Taxi Driver Online

This OFT report, and its sugested changes are not really about whether someone has the right to get a plate for free, its not about whats right and whats wrong, its not even about ensuring provision which matches public need.

What it is about is taking away every local authorities power of deciding whats best for the community they are elected to properly represent.

People talk about Regulatory Reform Orders when the Regulatory Reform Act didn't even make it through Parliament. I suggested that the OFT report's sole purpose was to introduce some of the changes the govenment wanted to introduce through the RRA and saw the OFT investigating the "taxi" industry as an easy was to impliment some of the changes.

The problem is that by removing the Local Authorities control you leave "Taxi" licensing open to tender. I will use Gateshead as an example, last year through "taxi" licensing the council collected £297,000, we have no dedicated officer and so costs are low.

The possible implications are considerable, and very definatly worthy of note.

B. Lucky

Means nothing youth but, to people on here if it gets kicked out they will stop their subscriptions to the Conservative party hey Suspect!!

Mick,
you often accuse Sussex of not listening, with you its the kettle calling the pan black.

you dont even begin to understand Government, local government or trade unionism, and bring all three into disrepute.

as for the oft, they are there to ensure markets work, ours is not, but I wonder by how much its because of medlers like you who medles in everything but does not begin to understand what they are doing.

so Mick thanks for the lecture on what you think oft was about, if thats what you think everthing you have written is a false premise.

by the way, local authorities as you have been told thousands of times b4 are not allowed to use licensing as an income generator, if local authorities Mick cannot be trusted to uphold the law they should not be truseted with licensing.

i have never read such condecending crap in my life.

If in the first paragraph if you are talking about the social justice aspect of things then you are correct, that's not within the OFT's remit - its remit is to make markets work well for consumers.

Indeed, in relation to any losses suffered by plate holders on de-restriction it said:

"In reaching this conclusion, our function has been to report primarily on the competition effects of taxi regulation and its effect on the welfare of consumers of taxi services. We have not considered the social welfare effects of lifting quantity restrictions on particular licence holders or classes of licence holder. When deciding whether to follow our recommendation, Government will no doubt weigh in the balance any social welfare issues for particular licence holders or classes of licence holder that come to light in any consultation that may be held."

As for what's best for the community, surely the point is that as regards anything that WE pay money for, provision is planned by the market, and not by local councillors (thankfully).

Markets may have plenty of faults, but most of us reap the benefits when it suits us, then cry foul when it doesn't.

The Regulatory Reform Act has been on the statute book for since 2001 - by definition an 'Act' must have made it through Parliament. What the Act does is make it easier for the Govt to make changes to Acts of Parliament than if they had to pass another Act to change the one that needed amended.

To do this the RRA gives the Govt the power to make RR Orders. A couple of years ago the Govts RRA Action Plan was published with several hundred proposals for reform that could be done via RROs. Cleary it would take some time to achieve this, even assuming the 'fast-tracking' intention of the RRA.

Unsurprisingly, the OFT's report mentioned these proposals, as per any other matters that were in the pipeline, such as the Disability Discrimination Act.

The report said:

"Regulatory reform

"7.13 The Government’s Action Plan 2002 contains a number of proposals to use the streamlined order-making procedure in the Regulatory Reform Act
2001 to amend burdensome primary legislation. The DfT have put
forward four actions affecting taxi and PHV regulation (in England and
Wales outside London) for completion by Regulatory Reform Order. These
are:
• to remove the need for Secretary of State approval for local authority
resolutions to amalgamate taxi zones
• to standardise driver and operator licence duration
• to remove local authority powers to restrict taxi licence numbers in
their area
• to clarify/simplify the position on PHV hirings across the borders of
different licensing authorities.

"7.14 As can be seen, the findings of our report agree that these represent
areas of concern which we recommend addressing. To date no action
has been taken to implement these proposals."

By the way, I didn't type these extracts in, I've got the OFT's report in Word format, it's not too well layed out, but it's adequate for pasting extracts, which I can't do with Acrobat reader - you can past the whole lot, or none at all.

And I didn't edit any of it either

Perhaps the reason such powers shouldn't be decided by local authorities, is when you later say;



If you regard paying £297,000 for flip all, then you deserve what you get.

_________________
IDFIMH

As has been said, it all to do about customers, and the service they receive.

Is the current system fair? To some it may be, but to the likes of good old Sussex, it's as bent as a nine-bob note.

And if by changing the legislation to make it easier for customers to use our trade, I also benefit, well surely no-one will begrudge me that.

Will they?

_________________
IDFIMH

And as I have told you thousands of times before Gateshead Council MUST make a profit from Licensing as we have NO COUNCIL EMPLOYEES DEDICATED TO TAXI LICENSING.

Now just to clarify this once and for all "YORKIE", Taxi Licensing in Gateshead is within the Development and Enterprise Departments Regulatory Sevices Section, (for a full list of other sections see www.gateshead.gov.uk). It is this department that cannot show a profit.

We have asked several times for the monies recieved from "TAXI" licensing fees to be ring-fenced but guess what, they won't do it, in fact they won't even discuss even ring-fencing a percentage of it.

So before you come on with your chest puffed out sunshine, look at the facts relevant to the area concerned and stop assuming that each area operates in the same way you do in Wharfdale.

B. Lucky

If you are right Mr Angel, then your council is acting outside of the law.

They can only cover their costs. Now admittingly that can be a wide remit, but legally they mustn't make a profit.

They could make a surplus one year, but that would have to be adjusted the following year.

From memory, it was a Manchester court case, but they mustn't make a profit.

_________________
IDFIMH

Andy,
I don't remember that one, perhaps John might. I do remember in Birmingham the drivers asking for the Auditors to go in and the council immediately delimited.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

What they say is that all monies recieved go into a civic fund, each department is granted a yearly budget based on the ammount in the fund. Monies collected through taxi licensing therefore do not even remain within the department, even if it did we have been grouped with the biggest loss making departments and funnily enough incorporate within the department "Licensing" share we have Trading Standards.

Now is that illegal, cause we've got complaints in with the Councils Best Value Officer who has now only days to respond before we go to the Ombudsman. Any case history on this would be more than helpful.

Our problem is that we asked our Council to conduct an un-met demand survey, they told us that it would cost between £8k and £10k and they said they didn't have the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B. Lucky

Funny that like Geoff, whenever I have spoke to my local MP she always thanks me for the time and effort I put into preparing for each meeting I have with her. Whenever I speak to my local councellor I get a similar response.

With regard to trade unionism, all I can say is that when I started my local T&G branch we brought the full membership of the previous association which was under 25, our branch joined the T&G National Day of Action and we had over 130 members demonstrating. At the last branch meeting our members applauded the efforts of ALL of the officials.

NOW in Gateshead we have more than 50% of the total H/C trade united, of the other 50% a large number work from the local P/H office and have been told that to unite with the trade would see their radio's being removed, of course another excuse would be given for their dismisal.

So Mr Yorkie, it seems to me that it is in fact you that knows little about what happens outside your own little valley way out there in Yorkshire, so perhaps you should consider your next outburst very carefully indeed.

BTW, I was a taxi driver first and a trade unionist second, I have never had any inclination to enter politics, as Billy Connelly said "The desire to become a politition should barr you for life from ever becoming one".

B. Lucky

In the R-v-Manchester City Council, ex p King 1991, Manchester City Council argued that the wording of the 1982 Local Government Act, allowed them to set fees for street trading licenses that reflected the commercial nature of the sites on which the traders traded and that they did not have to be related to the cost of the street trading licensing and registration scheme. The High Court disagreed. The judge stated;

"it would have surprising if Parliament had intended to include a general revenue-raising provision in a schedule which deals solely with street trading. The purpose of that part of the Act is to establish a general scheme for street trading which local authorities may adopt if they so desire.

The fees charged, in my judgment, must be related to the street trading scheme operated by the district council and the costs of operating that scheme. The district council may charge such fees as they reasonably consider will cover the total cost of operating the street trading scheme or such lesser part of the cost of operating the street trading scheme as they consider reasonable. One consequence of the wording used is that, if the fees levied in the event exceed the cost of operating the scheme, the original decision will remain valid provided it can be said that the district council reasonably considered such fees would be required to meet the total cost of operating the scheme."

Although the 1982 Act isn't the 1976 Act, James Button in his Taxi Licensing book says "this is an important decision".

Where the judge says he thinks they may charge more, he means only a little bit if they get their budgets slightly out. Usually councils rectify this by adjusting the following years budget, either up if they under-estimate, or down if the over-estimate.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes I remember that one, I thought you were referring to the Taxi trade.
But the victory was slightly hollow because ,from memory the barrow boys were pushed from their usual spot and the numbers went into rapid decline.
Where is the book by Button available from? and roughly how much? better still if it is online.
Ged

_________________
taxi driver @manchester airport

It was available via Amazon etc etc.

He is in the process of up-dating it, but for obvious reasons the last year or so has led it to be put on hold.

It's a shame really, cos a lot of important judgment have happened in the last 3 or 4 years, since he published the first edition.

I would imagine the latest edition may be finalized after next week.

We will see, oh and it cost me about £50 then.

_________________
IDFIMH