Wednesday 7 December 2011

All Taxi Licenses must be the same!!

 The following case applies to Stockport cabbies who have been allocated a license in the last year. The conditions imposed by Stockport were unfair and wrong. All licenses issued by a council must have identical conditions. They won in Blackburn because they fought their corner rather than blindly accepting the councils terms. We understand Charles Oakes helped the drivers and congratulations to him.
 
 
PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, 06 December 2011
For immediate publication.
BLACKBURN CABBIES WIN RIGHT TO PLY

Blackburn Magistrates’ Court overturned a decision of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council’s Licensing Committee on Monday 5th December 2011 which had prevented three taxi owners from plying their trade. The Council was also ordered to pay their costs.
Charles Oakes of the Hackney Drivers Association Ltd, Mohammed Akbar and Shahzad Akram applied for licences to operate Hackney Carriages (black cabs) in 2009, however the Council delayed consideration of their applications until early this year, which time the Council had sought to freeze the issue of new licences. In July the Council conceded that the applications had been received before the freeze on the new licences had been approved by the Council and decided to grant three licences but on very different terms from those that apply to the existing 64 licenced black cabs within the Borough. The conditions that apply to existing black cab owners were that the vehicles must be no more than 10 years old when first licenced as a taxi within the Borough and cannot be relicensed after they reach 15 years of age. The appellants were required to licence vehicles that were no more than 3 years old and could only retain them for use as a taxi until they were 10 years old.
During the course of the hearing before the magistrates’ court the Council sought to argue that the new conditions were necessary to promote safety, comfort and the reliability and appearance of the Hackney fleet within the Borough. The Council maintained that its system of testing the existing Hackney vehicles, which done randomly at the road side and through two rigorous workshop protests each year is sufficient to safeguard those who travel in the existing fleet but they could not explain why different conditions needed to be applied to the new licensed operators.
The magistrates court allowed the appeal and imposed identical conditions on the licences of the new operators as those that apply to the existing fleet.
Charles Oakes, chairman of the Hackney carriage Association said “The Association has been asking the Council for many months to look at this policy and top have a single tier licensing system. The Council didn’t listen and left us with no option to take the case to court. I hope the Council will look at its policies carefully”.
James Parry, a solicitor advocate and partner and licensing law specialist at Parry Welch Lacey said “The magistrates’ court approached this matter on the grounds of reasonableness and necessity and concluded that the Council’s conditions were not necessary and did not promote any of the Council’s concerns. It is to be hoped that the Council will look carefully at its policy in the future as we are aware of another pending appeal.”

Sunday 27 November 2011

Taxi industry on its knees, claims cabbie

The taxi industry is being strangled by spiralling costs, fewer fares and a continuing influx of new drivers, it has been claimed.


A local cabbie, who wishes to remain anonymous says drivers are now “completely demoralised” and are forced to work in excess of 70 hours each week to make below minimum wage.

“There’s less money about so fewer fares but at the same time fuel, insurance and radio rental costs are still rising,” the driver told the ‘Journal.’

The driver says the attitude of some firms  does not help drivers.

“In recent years a number of  smaller firms have been bought over by bigger taxi companies.

“Companies are aware of the difficulties drivers are facing and still they take drivers on. It’s simple, more drivers means more rent.”

The driver says taxi companies hiking up radio rent has become commonplace.

“An increase of £5 a week on radio rent for a firm with 200 drivers means the company makes £52,000 extra a year. There’s a feeling among some drivers that to do that is nothing short of corporate greed, albeit on a smaller scale.

“It’s completely demoralising” Some fleet owners are charging £200 upwards to rent a taxi that is only fit for the scrap heap. It is about time that this scandal was investigated.

The cabbie says starting at 5am and finishing around 11pm is not uncommon.

“You are forced into working hours that are illegal. It’s not good for your family life, nor for your health.

Taxi drivers don’t have the option of going in and speaking to the boss - there would be a pretty short answer - ‘away you go, there’s plenty more people looking for work’.”
The North West Taxi  Association says there are a number of issues affecting the industry. “It seems we have been lost to bureaucracy and plate barons, we should pay no more and sign on the dole "

Wednesday 23 November 2011

Meanwhile Taxis in Stockport continue to annoy passengers

The latest SUD survey is well underway with cctv links being used at the train station, Chestergate, Heaton Moor and Cheadle. Despite this, some drivers have been illegally refusing passengers for short journeys. It has been reported that the manager of a large store was refused and the licensing officer is purported to be "furious"

Well if that is the case, he should enforce the law and arrange "mystery shopper" trips with trading standards officers. It is an absolute offence for a hackney carriage driver to refuse a fare within the controlled district, unless the passenger is unfit through drink, drugs or similar.

The few remaining passengers using cabs in the town are being told to: (a) walk, it's not far or: (b) It's a long trip I am going to nail your hat so firmly to your head you will never dare come back again.

All this at a time of a survey and dwindling passenger numbers, the people responsible must have been on a hell of a business course.
Merry Christmas



Black cabs cause chaos in London

Parts of central London were gridlocked this afternoon as thousands of black cabs showed up in support of a protest organised by the taxi union, United Cabbies Group.
At the centre of the protest was Trafalgar Square where from 4pm around 800 taxis descended upon the area in support of the demonstration against minicab touting which the UCG argues puts women at risk.
General Secretary of the RMT Union Bob Crow attended the demonstration in a display of solidarity with the taxi union.
Crow said: “The licensed taxi trade in London is under an unprecedented attack and that’s why RMT members in the industry are working for maximum unity to defend jobs, safety and the quality of service to the public.”
Jonathan Myers, cab driver and UCG spokesperson, said he believed that nearly 4,000 black cabs had attended the protest as parts of central London – including Trafalgar Square, Pall Mall, the Aldwych, Fleet Street, Shaftesbury Avenue and Victoria Street – had all been at one stage or another gridlocked and closed as a result of the protest.
The UCG believes that Transport for London and the taxi licencing body, London Taxi and Private Hire (formerly the Public Carriage Office), aren’t enforcing the law regarding licenced and unlicensed minicabs.

Taxi driver seriously injured after attack by thugs in Stretford

A taxi driver suffered serious facial injuries when he was stamped on the head by a gang of thugs.

The 35-year-old victim was walking back to his cab when he was suddenly attacked.

A group of up to five men battered him the the ground before launching a sickening assault, which included being stamped on the head and kicked in the face.

The unprovoked attack happened on Moss Park Road in Stretford at around 8.30pm on Friday 18 November.

The victim was taken to hospital with a number of broken bones in his face.

Det Con Emma Bentley said: "This was an unprovoked and savage attack on a man who was coming to the end of his shift and he has been left with serious head and facial injuries.

“The victim is unsure why he was subjected to such a horrific assault and I would urge anyone who may have seen the incident take place or may have heard someone boast about being part of an attack to contact police as soon as possible."

Anyone with information is asked to call police on 0161 856 7652 or Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111.

Council to meet with taxi drivers over deregulation row

KEY figures in the row over taxi deregulation in Richmondshire say they are prepared to meet face to face in an attempt to resolve on-going issues over the matter.

The decision by Richmondshire District Council’s licensing committee to remove the cap on the number of licensing plates it issues sparked protests from taxi drivers last month, who say the move will destroy their livelihoods.

Representatives for the drivers have threatened legal action over the decision, which they say has been made without proper consultation, and met with Richmond MP William Hague last week to try and win his support for their cause.

The leader of Richmondshire District Council Councillor John Blackie indicated that he and members of the council’s licensing department are prepared to meet with drivers’ representatives in an attempt to resolve some of the key issues surrounding deregulation, although he confirmed that the decision will not be overturned.

George Pearson, chairman of the Richmondshire Independent Drivers Association (Rida), said he was pleased to hear of Coun Blackie’s offer and looked forward to the meeting.

The move comes as the licensing committee prepares to look at whether public consultation is necessary to create new taxi ranks in Hawes and Leyburn as the council tries to attract hackney cabs to more remote parts of the district.

Coun Blackie said: “The council’s position has always been that there has been proper, full consultation on the matter of deregulation. The decision has been made and we will not go back on it.

“However, there are clearly issues with the taxi trade accepting that that decision has been made. The issue of deregulation is not up for a re-decision but quite clearly there are some issues that follow from deregulation that we must try to solve.”

Mr Pearson said: “It’s brilliant news to hear that the council are prepared to talk to us. We shall wait and see what comes of it and what is going to happen. It’s very interesting I must say, but I’m looking forward to it.”

