Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:20 am

Board index » General » Restricted taxi numbers

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 9
  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
John Davies
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 7:59 pm 
This is a very Interesting response. There is more to it than meets the eye. I'll add my observations next week, seeing as almost everyone else has added theres lol.

Have a good weekend, I'm off out to earn a fortune.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Top
  
 
guest
 Post subject: sad
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:34 pm 
There some sad and bitter people on here Its about time some of you grew up the best sort of service for the public is to run HCs + PHs thus natural competition between the two giving the public the service they want not what the HC or PH think they want. The Local Councils should have the power to add or even remove the amount of plates issued by the use of a survey to find if there is an unmet demand as are council does which never finds an unmet demand in fact there is one to many HC plates ( IT FUNNY HOW THESE SURVEYS NEVER LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PH PLATES)
Top
  
 
Alex
 Post subject: Re: sad
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 6:09 pm
Posts: 1180
Location: Miles away from paradise, not far from hell.
guest wrote:
There some sad and bitter people on here Its about time some of you grew up the best sort of service for the public is to run HCs + PHs thus natural competition between the two giving the public the service they want not what the HC or PH think they want. The Local Councils should have the power to add or even remove the amount of plates issued by the use of a survey to find if there is an unmet demand as are council does which never finds an unmet demand in fact there is one to many HC plates ( IT FUNNY HOW THESE SURVEYS NEVER LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PH PLATES)


I disagree about the 'sad and bitter' people. I would say that most drivers have been quite civil over this issue, since the DTI response.

The reason why 'these surveys' never limit the amount of PH vehicles, is simply they are not permitted too.

Alex

_________________
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ

Simply the best taxi forum in the whole wide world. www.taxi-driver.co.uk
Top
 Profile  
 
Guest
 Post subject: Re: sad
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:02 pm 
guest wrote:
( IT FUNNY HOW THESE SURVEYS NEVER LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PH PLATES)


Perhaps if they had to provide spaces for them to park then they would.

I will take a little break myself from here as the post mortem will probably go on and on, and unless my name is used , I will make not further comments for the time being. :wink:
Scanner
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject: Re: sad
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:21 pm 
Anonymous wrote:
I will take a little break myself from here as the post mortem will probably go on and on, and unless my name is used , I will make not further comments for the time being. :wink:


Missing you already. :wink:
Top
  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Reading between the lines the government announcement has been a vindication of the status quo.

There are two bodies that come out of the whole debacle with absolutely no credit at all, namely the T&G, whose national policy of a single tier system has again been totally disregarded by the labour administration.

The second body, although its a contridiction, is the NTTG, who have about as much influence as a fart in a jacuzzi.

The only national group with a semblence of a policy intact is the nta whos pro status quo stance has been both endorsed by the government in this and the london PH bill

regards

Captain Cab
Top
 Profile  
 
Sussex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54406
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
The second body, although its a contridiction, is the NTTG, who have about as much influence as a fart in a jacuzzi.


You mean those that paid £15,000 for a report, that says more surveys would be a good thing? :shock: :shock:

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:29 am 
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Sussex wrote:
No I haven't ignored anything, I can assure you of that, and I will be keeping the pressure up locally, as well as nationally.

But Mr Scanners I would wait until the guidelines come out before crowing too much. :shock:

Will your council always have the same councillors? Will your council really want to spend time on further surveys and countless follow up meetings, now including latent demand?

One wonders how many plates in your area would have been issued if latent demand had been included in your last survey?

But perhaps the question that the DfT will ask, is the one that has never been answered by anyone in the trade i.e. what benefits do consumers gain by restricting taxi numbers?

Now thankfully, that question will have to be addressed the length and breadth of the country. :D

No more hiding behind the plate premium, no more hiding behind gutless councillors, in short, no more hiding. :wink:

Oh the fun we will have on TDO and elsewhere with this one.


What...... If........ How........Where........ When....... Clutching at straws as usual Sussex.

