Taxi Driver Online

I suppose that's because they are not licensed by Liverpool. Why would a Liverpool resident who has phoned a Sefton private hire company complain to Liverpool council in the event of an incident?



In that case perhaps you should read it again until you understand it.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I doubt it

_________________
"Here's a simple solution. If you don't want to pay more for a premium service then wait in the queue, problem solved".
Skull on TDO

TF pi$$ed on his chips.

JD. have been too busy lately enjoying myself, more to life than posting on a forum , I keep telling you that you should get all the facts before posting.
1. Sefton is under going a full licensing review.
2. Liverpool licensing are continuously getting complaints about Sefton private hire and they are prosecuting lots of Sefton private hire......... that is why they have gone to the Ministry.
3. Also Liverpool police have gone to the Ministry, wanting something to be done.
4. And smoking bans do not need to be a condition of Licence.... it is a national law!
.... so you have Liverpool council, the T&G.. and Merseyside police

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I do understand the act..... it was brought in to give councils.... control ......

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I trust you enjoyed your weekend, as I did mine. I won't elaborate on what I did because it would only make you feel more jubilant than you obviously feel right now.

The smoking ban is of course national legislation but there is nothing to stop Sefton from putting such a condition in the Private Hire conditions of license.

All the other stuff is pointless and just goes over old ground.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

So are you saying that any other HC/PH should not enter your area to carry out their correctly licensed and legal business just because the Liverpool HC cannot get it in their heads that the "CUSTOMER" makes the choice. Why do you think customers ring the other companies in the first place?.
Councils do not control the business, CUSTOMERS do.
Councils are there to ensure that safeguards are in place for the safety of the public and not to regulate one group of "plate" owners to the benefit or disbenefit of another.

_________________
you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.

That's exactly what he's saying but why Liverpool should concern him is a mystery?



If he could he would pass legislation that restricts Liverpool residents to only using Liverpool cabs.



He understands that but he wants it changed so councils do control customer choice.



I think he also understands that but it is very difficult to get out of him just exactly what he and his Merseyside colleagues actually want? We know from past experience that they want all hackney carriage and private hire to return to their own area once they have completed a job. They tried that on the DfT some time ago but were sent away with a flee in their ear. They now intend to have another go. That was the whole purpose of the meeting of minds and why there was only one subject matter on the agenda, that being cross border hiring. All the important issues were cast to one side.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

I am not saying anything of the sort.. I am only reporting what is happening in Liverpool at the moment( to the best of my knowledge) I haven't given an opinion on whether it is right or wrong .
And as for customers' choice, I have been arguing since before 1976 that the customer has the right of choice.
Customers are what make your business, the council have the power to close your business, part of that power comes from the 1976 Act, and many other acts as well, like it or not.
I am sure many private hire operators that are content working in their own district. would not like to see their business crumble because of a bigger operator in a neighbouring district undercutting them... but then I might be wrong..

JD.. seems to have some difficulty in what I want... what I want is that the full-time Taxi /private hire driver makes a decent living.. in a safe environment. without having to work 70 to 80 hours a week......... while other drivers pop in to the trade until they find a proper job...

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

This little piece should have been a thread on its own but I'll post it here seeing as it is most relevant.

Back in June 1999 Philip Warren wrote an article in the "steering wheel" regarding the case put to Liverpool licensing officers that private hire drivers and in particular Sefton private hire drivers were breaking the law by waiting for a job outside their licensed area. Everyone can see the comparison to what is taking place today but there is one significant factor. In 1999 the evidence relied mainly on the opinion of two QC's, one of which was a quote from Stephen Hockman QC in the case of Dittah and Choudry v DPP and the other was David Harris QC who said,

"In my view, therefore, the provisions and purpose of the 1976 act clearly indicates that private hire vehicles are only to be operated in the district of the license relating to them. Accordingly it is illegal in my view for a private hire vehicle to stand, whether on or off the road in an area outside its district of license, awaiting a call from the base within the district of the licence. Obviously, in addition, if the activity of the private hire vehicle constitutes plying for hire, that would amount to to an offence under the terms of the 1847 act.

Philip Warren then wrote, it is the view of David Harris QC that the Liverpool taxi association has a sufficiently strong case to merit taking proceedings against one or more of the major competing private hire companies by way of a test case and seeking an interlocutory injunction within such proceedings.

Naturally David Harris QC was wrong and likewise the interpretation of David Hockman QC in observing that "advertising within an area other than one where the operator is licensed must mean that the the operator is making provision in that area for the acceptance of bookings and not in the area for which he is licensed".

The headline in Steering Wheel read, 'Two QC's vindicate our case against Liverpool council'.

The editorial opened up with these comments.

Regular readers will recall our front page story in the last January edition of steering Wheel, in which we reported fully the case we put to Liverpool council, with the co-operation of George Stirrup, a Liverpool taxi driver. Despite the the fact that our case rested on previous High Court cases, which are incontrovertible, neither the city solicitor or the licensing officer, Mr Shone would accept the fact that (a), a private hire car licensed by one controlled area but who stand and work in another controlled area, for which they are not licensed, are breaking the law and (b) that these private hire cars, mostly licensed by Sefton Council are, inter alia, plying for hire illegally.

Well that was the interpretation back in 1999 when Liverpool cab drivers tried to convince Liverpool council that any private hire driver sat outside their own area waiting for a call was illegally plying for hire and according to the advice given by QC Harris they were breaking the law by just sitting there.

