Taxi Driver Online

So why didn't these 180 names apply for licenses, after all it was 1999 when Plymouth last had a survey, excepting the one in 2005.

I haven't read the judgement but by all acounts the survey was found to be flawed, so in that instance the Recorder should not have refused the 30 licenses.

I know for a fact the judge placed some reliance on the kelly judgement but the kelly judgement wasn't available to him.

Now that the survey has been proven to be flawed there is nothing to stop those 180 names from formally applying for a license, is there? Or do they just want a free plate because it has a value?

If John Preece hadn't have taken the course he did then those 180 names wouldn't be in a position to get a plate today.

No matter which way you look at it those 180 names who wrote to the council as interested parties for a license were not prepared to physicaly do anything about securing a license.

This council would have gone on refusing licenses under the pretence of a bent survey and no doubt from your point of view you would have been quite happy to see that happen.

I hope the council sue TPI until their pips squeek, it will make good headlines.

Regards

JD

If it's so bad then why on earth would these 100s of people come into the trade?

Why would they spend tens of thousands on a TX if all they are going to do is sit forever on the ranks?

And what's the difference between having 100s of new taxis owners and having 100s of new PH owners? As we know the latter isn't restricted.

So maybe that's why the PLymouth taxi trade is not as good as it would like, they have lost most of their work to the far more flexible PH trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

makes you wonder what kind of survey c.e.c got for £28 k ?

then again it doesnt really, we all know its flawed to.

its about time the goverment set down strict criteria for surveys.

well done that man, for sticking to his rather large guns.

So, how much has Mr Preece "paid" for his ONE plate? If the case costs were £300,000 he paid £120,000 for it. Now that must go to the top of the plate value list. WOW!

Elswhere, JD states Guz council costs are £400K. Thiswould mean Mr Preece has paid a whopping £266,000 for ONE plate.

Phone the Guinness book of records.

No wonder wanabees don't seek redress in the Law...

Where did the money go?

You forget jimbo, Mr Preece was awarded 60% of his costs and the council had to pay their own. This amounts to some 310 grand it cost the council.

Breakdown 210 grand costs of Mr Preece 100 grand costs of their own. Mr Preeece is out of Pocket to the tune of 140 grand. The council are out of pocket to the tune of 310 grand. The only winners are the lawers and the losers are the Tax payers of Plymouth and financially Mr Preece. However the case goes on to the appeal court because both sides have said they will appeal, I might add that I did say this case would end up in the higher court, isn't it nice to know you get all the latest information on TDO?

Feel Better now knowing the facts?

JD

but how many of those 180 are already driving a hack by paying loads to rent a wreck or driving PH?

in the newspaper...

BIG LEGAL BILL FOR COUNCIL

12:00 - 08 March 2006
The city council is facing a huge legal bill after a court ruled that its limit on the number of black cabs in Plymouth relied on the results of a flawed survey.

City private hire firm Taxifast yesterday won its appeal against a council decision to refuse it a Hackney carriage licence in 2003.

The ruling means the council may have to scrap its 359-cab limit on Hackney carriages - a move that could hit current Hackney drivers and bus firms.

And, as well as paying its own costs to challenge the appeal, the authority has been ordered to meet 60 per cent - about £270,000 - of Taxifast's legal costs, estimated at more than £450,000.

A spokesman for the council said that it was too early to say how much the case had cost the authority or how the money for Taxifast's costs might be found.

But he revealed that the council was 'considering its options' about the award of costs.

The council had relied in court on a survey carried out last year that, it claimed, showed there was 'no significant unmet demand' for black cabs in the city.

But trial judge Mr Recorder Jonathan Fuller QC decided that the survey data, collected by Plymouth employment agency Mayflower Recruitment and analysed by Transport Planning (International) Ltd, was not 'sufficiently reliable'.

It followed allegations made in court by Mayflower employee Elizabeth Hamilton-Bruce that she was asked to falsify hundreds of questionnaires used in the survey.