The licensing committee will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, at Frenchgate, in Richmond.

Friday 14 October 2011

Is it all already set in stone and are the Law Commission just going through the motions?



On this link, http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthr ... ?t=1460446 I found the following post;

B329 - London Hackney Carriage (Repeal) Bill 2010

B329 - London Hackney Carriage (Repeal) Bill 2010, Government

An Act to abolish the London Hackney Carriage Act 1843 and all legislation pertaining to regulations and statutory provisions for London Taxis and Hackneys otherwise contemporarily known as ‘Black Taxicabs’.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1 Statutory repeals

(1) The following Statutes are hereby repealed:
(a) London Hackney Carriage Act 1843
(b) Town Police Clauses Act 1847
(c) Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869
(d) London Cab Act 1896
(e) London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907
(f) London Cab Act 1968

(2) The following Statutory Instruments are hereby repealed:
(a) London Cab Order 1934
(b) London Cab Order 1973
(c) London Cab Order 1992
(d) London Cab Order 1995

(3) Sections 45-80 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 are hereby repealed.

2 Commencement

(1) The provisions contained within this Act shall come into force in April 2012

3 Short Title

(1) This Act may be cited as the London Hackney Carriage (Repeal) Act 2010


There is further information on this link too;

http://boardreader.com/thread/B329_Lond ... Xveye.html

Sunday 9 October 2011

Richmondshire cabbies prepare to mount legal action (deregulation)



TAXI drivers are considering taking legal action against a council over its decision to deregulate the industry. Members of the trade have already passed a vote of no confidence in two council officers after Richmondshire District Council’s licensing committee decided to remove the limit on the number of taxi plates issued.

It is currently capped at 65 and the decision was made to allow more registered taxis to attract new business and encourage taxi drivers to provide a better service in rural areas. But outraged members of Richmond Independent Drivers’ Association (RIDA) and the Taxi Drivers’ Association say deregulation will result in fewer taxis in rural areas and at quiet times of the week.

Members of the two organisation met at the Traveau Sports Club, in Catterick Garrison, where it was decided they would gather material to launch a legal action against the decision. Grant Curphey, from the Independent Drivers’ Association, told the meeting: “In Fleetwood, near Blackpool, they deregulated their taxi industry and they went from having 105 vehicles to more than 1,000 in less than 12 months. All the new people who came in had other jobs and just put plates on their vehicles and came out at busy times. “The professional taxi drivers couldn’t make a living, so they left. So they ended up with virtually no taxis from Monday to Thursday. If this goes ahead, in 18 months we will all be out of a job.”

George Pearson, chairman of RIDA, told the meeting that local taxi drivers were not consulted over any of the recent changes affecting their industry. He said an independent Unmet Demand survey they had commissioned – which showed there wasn’t a demand for more taxis in rural areas – was not properly taken into consideration.

Head of regulatory services at Hambleton District Council, Maurice Cann, said the council had sent a letter to all taxi drivers inviting them to attend a meeting on April 5, which was attended by 17 drivers. He said: “It’s quite wrong to suggest there wasn’t any consultation.

In terms of the decision the council has made, it has considered the Unmet Demand survey and it was fully debated in public. Then a majority decision was made to deregulate the industry. This is in line with government advice and best practice.”

Monday 3 October 2011

Taxi Driver In Court (Wheelchair)



A Taxi driver has appeared in court accused of failing to secure a passenger’s wheelchair.
Mark Smith, aged 51, allegedly did not take all reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of the passenger in his hackney carriage on February 15.
Smith of Clittaford Road, Southway, pleaded not guilty to breaching a Plymouth City byelaw
Plymouth magistrates adjourned the case until October 10.

Published by The Herald, 29 September 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ts like this your honor, some brainless wide boys at the council said if I want to drive a cab, I must buy one of those TX things
So off I went and obliged him at £32,000, :shock: only to find out that a full sized wheelchair does not fit into the bit where its meant to, as per the Liverpool case your honor,cab to small.
I could have refused to take the customer but they would have complained to the council, In hindsight I should have as we would have nearly the same scenario, me in front of you for refusing to take them.
My customer asked why is there no saloons available as taxis, as they prefer them, I told them the idiots at the council said I must drive this heap of she-it.

I find you not guilty, and yes you can now go and buy that nice new Skoda Superb and have many happy years driving it

Saturday 1 October 2011

The Taxi Tax Credits debate

 
 The debate below is taken from TDO, where it has been suggested that Tax Credits are simply a subsidy being used to keep low skilled workers from unemployment figures<
 
The state of the trade in many areas of the UK is so oversubscribed that earning a living, even working ridiculously long hours of 12-16 hours daily for 6-7 days most week is almost impossible. That's for the genuine cabbie or scabbie who wants to work.

But now there is a huge, enormous army of cabbies and scabbies all around the country, for whom this oversubscribed situation is 'Manna from heaven'. These are the unscrupulous benefit scroungers who knowing that a living cannot be earned, don't even bother to work a full week and are happy to do just 16-20 hours a week and some weeks not even working at all, because they know that Working Tax Credits and other benefits will more than see them through.
The job in many areas is now meaningless, but there will always be many that will exploit these situation, because the benefits system allows such practices.

But if the trade was not as oversubscribed as it is, there would be little scope for these Working Tax Credit, because questions would be asked if others in the trade were constantly posting good earnings that prevented such benefit claims.

And I would guess that benefit claims from cabbies and scabbies run into a £billion or two every year.


This is a sad reflection of the Trade today, However this is happening in the Cities of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester. I fully expect it is happening in many other places. How did it get to this state?

(low entry criteria) is one suggestion, what do you think?

Friday 23 September 2011

Why not all taxi drivers are hailing new planned changes



At present taxis in NI operate under different rules determined by the colour of their plates. The DoE wants to bring them all into line and operate under one new licence which will bring major changes, including how to call-a-cab. As part of the changes customers would for the first time be able to hail any taxi from the side of the road - ending the need to pre-book.

William McCausland from Fona Cab supports the changes. "A cab is there and is licensed and insured," he said. "If a customer wants to get the cab, it's hard to argue that he must phone a depot and the depot has to contact the driver and then go and get him. "If there's a cab there and it's licensed and the customer wants that cab, let us not argue with common sense."

Taxis based at the city hall in Belfast are the only ones currently allowed to pick up off the street. They strongly oppose the changes saying they will be forced to ply their trade elsewhere. Sean Beckett from the the Public Hire Coalition said his members strongly oppose the changes.

"If we have an influx of taxis within Belfast city centre because of what they are planning to do, well it is going for force drivers to look at other aspects of earning a living to keep their family, so they will have to look at all revenues to be able to cater for their family's needs."

This could create more competition for the west Belfast black taxis. They evolved out of the Troubles - when bus services were often disrupted. They operate a shared service on designated roads. Other taxis will be able to compete for their customers, including groups of passengers, if they are hailed from the footpath.

Jim Neeson, a former manager with the West Belfast Taxi group, said it would "impact badly" on the the west Belfast taxis. "Private saloon cars, and black taxis other than the West Belfast taxis will be free to operate up and down that road. "I think that will be harmful to the black taxis and I think it will spell the ultimate end of that taxi service as we know it unless it modernises and changes."

It is intended that the west Belfast taxis will retain their special licence that lets them operate like a local bus service. But they will also be able to apply for a new licence that will allow them to operate like a conventional taxi in any area.

Brian Barr from the West Belfast Taxi Association said it is something they will consider if they start losing trade. "We might be forced to look alternatively at the private end ourselves, such as buying the other licence that allows our vehicles to rank at the city hall, to rank at hotels, obviously diversify into other work because we are not going to allow this to turn into a war as such."

The increased competition could lead to a better deal for passengers but its an unsettling time for some operators. The consultation period on the proposed changes ends next week.

Thursday 15 September 2011

Just two extracts from Birmingham - Licensing Offence Atrocities;



Name & Address
Mohammed Saeed Din
298 Coleshill Road
Birmingham
B36 8BG

Date Case Heard
23/6/2011

Court
Birmingham Magistrates Court

Legislation
Fraud Act 2006,
Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981
& Road Traffic Act 1988

Fine / Penalty
16 weeks in custody suspended for 2 years.
180 hours of unpaid work.
+ 36 penalty points
Disqualified from driving for 12 months

Costs
£360 (£851 requested)

Offence details
Pleaded guilty to 15 offences; 6 offences of making and having in his possession a forged Hackney Carriage badge and making a false representation that the badge was genuine, 4 offences of making and using a forged Hackney Carriage Drivers badge and 6 offences of driving without insurance.


