Gateshead Angel wrote:
[.
What I said was that PH operators are buying more WAVs and getting free HC plates and that this action is beneficial on two counts; firstly that they can charge more for a HC vehicle than a PH vehicle whether it is rented out or sold on, secondly that by filling the ranks with their vehicles the amount of money the independants make is reduced and they need to look to PH operators to provide them with work.
I have witnessed this ever since a local PH operator took the council to court after only a certain number of WAV plates were released after our last survey.
B. Lucky
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
OK I was being slightly mishcievous because you ignored my points in this regard on another thread.
But once or twice you've said PH operators are buying vehicles to rent out, so I immediately think PH vehicles. And don't you mean that it's HC proprietors that are buying the vehciles, or if you want to add the point that they are also PH ops then you should call them PH ops/HC props - it even rhymes
So surely if HCs in Gateshead were still capped then these same people would be renting out PH vehicles for extortionate rentals?
To that extent I still don't get the connection between fleet owners and de-limitation - what about the bloke in Cardiff, for example, who had over 100 plates and was bleating about de-limitation.
Are the rents so extortionate or is it just because the WAVs in question are more expensive to buy and operate? What exactly does the £180 cover, does this include maintenance as well?
I don't really buy the argument that the rentals are higher because the HCs have access to the ranks - that's a bit like saying that The Taxi Centre will charge more for an Octavia if it's being used as an HC rather than a PH - I suspect the higher rentals for the WAV HCs in Gateshead come down to running costs.
Yes, some drivers pay mega-rentals in the trade, but I think this is partly because they can't get credit - clearly the drivers in Gateshead wouldn't be paying the rentals you claim if they could get credit themselves.
So the mega-rentals often amount to little more than a normal rental with a large dollop of interest on top, in effect amounting to usury.
In the normal credit market, the higher the risk you are, the higher the interest rate you will pay. If you can't get normal credit at all, then you'll pay even higher interest, but this might be in the form of the mega-rentals you are talking about.
It's the same with people on council housing estates who can't get normal credit - they have no option but to go to a loan shark.
Now I don't like this any more than you do, but I don't really see this as a reason to restrict numbers, which would just replace one set of users with another set, but I think the sums being extracted are generally larger in the case of restricted numbers.
I can't believe that the fleet owners you compain about are making as much money as you may think, since drivers would look elsewhere and/or others people would see the size of the profits being made and offer rentals as well, and the 'excess profit's' would be whittled away.