Taxi Driver Online

The original message remains the same but I have edited this post in order to include the recent "meeting of minds" minutes which includes the final draft to be sent to the DfT by all those involved in this exercise.

The copy here is that which TDO formatted for the GMBPDB and is minus the comment and breakdown of what these proposals actually mean for the UK Taxi trade. Hopefully I will have the nuts and bolts of these proposals written up within the next few days. In the meantime you have the GMBPDB to thank for these minutes and also those of us who are committed to bringing you the information that many others would prefer you didn't have.

http://taxi-driver.co.uk/files/momminutesgmb.pdf
_______________________________

Very soon in this thread TDO will be publishing the latest minutes attributed to the so called "meeting of minds exercise".

We have the GMB to thank for making these minutes available to the taxi trade as a whole and everyone should take that on-board, including the DfT.

Apart from the National GMB organisation, everyone else involved in this closed shop exercise would have preferred you to remain oblivious to what they are trying to achieve behind your backs. Therefore, although TDO originally highlighted the significance of this exercise we have no one else to thank but the GMB and especially the southern region of the GMB for keeping us all up to date on the issues that effect you.

This is not an advert for the GMB I am just stating a fact.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I'm led to believe that a letter has gone to the DfT requesting a number of changes to the 1976 act.

Including an amemdment that would allow PH operators to operate anywhere they dam well like as long as they have an operator's license in their own manor.

So we could have the likes of Delta running at £3.20 for two miles and no waiting time throughout the country.

We could have operators searching the country for the lowest standards and working those cars in areas with high standards. Is that good for customers and standards?

But perhaps the most bizarre thing about all this is that they want to amend the rules to stop taxis operating away from their manor, but amend the rules that stops PH operators from doing likewise.

You really couldn't make it up.

Oh, and since when was the UK taxi and PH trade controlled by a cartel of North West reps?

_________________
IDFIMH

A letter has certainly been drafted..... but that letter is factually incorrect.

John Thompson the Sefton LO is responsible for writing that letter.

When the minutes of this recent meeting of mindless are published by TDO then everyone can make their own mind up as to the factual basis of Mr Thompson's letter.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Oh goody..... I do hope the GMB will be providing the readers with copies of the GMB's minutes for at least the last two of three meetings of their own.... or do they have something to hide..... or even a separate agenda......

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Delta drivers charge 10p a minute waiting time.

_________________
Don't knock it, 'til you try it....

In that case I take that back.

But is just over the minimum wage good enough?

_________________
IDFIMH

I would like to report that at the latest meeting that I attended with Pat Conner on behalf of the GMB PDB NOC, the members who attented from the other driver representative groups were professional in their approach to representation of their members.

Regretably due to the sad death of Norman Deegan, the NTA did not attend. I would on behalf of the GMB PDB NOC send our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr Deegan.

I think it fair to say that the GMB PDB will in the interests of transparancy and democracy always bring issues of this kind into the public domain to inform its members of the issues.

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

And in the interests of transparency and democracy when can we expect to see you posting the minutes of the Meetings of the GMB PDB

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

An interesting question, but I'm not too sure the GMB are trying to change the law all on their own.

But then again.................................

_________________
IDFIMH

These minutes have now been added to my first post in this thread.

The GMBPD were sent their copy over an hour ago so it may also be available on their website.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

So,

Proposal 1

The proposed section 46 (1) (c) clarifies the situation which by following relevant case law was already held to be the case. The amendment merely clarifies understanding.

So WTF change it then? There are umpteen different issues/laws/rules/sections that need changing, so why are we wasting time fixing something that the courts have already fixed FFS.

Proposal 2.

The proposed section 46 (1) (d) places a new obligation of operators of hackney only radio systems and does impose a burden. It is however felt that any person earning their living from providing such a booking service should be subject to the same constraint as an existing private hire operator.

I can see where they are coming from, and there may be some merit in having a record of who booked what and when, and which cab was given the job and when. But I can also see a situation where this amendment is used by some brain dead council to ensure all licensed cab drivers need a PH operator's license to take phone bookings. Maybe they might be excused in their own manor, but what if one of their personal customers ring them up when they are at an airport or anywhere out of their manor? Would that booking be illegal?

Proposal 3.

The proposed section 46 (1) (e) amendment joins the two previous so that local control is assured as once again all three licenses will have to be issued by one authority and mix and matching cannot occur.

Again, WTF are we messing around spending valuable time on pointless bureaucracy? Case law has settled this, what more does anyone need?

Proposal 4 - Definition of Authorised Officer

This was the first matter which was agreed upon by the group. By enhancing the definition of the Authorised Officer you give a greater degree of protection to the traveling public and also prevent any unscrupulous person from trying to avoid the regime.

