telephone number claims that it's his alone. Of course, we don't know exactly what's the score in the current case, since it's probably not straightforward, and it's one for the lawyers to sort out. I am sure you are quite right on the partner issue - I am thinking on the lines of that a written agreement is not always the be all and end all. Bank statements - signatories to cheques - overdraft agreement - personal drawings and so on, these would all indicate as to whether a partnership operated. If that was the case then I would think that you cannot just walk away leaving a debt, or taking anything that may be considered an asset. Still as ever wait and see. |
|
| Author: | cabby john [ Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
went through twice |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|