Chilon of Sparta wrote:
Sadly, though many choose to disagree, toots has a point, as per the example she gives of barons in her own delimited LA. People who, in recent times, could not afford, or were unable get a loan to "purchase" a licence (plus say, a 5-10 year old vehicle, as was often the case) in a limited area, are usually unable to afford a new WAV and end up simply paying rent for radio & vehicle to the only people who can afford a new "fleet" under delimitation....your friend Mr T. Baron again.
Well if your saying there's an unlevel playing field (ie new WAVs for some) after delmitation then clearly that should be dumped.
As for the baron argument, as I said earlier - but Doom, Toots and yourself seem to ignore - there's a difference between the scenario you outline and the more blatant closed shop of the restricted plates.
There possibly are issues, but it's been massively exaggerated in the minds of many on here, to justify their "fingers in the ears" attitude to actual evidence that delimitation, at least in the guises seen, has not been the answer to the problems. (I will cite the LA's that have felt the need to re-limit as one example).Are you saying that no one should be able to own more than one car? So you would close Black Horse down for the taxi trade and people like myself wouldn't be able to buy a car on finance?
No, as was perfectly clear to most people, I was pointing out the inconsistency in your argument and endorsing toots' "witness statement" which backed up an earlier claim that barons still operate after delimitation, just in a different manner.Shouldn't people be able to rent houses, for example, from landlords?
Indeed, but why not then be able to rent a taxi too, from hack or PH "barons"...if they CHOOSE to do so...a point delimitation supporters conveniently forget/deny. Please, if you want to debate seriously, go and spend the next few months producing actual numeric evidence of all these "victims" who you wish to liberate, rather than the usual anecdotal stuffAre people proposing some sort of socialist utopia where or should the trade inhabit the real world where different business structures exist and some are bigger than others?
I don't know about "socialist", but it must be confusing in your apparent world of trying to run full-blown communism and rampant capitalism at the same time. 
Quote:
Interestingly, as regards "licence premium costs", the majority of these values in restricted councils have been fairly static in recent years (assuming the lists included on this very website to be correct) and even if we were to add the cost of a 5 year old vehicle onto it, were still considerably lower than having to purchase a new purpose built WAV to obtain a licence after delimitation (should this be made a requirement).
Again the unlevel playing field is a problem, there's also the DDA aspect as well, which is a bit of a distraction from restrictions per se.
Quote:
Also, providing the LA's enforcement team ensure a high standard of vehicle maintenance, there should be no problem with running a "non new vehicle".
So no age rules at all then? If owners won't spend money on a decent vehicle should there be a separate fare structure for them?
Define decent. It could be said that if a vehicle has passed a stringent test, it should be more than decent! There are some older vehicles in very good condition and a blanket ban could harshly penalise the owners of said vehicles.
Separate fare structure, for hackneys, based on vehicle age?? You are joking, aren't you?Quote:
However, let's not get bogged down with these old arguments again. As Doom alluded to in another forum recently, people on either side of the delimitation argument, are pretty much unwilling to change their stance, so why waste our breath....or typing fingers. However, to move on....
I'm inclined to agree, but if so then why ask the question?
Because, in the overall context, it was rhetorical. 
Quote:
So....if a change in the law were possible (and we could possibly go back in time!), a limit/restriction would be OK, providing it was one driver, one plate??!!
Sounds fine to me!
So...a limit is fine, providing Mr Taxi Baron isn't involved. That just shows the hypocrisy of your arguments on TDO and jealousy when someone else has the "larger business structure" you earlier mentioned.
Also, you might consider forgetting about the exaggerated effects of barons and start putting the needs of the customer first for once.Quote:
Trouble is....the horse has bolted. Going back in time is not an option....but neither should allowing a free for all that would destroy the trade.
So everything's set in stone forever? Unfortunately the real world isn't like that - things can and do change.
A rather empty, pointless soundbite. Produce actual evidence of how your proposed changes will improve things for the customer, beyond any LA that would have completed an accurate unmet demand survey. And how would the trade would be destroyed? It would certainly exist in a different way, but 'destroyed' is just hyperbole.
Perhaps, or it's just another person's view. Your massive exaggeration of the effects of those evil taxi barons is (arguably) nearer to hyperbole. Quote:
Strangely enough gusmac, there are hackney owner/drivers...within restricted areas...that would also love there to be "one driver, one plate", being that as more cabs have become double shifted through the years, earning a living has become harder. Whilst some hacks, arguably unfairly, may also want a slice of the PH market, many only work the ranks and some might, surprisingly, even like hacks not to be on a radio circuit at all, so that unmet demand surveys would not be distorted in any way and an accurate number of cabs needed would be maintained, lessening the threat of delimitation.
Well at least you seem to concur that the surveys are complete and utter garbage (and no, that's not hyperbole
).
