Taxi Driver Online https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. https://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19748 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | andycable [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:47 am ] |
Post subject: | Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Copied below are some of Liverpools licensing authoritys views of the law commissions proposals and is up for discussion on monday 23rd july at Collingwood Room, Millennium House, Victoria Street, Liverpool L1. Provisional proposal 2 London should be included, with appropriate modifications, within the scope of reform. (Page 162) Provisional proposal 2 Comment This authority has no comment to make in respect of this proposal. Question 23 Should private hire vehicles be able to use terms such as “taxi” or “cab” in advertising provided they are only used in combination with terms like “prebooked” and did not otherwise lead to customer confusion? (Page 186) Answer Question 23 The Authority strongly disagrees with this proposal because it would inevitably blur the distinction between the two types of vehicle even with the qualifying word “pre-booked”. It would not therefore achieve clarity in the minds of consumers but have just the reverse effect. The two terms “taxi” and “private hire vehicle” should be retained. Provisional proposal 27 Private hire services would not be subject to standards except those related to safety. Requirements such as topographical knowledge would no-longer apply to private hire drivers. (Page 190) Provisional proposal 27 This authority does not agree with this proposal – it is surely the case that members of the public have the reasonable right to expect that drivers which have been licensed by the local regulatory authority have passed at least some, even rudimentary, scrutiny to check their knowledge of the local area. This expectation must surely apply to both taxi and private hire drivers. Moreover, this authority considers that the retention of a topographical test for private hire drivers does in fact have a safety benefit to it – a driver who is lost and trying to work out where he needs to go means that he is a distracted driver who is unable to give full attention to road conditions and potential hazards and may make unexpected and dangerous manoeuvres to get himself back on track. Peak time licenses a no no in liverpool ! Question 40 Would it be useful for licensing authorities to have the power to issue peak time licences which may only be used at certain times of day as prescribed by the licensing authority? (Page 197) Answer Question 40. No, not if it is suggested that such licences could be used by vehicles which would be “private hire vehicles” otherwise. This would only serve to confuse the public as to the two distinct types of vehicle. Watch out Delta cars sefton , Liverpools view on cross border hiring is a no no , and private hire should return to base ! Provisional proposal 41 Private hire operators should no longer be restricted to accepting or inviting bookings only within a particular locality; nor to only using drivers or vehicles licensed by a particular licensing authority. (Page 198) Provisional proposal 41. This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal. As stated previously, this authority does not agree with the proposal that local authorities should no longer be able to set standards locally for the private hire trade according to the particular needs and priorities of their area. Therefore, this authority considers that there should continue to be a requirement for “triple licensing”. If however, Parliament takes the view that local authorities should no longer be able to set local standards for the private hire trade then there would appear to be little purpose in retaining the “triple licensing” approach because local authorities regulatory Provisional proposal 42 We do not propose to introduce a “return to area” requirement in respect of out-ofarea drop offs. (Page 199) Provisional proposal 42 This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal not to introduce a “return to area” requirement. As stated previously, this authority is of the view that local authorities are best-placed to decide the conditions and standards necessary to regulate both private hire and taxi trades in their particular areas. As such, this authority considers that the power to set conditions for private hire licences in its area should be retained. If the Law Commission does not consider this proposal should be applied nationally then at least individual local authorities should have the power to choose to adopt such a provision locally if they consider it is necessary in their particular circumstances. This authority is firmly of the view that the presence in its area of private hire vehicles licensed by neighbouring authorities “sitting off”, often in large numbers in high profile areas at times of peak demand, undoubtedly contributes to the commission of illegal plying for hire by such drivers which is a serious matter particularly when one considers that passengers would not be insured in such cases. Liverpool want regulation of hackney numbers to remain ! CHAPTER 17 – REFORMING QUANTITY CONTROLS Provisional proposal 54 Licensing authorities should no longer have the power to restrict taxi numbers. (Page 213) Provisional proposal 54 This authority strongly disagrees with this proposal. It seems to have been suggested without any evidential basis that it would, as a matter of fact, benefit the consumer. Indeed it seems to based on the vague assertion that it would be “a step in the right direction”. This authority has at all times complied with the Government’s requirements concerning the need for unmet demand surveys. These are carried out by consultants who are experts in their field and are detailed, analytical reports which clearly set out to identify unmet demand by the best means possible. This authority considers its key role to be the regulation and administration of a wellrun, efficient taxi and private hire service for the people of Liverpool and that it is best-placed to decide locally what is in the best interests of the travelling public in Liverpool on such a key issue. At the present time, this authority does not consider the current limit on taxi numbers should be lifted. This authority respectfully considers that it should continue to have the right to make that decision subject always to general public law principles and