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

Cherwell de-limit
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Cherwell de-limit
Isn't it nice when LOs put the truth to members, and members act on that truth? =D>

http://www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/yourcounc ... il/91/989/
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 7:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
looked like a well prepared report, it would seem that the local trades problem is not with their officers but with their elected councillors.

good information sussex. :wink:

regards

Captain cab
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
I particularly like the bit where the Chief Administration Officer said "that the DFT, following their decision not to introduce taxi accessibility regulations in 2002 under the Disabled Discrimination Act 1995 were now encouraging local licensing authorities to make their own policies with regard accessible taxis for their area."

Then, like evrey other council, decided to derestrict the number of WAVs and maintain the premium of the saloon licenses issued, without stating exactly what vehicles are considered suitable.

Strange then that this action is considered fair, when the previous restricted market was considered unfair because of the cost to enter the trade. If the saloon plate values in this area are less than the cost of the specified WAV then it cannot be considered fair under the grounds of the unfairness arguement offered.

Also worthy of note is the committee's consideration that more taxis would "make more use of the Littlewoods rank at Banbury late at night". surely if there was work there then the current drivers would be working there, new drivers would be automatically drawn to where the work is, so very few taxis should be expected to work a rank with no customers. It is more likely that the extra taxis would work the busier ranks along with current licence holders which will be of little benefit to the consumer.


This is yet another council being applauded for doing less, yeah thats good for the trade innit.

B. Lucky :twisted:
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Gateshead Angel wrote:
This is yet another council being applauded for doing less, yeah thats good for the trade innit.

Well if you haven't yet mastered the difference between a 'qualitative' restriction, and a 'quantative' restriction, then I don't think you ever will. ](*,)

As for letting the existing saloons stay as they are, well clearly that was a sop to soften the de-limit blow. A sop that the government will more than likely erase in a few years time. :wink:
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
Who's applauding the local authority? I was applauding the Licensing Officers.

I stated that the report was a fair one, a lot fairer than some we've seen.

While a survey would have perhaps been ideal, to me this was seemingly wanted by the LO's, its not the fault of the LO's that the council said no, delimit.

Captain Cab
Author:  JD [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Who's applauding the local authority? I was applauding the Licensing Officers.

I stated that the report was a fair one, a lot fairer than some we've seen.

While a survey would have perhaps been ideal, to me this was seemingly wanted by the LO's, its not the fault of the LO's that the council said no, delimit.

Captain Cab


A balanced report. Your assessment is correct, in so far as the report was more even handed than some we have recently seen. The Council considered the recommendations of the LO and decided their wider remit was to serve the community as a whole and not be influenced by a vested interest.

Best wishes

JD
Author:  Guest [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
8) 8) Take one transport minister,let's call him McNulty let's say his job is to work with the disabled groups,and they are pushing for all the taxis in the land to be w.a.v...But there is no way he can force the councils in this land to get rid of the saloon vehicles they already have, As the years go on the pressure builds up ,so he/they come up with the idea of removing restrictions on the number of licences ,BUT at the same time telling them to issue new licences to w.a.v... At least he will be able to say,Look how many more you have now..........in 2010......
8) 8) MR T. 8) 8)
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
MR T wrote:
But there is no way he can force the councils in this land to get rid of the saloon vehicles they already have, As the years go on the pressure builds up ,so he/they come up with the idea of removing restrictions on the number of licences ,BUT at the same time telling them to issue new licences to w.a.v... At least he will be able to say,Look how many more you have now..........in 2010......

Councils don't have any saloon cabs, or for that matter any WA cabs. :shock:

Thus it isn't going to cost any council a brass farthing to implement the DDA.

Anyone who thinks, for one second, that the Phase 1 list of councils wont have to adhere to compulsory WAVs, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Enter SCATA, T&G and NTTG.

Nuff said. :shock:
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Gateshead Angel wrote:
This is yet another council being applauded for doing less, yeah thats good for the trade innit.

Well if you haven't yet mastered the difference between a 'qualitative' restriction, and a 'quantative' restriction, then I don't think you ever will. ](*,)

As for letting the existing saloons stay as they are, well clearly that was a sop to soften the de-limit blow. A sop that the government will more than likely erase in a few years time. :wink:


RAOTFLMFAO

Howay Sussex Man, your termanology shifts as often as my opinion (apparently).

What we have discussed during our time has also changed with the same frequency.

You argued for a single tier, and considered the OFT would deliver it.
Then you arued against quantative restrictions as you believed the OFT had delivered it.
Now your arguing for a "qualitative" restriction, would it be on the basis that its the only way you can justify your one sided argument to get a plate for free.

Still, keep saying that the whole taxi world is unfair, but remember its only unfair to you and those without, I feel sorry for the exploited drivers both HC and PH and it is that unfairness we should be addressing here, not the unfairness you feel as a spoilt brat who has the opportunity or options not afforded to those people being really exploited.

B. Lucky :twisted:
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
Who's applauding the local authority? I was applauding the Licensing Officers.

I stated that the report was a fair one, a lot fairer than some we've seen.

While a survey would have perhaps been ideal, to me this was seemingly wanted by the LO's, its not the fault of the LO's that the council said no, delimit.

Captain Cab


But Captain I have been suggesting that the LO's actions were correct for years, its the decision of the council which I believe to be questionable. That is why I stated applauding the local authority, as I believe that is what certain people do everytime a council apparently "delimits" even though it maintains restrictions on the majority of people to gain access to the trade, the reason they applaud is because it allows THEM in for free, now thats realy [edited by admin] fair innit.

B. Lucky
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
Anyone who thinks, for one second, that the Phase 1 list of councils wont have to adhere to compulsory WAVs, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Enter SCATA, T&G and NTTG.

Nuff said. :shock:



Cherwell Councils Cheif Administration Officer wrote:
that the DFT, following their decision not to introduce taxi accessibility regulations in 2002 under the Disabled Discrimination Act 1995 were now encouraging local licensing authorities to make their own policies with regard accessible taxis for their area.


I think its someone else who's living in cloud cuckoo land.

Anyway, we'll see who's right in due course.

B. Lucky :twisted:
Author:  Guest [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Anyone who thinks, for one second, that the Phase 1 list of councils wont have to adhere to compulsory WAVs, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Enter SCATA, T&G and NTTG.

Suscap What percentage of disabled people are in wheelchairs ,dont other disabled people have rights as well,
Am I right in thinking that p/h in this area of disability are being looked at too. MR T.
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
GA,

I tend to agree with you :shock:

However, I was merely pointing out that the report was fair, it would seem however from the minutes of the meeting, that the local association didnt help themselves here.

But, that being stated, if the LA were that certain of an unmet demand, what problem would a survey have been? Thats my only real problem with the cherwell issue.

Regards

Captain cab
Author:  Gateshead Angel [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Not just Cherwell though Captain, every council that delimits without a survey should be condemed in the exact same way.

But that may be to fair for everyone, oh and it might mean certain people can't get a plate.

B. Lucky :twisted:
Author:  captain cab [ Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Not just Cherwell though Captain, every council that delimits without a survey should be condemed in the exact same way.


Just as a council that keeps numbers artificially low should be?

Captain Cab
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/