Taxi Driver Online

At the end of the day its not about a two tier system,its about people being
able to have a plate when one becomes available,either through unmet demand or a cabbie leaving the trade.The plates should go to the persons at the top of the waiting list and not to somebody with a load of money.This needs to be addressed and it hasn't,so therefore there will always be resentment.[/quote]

Gosh yes...again
Scanner

I think it is generally agreed that more councils allow free entry, than not.

In the OFT report, based on DfT stats, they say 55% of councils don't restrict. I think it's slightly more, because quite a few councils restrict saloons, but allow free entry to those prepared to license a WAV.

_________________
IDFIMH

But if I wish to start a bus route, then no-one can say no because we have too many buses.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's a fair point, and perhaps if this was the case when they changed the laws in 1985, then we might not be in the situation we find ourselves now.

So long as a retired driver doesn't keep his plate, and rent it out to others, as happens north of the border.

_________________
IDFIMH

no they just litter the road with hurdles, Sussex get those glasses off you cant see through them.

I've no problem with hurdles, in the taxi/PH trade they are called standards.

The problem is in some parts of the taxi trade, you can't get over those hurdles unless you pay tens of thousands to a leech.

_________________
IDFIMH

and buses of course dont pay millions for licenses?

After all the conjecture and debate over the OFT report, the Government has finally played its hand. Looking at the official response one could easily get the impression it is straightforward. However, it appears the devil is obviously going to be in the detailed Government guidance which is being sent out to those local Authorities who still wish to retain a numbers policy.

It appears to me that this ministerial response could well be a compromise between all the departments effected by the reform of section 16. I suspect the DTI and OFT was pulling in one direction and the DFT in another. It may well be the case that certain Ministers thought the proposed removal of section 16 would not make it through the RRO process. The conflicting incompatible conclusions in the report lead me to believe that a compromise was reached by persons who I presume sooner or later will be unmasked.

The proposals intimated in this response clearly throws the ball squarely back into the realms of the Judiciary.

Because of the stupidity of our lawmaker’s back in 1985 in not defining section 16 in a clear unambiguous way, it was ultimately left to the courts to unscramble the concoction we inherited from Parliament.

As a law, It just goes to show how ambiguous section 16 really is, every interpretation which the Government now relies upon has come by way of Judicial process. All this could have been avoided if the Conservative Government of the day would have asked itself “how do you measure unmet demand”.

It was left to the courts to guide local Authorities on the burden of proof a court would required when measuring unmet demand, not Government. The early circulars sent out from the Transport Ministry were in direct response to the way the courts interpreted section 16.

It would appear this latest Government compromise does very little to eradicate the inadequacies of section 16. What it will do however is bring about an added dimension to any legal challenge.

Until the actual detail is made public, we won't know by how far the Government will raise the legal bar on Councils who restrict licenses. I would guess by looking at the wording of this response that the legal test for councils is going to be very high indeed.

I noticed that just a single paragraph was afforded to those local Authorities who wished to assess their own local needs when implementing Taxi policy. The rest of the section was centered on how the Government was going to make it harder for Local Authorities to restrict numbers when it can’t show that restricting numbers is beneficial to the public.

That particular section concludes by stating the following.

The Government itself will review in association with the OFT the extent of quantity controls in three years time to monitor progress towards the lifting of controls. If necessary, the Government will then explore further options through the RRO or legislative process if insufficient progress has been made.

What the Government in essence is saying, is that if by 2007 the practice of limiting numbers has not been eradicated by either local councils or the courts, the Government will consider removing them.

The Government response in my opinion is inadequate; it is passing the buck to both local Councils and the Courts in the hope that a solution will be found. The Government has the solution in its own hands but lacks the will to see it through.

The Government should have either removed section 16 or made it stronger. Leaving it as it is, is a disgrace.


Best wishes

John Davies.

No they pay millions for other bus companies.

Councils issue plates for f*** all, but those who get them for nothing, sell to queue jumpers for fortunes.

And some unions support it.

_________________
IDFIMH

I couldn't agree more John, but at least I think we are getting near the end.

Now the government are strongly encouraging local councils to de-limit ASAP. Those councils that still wish to restrict must have strong justification that consumers would be significantly worse off.

To those sad-o's of us that read government documents, that is very strong wording, and it's the first time for me that the word 'significant', actually works in my favor.

_________________
IDFIMH

John,

I dont think I agree with you, or sussex for that matter.