No...I expressed the view of "some drivers".
Hyperbole? Let me give you another word instead...doctrinaire. Everything you read or say seems to be moulded into whatever answer you want to produce and the actual facts are of little consequence to you.
Governments, LA's and statistical experts all state that surveys, when done correctly, can indeed be an accurate way of assessing CUSTOMER NEED in an area.... and customer need is something that in your petty war against barons, you severely neglect.
If you have an argument against the accuracy of a particular survey, or even surveys per se, then your argument should either be how to fix them, or get rid of them completely. That would also go a large way to proving or disproving your arguments but that would involve producing factual evidence wouldn't it, so there's little chance of that happening?! Quote:
And yes...this would in turn, protect their "investment"...but let's not forget, most licence holders will have borrowed or put their savings into "buying" a licence...not many, in overall terms, got a freebie.
I thought all plates were freebies?
Oh Lord... Quote:
They don't expect this investment to rise,
Oh aye?:roll:
Evidence?!Not quite the New York medallion market, but
not far off all the same.
Many sub £20k amounts ...balanced against several hundred thousand dollars for a licence. If you think that’s "not far off"...you've lost the plot!
Quote:
but equally they don't expect the value to be wiped out
,
But that's always been a possibility, particularly since OFT, so should they be allowed a one-way bet?
So, if they "win" the bet, they get to simply keep their money/"investment", but if they lose, they lose the lot. The one-way is to lose then? Quote:
just to pacify people who pretend they are fighting for the "little guy", but simply want something for nothing themselves.
Well certainly not me, because I've got a plate in a
restricted area. But perhaps the something for nothing brigade just want a licence issued by a public authority on the same terms as all the other licences.
They could have one on the very same terms....if they went to a nice owner/driver who was fed up of the job and "ahem"...purchased the licence off him. Of course, if this isn't their choice, they could always go onto a PH circuit Quote:
People seem to be using "delimitation arguments" as a cure for taxi barons...or poor souls unable to afford a licence...or foreigners entering the trade...etc etc etc, when far from being a panacea for the taxi trade's ills, there is evidence all over the country that, at best, it simply allows one set of problems to mutate into a different set of at least equal proportions.
There are certainly winners and losers, but the big winner is a level playing field.
The trade could be transformed by proper quality controls.
Other problems are due to external factors such as the labour market/immigration.
Quote:
There is no doubt that both PH and hacks have some legitimate reasons to complain. It is also the case that the job has more than its share of a$$holes. BUT...the job's f****d unless a better solution than delimiting, at least in the formats we've seen, is found. I'd like to believe that the trade is sensible enough to see the dangers of not working together to find answers, or even compromises...but sadly, it seems nigh on impossible.
As I said there are winners and losers, but the sad thing is that silly politicians have created this divisive mess and getting out of a mess is never difficult, but that doesn't mean it should be set in stone, as I said earlier.
Read the history books!
What the holy hell are you on about now?! I think you got lost in the fiction or fantasy sections of the library!
In any event, even if I take you seriously...you can find books, or "expert witnesses" and so on to state almost any case you want, including both historical successes...and disasters.Quote:
So...addressing your first point, what's the difference between an owner driver, who possibly rents to one other person occasionally and a baron then? Just a bigger business?
Precisely. I've known people who have had a single plate for years in restricted areas but have never driven and never paid a penny for the plate. Not as bad as a muti-plate holder, but hardly defensible.
Or if an owner-driver works days (as they tend to) and a driver rents at night because he can't get a plate then the former is hardly a baron,
but the latter is still being shafted.So YOU say. However, you again state only emotional waffle to pretend you care, but provide no evidence of the alleged numbers of the unfortunate "slaves" involved and furthermore, this again takes no account of the amount of people who CHOOSE to rent, due to not wanting to purchase a vehicle or being unable to obtain a loan etc (for neither a licence, or even just a "decent vehicle", as you put it).Quote:
Furthermore, if it's OK for someone to rent from a PH baron, then it should it not be OK for a hack baron too?
Again that goes back to the difference between
blatant profiteering and other business scenarios. I've got a plate but I still hire a car from Black Horse, although they will give me the option to purchase it. Eventually
Blatant profiteering? Again...the very same emotional waffle...anecdotal evidence at best. Someone could obtain a nice new car on finance and stick a PH licence on it, or could purchase a licence from someone selling up...OR...they could wait for an accurate survey to show an unmet demand and try to obtain a licence then.
If you now want to argue about how and to whom the licence is given out to, then as I suggested regarding vehicle ages and the survey itself, your argument should be against the methods that need correcting.
To use an analogy, some people's stance on the matter is to want to ban all driving to get rid of the drink drivers (And that might well be hyperbole on this occasion ) Quote:
Also, please can you show actual evidence/statistics of the prevalence of this "blatant profiteering" you mention.
