Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Rationale

3 The mobile phone problem - This relates mainly to hackney carriages, and in essence relates to small operators doing pre-booked work from their vehicle rather than the usual office scenario. Of course, this is also relevant to an extent with PH vehicles.

I dont think any sensible person has an issue with small operators working off mobile phones, the problem seems to be 'fixing' one area may screw up another.

CC

I think all the 'problems' listed are real, and those trying to find a way forward are, I hope, doing it for justifiable reasons.

But I think to 'tinker' with the existing act re: cross border, will only end in tears.

If the Sefton issue was resolved to only allow Liverpool PH to work Liverpool, then I suspect those drivers currently picking up work via Delta Sefton, would be picking up the same punters via a new company called Delta Liverpool within a few months.

If the Berwick situation was resolved to stop non local HCs taking local PH bookings, then I suspect within a few months those drivers in the taxis will be picking up the same punters via local PH.

In other words f*** all will change, other than make it a nightmare for both PH and taxis taking work outside their areas. Which in this day and age, with all the supa dupa communications available is more than a tad daft.

IMO the 'great and the good' should be getting councils to improve the quality of vehicles and drivers, not pi**ing around with who can work where and how.

If you look your post from a different angle, you'll see that you are saying your council should have tighter control over your licensed vehicles or drivers, but have no control over drivers and vehicles working in your area that are licensed somewhere else, so really you should be saying do away with licensing altogether... I can live with that....

So what you are saying is that somebody should do a bit of tinkering with the law and make councils all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Sussex now this is a secret and you must not tell anybody, for many many years lot's of people within the Taxi and private hire trade have wished for the national bodies to sit round a table and work as one , to isolate what they consider to be a problem and look at it from all sides including licensing, and then formulate a policy that is acceptable to all parties involved, the discussion document is no more than that, the first idea to solve a problem, in any discussions somebody will say.... Why do it that way....Why not do it this way.... from little acorns big trees grow...

I haven't yet seen an explanation as to why these proposals were proposed in the first place and what they are supposed to achieve? All I've seen is a document outlining changes to legislation with no discussion document attached outlining the reasons for change.

The word unprofessional springs to mind.

Regards

JD

Quote:

I dont think any sensible person has an issue with small operators working off mobile phones, the problem seems to be 'fixing' one area may screw up another.

CC

Author:	TDO [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Rationale - meeting of minds
The "Meeting of minds" thread seems to have gone a bit off topic, and since I intended raising a different aspect of the "problem" then I thought it might be a good idea to start a new thread. Although I'm not too intimate with the detail of the legislation and case law and to that extent haven't commented on the proposals, on the other hand it's difficult to evaluate them without evidence of a clear rationale. Thus what is the intention of the current legislation, what current problems are arising and how are the proposed changes intended to solve these problems? As far as I'm aware the problems (perceived or otherwise) seem to relate to three different scenarios. 1 The "Sefton" problem - Private hire vehicles licensed in one licensing area but doing a substantial proportion of their work in another area. 2 The "Berwick" problem - Hackney carriages licensed in one area but doing substantial amounts of pre-booked work in another area (in effect acting as pseudo PH vehicles in another area). 3 The mobile phone problem - This relates mainly to hackney carriages, and in essence relates to small operators doing pre-booked work from their vehicle rather than the usual office scenario. Of course, this is also relevant to an extent with PH vehicles. Of course, these issues don't necessarily relate solely to the areas specified, or necessarily relate to more than a small proprortion of a particular vehicle's work. Nor have I outlined the details of the possible problems (or benefits) relating to these scenarios, but these seem to be the perceived problems that attempts are being made to address?

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: 3 The mobile phone problem - This relates mainly to hackney carriages, and in essence relates to small operators doing pre-booked work from their vehicle rather than the usual office scenario. Of course, this is also relevant to an extent with PH vehicles. I dont think any sensible person has an issue with small operators working off mobile phones, the problem seems to be 'fixing' one area may screw up another. CC

Author:	JD [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:
I haven't yet seen an explanation as to why these proposals were proposed in the first place and what they are supposed to achieve? All I've seen is a document outlining changes to legislation with no discussion document attached outlining the reasons for change. The word unprofessional springs to mind. Regards JD

Author:	TDO [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: I dont think any sensible person has an issue with small operators working off mobile phones, the problem seems to be 'fixing' one area may screw up another. CC Err, wasn't this one of your bugbears?

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:
I think all the 'problems' listed are real, and those trying to find a way forward are, I hope, doing it for justifiable reasons. But I think to 'tinker' with the existing act re: cross border, will only end in tears. If the Sefton issue was resolved to only allow Liverpool PH to work Liverpool, then I suspect those drivers currently picking up work via Delta Sefton, would be picking up the same punters via a new company called Delta Liverpool within a few months. If the Berwick situation was resolved to stop non local HCs taking local PH bookings, then I suspect within a few months those drivers in the taxis will be picking up the same punters via local PH. In other words f* all will change, other than make it a nightmare for both PH and taxis taking work outside their areas. Which in this day and age, with all the supa dupa communications available is more than a tad daft. IMO the 'great and the good' should be getting councils to improve the quality of vehicles and drivers, not piing around with who can work where and how.