I think the lawmakers in 1985 knew exactly what they were doing, there is no black and white gauge for significant unmet demand, therefore each case must be treated on its own merits. Very much like the trade itself, each area is different so laid down criteria that might suit rural cornwall would be of no use to manchester.

it may well throw the whole thing to the courts in manchester, but perhaps not in other areas.

must everything in this trade be black and white or clear cut, is this a manchester thing?

as for the draft guidance for local authorities, the trade will get an input to this, so again nothing is certain.

the government have been very clever, they have basically told licensing authorities that they have everything in there posession to operate a good taxi service, get on with the job or else.

regards

captain cab

I think it should be remembered that section 16 has two clauses, Clause (A) and clause (B). Clause (A) was the original amendment to section 37 of the town police clauses act, Clause (B) was submitted by the lords after lobbying on behalf of the Taxi trade. Clause (B) wasn't part of Government thinking.

The legislation was designed to promote competition, the significance of Clause (B) seemed to be overlooked by all concerned. It only became apparent how negative the clause was when people started to engage in legal action.

The Judiciary constantly questioned the impracticality of clause (B) in section 16. One judge stated "how can you define a positive from a complete negative".

Even the Department of Transport initially didn’t have a clue on what advice to give about Clause (B).

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your opinion that the lawmakers knew what they were doing. I think there is ample evidence by way of case law, to support the opinion that they certainly did not know what they were doing. I am still of the opinion that clause B in section 16 slipped completely by them.

Just for the record here’s what clause A removes in section 37 of the 1847 Town police clauses act.

(a) As if in section 37 the words "such number of" and "as they think fit" were omitted.

This removed the right of Councils to limit proprietor’s licenses.

However, because of the Lords intervention a further clause was included, which went on to say.

And as if they provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of Hackney carriage licenses are granted, if and only if, the person authorised to grant licenses is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of Hackney carriages within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.

Now, you say that the Government knew what they were doing when they inserted clause (B). I put it to you that Clause (B) was an amendment put forward by the House of Lords which was brought about by the lobbying of the Taxi trade. Clause (B) was not part of Government thinking when they introduced the white paper nor was it part of their thinking in the draft bill.

Therefore, I beg to differ with your statement that lawmakers knew what they were doing.

If you really do think it was sound Law making, here are some quotes from some of our most eminent legal minds.

1986 Judge Whitely presiding over the Fareham case.

Councils have been placed in a difficult position it is clearly the intention of the legislation that Hackney carriage operators become subject to increased competition.

1986 Mr Justice Webster presiding over the Gravesham case.

The transport act 1985 made radical changes affecting all forms of public transport and the manifest policy of the act was to remove restraints and allow market forces to take their course.

1987 Lord Woolf, Great Yarmouth case.

The requirement that was placed upon an authority was to be satisfied about a negative. A matter which created difficulties from an Authorities point of view.

3/85 the very first circular issued in November 1985 by the Department of Transport sought to clarify certain aspects of section 16. However, it soon became apparent that the information contained in paragraph 28 of that circular was incompatible with the law. When circular 4/87 was issued, it did away with the advice in paragraph 28 of circular 3/85.



The topology of each area is different but normally areas can be defined in two categories, either urban or rural. The burden on a local council is to prove there is no demand for taxis in their area, which remains unmet. What evidence a council uses to demonstrate that negative is entirely up to them but the burden of proof is the same in Manchester as it is anywhere else in the country.


I don't know about Manchester because I understand the next issue of licences may be substantial. I also don't know if it will be easier to prove there is a demand, which remains unmet in urban areas rather than rural areas.

I think it will be very difficult for any market research company to conduct a seven or fourteen day survey and define where latent demand does or doesn't exist. To define latent demand you have to work on the job 365 days a year, you can't just come along for two weeks in every two years and say no latent demand exists, it is not only impractical it is also impossible.


The only thing that requires being black and white, is the law under which we operate. We can't ask for anything more than that can we?


I have no doubt that the trade will seek to influence the Governments thinking on the draft guidance. However, I don't believe the trades submissions will influence the Government in any way shape or form.

I expect the draft guidance will reflect the Governments view on exactly what they have said in their submission. The direction in which way the Government wants councils to move is very clear, I expect the advice will reflect that.


I don't know how you arrived at that assumption Cap. It appears to me that the Government is saying remove restriction on numbers, or in three years time we will do it for you.

Best wishes.

John Davies.

but the bus companies get the licenses for nothing, as for the unions they were told to live in the real world remember? real world is where real cash does the rounds.

I will tell you exactly what the government were doing in 85, wrestling buses from local authorities and flogging the national bus companies off to thier friends at a pittance.

yes captain section 16 were buggering up a wider agenda, with taxis comming through to the commons and lobbyung mps.

the only chance of getting the real message accross was not to take the taxis on.

yes that what the government was doing!

ot was nothing else nothing clever, just getting rid of the side show.