Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun Oct 05, 2025 10:56 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:
Sussex now this is a secret and you must not tell anybody, for many many years lot's of people within the Taxi and private hire trade have wished for the national bodies to sit round a table and work as one , to isolate what they consider to be a problem and look at it from all sides including licensing, and then formulate a policy that is acceptable to all parties involved, the discussion document is no more than that, the first idea to solve a problem, in any discussions somebody will say.... Why do it that way....Why not do it this way.... from little acorns big trees grow...


The problem is that no national bodies are sat around the Table all we have is group of misfits who think they have the god given right to alter legislation as they see fit.

Who sanctioned the GMB reps to act on behalf of the GMB, who sanctioned the T & G reps to act on behalf of the T & G? The National Taxi association and the NTTG are taxi owner associations who represent a tiny minority of Taxi owners. Therefore they can hardly be called National.

Having the word National in your name title doesn't give you the right to say you represent the Taxi trade Nationally.

From what I can gather it was NALEO who organised this little get together and lo and behold who is invited, Liverpool T & G, Liverpool and Manchester based NTTG, Northwest GMB, and the NTA. Apart from the NTA everyone else is either based in Liverpool or Manchester. It doesn't take a Perry Mason to realise that apart from the NTA this little setup was orchestrated to only include the Northwest, so where do you fit into this equation considering your not associated with any of the organisations except maybe the NTA?

You might think that you and these others who represent a minority of the taxi trade have the god given right to act on our behalf but I can assure you that you don't.

Who gave you a mandate, the handful of people in your local organisation or the 1250 affiliated members of the NTA?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:12 am
Posts: 590
Location: North Of The Tyne
TDO wrote:

2 The "Berwick" problem - Hackney carriages licensed in one area but doing substantial amounts of pre-booked work in another area (in effect acting as pseudo PH vehicles in another area).

Could anyone tell me how and if some of these proposals would or could have any effect on the present way that the taxis operate from newcastle airport,which is as follows.

The airport is as i believe private land,and the taxi fleet consists of hackney carraiges from the seven local councils in tyne and wear(which are from Derwentside-Blyth valley-Newcastle-North tyneside-Tynedale-Castle morpeth-South tyneside and Gateshead)

Airport taxis also operate a radio circuit and often pick up fares booked through their office to mainly go back to the airport,but also other destinations as well.

Bearing in mind that a car is going to pick up a fare when it is neither licensed by the authority where it was sent from or licensed by the authority where it was picking up from.Would this not mean that an operator could still have any h/c working from the office as long as the office was on private land :-k :-k

_________________
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z07K29Fc15U


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 56476
Location: 1066 Country
badger wrote:
Bearing in mind that a car is going to pick up a fare when it is neither licensed by the authority where it was sent from or licensed by the authority where it was picking up from.Would this not mean that an operator could still have any h/c working from the office as long as the office was on private land :-k :-k

I think if the amendments happened tomorrow then it shouldn't effect PH, but could effect taxis.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
badger wrote:

Could anyone tell me how and if some of these proposals would or could have any effect on the present way that the taxis operate from newcastle airport,which is as follows.

The airport is as I believe private land and the taxi fleet consists of hackney carraiges from the seven local councils in tyne and wear (which are from Derwentside, Blyth valley, Newcastle, North tyneside, Tynedale, Castle morpeth, South tyneside and Gateshead)


Under these ILL thought out proposals as they stand, anyone operating a hackney carriage or taking a private booking for a hackney carriage would need a private hire operating license. The private hire operator could only use hackney carriages and drivers licensed in the same area as the private hire operator. That means the authority that Newcastle Airport resides, will issue the license and the license holder will only be able to use vehicles from that authority.

Hackney carriages from six of the seven authorities would not be allowed to use the circuit.

In which Authority does the Airport reside? I ask because even now it could still be the case that those hackney carriages not licensed by the said authority could still be acting outside the law if certain provisions are not in place when plying for hire.

Interesting, I'm glad you mentioned that.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
I understand the Airport is owned by seven local authorities but it resides in Newcastle upon Tyne. Therefore under these proposals the private hire operator would need a license from Newcastle and could only use vehicles and drivers licensed by Newcastle.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:23 pm
Posts: 4983
Location: Lincoln
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
So what you are saying is that somebody should do a bit of tinkering with the law and make councils all sing from the same hymn sheet.

No tinkering, FFS JD would have a coronary.

Just good, easy to read and apply, guidance from the DfT. :wink:



A double whammy, then?

_________________
Former taxi driver


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
jimbo wrote:
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
So what you are saying is that somebody should do a bit of tinkering with the law and make councils all sing from the same hymn sheet.

No tinkering, FFS JD would have a coronary.

Just good, easy to read and apply, guidance from the DfT. :wink:



A double whammy, then?


I'm afraid it will mean the end of Taxicall for you and your buddies Jimbo if these proposals go ahead.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:45 pm
Posts: 270
Sussex wrote:
I think all the 'problems' listed are real, and those trying to find a way forward are, I hope, doing it for justifiable reasons.

But I think to 'tinker' with the existing act re: cross border, will only end in tears.

