I need to submit to my local council as many valid reasons as possible, as to why it would not be in the consumers interest for them to De-Regulate.

Where can I find case history on councils that have De-Regulated in the past, and found it to have a negative affect for the consumer.

Many Thanks.

flech.

nowhere, you are stuck on this one pal.

I need to submit to my local council as many valid reasons as possible, as to why it would not be in the consumers interest for them to De-Regulate.

Where can I find case history on councils that have De-Regulated in the past, and found it to have a negative affect for the consumer.

Many Thanks.

I need to submit to my local council as many valid reasons as possible, as to why it would not be in the consumers interest for them to De-Regulate.

Where can I find case history on councils that have De-Regulated in the past, and found it to have a negative affect for the consumer.

Many Thanks.

start by running off the OFT report, then run off the standing committee report, there you have all the answers and cross your fingures that you can win......................

Well if you want impartial evidence on the consumer angle then don't bother with the Transport Committee report because it never even pretended to be impartial and didn't even bother inviting a consumer representative as a witness.

The T&G's journal Cab Trade News reported that T&G and Select Committee member Clive Efford was advising T&G members at the T&G-organised lobby of Parliament, so no prizes for guessing where his sentiments lie, and that was reflected in the Transport Committee's hearing and report.

Indeed, the Committee does not seem to have much knowledge of the myriad issues that they investigate, which is perhaps not surprising, but this is hardly satisfactory.

On publication of the Committee's recent report on the UK rail industry, a report in The Guardian as said:

Senior rail industry figures complained that the report oversimplified the network's problems and ignored complex legislation that tied their hands. One said: "This is the sort of thing you'd expect from a taxi driver or a hairdresser. It's lightweight and superficial stuff from a few old Labour warhorses."

Bit ironic that comment about taxi drivers!

Remember too that the Committee's report seemed to have zero impact with the Government, which said:

The Government agrees that consumers should enjoy the benefits of competition in the taxi market and considers that it is detrimental to those seeking entry to a market if it is restricted. The Government is therefore strongly encouraging all those local authorities who still maintain quantity restrictions to remove restrictions as soon as possible.

I have been asking for many years why councils restrict, and have yet to receive anything near a reasonable justification.

Go on and stick the knife in and twist, I suppose your advice is impartial?
the lad needs evidence to support restriction in numbers, whilst some of us dont agree with this it is fair that we tell him where to look and how to go about assembling his evidence.

your line Dusty, is just bloody unhelpful!

Geoff

Liverpool removed restrictions some time back and there was total chaos.
Drivers did not renew their badges, did not renew their plates (MOTs) and a lot drove without valid insurance.
Ripping off passengers was the norm.
It ended up that drivers worked only at weekends and had other jobs during the week.
The council had no control as they did not know who the drivers were and where they lived etc.
Vehicles were abandoned.
End result ?
Council restricted numbers again.

What do you mean stick the knife in and twist, you make it sound like the Govt de-limited nationally!

Since I can't for the life of me think of any way in which restricted numbers help consumers, or that de-restricting is detrimental to consumers, then I wasn't trying to advise the orginal questioner, and I can't see how you can possibly think that I was.

My point was regarding the efficacy of the Transport Committee report, since many in the trade seem to view it as the be-all and end-all of taxi regulation, while it's anything but.

The only credible bits of it report were the parts which largely parroted the T&G's criticisms of OFT study.

But the Govt was clearly unimpressed.

[...and come out with mouthy words...

please spare us from the bollox.

Geoff

I dont make it sound like that at all, a plea for help from a comerade could have been more sympathetic, he may have more in his car than in his house, whilst I am a sympathiser of abondoning restriction by numbers it does cost some individuals an intolable cost both financial and human and too many times we forget this.