Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

JD wrote:

I understand from speaking to my colleagues in Trafford last night that they might be heading for deregulation of numbers. The latest news coming from that quarter is that Trafford expect to lose the court case later this month and if that is the case they may well remove quantity controls.

Not that much of a surprise really, the last survey was flawed and included data from non-existant people, and the council still haven't got around to answering Rupert's questions that he posed last year. :shock:

Without doubt a 'head in the sand' council if ever there was one. [-X

So that little visit (or visits) to the courts would have cost Trafford many many thousands of pounds, and for what? :-k

They have made themselves look utterly stupid to the courts, to the DfT, to the local trade, and as they use to say on radio, anyone else who knows them.

But as the T&G/NTA told the Transport Committee "councils do know best". :lol:

The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here?

JD wrote:

The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here?

They go from one side of my signature, to the other. $\:D/$

JD wrote:

The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here?

They go from one side of my signature, to the other. $\:D/$

How come your still showing 240 unrestricted councils and not 241?

JD wrote:

How come your still showing 240 unrestricted councils and not 241?

Your seeing things. 8-[

a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned

187ums wrote:

a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned

You could be right, who knows?

But that council has had a bloody nose, and my little birdie tells me that a number of outside authorities will be taking a close look at how it operates. :wink:

And the surveyors that told a few porkies in the 2001 SUD survey will be getting something coming their way very soon. :-$

Author:	JD [ Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Trafford
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: I understand from speaking to my colleagues in Trafford last night that they might be heading for deregulation of numbers. The latest news coming from that quarter is that Trafford expect to lose the court case later this month and if that is the case they may well remove quantity controls. Not that much of a surprise really, the last survey was flawed and included data from non-existant people, and the council still haven't got around to answering Rupert's questions that he posed last year. Without doubt a 'head in the sand' council if ever there was one. There are quite a few of those. Regards JD

Author:	JD [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:55 am ]
Post subject:
When I started this thread I stated that "Trafford could be the latest Council to fall foul of applying quantity controls without having a survey". I cheated to a certain extent because I held back on using the word "will" for "could". To some of us, Trafford was a stone cold certainty to lose the appeal in the Crown Court and not surprisingly on Thursday 13th October 2005 that’s exactly what happened. Yesterday TMBC appeared at Minshull Street Crown court Manchester, where they accepted that they had acted illegally by refusing five licenses to a single applicant while not being in possession of up to date independent evidence of public demand for the services of Taxis. Trafford is not the only council that thinks they are above the law, there are several others acting outside the law who have decided to limit numbers without conducting an independent survey of demand. Trafford tried to rely on a Survey conducted in 2001 but the court took a very dim view of that idea and told Trafford in no uncertain terms that they would not be able to rely on that survey. The same company who conducted the Trafford Survey in 2001 also conducted the recent Bath survey. It amuses me to think that KNW have put a five year shelf life on the Bath survey while the people who really matter namely the Judiciary have said the four year survey of Trafford cannot be relied upon. There seems to be a growing enthusiasm among Market research companies to distance themselves from the reality of the law. Perhaps the Plymouth case scheduled for February 2006 might shed some light on unmet demand surveys? Who knows? In the meantime as I previously stated anyone wanting a plate in Trafford or for that matter any of the other Authorities on the list of restricted councils that have placed themselves outside the law, should apply now. Regards JD

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:18 am ]
Post subject:
So that little visit (or visits) to the courts would have cost Trafford many many thousands of pounds, and for what? They have made themselves look utterly stupid to the courts, to the DfT, to the local trade, and as they use to say on radio, anyone else who knows them. But as the T&G/NTA told the Transport Committee "councils do know best".

Author:	JD [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:38 am ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: So that little visit (or visits) to the courts would have cost Trafford many many thousands of pounds, and for what? They have made themselves look utterly stupid to the courts, to the DfT, to the local trade, and as they use to say on radio, anyone else who knows them. But as the T&G/NTA told the Transport Committee "councils do know best". Trafford Expected the applicant to back down when faced with the prospect of legal costs. This is typical of councils who know they are outside the law but have the financial resources to bully an applicant into submission. In this case Trafford were up against an applicant who knew the law and as Trafford's Barrister said on the 3rd October "Trafford did not understand the Transport Act 1985". I find that a lame excuse for denying someone a license, especially when that someone pointed out very clearly the council's obligations under the 1985 Transport act. The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here? Regards JD

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here? They go from one side of my signature, to the other. $\:D/$

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

Trafford http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2521	Page 3 of 3

Author:	JD [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here? They go from one side of my signature, to the other. $\:D/$ How come your still showing 240 unrestricted councils and not 241? Regards JD

Author:	TDO [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: The problem for Trafford is where do they go from here? They go from one side of my signature, to the other. $\:D/$ That was actually quite funny Sussex. I doubt if poor old Mike would think so though

Author:	Sussex [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: How come your still showing 240 unrestricted councils and not 241? Your seeing things.

Author:	JD [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:32 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: JD wrote: How come your still showing 240 unrestricted councils and not 241? Your seeing things. Old Age.

Author:	187ums [ Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:
a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:
187ums wrote: a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned You could be right, who knows? But that council has had a bloody nose, and my little birdie tells me that a number of outside authorities will be taking a close look at how it operates. And the surveyors that told a few porkies in the 2001 SUD survey will be getting something coming their way very soon.

Author:	JD [ Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:49 pm ]
Post subject:
187ums wrote: a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned My money is on them having a survey but one never knows. They have to do things right, they demonstrated they know sweet FA about the law and they even admitted it in court so I wouldn't put it past them to fall foul of the law again. We shall see? JD

Author:	jimbo [ Fri Oct 28, 2005 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: 187ums wrote: a little bird tells me that Trafford will be keeping thier restricted policy, stay tuned You could be right, who knows? But that council has had a bloody nose, and my little birdie tells me that a number of outside authorities will be taking a close look at how it operates. And the surveyors that told a few porkies in the 2001 SUD survey will be getting something coming their way very soon. What? a brown envelope?

Author:	ALI T [ Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:
right again

Page 3 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/