I repeat the request!So a freebie (and they're all freebies!) plate sold for £30k isn't profiteering? I thought you said you'd looked at the list on this site? You didn't doubt the values when you mentioned them earlier.
If "they're all freebies", then you should have no issue any more. Either that or you need to deduct whatever the original purchaser paid. In the £30k "example" you give, you again choose to pretend that every seller got it for free, when the statistical evidence out there proves that they have paid an amount of some kind for them.
Now then, let me put it this way, unless you produce evidence of "blatant profiteering", then it's just as valid to assume/pretend (call it what you like) that the purchaser paid the full £30k and has had no financial gain. Rubbish....perhaps, but just as valid as your non-evidence based ramblings.
Furthermore, you mention my reading/not doubting the plate values on TDO, but I never mentioned a specific plate value, or my views on their accuracy...and certainly not £30k. I used the term that if we assume the TDO info to be accurate, then I picked a random example amount of £20k, but as usual, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
By the way, why is it that delimitation fans also seem to look for, then quote, the higher plate values when trying to argue about the "injustice" of licence premiums, rather than use an average...and yes...that's a rhetorical question Quote:
Whilst I have no doubt that there are indeed some scum of the earth taxi barons, I have grave concerns that most of the suffering after delimitation would actually be caused to owner/drivers and families. How would...or even should...these people be protected?
Should the foolhardy who've bought in recent years be protected? Those who bought pre-OFT should have recouped their investment by now. If they've peed it up against the wall then it's difficult to feel sympathetic.
But in any case I'd do it slowly to provide a soft landing
Quote:
Finally, the resale value. I would agree that laws should have been in place from day one to restrict sales between individuals, number of licences owned by an individual etc...but they weren't. Demolishing the trade completely, is not the answer.
Ah, it's 'demolish' now; at least it's a change from the usual 'destroy', which you used earlier.
...FFS But the response is the same.
Yes, I'd noticed that...no answers or facts from youQuote:
Let's face facts. "Freebie" plates are not commonplace (possibly excluding Southampton
). What is more likely, is that person A (a sole trader), might buy a licence from person B for say, £20k and in today’s uncertain world, decides to sell up 5 years later (these days, they'd probably be lucky to see any gain at all). So anyway, let's say they sell to person C for £20k, so no profit, but probably having paid interest on a loan during that time, so they may actually have lost. In any event £20k-£20k = 0, which is the same nett total profit as your PH plate.
Of course, the problem is that the biggest profiteers have the money in the bank already and it's difficult to envisage unravelling that, so your point is valid.
However, your arithmetic ignores the revenue from the plate. In an obvious scenario a £20k plate could probably be rented for £5k a year.
What if it's an owner-driver who doesn't rent?
Renting out a plate alone is a none-starter as far as I'm concerned and if someone rents out a cab & plate together, then your arithmetic takes no account of repairs, insurance etc. Quote:
When people stop using excuses and start showing glowing examples and success stories of deregulation, with evidence and significant improvement, then fair enough....but there is far more evidence to the contrary.
Well there's myriad factors to be considered, as others have said and have been discussed ad nauseum on here before.
So it should have been easy for you to produce the evidence requested and proof of significant improvement. But one things for sure, the problems are usually grossly exaggerated, thus difficult to evaluate.
Agreed, which is why even more care should be taken before a decision is reached.Quote:
As I've stated before, the number of hackney licences should be determined by the need of the customer (rank and hail), not the needs of existing, or "wannabe" drivers.
So how do you quantify that? How do you factor in pre-booked work? Do you assume the cars are singled or doubled or doesn't it matter?
Trends/work patterns can vary between LA's, but an accurate unmet demand survey would cover all these points (patent/latent demand, double shifting etc). If you don't believe in the accuracy, target the survey before "throwing the baby out with the bath water", as they say.Quote:
This should then be combined, at a secondary level, but nonetheless very important one, that sufficient rank space for the licences issued should be provided.
I agree, but again this is difficult to quantify.
For example, locally a lot of the office cars don't bother with the ranks if they're choca, they know they'll get a radio job a lot quicker elsewhere.
There would be more of that with delimitation, so how do you quantify sufficient rank space?
I repeat the point made a few lines earlier regarding the survey. What I would say is that there are some LA's that at some times of the day have rank space for less than 25% of the licences issued. That is clearly madness. Whilst I'm only too willing to hear alternate views of a suitable amount, I would suggest that 50% might be a good starting point. Quote:
But, as I ponder hitting the delete button, I ask what's the point of falling into the trap of debating this over and over again
. The people, on all sides of the debate it must be said, are like listening to the dogs in Battersea dogs home. They all just bark louder and louder at each other to get their message over, thinking they are proving a point, when in reality, it's point
less.
Ah, finally something with which I can agree wholeheartedly
Login
Register
FAQ