For what it's worth I think this makes sense, if it is done properly. Ignoring the fact, for a while, that hardly any enforcement happens, if a licensing officer see something he is not happy about, then he should be able to investigate no matter which council the taxi/PH is licensed in. Or in many cases not licensed at all.

Proposal 5 & 6 - Definition Controlled District – District.

These proposals were to clarify the existing legislation. If left as proposed it would mean that Plymouth CC would have to adopt the 1976 act rather than continue with its own legislation but the group felt that the national benefits of clarity could outweigh the local implications. In respect of where the legislation mentions district then it would be apparent that the district intended was the district in which area the matter arose.

I hope I am reading this bit wrong, cos I reckon someone is trying to f*** the national PH trade, and do a bit of empire building. Plymouth don't have to do a thing, and no-one has ever given a monkeys as to implications of Plymouth not adopted the 1976 act. This is being used by people who pretend to represent the PH trade to mislead the DfT. And I can assure those folks it has been noted.

Proposal 7 – Definition Operate

This proposal is meant to have the affect of making any person taking bookings for a number of vehicles either hackney or private hire, having to be licensed as an operator. It is also meant to exclude from the statutory definition an occasion where an individual hackney driver plying or standing for within their own area accepts a booking for a future event and which booking starts or finishes within their own district.

So a hackney carriage wouldn't be able to accept a booking unless it was picked up or dropped off in his manor. What if the job goes from just outside the east of his manor to just outside the west of his manor? And please remind me who is going to enforce this? What if the customer lies, and it doesn't go to or from the cab driver's manor? Does the driver get into trouble, and/or is the customer an accessory? FFS bin this rubbish please.

Proposal 8, 9 &10 – Definition taximeter, vehicle license, private hire Vehicles.

These proposals are for clarification and are made in the light of the preceding proposals. In particular vehicle license is dependent upon the consultation on proposals 5 & 6.



Proposal 11 – Sub-contracting bookings by operators.

This proposal is designed to bring the 1976 act in line with the current situation under the Private hire vehicles London act 1998 (section 5) whereby a London based operator can subcontract work to a provincial operator licensed under the act of 1976. The reverse is not currently the case if this proposal is adopted then operators can build upon networks of contacts so that if a car breaks down out of its own district then an operator based in another area can be asked to complete the journey and the original operator will still be liable for the completion of the contract.

This particular gem only appeared right at the end, and a cynic might say someone is trying to mug the members of the meeting of minds. At least this time Plymouth aren't getting the blame, it's those good folks in London's fault. There are nearly 100,000 posts on TDO, and I bet there is not one from anyone complaining about London ops being able to something that non London ops can't. Why? Well because it's not a problem. But clearly some so-called representatives of the trade want multi-council operators to control the national PH trade. They want the bus companies to have operators the length and breadth of the country. They clearly don't understand that big business will search for the poorest standards in vehicles and drivers and then pollute an area which up until then had high standards. I could go on, but I will say to those who think they will get away with this, that their cards are marked.

_________________
IDFIMH

Further to the above, if the MoM really wanted to do something for drivers they could start by;

1) Ensuring a duty was put on councils which made them revise taxi fares annually. Not necessarily always going up, but at least taxi fares must be discussed by a licensing committee each and every year.

2) As mentioned before a slight change to the law which would allow all licensed hackney carriage drivers the right to driver a licensed private hire vehicle licensed by the same council. This alone could save the trade millions each year.

3) Another bee in my bonnet could be solved by saying that no council shall refuse CCTV without reasonable cause. i.e. councils should put up or shut up.

One other thing I would like to see is a league table of enforcement. Not sure if it's possible but it would be nice to see the LOs that do their jobs and the LOs that don't.

_________________
IDFIMH

Oh, and I would like to see something done in relation to station permit charges, via a Railways Act amendment if need be.

Maybe a long shot, but I would like to see a clause that ensures railway franchises only being allowed to increase permit prices for licensed taxis in line with inflation.

And I mean UK inflation, not Zimbabwean.

_________________
IDFIMH

Re letter dated 18 April to David Falmer,

We the GMBPDBs have authorised no-one to make the proposals contained in said letter or associate us with them! We formally notify all concerned that we will be contacting Mr Falmer and informing him of that position.

The GMB is a democractic organisation and no such request of Govt would be made without a full debate within our membership!


T. P. Flanagan National Organiser GMBPDB

The copy here is that which TDO formatted for the GMBPDB and is minus the comment and breakdown of what these proposals actually mean for the UK Taxi trade. Hopefully I will have the nuts and bolts of these proposals written up within the next few days. In the meantime you have the GMBPDB to thank for these minutes and also those of us who are committed to bringing you the information that many others would prefer you didn't have.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I have passed on the GMB's decision not to participate in any more meetings.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!