Taxi Driver Online

post removed

i never said you did sirius but realcabforce etc did call us that.
what i find it strange that you only pick up on what we said in defence.
realcabfarce and his alterego realcabfarceforum(what a name) have been given a chance on numerouse occasions to bring forward an argument and have failed.

all they want to do is attack us.
why?
ignorance plain and simple.
they man has no brains.
come to think of it he has no guts/balls iether.
nothing more dispicable than a man who snipes and bitches at others efforts from the sidelines,yet has no argument of his own to put forward and if he did have one he would not have the courage to carry it forward.
i do however respect others opinions,as long as they have some validity.
this man only seems to have a personell vendeta against us nothing more.

maybe its time for a cease fire??

thier was never a war the other side never had any ammo
just lots o mouth

Agreed, but maybe it's also time Edinburgh council started adhering to the law of the land.

If they did that, then I doubt we would be reading and discussing what we are.

_________________
IDFIMH

Most Taxi drivers in Edinburgh and several legal opinions agree that Edinburgh council has adhered to the law.
These current applicants seem to think that the current buzzphrase of "proving no significant unmet demand" is the all of everything. The vast majority do realise that demand has been monitored continuously by the appointed taxi monitor. Although skull and his sidekicks belittle those reports, they are nonetheless valid assessments of demand on a monthly basis.

What some may not know is that Skull has a long history of troublemaking. He has publicly stated that he is not a violent person, but privately he boasts of a violent past.
We are expected to believe that his correspondence with the HSE about the safety of the TX1's wheelchair facilities is the first time that it has been raised yet similar ramps etc have been in use since around 1986/7 with the advent of the Metrocab and Fairway. He consistently refused to accept any wheelchair bound passengers on the grounds of a non-existent health & safety assessment. And shouted long & loud about unfair treatment.

Similarly he demands a plate for no other reason than to sell it, failing to realise that if the council grants these licences, there will be a clamour from the 110 applicants waiting for over 10 years. Common sense dictates that, as the council do not eat, sleep & drink taxis, they will simply remove the nuisance and de-restrict numbers, thus wiping out any plate value at a stroke.

At first, that may appear alright, but if you have 3,000 drivers on 3,000 taxis you will not have the 24 hour coverage nor the modern vehicles that we have at present. I can run a new taxi, change it every 3 years and the overheads of HP,Insurance, licensing & maintenance amount to c£280 per week (this excludes any radio dues, if an owner should joins a circuit.)

Now either add on a radio fee of at least £80 per week or take off the rental income from a driver and everyone ends up paying more or driving around in older, less-well maintained taxis. These figures do not include any repayments on loans to buy plates.

There is a strong case for restricting phc licences, given the conduct of a large number in Edinburgh who blatantly break laws and licensing conditions with impunity.

Tighter regulation would benefit all of us - phc included. As would ridding out trade of parasites!!

We shall have to wait and see if the Sheriff accepts the level of proof that Edinburgh council has submitted. If it ever goes to the court of session they will no doubt take into consideration the quality of that proof, the independence and the time frame and frequency in which the evidence was gathered.

If it hasn't already been supplied in the Sheriff's court, I suspect the higher court may also want to see clear evidence that such information gathering was undertaken on a regular basis since the last survey was conducted. They may even ask themselves if Edinburgh council acted outside their powers by refusing to make a decision on the 100 or so applicants that they placed on a waiting list.

The burden of proof on whether there was no unmet demand at the time these applications were submitted, rests firmly with Edinburgh council.

It is the council's submission that there is no unmet demand and there was no unmet demand at the time these applications were submitted. They now have to prove that was and still is the case. It appears to be a heavy burden of proof in the light of the Dundee decision.

In respect of lifting numbers control history tells us that the only time you get an abnormally large increases in license applications is when you lift numbers control without a strict policy of Quality control. The evidence for this lies in Liverpool, Dublin and even Edinburgh. If these areas had in place a strict regime of quality control at the time they delimited then they might not be in the position they are today.

Regards

JD

Yes I will expand on my reasons for suggesting a high level of Quality control might have averted to some extent the abnormally high influx of license applications in the places I mentioned but I won't do it tonight because my response will be comprehensive.

I must state that I wrote "If these areas had in place a strict regime of quality control at the time they delimited then they might not be in the position they are today".

Meaning they might not have the high volume of Cabs they have at this moment in time. That scenario will most certainly apply to Dublin and probably Liverpool but I'll give you my reasons for suggesting this tomorrow.

Regards

JD

Swindon lifted numbers control in favour of quality control on 20th July 2005. The policy comes into force on 1st February 2006. The council had substantial opposition to the new policy as you rightly point out. There are 54 councils out of 343 in England and Wales that so far restrict numbers and 238 that don't. The rest have yet to determine their policy. Most of those that have opted for a very high degree of Quality control have not seen much change in numbers.