judicial review. The fact that many authorities which have removed the limit on numbers have subsequently chosen to re-impose a limit serves to emphasise that it is very much a decision which is best determined locally taking all relevant considerations into account. Liverpool’s 1426 taxicabs provide a day and night provision for users and the delivery of taxicab services are sustainable. Liverpool has a large number of taxicabs working at night due to double shifting of drivers who work nights as there is a limit on taxicab numbers. This authority does not consider there is a need currently for the removal of the limit on taxi licences. Any such decision as proposed would be arbitrary and would impose a detrimental effect on the City of Liverpool as it is highly likely that the demand for taxi licences would increase placing unachievable demands on the need for additional rank space and result in taxis either ranking up illegally causing road safety issues or circulating around waiting for rank space to become available which would be detrimental to the environment. Furthermore, the proposal that there should be an unlimited number of taxis will, in the professional view of the City Council’s Highways and Transportation Manager, cause additional congestion at peak periods and therefore flies in the face of the Council’s statutory duty under Section 16 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This statutory duty requires the City Council to manage its road network so as to secure and facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic. In performing that duty the City Council is expected to take action to secure the more efficient use of their road network and eliminate, reduce or avoid road congestion. It is not apparent that the Law Commission when developing their provisional proposals have considered the impact which they will have on the “network management duty” placed upon local traffic authorities. Finally, as the Law Commission report itself says, “having more taxis does not guarantee more taxis when and where they are needed”. To recognise this and yet still make the proposal does not appear to indicate a clear-minded and logical approach to the issue. Its all in full here. http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/documents/s103009/Appendix%20C%20Law%20commission%20questions%20and%20answers%202012%20rt%20v2.pdf |
Author: | toots [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Quote: undoubtedly contributes to the commission of illegal plying for hire by such drivers which is a serious matter particularly when one considers that passengers would not be insured in such cases. ......and it all read so well to start with |
Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:37 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
andycable wrote: Provisional proposal 2 London should be included, with appropriate modifications, within the scope of reform. (Page 162) Provisional proposal 2 Comment This authority has no comment to make in respect of this proposal. Ground breaking stuff. |
Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
andycable wrote: Provisional proposal 27 Private hire services would not be subject to standards except those related to safety. Requirements such as topographical knowledge would no-longer apply to private hire drivers. (Page 190) Provisional proposal 27 This authority does not agree with this proposal – it is surely the case that members of the public have the reasonable right to expect that drivers which have been licensed by the local regulatory authority have passed at least some, even rudimentary, scrutiny to check their knowledge of the local area. This expectation must surely apply to both taxi and private hire drivers. Moreover, this authority considers that the retention of a topographical test for private hire drivers does in fact have a safety benefit to it – a driver who is lost and trying to work out where he needs to go means that he is a distracted driver who is unable to give full attention to road conditions and potential hazards and may make unexpected and dangerous manoeuvres to get himself back on track. It has clearly been missed by this council that the Law Commission hope that most vehicles will be driven by licensed taxi drivers who have done a knowledge test. The only licensed vehicles being driven by folks without a knowledge will be the top end and novelty PH. |
Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
andycable wrote: Watch out Delta cars sefton , Liverpools view on cross border hiring is a no no , and private hire should return to base ! Rightly or wrongly Delta can sleep soundly, as the one thing that will happen via the LC report is the ending of the cross-border issue. It will be made legal. Thanks Unite. |
Author: | MR T [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 6:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Sussex wrote: andycable wrote: Watch out Delta cars sefton , Liverpools view on cross border hiring is a no no , and private hire should return to base ! Rightly or wrongly Delta can sleep soundly, as the one thing that will happen via the LC report is the ending of the cross-border issue. It will be made legal. Thanks Unite. It's got to be a spoof.... it looks like something Derek Cummings would have written |
Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:00 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
I dont see the issue, at least this council has responded. If folks think thats bad, they really need to take a deep breath, because far more critical ones are coming. The LC have proved themselves to be either completely stupid or completely naive, they are seemingly in awe of PH operators who they seem to think serve the public. Yes, I suppose they would, but when you listen to what has been said; through radio interviews and media reporting; the last thing on an operators mind is either the serfs that work for them or the public. Precious little in respect of driver safety....HC or PH......or was I the only one that noticed? Feck all about ranking.....plently about LTP's.....but actually zero when you think about it. The LC have been given a mission.....deregulation and cross border, thats it period. They dont give a sh*t about volunteer drivers taking work off you.....at a fraction of the cost and actually tendering for work.....they'll be given exemption.....whilst you, pay your insane insurance premiums and live to rules decided by whitehall....which will be based around what whitehall experiences....not you. They are going to completely f*CK this job.....for what its worth....and for what it brings....we deserve everything we get. |
