Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Mon Apr 27, 2026 11:12 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
Could this be what the best practice meant I think it is, when they said quality control rather then quantity control

Not everyone can shell out up to 7 or 8K for a vehicle up to 3 years old, this as you say would keep the numbers down. and 2 tests a year after 5 years

I think this should be brought to the attention of all councils and is the best way forward


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:44 pm
Posts: 10591
Location: Scotland
Then there councils who licence anything with 4 wheels, if an operator or driver wants to put a PH on it should have a minimum standard like a minimum 1.4 engine 4 doors and be able to carry 3 adults in comfort on the back seat so the back seat must have a minimum width


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 pm
Posts: 745
Location: Guess?
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Prior to de-restriction in 1996 there were about 750 Hackneys in Birmingham.
• Since de-restriction in 1996 a further 757 licenses have been issued to-date.
• The current fleet is about 1380.
• Add the 750 and 757 together & subtract the current 1380 in the fleet & that is how many HC licenses are not longer used. (Strongly suspect that the majority of these have been handed back to the council by proprietors that can no longer earn a living).


Well that means 127 licences handed back, which doesn't seem that many in over twelve years as compared to the size of the current fleet - indeed, I would expect it to be a lot more than that.

After all, with retiral, people moving onto other jobs etc, a ten percent turnover a year would be unremarkable, thus 127 plates handed back seems suspiciously low.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Quote:
• AN AGE OF VEHICLE POLICY IS NOT A QUALITY OF VEHICLE POLICY!!!


I couldn't agree more.
Forget age restrictions, they are arbitary and a blunt instrument which encourages lack of enforcement and are a disincentive for owners to look after their vehicles.
Condition of vehicles is far more important.
Proper inspection will weed out the sheds.

Assuming anything over x years old is a shed, and anything under isn't, is irrational and an excuse for lack of enforcement.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:31 pm
Posts: 12045
Location: Aberdeen
Fae Fife wrote:
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Prior to de-restriction in 1996 there were about 750 Hackneys in Birmingham.
• Since de-restriction in 1996 a further 757 licenses have been issued to-date.
• The current fleet is about 1380.
• Add the 750 and 757 together & subtract the current 1380 in the fleet & that is how many HC licenses are not longer used. (Strongly suspect that the majority of these have been handed back to the council by proprietors that can no longer earn a living).


Well that means 127 licences handed back, which doesn't seem that many in over twelve years as compared to the size of the current fleet - indeed, I would expect it to be a lot more than that.

After all, with retiral, people moving onto other jobs etc, a ten percent turnover a year would be unremarkable, thus 127 plates handed back seems suspiciously low.

I think someone mentioned that there was a flourishing market in plates, due to the new issued ones having to put on a new vehicle and existing plates being able to substitute a vehicle of the same age or newer than the one being replaced. In effect a multi tier system creating an artificial plate value which increases with age.
A bit like fine wine lol.

_________________
Image
http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
gusmac wrote:
I think someone mentioned that there was a flourishing market in plates, due to the new issued ones having to put on a new vehicle and existing plates being able to substitute a vehicle of the same age or newer than the one being replaced. In effect a multi tier system creating an artificial plate value which increases with age.
A bit like fine wine lol.


100% correct Mr Gusmac. You've got it in one.

Whilst the older HCs are now commanding a plate value of between £4-7K, (L - S regd), depending on the quality of the vehicle being transferred & are being snapped up by new drivers in the trade, no one wants to buy a newer HC, because in most cases they know that the proprietor is trying to transfer his HC, because he either wants to get out of the trade or can't afford the 'monkey'. Both scenarios tell the same story; there is no money in the trade. Newer cabs have no plate value & end up being sold as vehicles & the plate going back to the council, or worse still, the cab being snatched back by the 'monkey' enforcer.

As to these cabs being a fine wine with age; this lot is well corked!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
gusmac wrote:
Forget age restrictions, they are arbitary and a blunt instrument which encourages lack of enforcement and are a disincentive for owners to look after their vehicles.
Condition of vehicles is far more important.
Proper inspection will weed out the sheds.

Assuming anything over x years old is a shed, and anything under isn't, is irrational and an excuse for lack of enforcement.


Again agreed Mr Gusmac.

Everyone wants an easy life, enforcement officers included. The idea of an age policy being disguised as a quality policy is total tosh. But, I am led to believe that these age policies have been brought in by many LAs, but they have called them quality policies.

How many LAs have duped the taxi trade in this way?

I bet those that have are crap at enforcement.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
skippy41 wrote:
Could this be what the best practice meant I think it is, when they said quality control rather then quantity control

Not everyone can shell out up to 7 or 8K for a vehicle up to 3 years old, this as you say would keep the numbers down. and 2 tests a year after 5 years

I think this should be brought to the attention of all councils and is the best way forward


Some councils are more equal than other councils; 1984 & all that.

Those that are more equal box a little more clever.

Take Basingstoke's (picked randomly off the Internet) condition of licence for PHVs;

3. Vehicle Age
(a) a Private Hire vehicle shall be less than three years of age on first licence.
(b) a Private Hire vehicle over five years of age shall not be relicensed unless deemed in exceptional condition.

NOW THAT'S THE WAY TO DO IT!!!

An age policy coupled with a quality of vehicle policy.

That way, if challenged in court, the council can show that they are complying with Section 22 DfT BPG.

A few councils have adopted this policy, but I know that most that have introduced an age policy, use that policy as a hard & fast rule.

Why? Because if it is a hard & fast rule, Mr Enforcement can shine the backside of his trousers all day long!!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
skippy41 wrote:
Correct Sussex, I know that the councils cannot restrict the numbers but they could control them with a starting age, this could be applied nationwide to alleviate numbers in some cities


In theory yes, in practice NO!