Name & Address
Zulfaqar Ali
55 St Benedicts Road
Small Heath
Birmingham
B10 9DR

Date Case Heard
29/6/2011

Court
Birmingham Magistrates Court

Legislation
Road Traffic Act 1988

Fine / Penalty
Total £500 (£125 x 4)
+ 24 penalty points
Disqualified from driving for 9 months

Costs
£500 (£1110 requested)

Offence details
Pleaded not guilty to 4 offences of driving without insurance. Found guilty after trial.

Wednesday 14 September 2011

Operation Crush

Operation Crush

A bombshell is about to explode on the Manchester Cab Trade. This is in the form of Operation Crush. The operation is being run Nationally and is less than halfway through. Less than halfway through and approx 700 cases of perverting the course of justice has come to light.



The offences occur when a fleet owner or garage owner receives a section 172 notice that a camera offence has been committed in one of their cabs. The fleet owner returns the notice identifying who the driver is, as is required by law. The driver then receives a second 172 notice informing him of a penalty and asking him to confirm he was driving. This is when the offence occurs. The driver informs his owner, fleet or garage that he is about to be endorsed.


A couple of fleet owners in Manchester have told the drivers they cannot accept the endorsement, because it would cost the fleet owner too much in insurance premiums to continue to employ that particular driver. In fear of losing his track and/or his livelihood the driver falls for the next scam. The fleet owner offers to “get rid” of the offence for around £150. He tells the driver he has someone in the Central ticket office who will wipe the offence from the computer.


This is a scam, no such person exists. The fleet owner passes the 172 notice to a couple of scallies off a local Manchester overspill estate. They then redirect the section 172 to a false address.


The scallies used in the Manchester incident were not the sharpest pencil’s in the box. They used the same address several times, this was flagged up on the police computer, naturally, and set the investigation in motion. One fleet owner is implicated in 8 of these offences. 8 Manchester Hackney drivers are about to go “down the steps” for perverting the course of justice. This is just to save a fleet owner a couple of quid a week in insurance premiums. The 172 notices in question have been forensically examined and everybody who has touched one, will have his “dabs” recorded.


We received this news because one of the drivers in question broke down in interview in the last few weeks. He was entitled to, he has an unblemished record and now he knows he will soon wake up in prison, to find he has become some tattooed Neanderthals bitch. All to save someone else a few quid !


He rightly is about to bring everyone down with him.


The sad thing about all this is that camera offences are only minor infringements. Any offender is offered a driver awareness course for £80. You legally avoid the penalty points this way. You also learn something, so your cash is not wasted. You can do this again, as long as it not less than two years since your last course.


This news is about Manchester, but you can bet it goes on all around the country, especially in large Cities where multi owners thrive. I beg all Licensed Hackney drivers, do not fall for a scam such as this, not to save some tight barsteward a few quid.


Local Authorities should examine their part in this affair as well. Some authorities are suspending drivers who accrue six points in any year. They say this is evidence of dangerous driving. Hackney drivers do approx four times the mileage of any ordinary driver (48k against 12k). It would hardly be called dangerous driving if an ordinary motorist got six points in four years, would it.


It is exacerbated by the fact that a Magistrate has not sought to remove anybodies licence for two minor offences. A Magistrate is the appellant authority for decisions of a local council, yet the local council can and DO add an additional penalty to drivers who offend. This is surely contrary to natural justice. The decisions of some Local councils are therefore, in my opinion, adding to this problem and coercing some drivers to commit a more serious offence.

(taken from: rainycityripoff.blogspot)

Saturday 10 September 2011

A Fascinating insight into "Multicultural" Britain and the taxi trade in Birmingham

The list of prosecutions below from Birmingham give an amazing insight into the taxi trade in Britain today. Every person on there has a "multi cultural name" - with the one notable female, who was apparently offering a "service" other than taxi driving.

At their meeting in May the Licensing Committee agreed to publicise cases taken by Birmingham City Council in sof ar as these relate to offences committed in respect of the Licensing Service. The list below identifies cases taken between November 2010 - May 2011 and this will be updated on a monthly basis following consideration of the report on this matter by the Licensing Committee each month.

Only cases taken over a six month period will remain on this web page. The page will be reviewed regularly with older cases being deleted on this basis.

Mohammed Nazural Eron
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £500– no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £250 (£450 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Qamar Shezad
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £235 – plying & £350 – no ins
+ 3 penalty points & disqualified from driving for 9 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Tanvir Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th November 2010 to three offences: one of failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge, one of operating private hire vehicles from a motor vehicle using a mobile phone and one offence of failing to ensure that bookings were
recorded correctly.
Fined £250 x 3
Prosecution Costs £1,242.30 (£1,242.30 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Tariq Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £120 – plying & £240 – no ins
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Irfhan Heyder Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th November 2010 to seven offences: two relating to the use of a false insurance document to gain employment with Blueline Cars, one of failing to display the private hire identity plate externally on the rear of the vehicle, one of failing to provide a current insurance certificate for the vehicle and three of
consequently having invalid insurance
Fined £500 – Fraud Act, £500 – Forgery & Counterfeiting Act, £100 x 3 – no ins,
No separate penalty for LGMPA x 2
Prosection Costs £1,061 (£1,061 req)
Fraud Act 2006, Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, Road Traffic Act 1988 & Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Umar Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th November 2010to one offence of failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge.
Fined £130
Prosection Costs £100 (£150 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Mohammed Mohammed
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £150 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Arshad Mohammed
Pleaded guilty at Sutton Coldfield Magistrates on 23rd November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £235 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 8 penalty points
Prosection Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Abdullah Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 26th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire
Fined £160
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Mohammed Junaid
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 26th November 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £340 – no ins (No separate penalty for plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Saleem Chohan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 10th December 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £450 (£300 – no ins & £150– plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Latif
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 10th December 2010 to failing to wear his private hire driver’s badge.
Fined £40
Prosecution Costs £35 (£150 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Ghulam Khan
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 13th December 2010 to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined £360 (£180 – no ins & £180 – plying)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 req)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Faisal Nassar
Pleaded not guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 20th December 2010 to three offences, 1 of failing to keep a record of the insurance for a private hire driver and two of failing to keep a record of the particulars of journeys. Pleaded guilty to one offence of failing to keep a record of the insurance for a private hire driver. Case Proved
Fined £400 £200 – insurance cert, No separate penalty for 2nd offence of failing to have a
copy of insurance & £200 – failing to keep journey records
Prosecution Costs £550 (£550 req)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Mohammed Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £165 (£65 – plying & £100– no ins) & + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Amar Aftab
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£200 – plying & £250 – no ins) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Inamullah Saleem
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£100 – plying & £350 – no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Zulifqur Asghar
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, of 3 offences; one of using a vehicle without a current licence, one of acting as a private hire driver without a licence and one offence of driving without
valid insurance.
Fined total £875 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, No sep pen – unlicensed driver & £525 – no ins)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Zaman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £165 (£65 – plying & £100– no ins) & + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Amar Aftab
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£200 – plying & £250 – no ins) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Inamullah Saleem
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£100 – plying & £350 – no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Zulifqur Asghar
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, of 3 offences; one of using a vehicle without a current licence, one of acting as a private hire driver without a licence and one offence of driving without
valid insurance.
Fined total £875 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, No sep pen – unlicensed driver & £525 – no ins)
+ 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Jamir Hussain
Found guilty in his absence of at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th February 2011, 4 offences; two of knowingly operating a private hire vehicle when both the vehicle and the driver, Zulifqur Asghar, were unlicensed, one of failing to keep
vehicle /driver records as required by the conditions attached to his operator’s licence and one offence of failing to produce documentation to an authorised officer.
Fined total £935 (£350 – unlicensed vehicle, £350 – unlicensed driver, No sep pen – failing to keep records & £235 – failing
to produce documents
Prosecution Costs £500 (£500 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Arshad Mahmood
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 25th February 2011, to 1 offence of plying for hire.
Fined £300
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Jahangir Alom
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 25th February 2011, to one offence of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £300 (£200 – ply & £100 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Rezaul Kharim
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th March 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £700 (£350 – ply & £350 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Aamir Khan
Found guilty in his absence at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th March 2011, of two offences; one of failing to produce a premises licence in respect of Mega Bite, 1052 Pershore Road, Selly Park and one offence of breaching a condition of the licence as the CCTV was not working.
Fined total £500 (£100 – fail to produce & £400 – fail to comply)
Prosecution Costs £434.95 (£434.95 requested)
Licensing Act 2003