Regards

JD

The chances of the number of taxis doubling in Edinburgh with derestriction are remote indeed, and in any case much of the increase would be just be current drivers operating their own vehicle, thus that wouldn't effect you one iota regards the amount of work you have.

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

It has been suggested by some that Swindon failed to consult with the Taxi trade but the evidence of consultation is clearly visible in at least two reports submitted by officers of the Council. Those who disagree with Swindon's decision are confusing consultation with negotiation.

The council has a duty to consult in order that it can make informed decisions, however it does not need to negotiate. I think a distinction should be made between the two.

Regards

JD

RealCabforce Wrote:

Most Taxi drivers in Edinburgh and several legal opinions agree that Edinburgh council has adhered to the law.


Absolute rubbish, no information was produced in court that CEC had monitored demand other than a few stance surveys a bout 3 years ago.

They claimed that the Taxi Monitors report showed that there was no demand for taxis because no one had applied bearing in mind they operated a policy to turn people away.



These current applicants seem to think that the current buzzphrase of "proving no significant unmet demand" is the all of everything. The vast majority do realise that demand has been monitored continuously by the appointed taxi monitor. Although skull and his sidekicks belittle those reports, they are nonetheless valid assessments of demand on a monthly basis.

No valid assessments of any kind were carried out from one month to the next. Nothing produced in Court.



What some may not know is that Skull has a long history of troublemaking. He has publicly stated that he is not a violent person, but privately he boasts of a violent past.


15 Years as a Taxi driver and not one customer complaint, speaks for itself.


We are expected to believe that his correspondence with the HSE about the safety of the TX1's wheelchair facilities is the first time that it has been raised yet similar ramps etc have been in use since around 1986/7 with the advent of the Metrocab and Fairway. He consistently refused to accept any wheelchair bound passengers on the grounds of a non-existent health & safety assessment. And shouted long & loud about unfair treatment.


CEC and the HSE have my risk assessment carried out as per HSE instructions.


Similarly he demands a plate for no other reason than to sell it, failing to realise that if the council grants these licences, there will be a clamour from the 110 applicants waiting for over 10 years. Common sense dictates that, as the council do not eat, sleep & drink taxis, they will simply remove the nuisance and de-restrict numbers, thus wiping out any plate value at a stroke.


More [edited by admin]. What I have maintained all along is that I will do what ever the situation dictates.

At first, that may appear alright, but if you have 3,000 drivers on 3,000 taxis you will not have the 24 hour coverage nor the modern vehicles that we have at present. I can run a new taxi, change it every 3 years and the overheads of HP,Insurance, licensing & maintenance amount to c£280 per week (this excludes any radio dues, if an owner should joins a circuit.)

Does any one else want to answer this clown?



Now either add on a radio fee of at least £80 per week or take off the rental income from a driver and everyone ends up paying more or driving around in older, less-well maintained taxis. These figures do not include any repayments on loans to buy plates.

Diatribe!



There is a strong case for restricting phc licences, given the conduct of a large number in Edinburgh who blatantly break laws and licensing conditions with impunity.

So we actually recognise that the PHC exist, you might want to tell Jim Muldoon Chairman of the Scottish Taxi Federation he says they don’t.

Tighter regulation would benefit all of us - phc included. As would ridding out trade of parasites!!


Give me the plates and I'm gone!

I think you have to realise that there are many interested parties and consultation is supposed to take place on a very wide scale. The Taxi trade is only one part of that consultation process albeit an important part. However, the council has a wider remit than to just do what is best for individual Taxi drivers, they have the travelling public and Government & European legislation to consider.

I fully understand the predicament that some in the trade find themselves but at the end of the day it is councillors who make decisions rightly or wrongly?

Regards

JD

Because they are not adhering to what the Sheriffs in both the Dundee and Glasgow cases said was the law.

_________________
IDFIMH

Edinburgh Council vs. 3Maxblack


Edinburgh Council have been the granted a period of extension up to 31 October 2005.

I haven’t got the court judgement yet but it appears to be a very lengthy document 25-30 pages long.

I will update you on our next move it might be subject to the Coyle and Dundee cases. I suspect the CEC will attempt to deny all the applications on the bases of the Jacobs Report regardless of the fact they had no up to date information at the time the applications fell.

The next major problem for the Council is that they have to give everyone a public hearing to present their case and to give grounds as to why they intend to refuse the licence plates. This is an opportunity to ask some very awkward questions i.e. Jacobs Report, PHC increase, Plate Value etc. This also brings into question the List of Interested Parties which is another sore point. They will be refused the opportunity of a licence plate after waiting as much as 15 years while the PHC are going on up to 25 a month.

All the information will be scrutinised and place in the public domain with the potential of being presented before a Sheriff if the case arises.


CEC have bought a 3 month stay of execution depending on whether or not there will be any future challenges.