The reality is that those 'displaced' PHV drivers, (via an age policy coupled with a quality policy) in large cities would only go and 'fly the Skull & Crossbones Flag'.

They know enforcement is crap & mostly non-existent. And with the night-time economy usually comes a complicit police, who are only interested in getting the drunken yobs in any vehicle that will take them; taxi, PHV, skull & crossbones dredge or dustcart if that was available.

All the police want is the streets cleared when the clubs have closed & to them it does not matter how that is achieved.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
skippy41 wrote:
Then there councils who licence anything with 4 wheels, if an operator or driver wants to put a PH on it should have a minimum standard like a minimum 1.4 engine 4 doors and be able to carry 3 adults in comfort on the back seat so the back seat must have a minimum width


If all councils used 'The Coventry Frame', this could be achieved within one year, except for engine size.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
skippy41 wrote:
Then there councils who licence anything with 4 wheels, if an operator or driver wants to put a PH on it should have a minimum standard like a minimum 1.4 engine 4 doors and be able to carry 3 adults in comfort on the back seat so the back seat must have a minimum width


If all councils used 'The Coventry Frame', this could be achieved within one year, except for engine size.


You'll have skippy sh*tting the proverbial brick if you suggest something like that. :lol:

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
Sussex wrote:
So if you had proper enforcement, and stiffer age limits for PH, your problems would be solved? :?


That would be a good start. Then we would have to get some action on illegal parking of all vehicles other than taxis on taxi ranks. No one cares a Flying F*** about that in Birmingham. No enforcement there either, even by traffic wardens, that have now been renamed as Civil Enforcement Officers.

We also have Street Wardens in Birmingham too. They look really lovely in their royal blue uniforms.

But I think to get somewhere with taxi enforcement in Birmingham, the staffing levels in the HC & PH Enforcement Office would have to be at least quadrupled to start having any effect; probably an extra 20 bodies or so.

Nottingham did a unque thing in about August 2006. They employed two new enforcement officers. And guess what? Their terms of employment were that they would work NIGHT ONLY. Dedicated night enforcement; now that is a step in the right direction.

The government & also the Institute of Licensing, amongst others, are talking more & more about what they are now calling 'The Night Time Economy' & are recognising that since the Licensing Act 2003, new problems & issues have emerged because of this Act.

Surely therefore, it is reasonable for taxi trade representative bodies throughout the country to approach their licensing committees & ask to have dedicated night working only enforcement officers, so that these problems & issues start to be addressed.

After all the licensing fund should be used for all matters licensing including enforcement, so in effect its our money.

Perhaps, just perhaps it might be better to pay increased licensing fees to pay for better enforcement. After all everything has to be paid for in life including enforcement. Would an extra £2, £3 or £4 a week in fees bring a return of an extra £5, £10 or £20 a day in earnings if enforcement was at the level it should be?

I don't know, but how else are we to tackle LA enforcement departments to try to get better enforcement?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Brummie Cabbie wrote:
Sussex wrote:
So if you had proper enforcement, and stiffer age limits for PH, your problems would be solved? :?


That would be a good start. Then we would have to get some action on illegal parking of all vehicles other than taxis on taxi ranks. No one cares a Flying F*** about that in Birmingham. No enforcement there either, even by traffic wardens, that have now been renamed as Civil Enforcement Officers.

We also have Street Wardens in Birmingham too. They look really lovely in their royal blue uniforms.

But I think to get somewhere with taxi enforcement in Birmingham, the staffing levels in the HC & PH Enforcement Office would have to be at least quadrupled to start having any effect; probably an extra 20 bodies or so.

Nottingham did a unque thing in about August 2006. They employed two new enforcement officers. And guess what? Their terms of employment were that they would work NIGHT ONLY. Dedicated night enforcement; now that is a step in the right direction.

The government & also the Institute of Licensing, amongst others, are talking more & more about what they are now calling 'The Night Time Economy' & are recognising that since the Licensing Act 2003, new problems & issues have emerged because of this Act.

Surely therefore, it is reasonable for taxi trade representative bodies throughout the country to approach their licensing committees & ask to have dedicated night working only enforcement officers, so that these problems & issues start to be addressed.

After all the licensing fund should be used for all matters licensing including enforcement, so in effect its our money.

Perhaps, just perhaps it might be better to pay increased licensing fees to pay for better enforcement. After all everything has to be paid for in life including enforcement. Would an extra £2, £3 or £4 a week in fees bring a return of an extra £5, £10 or £20 a day in earnings if enforcement was at the level it should be?

I don't know, but how else are we to tackle LA enforcement departments to try to get better enforcement?


Unfortunately the rather novel idea some would give you would be to make everything hackney carriage thus virtually alleviating the enforcement issue.

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
captain cab wrote:
Unfortunately the rather novel idea some would give you would be to make everything hackney carriage thus virtually alleviating the enforcement issue.CC


You would still need enforcement, 'skull & crossbones' would always be about.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 10:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:31 pm
Posts: 745
Location: Guess?
gusmac wrote:

I think someone mentioned that there was a flourishing market in plates, due to the new issued ones having to put on a new vehicle and existing plates being able to substitute a vehicle of the same age or newer than the one being replaced. In effect a multi tier system creating an artificial plate value which increases with age.
A bit like fine wine lol.


Well that explains it to some extent, but 127 of the nearly 800 new plates handed back over 12 years doesn't seem remarkable at all. Even if it was 400 to me it would hardly seem worth mentioning??


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 474 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group