Surinder Pal
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th March 2011, to one offence of plying for hire.
Fined £60
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Imran Zahid
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 18th March 2011, to one offence of plying for hire.
Penalty 2 year conditional discharge
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Abad Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 21st March 2011, to five offences: four of driving without valid insurance and one offence of failing to disclose to the licensed operator that he did not have valid insurance so that he
could continue to work as a private hire driver.
Fined total £600 (£200 – Fraud & £100 x 4 – no ins) + 24 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 28 days
Prosecution Costs £200 (£485 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988 & Fraud Act 2006

Ashariq Zafar Salis
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £135 (£100 – no ins & £35 – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £50 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Narinder Singh
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 1st April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £200 (£140 – no ins & £60 – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ajmal Ali
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 4th April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £450 (£450 – no ins & No separate penalty – plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Alam
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 3 offences of driving without valid insurance.
Fined total £300 (£300 – 3rd offence & No separate penalty - remaining 2 offences) + 18 penalty points &
Disqualified from driving for 12 months
Prosecution Costs £329.70 (£329.70 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988

Shakeel Arshad
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £210 (£210 – no ins & No separate penalty - plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosection Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mahmood Perwaiz
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £350 (£350 – no ins & No separate penalty - plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ise Samow
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £350 (£350 – no ins & No separate penalty - plying) + 6 penalty points
Prosectuion Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Ala Ud din
guiltyPleaded Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 1 offence of failing to wear a private hire driver’s badge in a position as to be plainly and distinctly visible
Fined £115
Prosecution Costs £150 (£150 requested)
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Yvonne Lowndes
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 8th April 2011 to 1 offence of carrying on an establishment for massage at Glow, 8a Chipperfield Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham without a current licence.
Fined £200
Prosecution Costs £313.20 (£313.20 requested)
Birmingham City Council Act 1990

Jama Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 11th April 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £525 (£200 – plying & £325 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosection Costs £100 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mrban Khan
ePleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 14th April 2011 to 6 offences. 4 of driving without valid insurance, 1 offence of using a vehicle as a private hire vehicle without a current private hire vehicle licence and 1 offence of
giving a false home address on a licence application form.
Fined Total £250 (£250 – no ins & No separate penalty – licence & false information offences) + 24 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £135 (£921.37 requested)
Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Tabraiz Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 21st April 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £245 (£70 – plying & £175 – no ins) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (requested £675)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Waseem Iqbal
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th May 2011 to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £200 (£200 - plying & no separate penalty for no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Shakeel Kayani
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 5th May 2011, to two offences: one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £160 (£160 – plying & no separate penalty for no insurance) + 6 penalty points
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Marban Hussain
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 6th May 2011, to four offences: three of driving without valid insurance and one offence of giving false information to an authorised officer
Fined total £400 (£100 x 4) + 18 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 6 months
Prosecution Costs £200 (£200 requested)
Road Traffic Act 1988 & Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

Ziaur Rahman
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 16th May 2011 to one offence of plying for hire.
Fined £140
Proseuction Costs £150 (£200 requested)
Town Police Clauses Act 1847

Anilkumar Shah
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th May 2011, to two offences; one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £500 (£500 – plying & no separate for no insurance) + 6 penalty points & Disqualified from driving for 18 months
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Mohammed Bhutta
Pleaded guilty at Birmingham Magistrates Court on 19th May 2011, to two offences; one of plying for hire and one of having invalid insurance.
Fined total £500 (£500– plying & no separate financial penalty for no insurance) & + 6 penalty points
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 & Road Traffic Act 1988

Sunday 4 September 2011

Poor Outlook for StockTax


Latest Figures Show

Stocktax have slumped further.
The PDF shows that since Jul 10 (1 year)
Overdraft has gone up from £206,921 to the sum of £231,527 a rise of
around £25k
Assets have reduced from £111k to £99k

This would mean it is losing around £750 per week

The figure is likely to be higher as the accounts show intangible assets
(Plate value) of £498k. Plates have collapsed so that
 could suggest real term losses in excess of £750k when the shot hits the fan

Thursday 1 September 2011

Steve Darlington does it again - Future Outdoor Media in Bankruptcy

Date:
23 August 2011
Issue Number:
59888
Page number:
16162
Publication Date: Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Notice Code: 2442
Meetings of Creditors
FUTURE OUTDOOR MEDIA LIMITED
(Company Number 05922376)
(formerly Salford Media Limited)
Yarmouth House, Trident Business Park, Daten Avenue, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 6BX
Principal Trading Address: Maine Road, Moss Side, Manchester
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 98 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that a meeting of the creditors of the above-named Company will be held at The Old Bank, 187a Ashley Road, Hale, Cheshire, WA15 9SQ, on 13 September 2011, at 12.00 noon for the purposes mentioned in Sections 99, 100 and 101 of the said Act. Colin Thomas Burke of Milner Boardman & Partners, The Old Bank, 187a Ashley Road, Hale, Cheshire, WA15 9SQ, is qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner in relation to the above and will furnish creditors, free of charge, with such information concerning the company’s affairs as is reasonably required.
Further details contact: Colin Thomas Burke, Email: office@milnerboardman.com, Tel: 0161 927 7788.

Stephen Darlington, Director


18 August 2011.
(1423894)

Saturday 27 August 2011

Taxi driver uses "Hamlet" as a defence.

Taken from Rainy City Rip Off


I laughed out loud when I read the above story. “City bosses” have uncovered failures.

My laughter had been foretold over 400 years ago.

 “For ‘Tis sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard”

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (1603)

The Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act (1976) states that;

59 Qualifications for drivers of hackney carriages (1) Notwithstanding anything in
the Act of 1847, a district council shall not grant a licence to drive a hackney carriage—
(a) unless they are satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a driver's licence; or
[(b) to any person who has not for at least twelve months been authorised to drive a motor car, or is not at the date of the application for a driver's licence so authorised].

Therefore, a local authority are, FORBIDDEN from issuing a Hackney carriage licence to any applicant, unless they are CERTAIN, the applicant is fit and proper. This obviously includes a knowledge test.

Therefore, I respectively submit, that any shortcomings in the standard of Hackney driver in Manchester, is an indication of the poor performance of the Councils own Licensing Unit.

It is no surprise therefore to see the following story.


Les Reid

MR Blackcab

Friday 26 August 2011

Manchester Council in Legal Battle??

Howards Solicitors
Taxi – press release
25th August 2011

Manchester taxi trade to fight Council’s “unfair restriction” of trade at airport
LEGAL taxi trade specialists Howards Solicitors will be representing the Manchester Cab Committee in its bid to lift alleged restrictions of trade at Manchester Airport.

Peter Eatherall, taxi law partner at Howards, will be representing the Committee’s fight to fully open up business to the trade at the airport.

The Manchester taxi trade has taken issue with the Council for giving Arrow Cars preferential treatment in its dealing with the airport and its passengers. This has effectively shut out competition, according to the Committee.

The Manchester Cab Committee brings wide support and is made up of the GMB Union, Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, Airport Taxi Association, Mantax and Taxifone.

The complaints focus on Manchester Airport’s website booking facility for taxis, as well as its booking kiosks in the three main terminals, which are devoted to Arrow Cars at the expense of rivals. There are also objections from the trade regarding Arrow Cars’ unlawful ranking activities.

The Committee now has barrister’s advice and representation through Howards Solicitors, with a possible judicial review to follow to determine the law on this matter.

Sean Kenny, chairman of the Manchester Cab Committee, comments: “We have no problem with competition. We do take issue though when a private hire office opens next to the taxi rank and misleads customers by calling themselves “Taxi Private Hire.” In addition it has vehicles illegally ranking and what can be consider unbalanced promotion by Manchester Airport. Then, it’s not fair or acceptable.”

Kenny also points out: “Manchester City Council compels all Hackney Carriages to meet a rigorous set of standards concerning issues such as driver knowledge and wheelchair accessibility at some considerable cost. Private hire do not have to meet the same high standards, including licence fees, yet are being given the opportunity of immediate hirings. This opens up another issue of fairness in the eyes of many in the trade.”