We on TDO know that advice was incorrect and eventually I suppose the penny finally dropped with Liverpool cab drivers but it still hasn't stopped them trying to convince Liverpool council and the DFT that all private hire drivers should return to their own licensing area once they have completed a job.

Liverpool seem to have missed the point that all UK Hackney carriage drivers operating under private hire conditions will also have to return to their own licensing area, including Liverpool drivers.

So it is obvious for all to see that out of all the many things that are wrong with this taxi trade, this meeting of minds bunch infested mainly by Merseysiders and Mancunians can only see fit to bring to the table a bone that has been too hard for them to digest for several decades.

Therein lies the partial background to this meeting of minds exercise but Liverpool have now found a convenient ally in the NTA and especially region 2 of the North East who it would appear have their own particular problem with the ruling in the Gladen Case and the inactivity of Newcastle licensing department in policing the increasing activity of illegal plying for hire in their City.

I think an opportunity has been lost by this blinkered group because none of them have contemplated the consequences of not only their actions but also their total disregard for not advancing ideas that would remedy some of the many problems experienced by cab drivers under our current legislation.

All those mentioned in this post got it wrong back in 1999 and the current crop of mindless so called representatives have got it wrong in 2008.

ps. I don't have the 1999 January edition of the Steering Wheel but if anyone does then I would be grateful if you could scan the article referred to and send it to me.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Of course you are incorrect.

But I'm quite sure you will tell me how the gladen judgement affects PH as opposed to HC?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

No doubt you can justify that statement? I would read on if I were you and we shall see who is incorrect.



Did I say the Gladden judgment affects private hire?

What I said was this.

Therein lies the partial background to this meeting of minds exercise but Liverpool have now found a convenient ally in the NTA and especially region 2 of the North East who it would appear have their own particular problem with the ruling in the Gladen Case and the inactivity of Newcastle licensing department in policing the increasing activity of illegal plying for hire in their City.

Now then, show me and the many readers of this site, where I mention "PRIVATE HIRE".

Accuracy has never been your forte as the past can verify but at least you are consistent.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

As you well know, the Liverpool trade and the thread refers to private hire vehicles from one area sitting and basically working in another, in the case of the thread sefton ph working in Liverpool.

You mention a story that appeared in a trade paper many years ago and many years before the gladen judgement, yet you choose to mention the gladen judgement?

The gladen judgement clearly states that a Hackney Carriage Proprietor has no need for a PH Operators license to accept bookings, as you well know.

So although you didn't clearly state PRIVATE HIRE, I do suggest it was inferred.

To say the region has a problem with the judgement is incorrect, as i understand the judgement merely underlined the views taken in the doncaster case and effectively threw out Franklin vs. Carter which had a persuasive value.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I'm not interested in what the thread amounts to I'm only interested in what I said. And I said this, "Liverpool have now found a convenient ally in the NTA and especially region 2 of the North East who it would appear have their own particular problem with the ruling in the Gladen Case"

You will notice that there is no mention of private hire, just a clear cut reference to the fact that you and especially region 2 of the NTA have a problem with the Gladen Judgment and that the Liverpool taxi trade found you as a convenient ally in this meeting of the mindless exercise in which you proceeded to stuff hackney carriage drivers simply because you lot didn't like the Gladen judgment which highlighted the fact that the 1976 act doesn't apply to hackney carriage drivers (except where stated) and that Hackney carriage drivers don't need an operators license to take private hire bookings.

You may think we have all forgotten the hackney carriage convoys from Newcastle to Berwick protesting against their hackney carriage drivers operating as private hire in Newcastle and elsewhere. You may even think that we have forgotten about Newcastle council taking legal action against Berwick in order to stop their vehicles being used as private hire in Newcastle and elsewhere but we haven't forgotten that all this is taking place because of "Gladen". We also haven't forgotten that you and the NTA wouldn't be proposing these changes in the meeting of mindless if it hadn't been for Gladen.

In future, I suggest you stick to what I say and in the context it was meant and not what you would like it to mean in order to support your own misguided sound-byte.



I mentioned the Gladen judgment in relation to the "NTA" having a problem with it and how the Liverpool contingent found the NTA a convenient ally because of Gladen. I did not equate Gladen to the situation of private hire standing in Liverpool because there is no association between the two. However, considering you find difficulty in reading the post I suggest you obtain the services of someone who doesn't suffer from myopic vision to explain to you that there is no Gladen reference in the post to either Liverpool or private hire.



Of course I know that. Wasn't I the first person to dissect the Gladen judgment and advise everyone of just what it amounted to? And that my dear friend is why I never mentioned Gladen in that post execpt for to say that YOU and the NTA have a problem with it and that is the conduit that binds the mindless.



Well you infer wrong and I've just explained why, just like you said I would.

At least you got that right.



That's why we have convoys of North East cabs protesting in Berwick and legal action from Newcastle council to stop Berwick hacks from working as P/H elsewhere and the NTA proposing that everything exposed in the Gladen judgment be reversed by legislation. Notwithstanding your own personal view on the judgement of which I can bring up quote upon quote of your total dislike for it and that you want to see it overturned.

I could go on and on but I think you get the picture by now.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

If I could be bothered to read the extract of war and peace stated above i would, but i cant

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin