Taxi Driver Online

If I recall, I informed Mr Brocklebank that his only option if he was agrieved by the decision of the council was to appeal. I think anyone on TDO would have given him the same advice but it just proves that if you don't try you won't succeed. I'm surprised he won but I congratulate him on sticking to his guns and following this through.

If Mr Brocklebank is reading this then well done.

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.

I have to wonder why NALEO say no seat should need to be moved or tilted for someone to exit a taxi, yet it's perfectly acceptable for Joe Public's personal transport Either it's safe or it isn't.

_________________

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

I think anyone wishing to challenge such a condition should go to court armed with a list of authorities that do license these six seater vehicles and present the list to the court as evidence that the councils on the list have no problem in finding it reasonable to license the vehicle in its present state. Therefore if one council licenses and one doesn't then there must be a conflict in the policy condition that casts some doubt on the reasonableness of the decision, not to license.

I think anyone going to court has a 50/50 chance of winning or losing?

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.

I would love to see the research that NALEO has used to come to that opinion.

Or is it a case of one LO saying it's not safe, bung it in a book, and then all the other LOs follow it in Pied Piper mode.?

_________________
IDFIMH

Bob Brocklebank through Press Cuttings Monthly [Tony Mite] was put in touch with Keith Jeffreys who was employed by Kearns and Co and Keith was instrumental in the Gladen Case.

it was Keith who after talking to Bob looked into the case and gave Bob the info needed to help him out.

Keith as now gone his own way and is now trading as Jeffreys Solicitors.

Many of the cases that he has dealt with are well documented and have been reported in the Times Law Reports and Road Traffic Reports.

If you run an association or firm that could benefit from having a retainer with a specialist solicitor contact Keith Jeffreys on 01792 881339 or 07966 220535. Alternatively e-mail keith@keithjeffreys.co.uk

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk

_________________
IDFIMH

The only problem with that Mr Brighton Breezy is that there is no Bob Brocklebank licensed in East Riding and also East riding haven't been to the magistrates court or been confronted with an application for such a vehicle at anytime. Whatsmore, Keith Jeffries informs me that he hasn't offered any such advice, so someone somewhere is spinning a load of Bullchit.

Stinky Pete might have all the answers considering he appears to have an inside line to the non existent unlicensed Mr Brocklebank. Considering Melbourne is only ten miles from York then one assumes there could be a York connection but funny enough York hasn't had any such case either and don’t have anyone by the name of Brocklebank licensed with them? So I get the feeling this Brocklebank pretence was a put up job. But surely Keith Jeffries has not been taken in either? And wouldn't we on TDO know where and when this fictitious court case came about?

Considering there is no Brocklebank then I think Stinky Pete owes us an explanation? Perhaps he can tell us why out of the blue he brought up a fictious case. I also wonder why it was convenient for you to advertise Keith Jeffries on TDO at the same time. I suppose it would be a convenient way to advertise the services of Keith Jeffries free of charge and if that was the intention then it certainly served its purpose. Considering there is no Mr Brocklebank and therefore Keith Jeffries couldn't have advised him then perhaps you Mr BB should consider removing your reference to Keith Jeffries otherwise it will look as though this is all a put up job in order to use TDO to advertise the services of Keith Jeffries?

If there is any advertising to be done on TDO then TDO is quite capable of doing it itself, without any surreptitious help from those with an ulterior motive.

I don't suppose stinky Pete is related to Tony Mites partner by any chance, who is also called Pete?

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.

I am confused now? Who removed the Galaxy seats? Was it Stinky Pete, Brighton Breezy, Bob Brocklebank or Keith Jeffries?

_________________
Grandad,

Just like Pete's nick the whole thing has a rather unusual smell about it. I think Mr Tony Mite and his oppo have had us all over but why involve a notable licensing solicitor of the standing of Keith Jeffries? We all know the misgivings of Mr Mite but I think it was a huge mistake to involve Mr Jeffries in the lie. Stinky Pete is supposed to own one of three or four mercs licensed by York as hackneys so I have my doubts him being Mites oppo of the same name but it makes you wonder what involvement he has in this lie?

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.

copied and pasted from another thread and not brought up by me in the first place
Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: reader looking for advice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Tony,

I am a one man band operating a Hackney plate and I come under East Riding of Yorkshire Authority [E.R.Y.C.] based at Beverley.

I have a Ford Galaxy which is licensed September 2003.
I have now been informed that if I get a new Galaxy it will only be licensed to carry five passengers and I must take one of the three seats out at the rear.
This policy to me, begs the question are Ford Motoring Company producing a MPV for sale in the UK market that isn’t safe for six passengers…?

Infact it raises more than one question.
How come I can quite legally carry six members of my family in my Galaxy if we go on holiday or shopping etc, or take six of my mates to a football match or whatever.
But once I start charging, the vehicle is unsuitable for six passengers…?

To me it is either suitable for six passengers or it isn’t….?
The fact that I am charging or not is irrelevant. I am also of the opinion that the
DFT advocates choice as best practice and I think E.R.Y.C. are not adhering to this policy.

Can you or your readers please give me your opinions on this matter especially legal wise.

Yours Sincerely

R.P Brocklebank

Melbourne Taxi
3 Glen Crescent
Melbourne
York
YO42 2DG

there is a Bob Brocklebank who is a licenced hack trading as Melbourne taxis and he is alive and well, plus working with all seats

So you found out he won his case? From whom, considering there was no court case? How do you explain that.

I suppose someone passing in the night shouted out, "Bob brocklebank won his court case"?

Or did the information come about from talking to another person in which case you would know which court which authority and what date? As it is there is no court case or any Bob Bracklebank so where did you get your information that was so ground breaking you couldn't wait to inform TDO readers?

So where did you come by the information?

Regards

JD


and East riding dont have Brocklebank listed as

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

How strange.

I suppose TDO can allow a little bit of space to advertise Mr Jeffery's as a number of folks have borrowed some stuff of his tapin2taxis site.

But if a court case is quoted by someone, then it has got to be accurate as otherwise some poor sod is going to quote it in court and be made to look a tit.

Which is bad enough, but the legal bill for a failed challenge is not a laughing matter.

As for Mr BB, I suspect he was just trying to be helpful.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree entirely and TDO has endorsed Mr Jeffries on numerous occasions but it appears strange to me and probably to others that at the time Mr Mite is pushing the services of Mr Jeffries on his own site that Mr Stinky Pete conveniently brings up a non existent court case in which Mr Jeffries has supposedly had some input? Now we know Mr Stinky Petes reference to Brocklebanks court case is total fiction so it would be nice to know why he brought it up because we know no one told him about Brocklebanks court case because there wasn't any?

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.

I suspect he was interested in the subject, as are we all, and wanted a proper informed debate on this issue.

And as that wasn't happening in another place, he put it on here.

_________________
IDFIMH

I assume this reference to Keith Jeffries and Brocklebank appeared on Mites website? I suppose now the truth is known it won't be there much longer?

I can just see Taxi Talk headlines in their next issue, "Taxi Today magazine embroils well known licensing solicitor in a lie".

Someones going to have a field day with the indisgressions of Mr Mite.

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.