Eatherall, who has direct experience of running his own taxi firm before migrating his knowledge to law, comments: “The Council do not feel there are any issues that need to be radically addressed, but many, many voices within the trade in Manchester strongly believe that there are.”

“We have tried to resolve what we think are sound grievances through dialogue with the licensing and legal departments of the Council. We have not received a constructive response. The Manchester Cab Committee has been left with no other choice to resolve the matter other than through legal recourse.”

Tuesday 16 August 2011

1,500 complaints against cabbies in Greater Manchester

1,500 complaints against cabbies in Greater Manchester

August 15, 2011

A catalogue of bad behaviour by Greater Manchester’s cab drivers has been uncovered by the M.E.N.

The shocking incidents include indecent exposure, abuse of traffic wardens, failing to report accidents and refusing to pick up disabled people.

Nearly 1,500 complaints were made against drivers last year, according to figures obtained using Freedom of Information laws.

A number have been disciplined or lost their jobs, including:

A Tameside cabbie sacked for talking inappropriately to a female passenger before flashing at her;

A cab driver in Oldham given a two-week suspension for abusing a traffic warden who was giving him a ticket;

A black-cab driver in Hyde banned from driving Tameside taxis after eight complaints about him being ‘extremely’ rude.

A Tameside town hall spokesman said of the Hyde cabbie: “He made various personally insulting comments, entered into arguments with his passengers, swore at them and on occasions refused to pick up disabled passengers or passengers only intending to travel a short distance.”

Other incidents seen by the M.E.N. include another Tameside driver who received a written warning after talking ‘inappropriately’ to a female commuter.

In Oldham, town hall bosses fined five drivers for plying for hire or having no insurance – while one was convicted for failing to report an accident.

Another Oldham cabbie was convicted of plying for hire and suspended for three months – after a girl flagged him down and he drove off with her handbag in his car.

In Manchester, the town hall, which licenses 3,500 cabbies, last year conducted a ‘mystery shopper’ exercise that gave drivers a 76 per cent satisfaction rate. But since then annual complaints have rocketed from 280 to 485.

Sham Raja, of the Manchester Private Hire Association, said council officers should investigate the reasons behind the dramatic rise. He said all drivers are vetted before being licensed – but said he is ‘not happy’ about complaint levels.

He added: “Licensing need to look into this matter and see why there are these complaints. They need to educate the drivers. Personal attitude is very important – you have got to treat customers in a very good manner, not abuse them. They pay your wages.”

Coun Nigel Murphy, Manchester's executive member for the environment, said the increase is due to the council making it easier to complain.

He added anyone with a complaint can contact licensing authorities through the council website.

Coun Murphy said: “We also have more taxis operating than ever before, which makes it ever more important for the public to contact us if they haven’t received a satisfactory journey, and we are now discussing compulsory training for every taxi driver so they understand the importance of good service.”

The figures also revealed that complaints soared in Trafford – from just seven last year to 66.

Most were about bad driving, although one driver was warned not to make racist comments and another warned for being aggressive.

Rochdale has had 32 complaints this year, mostly about bad attitude and behaviour, but also mobile phone use, litter and bad parking. Stockport had 83 complaints, largely about drivers being unlicensed. In Bolton there were 268 complaints, down slightly on last year. Salford had 118 complaints and Bury 71. Wigan had 145, with a ‘significant’ number being grievances between cab firms.

Source; http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1455745_1500-complaints-against-cabbies-in-greater-manchester
_________________

Monday 15 August 2011

TAXIFONE NORTHWEST LIMITED (t/a Taxifone) Bankruptcy

Publication Date: Friday, 29 July 2011
Notice Code: 2442
Meetings of Creditors
TAXIFONE NORTHWEST LIMITED
(t/a Taxifone)
(Company Number 06921336)
Yarmouth House, Trident Business Park, Daten Avenue, Birchwood, Warrington, WA3 6BX
Principal Trading Address: 27-29 Maine Road, Moss Side, Manchester, M14 4FS
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Section 98 of the Insolvency Act 1986 that a meeting of the creditors of the above-named Company will be held at The Old Bank, 187a Ashley Road, Hale, Cheshire, WA15 9SQ, on 23 August 2011, at 12.00 noon for the purposes mentioned in Sections 99, 100 and 101 of the said Act. Colin Thomas Burke of Milner Boardman & Partners, The Old Bank, 187a Ashley Road, Hale, Cheshire, WA15 9SQ, is qualified to act as an insolvency practitioner in relation to the above and will furnish creditors, free of charge, with such information concerning the company’s affairs as is reasonably required.
Further details contact: Colin Thomas Burke,Email: office@milnerboardman.com, Tel: 0161 927 7788.

Laura Brady, Director

25 July 2011.
(1408941

Friday 12 August 2011

County Durham gears up for new taxi system (Deregulation)


A NEW taxi system, which will see changes to the way hackney carriages and the private hire trade operate, will come into force next month in County Durham.

From September 1, Durham County Council’s new policy will bring about de-zoning across the county and the deregulation of licensed hackney carriage numbers in the Chester-le-Street and Durham City areas.

This means that licensed hackney carriages will be able to pick up and drop off fares anywhere within the council’s area.

Previously there were seven different zones representing the seven former district council areas which came together to form the unitary authority in April 2009.

The council’s head of environment, health and consumer protection, Joanne Waller, said: “Currently if a licensed hackney carriage driver picks up a passenger in for example Barnard Castle or Peterlee and takes that person to a place in another zone within the county, the driver is prevented from picking up a new fare from a taxi rank or by being hailed in the street, when they reach that destination.

“That not only means that empty vehicles are being driven needlessly all over the county, harming the environment and wasting fuel, but it also means that passengers wanting to get a taxi are not able to do so.

“By removing the zones we are bringing County Durham in line with many other counties and ensuring a better service for customers, improving accessibility to taxis at peak times in all areas and enabling operations of a system which is fairer to all taxi operators and to the environment.”

The council has been working with the licensed taxi trade for a number of years and a widespread consultation programme was held prior to the Cabinet adopting the new policy.

But the move proved unpopular with cabbies in Durham, who staged a number of go-slows through the city in protest, claiming it would lead to a “free for all” in the city centre.

The taxi drivers are also opposed to a colour policy which will force them all to drive white cabs.

Ms Waller said: “There have been some concerns raised by operators in Durham City that there is not enough rank space in the city and insufficient custom to go round.

“In response we have provided 15 new spaces after 6pm by extending the rank on Claypath and providing an additional rank in certain hours on Freeman’s Place.

“Clearly we will also be closely monitoring the situation and in the city itself we are using a pilot traffic order, which can be amended if required, so that we can measure how the new systems are working.”

Detailed leaflets outlining the new operating systems are being sent to licensed taxi trade members in Durham City and information for customers is being distributed across the county throughout a network of venues.

Posters are being placed at strategic points and the new scheme will be supported by an increased police presence and enforcement of road traffic and rank regulations where necessary, particularly where non-licensed vehicles are parked on ranks during restricted hours. In addition, the experimental traffic order in Durham City is designed to alleviate potential access issues on Claypath, where the rank will be extended.

Private-Hire Driver stripped of licence after alleged sex assault


A PRIVATE hire driver in Southampton has had his licence removed after an alleged serious sex assault.

Licensing chiefs revoked his licence after Ali Najafi, of Fullerton Place, Portswood, was arrested over the alleged assault on a vulnerable female passenger.

Mr Najafi, 27, was suspended and later had his licence revoked when licensing officers considered the evidence and ruled he was not a “fit and proper” person.

An appeal to the magistrates court was rejected by District Judge Lorraine Morgan who upheld the city council’s decision.

The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to bring separate criminal charges as the complainant was a vulnerable adult.

It is understood the alleged assault took place in a private hire car that was not fitted with a CCTV camera.

Mr Najafi had held his licence since September 2008.

He was unavailable for comment.

Hackney Carriage taxi limit removed



THE limit on the number of Hackney Carriages in Thurrock has been removed.

The current limit for the number of Hackney taxis in the borough is set at 100.

Concerns were raised that removing the limit would result in an influx of Hackney Carriages to the area.

Tunde Ojetola, ward councillor for south Chafford, said: “Yes there will be the possibility that Thurrock would have an influx of people without this licence.


“There will be active reforms brought back if we have a mass influx and this is not an attack on other licensed parties.”

The removal of the limit followed a review after three years to decide if it was in the interest of the public to keep it.

A Hackney Carriage can be a London style cab and will always have a fare meter as well as carrying a white local authority licence plate.

Leader of the council John Kent added: “If we have a limit on the amount we have we have to carry out a review every three years which costs the council £20,000 for the report.

“This will be a saving for us and we would not expect an increase in the number of Hackney Carriages.”

Wednesday 10 August 2011

Taxi and private hire vehicle meeting 4 August 2011




Those present

Anthony Ferguson, Chair DfT Buses and Taxis Division
Rachael Watson DfT Buses and Taxis Division
Pippa Brown DfT Buses and Taxis Division
Simon Woodward DfT Legal
Frances Patterson QC Law Commission
Jessica Uguccioni Law Commission
Dai Powell DPTAC
Bill Bowling National Limousine Association
Helen Chapman Transport for London
Kris Beuret National Association of Taxi Users
Bryan Roland National Private Hire Association
Tommy McIntyre Unite the Union
Miles Bebbington Institute of Licensing
Bob Oddy Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
David Wilson PHV Reform Group
Julian Francis London Taxi Company
John Miley NALEO



1. Anthony Ferguson opened the meeting by setting the context and describing current initiatives - the Red Tape Challenge, the Transport Select Committee’s report and the Law Commission’s review. He explained that the purpose of the meeting was to hear what people thought were the attractive elements of the existing legislative framework which they would like to see retained and to hear any constructive ideas about amending those elements which were undesirable.

2. Frances Patterson explained the background to the Law Commission generally and the taxi project specifically. She said that the Commission had a statutory remit to modernise and simplify legislation and that the taxi project met the Commission’s criteria for accepting into their programme of work. The review would have a deregulatory objective but other than that they had an open mind on the way forward. The Commission intended to consult in the Spring of 2012 and they intended to produce a report and draft Bill by late 2013.

3. Bryan Roland pointed out that the House of Lords had strongly criticised Part 2 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill during its passage in 1976; he expressed the hope that the new legislation would be fit for purpose.

4. David Wilson said that he mainly represented PHV operators; he thought that many of them would prefer to see a single tier licensing system.

5. Kris Beuret welcomed the Law Commission’s review; she was pleased that her organisation had been invited and hoped the Commission would engage with her as she thought that the consumer’s voice had been overlooked in recent years in relation to taxis.

6. Myles Bebbington highlighted the “deregulatory objective” mentioned by Frances Patterson and asked how the balance would be struck between relieving burdens from business yet ensuring public safety. Frances Patterson recognised that getting that balance right was a central part of the project.

7. Anthony Ferguson asked the representatives which elements of the existing legislative framework they thought were good and should be retained.

8. John Miley highlighted local authorities’ ability to ensure that drivers were safe; he thought that there should be a consistent level of checking across the country – Enhanced Disclosures for all taxi//PHV drivers and a consistent standard of medical check.

9. Helen Chapman agreed that ensuring driver safety was vital – and an ability to check that vehicles were safe.

10. Bryan Roland thought that the existing system was so flawed as to contain nothing which was desirable to retain; he thought that allowing 300plus local authorities to invent their own conditions was inherently problematic and his aspiration was a new licensing system which set national parameters.

11. Bill Bowling thought that limousine drivers and vehicles must be checked.

12. Kris Beuret thought that the concept of accessibility for people with disabilities must be retained; taxis were a vital form of transport for many disabled people. She also acknowledged, though, that there was no real consensus, even amongst disabled people, about what constitutes an appropriate policy on accessibility.

13. Helen Chapman thought there should be a national standard for what constitutes “accessibility” for taxis.

14. David Wilson raised the question of who might administer taxis and PHVs under new legislation; he thought that local authorities could retain the role, but with more in the way of national standards – he saw no need for a new “taxi licensing commission”.

15. David Wilson also thought that chauffeurs were overlooked under the present licensing system. And he referred to the practice whereby Bed and Breakfast businesses, particularly in rural areas ran their own unofficial and unlicensed PHVs – simply because tourists needed the transport and it was unprofitable for licensed PHVs.

16. Dai Powell wanted to retain the concept of taxis and PHVs being an important element of public transport.

17. Tommy McIntyre welcomed the review. He thought that the way forward was to specify some national standards – possibly even a “national taxi badge” – he suggested looking at some of the sensible taxi byelaws around the country and drawing on them might be helpful. He thought that taxi licensing should be locally financed with local accountability.

18. John Miley thought it important that effective levels of enforcement were possible under any new licensing regime. He agreed that there should be local accountability.

19. Myles Bebbington stressed the importance of setting licence fees so as to cover costs and not make a profit.

20. Bryan Roland said that taxis and PHVs had not been part of “public transport” since 1981. That was part of the reason why they were never covered in Local Transport Plans. He raised the problem of licence fee rates and pointed to variations in licence fees around the country from £45 to £450.

21. Myles Bebbington thought it might be helpful to look at recent approaches to licensing in other areas eg The Licensing Act 2003 and gambling legislation. He thought the most appropriate approach was national standards administered locally – with a national fee structure (in the gambling legislation, the fees were set in “bands”).

22. David Wilson thought that a “national taxi badge” was a sensible way forward, but queried how enforcement might be financed; he mooted the idea of fixed penalty notices.

23. David Wilson queried why taxi rank provision should come out of taxi licence fees; he thought they should be provided out of wider local authority transport planning funds.

24. Bryan Roland pointed out that there was a fixed national fee for an MoT test – so thought that it should be possible to set a national fixed fee for a taxi test.

25. Bryan Roland also noted that under the Local Government (Miscellaneous provisions) Act 1976 responsibility for appointing stands lay with districts, but they needed permission from the Highway Authority and most districts were not Highway Authorities.

26. Kris Beuret thought it important to retain the concept of the “black cab” by which she meant a purpose build and recognisable vehicle which she thought gave comfort and reassurance to passengers.

27. Myles Bebbington agreed that there was a need for a clearly recognisable vehicle as a taxi.

28. Anthony Ferguson then asked representatives what they thought should be done differently under a new legislative framework.

29. Dai Powell thought that the legislation had not dealt adequately with accessibility issues; he wanted licensing authorities to have a better understanding of what sort of accessible vehicles were available and to see greater consistency of approach.

30. Kris Beuret pointed out that deciding what “accessibility” actually meant was problematic in itself; it went much further than people in wheelchairs – even disabled people were divided about what constituted an a satisfactory level of accessibility.

31. Bill Bowling wanted to see a much greater focus on maintenance of vehicles; he thought that the maximum three tests per year in the 1976 Act was inadequate and that the new legislation should include a dedicated inspection and maintenance regime.

32. David Wilson thought it important that licensing officers should be allowed to inspect vehicles from other areas which came into their district.

33. David Wilson also wanted to see the current restriction on PHV operators sub-contracting to operators in other districts removed.

34. David Wilson also suggested that if a two tier system were to be retained, all PHVs should carry a roof sign saying “Advance bookings only”.

35. Tommy McIntyre stressed the importance of effective enforcement, particularly across borders; he described the arrangements in Merseyside where five licensing authorities had agreed a concordat that they could enforce against all the vehicles and drivers licensed by any of those five licensing authorities.

36. Myles Bebbington pointed out that an enforcement officer in Area A would not necessarily know the conditions which were applicable in Area B, where a visiting driver was actually licensed.

37. Myles Bebbington also thought it vital that the new legislation was absolutely clear about which vehicles should be subject to licensing.

38. Bryan Roland thought the licensing and enforcement process required a high degree of expertise and suggested that licensing officers should have a specialist qualification.

39. Bryan Roland also queried the current position whereby there was no statutory obligation on drivers to clamp wheelchairs into place; he referred to two accidents which had arisen because the wheelchairs were not secured and thought this should be covered in a new law.

40. Bryan Roland also mentioned the issue of roof signs on PHVs. He thought that in daytime, they were fine. But at night an illuminated roof sign – regardless of the wording on it – acted as an invitation to passengers to approach the vehicle and ask the driver directly for a hiring.

41. Kris Beuret wanted to see better training within the industry which she thought would raise the overall image of the trade; she thought that such training could extend beyond customer care into running a small business.

42. Bryan Roland said that a new qualification was just about to go live and that a transport academy was being established. His vision for the longer term was a CPC for taxi drivers – similar to that which applied to bus drivers – possibly denoted by a “T1” category on the holder’s DVLA driving licence.

43. Myles Bebbington stressed the importance of effective enforcement being dependent upon various enforcement agencies interacting with each other; he mentioned in particular the importance of licensing officers being able to get information from DVLA.

44. Tommy McIntyre thought that there should be a qualification which applicants should achieve before entering the trade.

45. David Wilson highlighted the difficulties facing licensing authorities when fixing a table of fares for taxis; should the tariff be fixed at a level which properly recompensed the owners of brand new wheelchair accessible vehicles – in which case the people who stood to gain most from that would be the owners of older saloon cars whose costs were lower and who actually provided a worse service for passengers? It would not be possible to set a higher tariff for wheelchair accessible vehicles because that would have a direct discriminatory effect on the disabled people who had to use them. He thought it was easier to set a tariff where all taxis were wheelchair accessible or all were saloon cars. He stressed that he was not advocating a particular approach; he was simply raising the fact that it was a hugely problematic issue.

46. Bryan Roland said that there was a difference of £4.00 between the highest and lowest local authority fares (for a two mile journey). He thought that setting fares should remain a local function. He referred specifically to Chelmsford where the local authority had recognised that most journeys were around two miles so they decided to set a tariff which benefitted drivers who undertook these two mile journeys; the rate for subsequent miles was comparatively lower than many other areas.

47. Kris Beuret thought it problematic when local authorities adopted this “front-loading” approach to fixing fares as many disabled people travelled only short distances in taxis and this approach had a disproportionate effect on them. She also thought that plate values which were a feature of areas which a limit on the number of taxis distorted taxi fares.

48. John Miley thought that the setting of taxi fares must remain a local function; he thought it adequate that the proposed fares had to be advertised and that people could make representations about them.

49. John Miley also thought it anomalous that taxi operators were not licensed.

50. Tommy McIntyre rebutted Kris Beuret’s point about fares being distorted in areas with quantity controls; he said that Liverpool had a policy of controlling taxi numbers but it also had relatively low fares. He thought that the setting of numerical limits must remain with local authorities.

51. Dai Powell asked the Law Commission whether they would be looking at taxi licensing systems in other European countries. Frances Patterson said that they had an open mind about looking at other systems of licensing.

52. Helen Chapman raised the problem faced by licensing authorities when people applied for taxi/PHV driver licences but had been out of the country for some years; it was difficult to get any information about their criminal backgrounds – proper links were needed with other countries for this purpose.

53. Anthony Ferguson asked Helen Chapman whether she thought that, under a new legislative framework, there was any real need to perpetuate the distinction between London and the rest of the country.

54. Helen Chapman thought that London was different from other licensing areas – not least in terms of numbers of drivers (85,000). She thought it possible though that London could fit in with a national model – if the model was the right one. She stressed the importance of consistency and portability.

55. Kris Beuret thought that the review needed to take account of new technology; smart phones etc were changing the way in which taxis and PHVs were booked.

56. David Wilson raised the issue of CRB checks; he said that in response to his own recent survey there were 208,000 vehicle licences in issue and 313,000 driver licences. This, he thought, indicated strongly that many drivers had acquired driver licences in more than one area – and the problem was that each of those drivers would have had to get a separate CRB checks for each of the licence applications.

57. Myles Bebbington said that a scenario of three CRB checks in three months was not uncommon – a Standard Disclosure for a PHV driver licence in Area A; a Standard Disclosure for a PHV driver licence in Area B and an Enhanced Disclosure in order to undertake a school contract.

58. Bryan Roland thought that part of the problem was that a body which receives a CRB check in order to make a decision must destroy the information once that decision had been made. He said that the licensing authorities and trade were still awaiting new guidelines from the Home Office.

59. Bill Bowling highlighted what he regarded as a loophole in the wider legislation which allowed a person to drive a 16 seat bus even though they had been refused a PHV driver licence on account of an unacceptable CRB check.

60. Myles Bebbington pointed to the fact that under the Licensing Act 2003, members of a licensing panel must have been trained accordingly; he thought that this sort of provision should be built into any new taxi licensing system.

61. Bryan Roland thought that there should be consistency of approach with regard to medical checks for taxi driver licence applicants – he suggested that all applicants should be subject to a Group 2 medical assessment.

62. Anthony Ferguson said that he foresaw a situation where a new Act of Parliament would contain a number of powers to make secondary legislation or to provide guidance to licensing authorities. Frances Patterson agreed that this was the likely format for new legislation; she thought it likely, though, that when the Law Commission reported, they would have some suggestions about what might be included in the secondary legislation and guidance.



Buses and Taxis Division
August 2011

Friday 5 August 2011

Teenager assaulted in Sale by "taxi" driver

Teenager assaulted in Sale by "taxi" driver



Image released by police Police are looking for an Asian man with dark hair and stubble

A 19-year-old woman was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver after he dropped her off at a house in Sale.

The teenager was picked up outside Tiger Tiger in Manchester city centre in the early hours of 26 July.

The driver took her to a house on Alexandra Road and started talking to her on the street before sexually assaulting her.

She ran off and the offender drove away. Police have released an image of the man they want to trace.

He is described as Asian, about 5ft 8in (1.7m) tall and with dark hair and stubble.

Pc Kenneth McMahon said: "The victim thought and rightly expected that the driver was going to help her get home safely, instead he took advantage of her and sexually assaulted her.

"She is understandably upset by what has happened and I want anyone who recognises the driver from this image to get in touch."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14417932
_________________

Monday 18 July 2011

The report - is a load of boll ox

Having just read the embargoed report, it is in my humble opinion a waste of taxpayers money. There may be some tinkering round the edges, but basically, it all stays the same.
You can read the report HERE!! CLICK HERE!!

Sunday 17 July 2011

The road to reform - report due Tuesday 19th July 2011

 Taken from: MRBLACKCAB FORUM Manchester.




The clock is ticking. Tuesday am will tell us what is to happen to our trade.

I initially feared the worst; I felt that it would result in deregulation and a single tier licence allowing private hire cars to operate like Hackney’s.

The whole select committee process was the result of Unite Liverpool constantly complaining about Delta cars Sefton working out of their area and having cars parked AWAITING bookings in Liverpool centre. Liverpool Licensing have a much better enforcement policy than Manchester, they operate large operations monthly and publish the results of those operations to the PUBLIC, thus reassuring everybody that professional operations and the drivers involved are quite safe.

What I failed to realize was the power and influence some of the big private hire operators have. We should have been warned, last year when the equality bill was being debated, the effects to private hire were suddenly withdrawn at the Lords stage of enactment. How much did that cost to do, what arrangements were made? Whatever the price.. What a great result..

The big boys in the private hire trade were the last to give evidence at the select committee. Three in particular were INVITED to appear and assist the committee. The were Griffin (Addison Lee), Mc Laughlin (Delta Cars) and Shanks (Blueline Newcastle).

I realize now that a single tier licence would have wiped out these companies and every other PH company in the country, why would anybody pay £100 a week subs when their was no need. The following guys gave oral evidence to the committee and whilst I am a cab man and generally in opposition to PH, I am reluctant to say they gave good account of themselves and I feel held some sway over the Committee.

I have selected (cut and paste) some of the remarks which caught my eye, I have marked in bold salient points. Read for yourself and let me know what you think.


Q62 Chair: Do you accept that your activities have affected taxis in Liverpool adversely?

Paul McLaughlin: I think they have affected the hackney industry per se, but the individuals within that industry haven’t been affected in the same way as you might think. There was a rather important question asked about the livelihood that Mr Maynard made earlier. He asked the question whether any hackney drivers had left the industry and the answer from the Unite the Union was no. I strongly dispute that. There are hundreds and hundreds of drivers who have left the hackney carriage industry to work with a different business model. Those drivers are joining Delta on an almost daily basis and they do a different style of working within exactly the same area.

Q64 Chair: Mr Shanks, what effect has the prohibition on subcontracting of bookings to a private hire operator in a different district had on you?
Ian Shanks: A little bit like Mr McLaughlin here, we are 57 yards the other side of a boundary. Some 75% to 80% of our business is in Newcastle where we aren’t licensed, and it causes a huge amount of difficulties. Again, we have been through various High Court cases and we just want national standards with local control. We would like the Committee here to look at trying to roll out what we have in London, because if it is good enough for one third of this country’s trade, we would like it for the other two thirds.

