Taxis wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I'm still not sure that these proposals are pointing at the right folks. Surely it should be the operators that need looking at.
If they kept sec 46 1(c) as it is, i.e. only a PH op needs an operator's license, but kept the amendments to sec 46 1(e) which would mean any person with an operator's license can only give work to vehicles licensed in the same area, would that not sort the Berwick situations, but allow hackneys to carry on as they are?
Well that makes good logical sense actually !
Any person with an operator's license can only give work to vehicles licensed in the same area,This would surely get to the root of all these arguments. All I hear is how drivers are sick of "Outside hack plates been allowed to work from PH offices outside there licencing areas" well like you say Sussex would this not be a far more simpler answer.
captain cab wrote:
The one thing that seems to come out of the entire situation is one that was called for at least one year ago, namely for places like Derwentside and Berwick and Eden to have knowledge tests.
This has apparently happened in both your area and Eden, presumably this will cut down, if not completely out, with the donor plate scenario, and it wont affect the legitimate trade in your area at all.
I totally agree with this, it has in-fact already had an impressive impact to aid the reduction of "New Plates" been issued.
I am also in favour for a course to become compulsory for all new applicants coming into the trade, so that they become trained in different aspects of the trade. So when they are awaiting there CRB check to be returned ( approx 12 weeks ) they can attend a course covering Customer service, disability awareness, basic vehicle maintenance, topography, legislation / licensing regulations and most of all get an insight into the job by listening to experienced drivers.
On completion the applicants will then receive a VRQ level 2 award.
Once again only my opinion....
Steve
Taxis,
As you seem to be a rational person, if you don't mind I will answer some of the points that have been raised:
The members of the Associations involved should by now have
seen the proposed discussion document, if their Assocs. are worth their
salt.
You will have to excuse my little game with JD (rather childish I admit, but extremely good fun!)
My intention was not to impress my opinion of the rights or wrongs of the proposal, but simply to allow people the right to form their own impressions of it, to stimulate debate.
The hackney trade in my area would not feel comfortable if hackney vehicles from another area were working on private hire radio companies, especially knowing that they were beyond the control of the licencing department that has power over them.
JD's response was predictable, and I am sure there is more to come. I would guess that he is waiting for answers to numerous e-mails he will have sent.
Hackney trade reps represent their members. I will ask you to use your own common sense; do you think these members would be agreeable with regard to having their mobile phones made illegal? and would you also think that trade reps would be stupid enough to think that their members would consent to this? It is obvious that the wording in certain parts of the document needs to be changed.
One last thing regarding mobile phones. To make it so you could not use your mobile phone as an assistance to create work would be unenforceable. You know it, I know it and they certainly know it.
Login
Register
FAQ
