Taxi Driver Online

So, just to get this debate up to date.

Your now admitting that if a delimited PH sector can't cope there is nothing that can be done to improve service, appart from lowering standards, something that no-one wants.

Your argument centres around customer dissatisfaction and complaints of unmet demand, yet you still fail to achnowledge that a proportion of those actual complaints relate to the PH sector.

More HC means more need for PH leading to greater levels of PH unmet demand leading to more complaints and lower levels of service.
More PH means fewer HC and with more PH more customers can confidently pre book a car at the end of the night leading to fewer people waiting longer for HC and less unmet demand.

I also believe that PH offices should call themselves *********** Private Hire and be banned from using the word "taxi" as it doesn't represent the quality door to door service we offer.

The sooner people are proud to drive PH and the extra services we offer and get off this quest to have something that will be of no benefit to us or our customers the better.

Well that's how the law stands at the mo.

I suppose operators could advertise to prospective new owners that they could earn bundles etc. But if drivers don't want to do the job, then they ain't going to do it.

I don't think it's front page news that customers, at times, moan about PH.

But my main concern about quotas is the way it treats non plate-holders as second class. Good enough to feed the leeches, but not good enough to share the spoils. Good enough to do what others want, but not good enough to decide for themselves.

Which is why the PH trade has thrived nationally without quotas, yet the restricted taxi trade has stagnated.



I think you have got a tad confused here, PH do the door to door work, taxis do the street to door work.

You miss the point yet again. The issue isn't one of wishing to driver this, or wishing to drive that. It's one of choice, and the choice should be down to the driver, not a piece of out-dated legislation, that thankfully will soon be a thing of the past.

Something that's shared with you views.

_________________
IDFIMH

HeHe sussex, the oft will be doing an enquiry next if you carry on like that


regards

Captain cab

Sussex, I understand your desire for a plate but not all PH hold the same opinion, indeed in delimited areas the proportion of drivers driving PH remains higher then those driving HC, signifying their preferance to work PH. However as the number of PH has declined since delimitation those still working PH are unable to meet the demands of more of their customers and so are losing their custom, and therefore are making less money.

You see, the exPH are still working the office when it suits them with no consideration for their customers when they decide to drop the office in the [edited by admin] to go and do street work.

You partially acknowledge the unmet demand complaints against PH but dismiss it as only partial, I would suggest that it is more signifigant, based on the fact that PH carry considerably more passengers than HC.

I don't expect you to accept my opinion, but thats not because I'm wrong but because it tears holes all over your argument.

PH no restrictions = unmet demand
HC with restrictions = unmet demand

In my delimited area the numebr of people renting cabs has tripled, they see the opportunity of renting a cab for £180 a week with everything included more appealing than paying £100 to an office and then having to maintain, insure and buy their own car for PH.

Please don't insult the members of this group by passing off your own personal desires as an act of public service.

I can't stop you from assuming a particular train of thought from something I didn't say but seeing as you have brought up the subject of unmet demand for private hire vehicles it seems appropriate to comment on that very issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but would it be fair to interpret that the main plank of your argument as to why a restricted council should keep their current policy is because you feel there is unmet demand in the private hire industry.

Is this unmet demand for P/H vehicles to be found in your localised "licensed area" or in the country as a whole?

Is it not the case that P/H vehicles are covered by a separate act of Parliament, namely the 1976 act, while the Hackney Carriage side of the industry is regulated by a completely different act, namely the 1846 act, saving for certain sections of the 1976 miscellaneous provisions act?

Would it be fair to say that the Government guidance only applies to councils who license vehicles under the 1847 act?

Would it also be fair to say that the P/H industry is not a regulated industry with regard to the imposition of a numbers quota?

Therefore, would it be right to assume that any demand for private hire vehicles that is not being met is not through any consequence or fault of the local council or indeed the fault of any current legislation.

Where a possible demand may be identified at certain times of the day or night at certain private hire companies that demand may not be reflected at other private hire companies.

The remedy for servicing any deficiency in meeting demand for the services of private hire vehicles, lies firmly in the hands of the individual private hire management.

If the management decide that more vehicles are needed to service an upsurge in demand then all they have to do is advertise for more drivers. If there is a shortage of registered P/H drivers then that is not the fault of the council or indeed current legislation.

If numbers were regulated in the private hire industry would you put forward the argument that the numbers quota must be lifted to meet demand?

Would there be any scope for business or passenger growth if you worked in a numbers restricted private hire industry?

If by your inference that less means a better public service then it may be a good idea to inform us as to the type of restricted quotas you would like to see undertaken in the P/H industry.

Are you implying that the private hire industry in every district should be subjected to a survey in order to measure the level of demand for their services and how would such a survey be conducted?

According to published data it is logical to assume that in most cases in the past under de-restriction the ratio of P/H to H/C has shifted in terms numbers. That trend may not be so apparent now that some council’s are introducing a financial barrier.

I won’t comment too much on the inequality of restricting a person’s right to enjoy the same freedoms of employment as is afforded to those in 68% of council’s throughout England and Wales. The Government has already made reference to inequality in their advice letter.

Would I be right in saying that your position on equality is borne out by your reference to the fact that you feel uncomfortable with the prospect of 3000 private hire drivers exercising their freedom of choice in leaving the P/H sector for the H/C sector. Or is it the fact that you have a genuine concern for the well being of these 3000 private hire drivers whom you say will denigrate our streets with clapped out vehicles.