Q65 Chair: Mr Griffin, would widespread subcontracting be likely to lead to the biggest private hire firms controlling a network of smaller operators?
John Griffin: We can subcontract nationally if we choose to, and we do. If we have a pickup in the north of England, we have reciprocal arrangements with other companies in the north and we will use them because it is sensible to do so. What I would like to say is that during these discussions what we are missing out here is a very important ingredient, which is the impact as a transport industry we have on pollution. It is very important to understand that. Drivers driving around empty, going back to bases where they are polluting the environment, is a very serious issue. In London alone there are 4,000 premature deaths entirely related to pollution from motor cars. We have to look at revisiting the whole licensing strategy and the impact it has on our society in pollution terms.
What we should be considering is having a national standard, controlled by local interests, but we should have the vehicles tested in Ministry of Transport-MOT-stations. They should be trained up to do the work. They would be delighted to have it. They would charge more for it. It would work. I believe that we just need to revisit the whole thing because the way that we are approaching it is becoming so Dickensian. Everything I hear today underlines that.
What are we dealing with here? If we are dealing with service to the public, then a person driving back empty to a location for some spurious reason does not in any way contribute to that. We need to look at that. We need to look at the impact that person driving empty back to base has on our atmosphere. We need to address that. We have a responsibility to do that. That is very important and it should be number one on the agenda here today.
From my point of view, we are not in any way offended by what is going on in the provinces. It is not what concerns us. We have an open house in London which works very well. The service is very good; it means we compete very fairly. Everybody is under the same restrictions, has to meet the same criteria and it works. Nationally there is no reason why that shouldn’t work. There is no reason why we should go back to these archaic conditions. Everything that we do in London works and I recommend the rest of the country takes it on board.
The idea that one authority is trying to find some magical financial interest in lowering the standards for financial gain is unacceptable. Let’s tell these people, "This is the standard. Comply with it. Do whatever it takes to make sure it happens", and after that let anybody who wants to pick up anybody, as long as he is licensed and he has the credentials to do so, do it. Don’t restrict him.

Q66 Kwasi Kwarteng: There are two issues here. There is one about the standards in terms of a national standard and then there is the separate issue of where people operate. What you are saying is you would have a national standard and allow everyone to operate anywhere.

John Griffin: Absolutely.
Q67 Kwasi Kwarteng: But a lot of other people are suggesting that there should be some sort of local licensing.

John Griffin: Why?

Q68 Kwasi Kwarteng: From a personal point of view, I am inclined to agree with you, but I want to put that case forward. People would say that there is a certain way that a local authority works in terms of transport with localized licenses. You have no truck with that argument.

John Griffin: None at all. That is where we are and that is where we need to leave from. We need to put that behind us. We need to revisit the whole strategy. What are we trying to achieve here? Are we taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut? Is this a problem? Where is the evidence for this problem? The evidence we see before us is that there is a great deal of pollution being gathered and drivers are being disadvantaged because they could earn money they are denied. The whole thing is a nonsense; it really is. It’s pathetic.

We need to look at the whole strategy. There are vested interests here and those vested interests have to be told, "We have bigger interests than you." We have this whole question of pollution; we have the service to the public and the levels of that. All of that is an issue.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Your position is very clear. Thank you very much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul McLaughlin: Could I add something more on the standards, using Liverpool and Sefton as a point of comparison? You will have read in the Liverpool City Council submission that Liverpool operates higher standards than some authorities. They were careful not to mention Sefton but they might have. We’d be forgiven for inferring they might have been referring to the neighboring authority to which they were losing drivers. In the case of Sefton in comparison with Liverpool, I think it is important to mention CRB Enhanced 2 on both sides of the border; the medical is exactly the same standard. There is practically no difference, except for the knowledge test.
If you look at how the customers have responded to those standards, of course the area we operate in-Merseyside-is 200 square miles of people all descending on one tiny city centre, which is a quarter of a square mile. Everybody then comes back out of that quarter of a square mile city centre. It is reasonable to assume that, if thousands of people are using Delta to go into that city centre, when they come back they have the option of using a locally licensed cab or they can ring the firm that took them in there. Because the amount of work we are doing has become so apparent now, over the recent years, out of the 8.5 million bookings we do, 1.25 million bookings last year were within one quarter of a square mile. I would argue that we couldn’t have generated the custom for 1.25 million people to be asking us to pick them up if we hadn’t maintained standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q33 Kwasi Kwarteng: I have looked through your written evidence and, sure, I think there should be national standards applied; I completely understand that argument. But the word that comes across a lot in this is the "low" standards, yet there is no real description of what these "low" standards are. Could you give me a bit more colour on that, perhaps,

Q50 Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sorry, but can I just be a devil’s advocate? I use cabs all the time, certainly in my constituency, and I would not be able to tell you what make of car they were. Generally, I get to where I want to; generally, they use satnav. I wouldn’t be able to tell you where they were licensed. I just use a cab and I get from A to B, and that experience is pretty much the same every time I use it. When you say to us that this will be a much better experience, I am still trying to get my head round that. I am not denying what you are saying, but I am just trying to understand how a better trained car driver is going to make my experience better. That’s all I’m saying.

Tommy McIntyre( UNITE) Could I just go on a bit with my answer? Our licensing officer is here so you will be able to ask him the same question later on, if he sees any difference. But certainly from our side, talking to people, they say, "It was brilliant. I got in the cab and the driver started talking about architecture and things like that", when they were going through the city. "Did you realize what this building was or what that building was?"

Kwasi Kwarteng: I travel at night.

Tommy McIntyre: They have lights on these buildings.

Chair: Can we keep the answers short? (Chair is a UNITE Member assisting McIntyre)

Kwasi Kwarteng (MP) I just want to get from A to B. I don’t really want an architectural experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy McIntyre: All we are saying is that that vehicle shouldn’t stop there. I have tried to say from day one that we are not trying to restrict the traveling public. My wife or anybody else’s wife can order a cab from wherever they want to. For argument’s sake, if I was in Liverpool and I am dropping off in Manchester, if I haven’t got a fare, then I would have to return back. But if, while I was going to Manchester, over the radio system I got another job, fine; there is absolutely no problem with that. What we are talking about is the guy or the girl, when they have finished doing the job, sitting in a neighboring borough, in some cases for several hours.

Q39 Mr. Leech(MP Manchester) That’s the issue about whether or not it is enforceable. How do you prove that Mr X has taken a job from Manchester to Stockport and he just happens to be waiting for the next fare which isn’t for another 10 minutes, so he is just waiting on the street for that next fare back? How do you actually enforce that change?

Tommy McIntyre: It’s so simple now with the event of satnavs and the way satellites work these days. All the data heads in a cab or private hire vehicle show where that vehicle was sent to and, indeed, will show if he is booked to do anything else. All licensing officers are trained to be able to get in that vehicle and read that machine. That is exactly where it would come from. An enforcement officer would look in and say, "You are sitting here. You have been here for half an hour or whatever. You haven’t got a job. Why are you sitting here?"

Q40 Mr Leech: The answer could be, "Well, I am actually on my break. I just happen to be here on my break."
Tommy McIntyre: "Take your break in your own area", I would have said.

Q11 Mr Leech (Manchester) : Mr McIntyre, I can understand your argument for wanting to make the change and, certainly, on the comment that Mr Rix made about Berwick Council licensing taxis that were operating in Paignton, clearly that is ridiculous and the enforcement of those taxis would be incredibly difficult. But in certain areas, and I will use my own constituency as an example, my constituency borders both Stockport on one side and Trafford on the other side, and there are private hire operators who are based in Manchester but incredibly close to the border with Stockport or the border with Trafford on the other side. Surely, in terms of customers who might live on the Stockport side of the border as opposed to the Manchester side of the border, they may be disadvantaged in certain circumstances if a taxi base is very close to their house but on the wrong side of the border. Wouldn’t it be better to have an area within which a base could operate as opposed to necessarily just the local authority?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa....0-i/uc72001.htm

After reading this evidence and the replies from the Committee members I believe that the forthcoming report will recommend a National Private hire licence for both Drivers and vehicles. Local authority licenses for Operating bases. I also believe they will de-limit all taxis in area’s where a limit still exists.

The whole report talks about the difficulties in taking enforcement action because of costs, ability or inclination. The answer to this is, if you cant stop the crime, decriminalize, stop it being an offence.

The report will be the first step of a huge argument across the nation. As Griffin says in his evidence “There are vested interests here and those vested interests have to be told, "We have bigger interests than you.”

Please read the full report and let me know if I have it all wrong.