Taxi Driver Online
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

NPHA agree that licensed drivers should be treated unequally
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6603		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  NPHA agree that licensed drivers should be treated unequally
And that put it on the front page as it being a good thing. [-X

Good thing for who, the poor sods paying £20-30,000? I think not. :sad:

http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1185532129.pdf
Author:  MR T [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Law is the Law..... :wink:
Author:  JD [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Carlisle cabbies now have the ammunition they need to take their council to court over the exact same condition which has been placed on them. I hope someone from Carlisle is reading this thread because they are in a perfect position to capitalise on the judgement.

Carlisle Cabbies should contact the national organisation that provided the assistance in this case and take it from there.

It should be noted that far from being a landmark ruling all that was achieved in this case was that a condition under these circumstances was found to be unreasonable. Another court might come up with a completely different opinion under similar circumstances. In fact the initial ruling by Justice Brown in around 1987 contradicted this particular ruling but since then a lot of water has passed under the bridge and we now have a concensus among everyone except some local authorities that a mixed fleet is the most reasonable scenario.

I hope there are many more cases like this that establish mixed fleets and hope that these judicial decisions have the affect of making up the Governments mind for it.

Regards

JD
Author:  JD [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NPHA agree that licensed drivers should be treated unequ
Sussex wrote:
And that put it on the front page as it being a good thing. [-X

Good thing for who, the poor sods paying £20-30,000? I think not. :sad:

http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1185532129.pdf


This case is going to create a few problems for some councils because many of them have very few WAVS. For instance how does a restricted council who has all saloons choose which saloons should be wav?

More confusion but the more the merrier because it highlights even more the failings of this legislation.

Regards

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
I just get the hump when drivers and their associations fight to keep discrimination. :sad:

If one driver only has to pay £10,000 for a new motor then WTF should another driver from the same manor have to pay £20-30,000 for a motor? :?

Yes if they want to, good luck to them, but is it really such a bad thing treating everyone the same? [-(
Author:  JD [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:57 am ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
I just get the hump when drivers and their associations fight to keep discrimination.


I know what you mean but the case is good in respect that having 100% WAV provision without justification has been proven to be unreasonable, well at least in Milton Keynes.

It will be interesting to see if councils take on board this ruling and if they do take it on board then it is going to be even more interesting watching them decide who is going to provide the WAVS?


Regards

JD
Author:  echo15 [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
Who says you have to pay £20+Grand for a wav?

Doblos don't cost that much they are wav, admittidly not very good wav but a wav non the less!
Author:  TDO [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree entirely with Sussex - they've banged on for years about discrimination in the workplace etc, but when it suits the powers that be then it's OK.

And of course, despite what the politicians may think, the saloon car brigade aren't interested in the disabled, it's running a saloon car they're interested in, and I say that as a saloon driver myself.

But the judgement says a lot about the DDA.

It also says a lot about LAs with 100% WAVs.

It also says a lot about LAs with zero WAVs.

It also says a lot about the whole sorry mish mash that characterises trade regulation in this country.

But of course all we need is a bit of tinkering, and councils do know best. [-X
Author:  TDO [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
echo15 wrote:
Who says you have to pay £20+Grand for a wav?

Doblos don't cost that much they are wav, admittidly not very good wav but a wav non the less!


A fair point, but some LAs don't allow Doblos as WAVs.

And irrespective of the price, what would you rather drive, a saloon or a Doblo? :roll:
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
echo15 wrote:
Who says you have to pay £20+Grand for a wav?

Doblos don't cost that much they are wav, admittidly not very good wav but a wav non the less!

You make a good point, but not many councils allow them as WAVs.

And will they meet EU 'type approval' by 2009, for a WAV?

Personally I doubt it. :wink:
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:18 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not sure if there is anything new in this, but if brought in would cancel out the District Judge's decision. :shock:

http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motorin ... 31758.html
Author:  echo15 [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
You make a good point, but not many councils allow them as WAVs.


Ours does and they want 100% wavs by 2013 only on the hackney fleet though!
Author:  JD [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Not sure if there is anything new in this, but if brought in would cancel out the District Judge's decision. :shock:

http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motorin ... 31758.html


This article talks about the recent ECMT proposals but the proposals stated that all taxis should not have to be WAV. I wonder if the UK Government will take that on board and if so how the hell do you choose who will be WAV and who won't?

Regards

JD
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
JD wrote:
I wonder if the UK Government will take that on board and if so how the hell do you choose who will be WAV and who won't?

I suspect the existing trade will say anyone bar them. :sad:

And then take a council to court if that council wants to treat everyone the same.

Supported by the NPHA. Image
Author:  JD [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
The case I referred to was actually 1989 and was more or less specific to new licenses.

The condition required adaptation to WAV of all new vehicle licenses (R v Manchester City Justices, ex p McHugh [1989] RTR 285—disabled facilities). Which can be found on TDO.

There is a slight difference in the Milton Keynes case.

Least we not forget? lol I love this one.

Conditions cannot be imposed to restrict new licences to certain parts of the District Council's area; such an approach would create a two-tier system that flew in the face of the legislative approach to remove restraints and to allow market forces to take effect (R (on the application of Maud) v Castle Point Borough Council [2002] EWCA Civ 1526, [2002] JPN 782, [2003] RTR 122).

Regards

JD
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/