Author: | Dusty Bin [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:53 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Liverpool City Cartel wrote: This authority has at all times complied with the Government’s requirements concerning the need for unmet demand surveys. These are carried out by consultants who are experts in their field and are detailed, analytical reports which clearly set out to identify unmet demand by the best means possible. Pity they missed Delta. But then again these "detailed, analytical" reports by "experts in their field" do tend to conveniently ignore growth in PH numbers while HC numbers are effectively set in stone. Liverpool City Cartel wrote: The fact that many authorities which have removed the limit on numbers have subsequently chosen to re-impose a limit serves to emphasise that it is very much a decision which is best determined locally taking all relevant considerations into account. Or "serves to emphasise" that the drawbridge has been raised again once there's no one left outside. Or recaptured, as the LC might put it. Liverpool City Cartel wrote: Liverpool’s 1426 taxicabs provide a day and night provision for users and the delivery of taxicab services are sustainable. Liverpool has a large number of taxicabs working at night due to double shifting of drivers who work nights as there is a limit on taxicab numbers. Like there's no PH service available at night, or in unrestricted HC areas. Liverpool City Cartel wrote: This authority does not consider there is a need currently for the removal of the limit on taxi licences. Any such decision as proposed would be arbitrary and would impose a detrimental effect on the City of Liverpool as it is highly likely that the demand for taxi licences would increase placing unachievable demands on the need for additional rank space and result in taxis either ranking up illegally causing road safety issues or circulating around waiting for rank space to become available which would be detrimental to the environment. Must be why they continue to recruit drivers then. |
Author: | Dusty Bin [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:55 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
captain cab wrote: They are going to completely f*CK this job.....for what its worth....and for what it brings....we deserve everything we get. Welcome to my world |
Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Quote: while HC numbers are effectively set in stone. ahh you mean regularly surveyed then Quote: Pity they missed Delta. why would they need to survey a company licensed elsewhere? They dont do HC's. But these reports you refer to, naturally presume those buying in to the PH culture are actually making money.....this is obviously why the turnover in London....as an example is a loss of 10,000 licensees per year? |
Author: | Sussex [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:17 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
captain cab wrote: I dont see the issue, at least this council has responded. But they are just saying leave things as they are, everything is ticker-tee-boo. Well things aren't. What we all need is justified coherent alternatives to those proposals that individuals oppose. And councils need to stop listening to the chaps with the biggest gobs, and think what best for punters a bit more. |
Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Sussex wrote: What we all need is justified coherent alternatives to those proposals that individuals oppose. And councils need to stop listening to the chaps with the biggest gobs, and think what best for punters a bit more. so suggestions of serial killings, the need for the BAU, and starvation may be a tad dramatic? Oh dear |
Author: | captain cab [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:30 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
ffs I seriously need a helicopter and a love scene |
Author: | 187ums [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
Quote: And councils need to stop listening to the chaps with the biggest gobs, and think what best for punters a bit more. They already know that free for all is bad for punters mate, they already know that too many cabs is bad for everyone ... |
Author: | Dusty Bin [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:59 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Liverpool city centre licensing LC views. |
captain cab wrote: Quote: while HC numbers are effectively set in stone. ahh you mean regularly surveyed then Quote: Pity they missed Delta. why would they need to survey a company licensed elsewhere? They dont do HC's. But these reports you refer to, naturally presume those buying in to the PH culture are actually making money.....this is obviously why the turnover in London....as an example is a loss of 10,000 licensees per year? Not really sure what your point it - unless it's about the Higgs bosun and I'm missing something - but here's how the surveys work. Or don't. In a place like Brighton, say, there would be effectively no PH (other than chauffer, executive, or whatever) but for HC numerical controls and/or a WAV requirement for an HC licence. So say there were 100 saloon HCs thirty years ago, and no PH. The market grows significantly over the years, so today there's 300 saloon HCs and still no PH. But if the 100 saloon HCs had been restricted thirty years ago, then the likelihood is that now there'd be something like 200 PH. So unrestricted you've got 300 HC but zero PH. Restricted you've got 100 HC and 200 PH. And the surveys conducted during the 30 years would have found effectively no unmet demand, because the growth in demand has been supplied by another sector - ie PH - so effectively the HC numbers are set in stone. So HC numbers are only a third of what they would be if the market had been unrestricted, but according to the surveys that's all fine and dandy. And of course it's all fine and dandy for the HC cartel and their monopoly, plate premiums etc. The surveys only cover one limited aspect of the market, which allows the market as a whole to become grossly distorted. But all this suits both the HC and PH barons (and keeps their serfs where they want them), not to mention the surveyors and the relevant LAs. Regulatory capture, innit? |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |