Taxi Driver Online

John,

have you anymore info on this?, when was the last survey etc, i checked out the local news site and found no mention.

regards

Captain cab

Sorry but I must be missing something here.

The title of this thread is Myth 45%, Reality 31% ....................... this only adds upto 76% .................... what do the other 24% of councils do.

The confirmation I had was unsolicited from the head of licensing. It may have been a farely recent decision. I suspect you may see some minutes of the decision quite soon.

Best wishes

JD

I have just had confirmation that Wycombe voted to de restrict on July 19th. That puts the list back to 124.

Best wishes

JD

Updated list of Authorities who restrict H/C Vehicles by numbers:


1. Ashford. Restricted, to be reviewed early 2005.
2. Aylesbury Vale. Restricted
3. Babergh. Restricted
4. Barnsley. Survey commissioned on unmet demand for the services of Taxis.
5. Barrow in Furness. Restricted
6. Basildon. Restricted.
7. Basingstoke. Restricted
8. Bath and North East Somerset ua. Restricted
9. Bedford. Restricted.
10. Blackburn Darwen ua. Consultation on deregulation underway, scheduled to finish end Nov.
11. Blackpool. 256 hacks, 44 horse drawn. Intention is to keep a numbers policy.
12. Blyth Valley. 41 hacks, decision on change of policy early 2005.
13. Bolton. Restricted.
14. Bournemouth ua. Restricted
15. Bradford. Restricted. Policy to be reviewed Before Jan 2005
16. Braintree. Restricted
17. Brighton and Hove ua. Restricted.
18. Burnley. Restricted
19. Carrick. Conducting a survey.
20. Cherwell. Policy currently under review.
21. Chester. Restricted, licensing meeting on December 9.
22. Chester le street. Restricted
23. Chorley. Review of policy early 2005.
24. Colchester. Restricted
25. Congleton. Restricted
26. Conwy. Restricted
27. Copeland. Restricted
28. Corby. Restricted
29. Denbighshire. Restricted
30. Dover. Restricted
31. Durham. Restricted. Recently issued a quota of new licenses. Policy continually under review.
32. Easington. Restricted
33. East Riding. Restricted
34. Eastbourne. Restricted
35. Eastleigh. Internal report under consideration.
36. Ellesmere Port. Restricted
37. Exeter. Decision imminent.
38. Fylde. Restricted. Unmet demand survey to be carried out, consultation process to follow.
39. Gosport. Restricted
40. Great Yarmouth. Restricted
41. Gwynedd. Restricted
42. Halton ua. A Recent licensing report stated that local plate values stood at 10/12k and this indicated no unmet demand. Possible flawed logic, which does not address DFT guidance.
43. Harrogate. Restricted
44. Hastings. Restricted. Policy change under review, decision imminent.
45. Havant. Restricted
46. High Peak. Restricted
47. Huntingdonshire. Restricted
48. Hyndburn. Restricted
49. Ipswich. Restricted
50. Kerrier. Restricted
51. Kettering. Restricted
52. Kings Lynn. Restricted
53. Kingston upon Hull. Restricted
54. Kirklees. Restricted
55. Lancaster. Restricted to 105 H/C/V
56. Leeds. Consultation on policy change currently underway.
57. Leicester. Restricted
58. Lincoln. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
59. Liverpool. Restricted
60. Luton ua. Restricted
61. Maidstone. Restricted
62. Manchester. Restricted. Has a policy of issuing 20/25 new licences annually.
63. Merthyr Tydfil. Decision imminent.
64. Middlesborough ua. Restricted
65. Mole Valley. Restricted
66. New Forest. Report for consideration to be presented to committee members in January 2005
67. Newcastle on Tyne. Restricted.
68. Newcastle under Lyme. Restricted
69. Nottingham. Undertaking an unmet demand survey.
70. Oldham. Restricted.
71. Oxford. Restricted. Recently voted to retain a restricted numbers policy.
72. Pendle. Restricted
73. Penwith. Restricted
74. Plymouth ua. Legal Challenge on refusal to issue H/C licence, Court hearing 2005.
75. Poole ua. Restricted
76. Portsmouth ua. Restricted
77. Preston. Restricted
78. Reading ua. Restricted. Policy change unlikely.
79. Reigate and Banstead. Restricted
80. Restormal. Restricted
81. Ribble Valley. Restricted.
82. Richmondshire. Restricted. Undertaking unmet demand survey. Halcrow.
83. Rochdale. Restricted
84. Rotherham. Restricted. 48 H/C. Currently undertaking an unmet demand survey.
85. Rugby. Conducting an unmet demand survey to consider options.
86. Salford. Presently addressing Government guidance could possibly commission local survey.
87. Scarborough. 97 H/C/V review in Early 2005.
88. Sefton. Restricted
*Solihull removing quotas in March 2005
89. South Bedfordshire. Restricted. Policy currently under review.
90. South Ribble. Restricted
91. South Tyneside. Restricted
92. Southampton ua. Restricted
93. Southend on sea ua. Restricted
94. St Edmundsbury. Restricted
95. St Helens. Unmet demand survey being conducted early 2005.
96. Stevenage. Restricted
97. Stockport. Restricted. Commissioning a Mori survey to determine future policy.
98. Stoke on Trent ua. Restricted
99. Swindon ua. Policy under review, consultations being conducted with relevant parties.
100. Tameside. Restricted
101. Teignbridge. Restricted
102. Test Valley. Restricted to 34 H/C, policy to be reviewed shortly in line with DFT request.
103. Thanet. Restricted
104. Thurrock ua. Restricted
105. Torbay ua. Restricted
106. Torfaen. Restricted.
107. Torridge. Decision on quotas imminent.
108. Trafford. Restricted.
109. Tunbridge wells. Restricted
110. Wakefield. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
111. Walsall. Review expected on 25 November 2004 Licensing Committee meeting.
112. Wansbeck. Policy under review. 30 H/C vehicles.
113. Warrington ua. Restricted
114. Watford. Preference to maintain a managed growth policy, next survey scheduled 2005/2006
*** West Somerset. De-limiting numbers on April first 2005. WAV only.
115. Welwyn Hatfield. Re Restricted late 2003. Were previously unrestricted.
116. Weymouth. Restricted
117. Wigan. Restricted
118. Windsor and Maidenhead ua. Restricted
119. Wolverhampton. Decision on quotas imminent.
120. Worthing. Managed growth policy. Wav only. Conducting survey to measure demand.
121. Wrexham. Restricted.
122. Wyre.160 H/C/V Survey commissioned for Jan 2005 final report to committee, Feb 2005.
123. Wyre Forest. Provisional decision to de-restrict numbers, ratification imminent.
124. York ua. Policy under review.

Now listen very carefully.

Myth, is the % of councils that the DfT told OFT, and everyone else that asked, that restrict taxi numbers.

Reality, is the actual up-to-date % of councils that restrict taxi numbers.

_________________
IDFIMH

OK thank you.

But if the OFT had conducted its investigations properly it would have found out the numbers without having to ask the DfT.

I'm not so sure about that.

The OFT investigated whether quotas were good or bad for customers.

How many councils restrict, was really neither here nor there.

_________________
IDFIMH

we dont have it here, but i understand you have it there

regards

Captain Cab

I think the OFT were spot on. They are here to protect the consumer and safeguard against unfair practices and unfair competition. The fact that they relied on information from the DFT, which was outdated, was not entirely their fault. They could have questioned it of course but we have seen instances recently where MP’s, council officials and even members of the Taxi trade have quoted these very same figures, are you also prepared to condemn them.

Best wishes

JD

John you are absolutely correct, the data was out of date, however was it that relevent?

The surveys for suply and demand are out of date as soon as there done.

However, I think charlie has the right sentiments, he seems to want the trade dealt with fairly, as we all do.

regards

Captain cab

I think the data was relevant to a certain extent, for the simple reason that council officials, MP's and Taxi trade members are still quoting it. I can't understand why the data has never been updated?

Having relevant data to hand has to be of paramount importance, especially if you rely on such data to influence your decisions.

I understand what you are saying about relevance but is it not the case that we all as individuals attach a different level of importance to every piece of data. What may seem insignificant to you or I may be of vital importance to somebody else.


Best wishes

JD

Charlie's point about the stats was just a dig at the OFT, which isn't unusual, and any minor detail that can be used to discredit it is pounced upon, because frankly that's about all he can think of!

I think his enquiry about the Myth 45 Reality 31 was just a wind up, since no one can be that stupid, unless of course your name ryhmes with thick!

In fact his whole persona is a wind up - when he first appeared I thought it was someone new, and spent a lot of time responding to his posts, but then realised that I'd done so on umpteen other occassions!

In fact I think he's trying to make us think he's someone else who posted in the past rather than Charlie or his real identity, but it's pretty transparent.

Oh what tangled webs we weave.....

No - not all LAs responded to their survey, and they can't compel them to, so had to rely on DfT figures, it would appear.

But considering the purpose of the study, it doesn't really matter whether the figure was 100% accurate.

Also, they clearly couldn't do much more than they did, since even at £250,000 the Trans Comm were bleating about the cost of the study.

But that's just about the value of 5 taxi plates in Manchester, which of course the Trans Comm didn't highlight!

Incidentally, if our buddy who threatened civil disobedience in his submission to the Trans Comm was correct, and the total UK value of plates is around £1 billion, then even assuming a yearly carrying cost of 10%, that's £100 million out of consumers's pockets.

So from the OFT's consumer remit standpoint, they could have carried out almost 400 investigations before it became a waste of time!

Or the cost of the study was around a quarter of one per cent of the potential annual benefit!

Having made some adjustments to this list here are the latest figures.

The Total number of Authorities that restrict Hackney carriages is 124


The 22 Authorities that have changed their policy since the publication of the last restricted numbers list, which was highlighted in the OFT report as 144 councils, are as follows.

1 Adur
2 Amber Valley
3 Bassetlaw
4 Calderdale
5 Cardiff
6 Castle Point
7 Chelmsford
8 Crawley
9 East Lindsey
10 East Northants
11 Guildford
12 Harlow
13 Knowsley
14 North East Lincolnshire UA
15 Selby
16 Slough UA
17 Solihull
18 Stratford-upon-Avon
19 Sunderland
20 West Somerset
21 Woking
22 Wycombe

The two Authorities that have re-restricted.

Bolton
Welwyn Hatfield

Of the 144 originally restricted Authorities the net reduction in numbers is 20 or 13.88%. The net percentage of Authorities who still restrict numbers is 33% or in numbers 124.

Updated list of Authorities who restrict H/C Vehicles by numbers:


1. Ashford. Restricted, to be reviewed early 2005.
2. Aylesbury Vale. Restricted
3. Babergh. Restricted
4. Barnsley. Survey commissioned on unmet demand for the services of Taxis.
5. Barrow in Furness. Restricted
6. Basildon. Restricted.
7. Basingstoke. Restricted
8. Bath and North East Somerset ua. Restricted
9. Bedford. Restricted.
10. Blackburn Darwen ua. Consultation on deregulation underway, scheduled to finish end Nov.
11. Blackpool. 256 hacks, 44 horse drawn. Intention is to keep a numbers policy.
12. Blyth Valley. 41 hacks, decision on change of policy early 2005.
13. Bolton. Restricted.
14. Bournemouth ua. Restricted
15. Bradford. Restricted. Policy to be reviewed Before Jan 2005
16. Braintree. Restricted
17. Brighton and Hove ua. Restricted.
18. Burnley. Restricted
19. Carrick. Conducting a survey.
20. Cherwell. Policy currently under review.
21. Chester. Restricted, licensing meeting on December 9.
22. Chester le street. Restricted
23. Chorley. Review of policy early 2005.
24. Colchester. Restricted
25. Congleton. Restricted
26. Conwy. Restricted
27. Copeland. Restricted
28. Corby. Restricted
29. Denbighshire. Restricted
30. Dover. Restricted
31. Durham. Restricted. Recently issued a quota of new licenses. Policy continually under review.
32. Easington. Restricted
33. East Riding. Restricted
34. Eastbourne. Restricted
35. Eastleigh. Internal report under consideration.
36. Ellesmere Port. Restricted
37. Exeter. Decision imminent.
38. Fylde. Restricted. Unmet demand survey to be carried out, consultation process to follow.
39. Gosport. Restricted
40. Great Yarmouth. Restricted
41. Gwynedd. Restricted
42. Halton ua. A Recent licensing report stated that local plate values stood at 10/12k and this indicated no unmet demand. Possible flawed logic, which does not address DFT guidance.
43. Harrogate. Restricted
44. Hastings. Restricted. Policy change under review, decision imminent.
45. Havant. Restricted
46. High Peak. Restricted
47. Huntingdonshire. Restricted
48. Hyndburn. Restricted
49. Ipswich. Restricted
50. Kerrier. Restricted
51. Kettering. Restricted
52. Kings Lynn. Restricted
53. Kingston upon Hull. Restricted
54. Kirklees. Restricted
55. Lancaster. Restricted to 105 H/C/V
56. Leeds. Consultation on policy change currently underway.
57. Leicester. Restricted
58. Lincoln. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
59. Liverpool. Restricted
60. Luton ua. Restricted
61. Maidstone. Restricted
62. Manchester. Restricted. Has a policy of issuing 20/25 new licences annually.
63. Merthyr Tydfil. Decision imminent.
64. Middlesborough ua. Restricted
65. Mole Valley. Restricted
66. New Forest. Report for consideration to be presented to committee members in January 2005
67. Newcastle on Tyne. Restricted.
68. Newcastle under Lyme. Restricted
69. Nottingham. Undertaking an unmet demand survey.
70. Oldham. Restricted.
71. Oxford. Restricted. Recently voted to retain a restricted numbers policy.
72. Pendle. Restricted
73. Penwith. Restricted
74. Plymouth ua. Legal Challenge on refusal to issue H/C licence, Court hearing 2005.
75. Poole ua. Restricted
76. Portsmouth ua. Restricted
77. Preston. Restricted
78. Reading ua. Restricted. Policy change unlikely.
79. Reigate and Banstead. Restricted
80. Restormel. Restricted
81. Ribble Valley. Restricted.
82. Richmondshire. Restricted. Undertaking unmet demand survey. Halcrow.
83. Rochdale. Restricted
84. Rotherham. Restricted. 48 H/C. Currently undertaking an unmet demand survey.
85. Rugby. Conducting an unmet demand survey to consider options.
86. Salford. Presently addressing Government guidance could possibly commission local survey.
87. Scarborough. 97 H/C/V review in Early 2005.
88. Sefton. Restricted
89. South Bedfordshire. Restricted. Policy currently under review.
90. South Ribble. Restricted
91. South Tyneside. Restricted
92. Southampton ua. Restricted
93. Southend on sea ua. Restricted
94. St Edmundsbury. Restricted
95. St Helens. Unmet demand survey being conducted early 2005.
96. Stevenage. Restricted
97. Stockport. Restricted. Commissioning a Mori survey to determine future policy.
98. Stoke on Trent ua. Restricted
99. Swindon ua. Policy under review, consultations being conducted with relevant parties.
100. Tameside. Restricted
101. Teignbridge. Restricted
102. Test Valley. Restricted to 34 H/C, policy to be reviewed shortly in line with DFT request.
103. Thanet. Restricted
104. Thurrock ua. Restricted
105. Torbay ua. Restricted
106. Torfaen. Restricted.
107. Torridge. Decision on quotas imminent.
108. Trafford. Restricted.
109. Tunbridge wells. Restricted
110. Wakefield. Undertaking unmet demand survey.
111. Walsall. Review expected on 25 November 2004 Licensing Committee meeting.
112. Wansbeck. Policy under review. 30 H/C vehicles.
113. Warrington ua. Restricted
114. Watford. Preference to maintain a managed growth policy, next survey scheduled 2005/2006
115. Welwyn Hatfield. Re Restricted late 2003. Were previously unrestricted.
116. Weymouth. Restricted
117. Wigan. Restricted
118. Windsor and Maidenhead ua. Restricted
119. Wolverhampton. Decision on quotas imminent.
120. Worthing. Managed growth policy. Wav only. Conducting survey to measure demand.
121. Wrexham. Restricted.
122. Wyre.160 H/C/V Survey commissioned for Jan 2005 final report to committee, Feb 2005.
123. Wyre Forest. Provisional decision to de-restrict numbers, ratification imminent.
124. York ua. Policy under review.