The court ordered that Taxifast should be awarded a licence plate for one Hackney cab. It ruled that the firm's demands for another 29 plates were not made as formal applications.

Taxifast boss John Preece said: "We understand the reluctance of the court to issue Taxifast with 30 plates after the appeal. The issue by the court of one plate is symbolic.

"Taxifast, through its lawyers, is already lodging an appeal by way of case stated on this point to the high court."

Mr Preece added: "Today we have informed Plymouth City Council by letter that we are now applying for a further 50 Hackney plates to Taxifast in addition to the original 30 from the council forthwith.

"We hope that the council will respond positively now that it is aware of our good intentions to make best use of public transport vehicles in the consumer's interest.

"The Taxifast requirement of these Hackney plates is in direct response to consumer demand."

Mr Preece said that he would consider appealing for the council to pay a greater share of Taxifast's legal costs.

He said: "The costs of this case have exceeded £450,000 and there should be a transparent inquiry set up to examine the council's performance in this matter.

"Taxifast has had to fight within a budget against a bottomless taxpayers' purse and one has to ask why."

The council spokesman said: "Plymouth City Council is disappointed with the court decision that 'whilst Plymouth City Council acted reasonably throughout' a portion of the evidence upon which it relied was found to be unreliable through no fault of the council.

"The court did not find there was significant unmet demand; all it found was that Plymouth City Council had failed to show there was no significant unmet demand.

"Plymouth City Council will study this case and consider any implications for its current policy on Hackney carriages."

Gary Streeter, Conservative MP for South West Devon, criticised the council's decision to fight the appeal.

He said: "This is an action that should never have been brought and the council have brought it on themselves. I believe that, rather than operating on sensible policy lines, there was an element of personality clash here and that was completely wrong.

"Council tax payers should not suffer when the council has acted in this way. The councillors who made the decision need to look at themselves to see if they are personally responsible."

Labour MPs Linda Gilroy and Alison Seabeck were unavailable for comment.

I used your figures, in both my estimates, JD. I saw "Bleak House" last year, Dickens knew 150 years ago that lawyers are the only winners.

I do wonder why Mr preece wants eighty plates, when all the serfs have apparently been set free?

As it's not me footing the bill, I'm quite pleased it's going to appeal.

I would sooner Mr Preece wins in a higher court, then in the lower court.

The former helps out a load of other like minded folks.

_________________
IDFIMH

F*** the bus firms.

_________________
IDFIMH

It doesn't have to bonehead.

The onus is on the council to prove there isn't any SUD.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm not that sure he does, but I might be wrong.

By applying for loads of plates, he puts loads of pressure on the council to de-limit.

_________________
IDFIMH

FORGERY CASE ON THE CARDS

12:00 - 08 March 2006
A Plymouth employment agency which conducted the survey on which the city council relied in court could face prosecution for forgery.

Trial judge Mr Recorder Jonathan Fuller QC has called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the way in which Mayflower Recruitment carried out the survey into cab demand.

It comes after Mayflower employee Elizabeth Hamilton-Bruce told the court that she was asked to falsify questionnaires by the firm's director, Christopher Moore.

Mayflower was given the task of employing people to compile questionnaires and surveys on taxi use in Plymouth last year.

Transport Planning (International) Ltd used the data to compile a report which the council used as evidence that there was no 'significant unmet demand' for black cabs among customers in the city.

Miss Hamilton-Bruce said Mr Moore had asked her to falsify names, dates and responses on reams of questionnaires - about 250 in total - and then 'shuffle them up to make a variety of answers'.

However, Mr Moore told the court that Miss Hamilton-Bruce had offered to do some of the surveys but that he did not ask her to falsify any of the information.

Handwriting expert Adrian Forty told the hearing that, having studied batches of the questionnaires, he found that different forms of handwriting appeared on individual papers, which might indicate that people were filling in forms and shuffling them.