And I will point out that I am not "crowing" about anything. The correct decision has been made. Local Level. And any future changes in LA's as far as change of councillors goes will not affect anything. Its will all be at local level. Not national. So YOU will have to concentrate on Eastbourne now. YOU will have address YOUR complaints direct. It will make no difference now what other LA's do..It is all at local level.


"Will your council always have the same councillors?

Of course not but having different councillors does not necessarily mean they will have different views. However, again. it is best dealt with at local level. I hope the good relationship between the trade and the council will be as good as it has been with the fantastic support they have officially given so far.

Will your council really want to spend time on further surveys and countless follow up meetings, now including latent demand?

Yes, I have absolutely no doubt about this whatsoever.

And again.. I am not "crowing" about this at all...just presenting the facts.

Now thankfully, that question will have to be addressed the length and breadth of the country.

Oh the fun we will have on TDO and elsewhere with this one

What YOU can do now is give YOUR reports on YOUR local authority. You can report on here what YOU have done, what YOU are doing, and what progress you are making. And good luck to you as well. If you can strike up a good relationship with YOUR LA and work with them you may finally get what YOU want. You obviously have the time to do this.

Best of luck. Scanner :wink:


Remember you said that Scanner its down to Local Authorities and its what you wanted!

Brighton and Hove rely on a county to get things in the transport plan am I correct, in thinking you are not a transport authority?

you know a council that has its own roads, or subsidises buses?

Right, this year your area have got nothing in rural grant, for the buses, no big loss about £75,000, imagine the county being held up for a million and a half cos your private hire and taxi insert does not stack up?

I dont think you realise yet, exactly what you have on your plate, and you are crowing carry on pal, you deaerve it its your victory, yoiu have all you wanted.

this lot will come back to haunt you, but you have until the general election to get hold of a transport plan, read it, understand it understand its workings and how to get influence.

never mind headlines that say: CABBIES HOLD UP BINS BEING EMPTIED

Future ones will say,

CABBIE HOLD UP SCHOOL ROAD SAFETY SCHEME

CABBIES HOLD UP 2.5M BYPASS.

POTHOLES IN THE ROAD DOWN TO CABBIES

geoff


Not quite sure what you are trying to put across :?: I reckon 1.5 out of 10 for coherency and 10 out of 10 for bitterness. However, I thank you for putting your name to this one..it makes a change. :lol:
Scanner



Scanner (andy)

not bitter at all, I am just reading into how things are to be.
now you need to do the same.

what I am [edited by admin] off about is your ungentlemanly and childish conduct.

you know "I told them this and I told them that"

grow up Andy

Geoff
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject: Re: sad
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:32 am 
Alex wrote:
guest wrote:
There some sad and bitter people on here Its about time some of you grew up the best sort of service for the public is to run HCs + PHs thus natural competition between the two giving the public the service they want not what the HC or PH think they want. The Local Councils should have the power to add or even remove the amount of plates issued by the use of a survey to find if there is an unmet demand as are council does which never finds an unmet demand in fact there is one to many HC plates ( IT FUNNY HOW THESE SURVEYS NEVER LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PH PLATES)


I disagree about the 'sad and bitter' people. I would say that most drivers have been quite civil over this issue, since the DTI response.

The reason why 'these surveys' never limit the amount of PH vehicles, is simply they are not permitted too.

Alex


ow Alex,
what did you tell them that for?
something else the F****** now alls cant grasp.
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:35 am 
captain cab wrote:
Reading between the lines the government announcement has been a vindication of the status quo.

There are two bodies that come out of the whole debacle with absolutely no credit at all, namely the T&G, whose national policy of a single tier system has again been totally disregarded by the labour administration.

The second body, although its a contridiction, is the NTTG, who have about as much influence as a fart in a jacuzzi.

The only national group with a semblence of a policy intact is the nta whos pro status quo stance has been both endorsed by the government in this and the london PH bill

regards

Captain Cab


vindication of the status quo?

have you understood the government response captain?

its far from status quo!