If the Sefton issue was resolved to only allow Liverpool PH to work Liverpool, then I suspect those drivers currently picking up work via Delta Sefton, would be picking up the same punters via a new company called Delta Liverpool within a few months.

quote="Sussex"]
Alex wrote:
"operate" means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle or hackney carriage excluding only such occasions where the driver of a hackney carriage, whilst within their own district, may accept bookings for a future occasion;

[/quote]

If these proposals are excepted , Private hire or hackney , will have to return to there own district . Before they can invite, or except another booking .
That solves the Delta problem, over night . The cabal will make sure its enforced, all Sefton cars, will be moved on by enforcement, well thats the plan.
As for Delta opening in Liverpool. They will have the same problem as Liverpool PH ,hard to get drivers .
A win win situation ,for Liverpool fleet owners and drivers .
As for Berwick and mobile phones, they just chucked that in to make it look a bit more credible and hide, what they really want .
A master stroke by the cabal, if they get away with it . IMO 8) 8) 8) It was supposed to be a secret, the cabal are not to happy, with the proposals being scrutinized on T D O


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
streetcars wrote:
If these proposals are excepted , Private hire or hackney, will have to return to there own district . Before they can invite, or except another booking .

That solves the Delta problem, over night . The cabal will make sure its enforced, all Sefton cars, will be moved on by enforcement, well thats the plan.

As for Delta opening in Liverpool. They will have the same problem as Liverpool PH ,hard to get drivers .

A win win situation ,for Liverpool fleet owners and drivers .

As for Berwick and mobile phones, they just chucked that in to make it look a bit more credible and hide, what they really want .
A master stroke by the cabal, if they get away with it .

It was supposed to be a secret, the cabal are not to happy, with the proposals being scrutinized on T D O


lol streetcars very observant. I'm impressed at your analysis.

A point that has not been mentioned but which I touched upon in one of my first posts on this issue is the all embracing ability of the council to set "conditions" for operators on top of these proposals. So no matter what the proposals eventually advocate a council will always be in a position to change those proposals by way of conditions to license. I don't have to remind everyone how councils implement unlawful conditions as we have been down that road many times in the past.

Don't rely on assistance from any of these organisations sat around this meeting of minds table who are always telling us they have the best interest of the cab trade at heart because some of these very same people have benefited from unlawful conditions in the past.

Not one of these organisations who are sat around this meeting of minds table spoke out about unlawful conditions that up until recently were being applied in certain parts of the country, yet all of a sudden according to Mr T they have a mandate from the Taxi trade to enter into discussions on your behalf? One word springs to mind "SELF INTEREST".

I've yet to see the reasoning of what these people want to achieve and why? Perhaps when we see what they want to achieve and why, TDO might come up with an entirely different and acceptable solution on how to go about it without impacting on the way we currently operate?

If the exercise is to try and get private hire and hackney carriage drivers to only accept bookings inside their own area then these guys utterly stupid.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 8529
The exercise is working perfectly :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:
The exercise is working perfectly :wink:


Good, I'm sure some bright spark will seize on that remark as a fitting epitaph when your exercise is dead and buried.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
TDO wrote:


As far as I'm aware the problems (perceived or otherwise) seem to relate to three different scenarios.

1 The "Sefton" problem - Private hire vehicles licensed in one licensing area but doing a substantial proportion of their work in another area.


This is indeed the main bone of contention for Liverpool cab drivers or so it would seem from past events?

I am somewhat puzzled that out of all the legislation that needs changing for the good of the cab driver, these myopic individuals can only come up with proposals stop Delta cars from acceptiing radio jobs inside the boundaries of Liverpool. What gets me is the fact that no one can stop Delta cars from parking up in Liverpool no matter what legislation these people try and change?

Quote:
2 The "Berwick" problem - Hackney carriages licensed in one area but doing substantial amounts of pre-booked work in another area (in effect acting as pseudo PH vehicles in another area).


Berwick license 339 hack vehicles there are over 70 thousand in England and Wales, to me that says it all. Berwick has been blown out of all proportion because there is no hack problem, the problem is essentially private hire and as we all know as sussex has ably pointed out, those operating under private hire conditions will do so regardless of where the vehicle is licensed.

I'm still waiting for one of these people to furnish us with their reasons of what it is they are trying to achieve and why?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
MR T wrote:
Sussex now this is a secret and you must not tell anybody, for many many years lot's of people within the Taxi and private hire trade have wished for the national bodies to sit round a table and work as one,


Pray tell, which national bodies sit around this table?

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37397
Location: Wayneistan
JD wrote:
Pray tell, which national bodies sit around this table?

Regards

JD


Are you offering to provide a table?

CC

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 10381
captain cab wrote:
JD wrote:
Pray tell, which national bodies sit around this table?

Regards

JD


Are you offering to provide a table?


lol I'm trying to provoke a response from Mr T considering he was part of the NTA delegation which attended this meeting of minds exercise?

I assume when you said the NTA received less than 25 grand in subscription fees last year that you actually meant what you said?

JD

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bulldogdrummond and 66 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