GA wrote:
I'm disturbed by the claim you make that the operators are sending their PH drivers out to illegally ply for hire ................. but not surprised that that the drivers have to do it.
Over the last few years as things have go steadily worse, loads of cab drivers in Brum have been told by literally hundreds of PHV drivers that they know, that this is general practice in most, not all PH operator’s offices.
There is one PH firm that I know of that do things by the book. They regularly check all driver’s insurance, insist on clean, tidy cars & drivers at all times, with minimum standards of dress for drivers, check licences when they are due up etc, & if you are caught pirating it’s instant dismissal. Guess what? They are the biggest & best PH firm in the city.
And that is something to think about; their quality brings results & rewards.
GA wrote:
Maybe we should be looking to restrict the number of PH and re-impose numerical restrictions in HC where the LA's have removed them?
As you know, PH cannot be restricted under the 1976 Act. BUT, a number of councils, (e.g. Blackpool on the 17th of this month & today) are beginning to look very carefully at the DfT Best Practice Guidance with respect to a combination of Age policy (NOT recommended in DfT BPG) and much higher quality standards of vehicles (RECOMMENDED in the DfT BPG). So what is happening (& these LOs talk to each other a lot) is that they are introducing an age policy on vehicles, BUT qualifying it by saying, “Ah, yes, but ………….. if your vehicle attains
EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY STANDARDS, we will continue to licence your vehicle beyond our stated age limit.
That way they are complying with the advice in the DfT BPG. Typically, purpose built cab, 10-12 years limit, saloons 7-10 years limit. And they are introducing two tests a year & some 3 test a year for the older vehicles. But, I think that by having 3 tests a year the councils are ‘shooting themselves in the foot’.
GA wrote:
PH operators in Gateshead are now insisting that if you want to work for them you must buy a car off them .................. and so they are tied into the firm long term. .
That very much sounds like a restrictive practice. I wonder what the OFT would say about that? It must be breaking some law or other.
GA wrote:
The fact is that single tier licensing will put more people below the poverty line and remove choice for the public .................. thats why it will never work and thats why it should be opposed.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the population of the UK is 60 million & that there are 400,000 taxi & PH drivers in the UK.
For a minute just pretend that you are not a cabbie & instead you have a decent job, say in an office, whatever. Forget that you know anything about taxis & PHVs. You now know nothing about the ‘taxi’ trade (no comments from other posters please, I am trying to be serious!) & you are now one of the remainder of the population; the other 59.6 million people.
Now look at the situation of the taxi v PH ‘wars’ up & down the country from the point of view of you the office worker. You are now Joe de Publique. Do you think that you an office worker are bothered or care how you get home from a Saturday night out, or after a big footie match. All you want to do is get home or wherever you are going. You don’t care about the difference between taxi & PH; you want to do your thing & you want to do it now.
And over the years, especially the last few when pirating has become really bad, don’t you think that LOs & enforcement officers up & down the country have been ‘tearing their hair out’ with a national problem that is frankly totally unsolvable with the current legislation, or to be more accurate exponentially far too costly to solve. In Birmingham there would have to be twice as many enforcement officers employed by the council as there are streets in Brum, because you need two to corroborate evidence. Licence fees would be in the thousands not hundreds to pay for the enforcement.
And these enforcement officers do what prosecutions they can & then the miscreant PH drivers go up before councillors on discipline. And now not only have LOs & enforcement officers had enough, but councillors have too. So those councillors start talking to MPs & DfT & IoL & other national & government bodies. And what MIGHT come out of this is a one tier system & if it does it won’t be for the benefit of cabbies like you or me, but for the benefit of Joe de Publique, because there are 59.6 million of them & only 400,000 of us. And, we are supposed to be serving them, not them serving us. That is the world we live in now. Everyone wants top class service.
I have seen many changes in this cab trade of our over the three plus decades that I have worked in it. I have in recent times had a reality check. I think that new legislation for a one tier system will come in sooner rather than later; but, I might be wrong.
If it does become obvious that it is definitely ‘on the cards’, the very last thing that the cab trade should do is keep saying ‘it won’t work, it won’t work’. Because for every time we say ‘it won’t work’, PH will say loud & clear ‘Oh yes it will work’. They will then be singing the hymn that DfT, government, councils, the powers that be etc will want to hear. They, PH, not us in the Hackney trade will have the ear of legislators. And once & if that happens, the Hackney trade will have NO input into any new possible/proposed legislation.
SHOULD new legislation be proposed, I believe that it is imperative that the Hackney trade is at the legislators table from Day One. Only by doing that will we stand any chance of trying to persuade legislators that any new laws MUST be at Hackney standards & not lower. If we don’t join the debate, we will get the standards that other that ‘have the ear’ of the legislators will be lobbying for.
If new legislation is proposed,
WE MUST BE PRO-ACTIVE IN ITS DRAFTING. Otherwise, we in the Hackney trade will get what we deserve.
Login
Register
FAQ