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

Rationale - meeting of minds http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7073	Page 1 of 6

Author:	MR T [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:44 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: I think all the 'problems' listed are real, and those trying to find a way forward are, I hope, doing it for justifiable reasons. But I think to 'tinker' with the existing act re: cross border, will only end in tears. If the Sefton issue was resolved to only allow Liverpool PH to work Liverpool, then I suspect those drivers currently picking up work via Delta Sefton, would be picking up the same punters via a new company called Delta Liverpool within a few months. If the Berwick situation was resolved to stop non local HCs taking local PH bookings, then I suspect within a few months those drivers in the taxis will be picking up the same punters via local PH. In other words f* all will change, other than make it a nightmare for both PH and taxis taking work outside their areas. Which in this day and age, with all the supa dupa communications available is more than a tad daft. IMO the 'great and the good' should be getting councils to improve the quality of vehicles and drivers, not piing around with who can work where and how. If you look your post from a different angle, you'll see that you are saying your council should have tighter control over your licensed vehicles or drivers, but have no control over drivers and vehicles working in your area that are licensed somewhere else, so really you should be saying do away with licensing altogether... I can live with that....

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: If you look your post from a different angle, you'll see that you are saying your council should have tighter control over your licensed vehicles or drivers, but have no control over drivers and vehicles working in your area that are licensed somewhere else, so really you should be saying do away with licensing altogether... I can live with that.... We have national standards for the age of a driver, so why not for the age of a car? We have national standards for background checks, so why not more? If we had a decent set of conditions for drivers and vehicles nationally, or even better minimum standards, then maybe we wouldn't have the crazy situation where folks go searching for the easiest knowledge, and the poorest vehicle conditions.

Author:	MR T [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:
So what you are saying is that somebody should do a bit of tinkering with the law and make councils all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:55 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: So what you are saying is that somebody should do a bit of tinkering with the law and make councils all sing from the same hymn sheet. No tinkering, FFS JD would have a coronary. Just good, easy to read and apply, guidance from the DfT.

Author:	MR T [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex now this is a secret and you must not tell anybody, for many many years lot's of people within the Taxi and private hire trade have wished for the national bodies to sit round a table and work as one , to isolate what they consider to be a problem and look at it from all sides including licensing, and then formulate a policy that is acceptable to all parties involved, the discussion document is no more than that, the first idea to solve a problem, in any discussions somebody will say.... Why do it that way....Why not do it this way.... from little acorns big trees grow...

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:07 pm ]
Post subject:
MR T wrote: Sussex now this is a secret and you must not tell anybody, for many many years lot's of people within the Taxi and private hire trade have wished for the national bodies to sit round a table and work as one , to isolate what they consider to be a problem and look at it from all sides including licensing, and then formulate a policy that is acceptable to all parties involved, the discussion document is no more than that, the first idea to solve a problem, in any discussions somebody will say.... Why do it that way....Why not do it this way.... from little acorns big trees grow... I can assure you I will keep it to myself. Now I know many folks in the trade will accept that, but I have a slight doubt that our licensing officers have different views. Maybe they look to the MofM chats as a good way to get their way, and get it passed by the DfT via a RRO on the quick.

Author:	MR T [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
I appreciate were you are coming from but unfortunately guidance is so often ignored by council officers, or they do not understand it.. or the guidance is formulated by people with no working knowledge of the Taxi and private hire trade....... I recently have heard of a taxi driver that had his licence revoked because he was found to be smoking..... you just couldn't make this up....

Author:	MR T [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 10:12 pm ]
Post subject:
If anybody was to go down the RRO route , it would mean that the issue would have to be uncontentious..... in other words all parties must agree.... or otherwise it stops dead....

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:09 pm ]
Post subject:
JD wrote: I haven't yet seen an explanation as to why these proposals were proposed in the first place and what they are supposed to achieve? All I've seen is a document outlining changes to legislation with no discussion document attached outlining the reasons for change. The word unprofessional springs to mind. Regards JD All you have seen.......this has MrT's selective fingers all over it. CC

Page 1 of 6	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Fae Fife [ Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:08 am ]
Post subject:
captain cab wrote: Quote: 3 The mobile phone problem - This relates mainly to hackney carriages, and in essence relates to small operators doing pre-booked work from their vehicle rather than the usual office scenario. Of course, this is also relevant to an extent with PH vehicles. I dont think any sensible person has an issue with small operators working off mobile phones, the problem seems to be 'fixing' one area may screw up another. CC I don't think the offices in St Andrews like the mobile phones because it's basically cost them work and also fuelled fare discounting in my opinion. About ten years ago there were three well established big offices, one or two smaller new ones and just a couple of independents. Now there are several mid-tier firms with a handful of cars and lots of independents, and almost all of them depend on moblile phones. So it's certainly changed the structure and economics of the local trade, but whether you think it's beneficial or not probably depends which side of the fence you're on. The bigger offices also use mobiles as well, because they aren't open 24 hours - most have one or two drivers who will work through, and they use mobile phones when the office is closed.