There is no doubt that some members of the public will not use Hackney cabs for whatever reason. There are also members of the public who will not use P/H vehicles. However, the churn rate for regular customers depends on several factors not least the cost and the reliability of the service.

There may be a higher proportion of local hirings in the private hire sector in the early evenings especially when people are going out to the main town or city but from my experiance it is the Hackney carriage sector who take the majority of those very same people home late at night. So perhaps to label the general public as being captive customers to either section of the trade is misleading.

You stated that I don't understand the Government guidelines?

Do I have to remind you that when everyone else was crowing about the glorious victory won by the trade over the OFT that I was the only one who pointed out in stark terms the significance of the Governent guidelines and how it was going to be very difficult in the future for those councils who still wished to retain a restricted numbers policy.

I know all too well what the Government guidelines state and what they are meant to achieve. However I am mistified at the meaning of the opening section which says.

The Action Plan makes clear that the Government believes restrictions should only be retained where there is shown to be a clear benefit for the consumer, and that councils should publicly justify their reasons for the retention of restrictions and how decisions on numbers have been reached. Thus, the Government considers that, unless a specific case can be made, it is not in the interests of consumers to limit numbers "or to refuse market entry to those persons who meet the application criteria".

Perhaps you could explain the meaning of this section to me because it really does have me confused.



Are you blaming freedom of choice for the inadequacy of maintaining a P/H business?

Does that mean you have a genuine concern for the business, the public or the P/H drivers? Your previous comments suggest that your main priority is for the business. If you had a genuine concern for the P/H drivers you would not be advocating restricting their freedom of choice.

It is understandable that a Private Hire Operator would be against freedom of choice but I’m surprised to hear a private hire driver say he is against the principle of freedom of choice. Perhaps you have a P/H operator’s license to go with your private hire driver’s license.

I suspect some P/H companies in restricted areas will be dreading the thought that some of their current employs will exercise their given right of freedom of movement and perhaps move on. Just how many do move on may depend on how they have been treated in the past and the financial opportunities which the firm affords them.

I suppose like me you feel that individual freedom of choice should be a basic commodity of the human race. Perhaps that’s why restriction is alien to the democratic way our country operates. P/H operators can’t pick and choose which freedoms should be allowed, just because some of those freedoms don’t happen to fit in with their business plan.



I respect everyone’s opinion even yours.

I always try and balance a persons opinion and if need be I will try and respond with a reply that may point out a possible imbalance, if in my opinion such an imbalance does indeed exist. You haven’t so far pointed out the imbalance to the points I made regarding the original post. Perhaps the reason why you haven’t is because I stated a “fact” not opinion.

You say that these forums are not for debating issues, if one doesn’t debate how can one influence opinion? You notice I used the word “influence” rather than your chosen word of “force”.

I don’t think anyone has the right to force “anything” on “anyone”.

Your stated claim that the Taxi industry will be flooded with thousands of clapped out vehicles and knackered drivers is only an opinion. My response to you was that vehicles and drivers are regulated by the local licensing Authority and it is they who set the standards for both. That is hardly an opinion it is a basic fact.

No one on here I assume will try and deny you your right to an opinion, least of all myself. However, some people on occasions have a careless habit of confusing opinion with fact.

Good luck and I hope my response didn’t impinge on your freedom of thought.


Best wishes

JD

Hooray , at long last you have worked out that following de-limitation the cab trade wont be flooded, because some PH are more than happy to stay PH, and good luck to them.

_________________
IDFIMH

So you believe that drivers should be forced to work PH for the greater good of the trade?

I beg to differ.

_________________
IDFIMH

I didn't partially acknowlegde anything, I fully agreed that some PH have complaints against them. And if PH carry more customers than HC, then clearly the number of complaints will be higher.

But I can't for the life of me relate it to your point.

_________________
IDFIMH

I would accept your opinion if I could work out what it was.

I'm guessing, but are you saying that drivers shouldn't have a choice how they work in a self-employed trade?

As for PH unmet demand, I would say it's impossible to survey it, because unlike taxi demand which must be met by the local taxi trade, unmet PH demand can be met by every single licensed PH in the country.

And that would take a lot of counting.

_________________
IDFIMH

So you are now speaking on behalf of this group?

_________________
IDFIMH

All you pro- deregulation fanatics listen to this !

If you want to work in the taxi trade buy a plate, earn your money and shut your mouth.

You say hackney carriage proprietors in restricted areas are 'cartels' , are not proprietors of private hire companies doing the same thing of fleecing their drivers of at least 80 pounds a week !!

I bought a saloon plate , i work with it independently.....you do the same

So are you saying that you can only work in the HC trade if you buy a plate?

So what about the 70% of the country that doesn't have, or need taxi quotas? Are they not welcome in your trade?

What about the vast amount of drivers that journey? Are they not welcome in your manor, because I bet they are in many others.

_________________
IDFIMH

Have you had beer for breakfast? Or just hung over from the Green Green Grass of home?

JD

It's the difference between a closed market and an open one.

You might as well say that anyone paying anyone for anything at all is being fleeced.

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

Does your 80.00 radio rent not go towards paying for advertising,office staff,office rent,telephone bills etc or do you think it just goes straight in someones pocket