Geoff
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject: Re: sad
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:38 am 
guest wrote:
There some sad and bitter people on here Its about time some of you grew up the best sort of service for the public is to run HCs + PHs thus natural competition between the two giving the public the service they want not what the HC or PH think they want. The Local Councils should have the power to add or even remove the amount of plates issued by the use of a survey to find if there is an unmet demand as are council does which never finds an unmet demand in fact there is one to many HC plates ( IT FUNNY HOW THESE SURVEYS NEVER LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF PH PLATES)


ok Brain of Britain,
tell us now how you would remove plates from the market.
I am ready for a good laugh!
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:44 am 
Sussex wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Its very interesting isnt it that the government say that, on appeal they will have to demonstrate these new things on appeal............

wait a minute though have we missed something? the law is not to be changed and its down to Local Authorities?


Most judgements relating to sec 16 of the 1985 Act, usually refer to the guidence issued from the DoT (then) in 1986.

So any new guidence should have a considerable impact on any new court cases.


come on Sussex some of the guidance was thrown out, the piece I remember was the bit where local Authorities could slowly issue plates and test demand the courts said no way.

you cannot issue guidance 20 years after the act the law is what it says guidance is well just that, interpretation is judges.
Geoff
Top
  
 
Guest
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:51 am 
Sussex wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Brighton and Hove rely on a county to get things in the transport plan am I correct, in thinking you are not a transport authority?


The great county of Sussex no-longer has to deal with B&H.

Thankfully they are now an unitary authority. :wink:


oh doing a good job!
the only authority to be deleted from this years rural bus grant!
my mate says he is going to lobby in the transport insert for all taxis to be abolished. in Brighton

he says they cause congestion and they cant get the bins emptied!

he says there need be no worries private hire are exactly the same in Brighton! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

and hes a councillor.
Top
  
 
Sussex
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 54406
Location: 1066 Country
Anonymous wrote:
come on Sussex some of the guidance was thrown out, the piece I remember was the bit where local Authorities could slowly issue plates and test demand the courts said no way.

you cannot issue guidance 20 years after the act the law is what it says guidance is well just that, interpretation is judges.
Geoff


That's quite right Geoff, but hopefully if we are going to get good 'best practice' guidance, then the courts will accepts it.

To be honest, I think the courts have had enough of sec 16 anyway, so I don't anticipate much of a problem there.

Remember sec 16 only mentions 'significant un-met demand', but doesn't really define it. So if the Gov are going to define it properly, then I can't see many councils staying restricted.

Hopefully. :D

_________________
IDFIMH
Top
 Profile  
 
captain cab
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37029
Location: Wayneistan
Anonymous wrote:

vindication of the status quo?

have you understood the government response captain?

its far from status quo!

Geoff



Geoff,

reading through the restrictions part of the govt response

point 1, is basically a statement of fact, with no change

point2, is a statement of fact with no change

point 3, is a statement of oft recommendations, no change

point 4, is a government statement advises LA's to delimit, but also justify any limit they with to impose, no change.

point 5, local control, no change

point 6, advises LA's to justify there reasons for limits and to advise the govt by 31st March 2005, basically clarifying the postition to the govt of the LA's.

point 7, the govt will issue guidelines, however, if you have an effective local TOA most of the people on the working groups will already be known, no change as taxis are already permitted access to such groups

point 8, no change

point 9, gives LA's and TOA's 3 years to sort local matters out.

point 10, taxis should already be involved with LTPs and are in many parts

point 11, is it not about time the govt issued best practice on taxi licensing?

points 12 to 17 regarding quality are in the best interests of the trade and have already been taken up by enlightened TOAs

I dont really want to go on, but i reaffirm my statement that the govt response is status quo, no new laws

regards

Captain Cab
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 9
  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Board index » General » Restricted taxi numbers

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 155 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group