The Anderson Shelter

London 2012: Olympic Route Network - Taxi fare hike concerns

2012-01-27T15:01:00.000Z

Taxi driver Russell Hall, founder of hailocab.com, fears taxi fares will increase four-fold because of the time spent in clogged traffic as a result of the Olympic Route Network.

Taxi driver Russell Hall

"I've been a taxi driver for 27 years. As the son of a taxi driver, who's married to a taxi driver, taxi driver's blood runs through my veins.

The Olympics is the biggest event in the world - far bigger than the 1966 World Cup.

It's a massive event for London, and we'd like to help make it a success.

I can't see how transportation can happen without the assistance of the London taxi trade.

We're part of London and we need to be involved with what's going on. We need to be spoken to.

We played a big part in getting the Olympics to London with the Back the Bid campaign. In 2004 it was promised that we'd be involved and now it looks like we can't use the Games Lanes.

Park Lane nightmare

There are murmurings that there could be further demonstrations by taxi drivers. There isn't a London cab driver that wants to hold anyone to ransom. We just want the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Lord Coe to meet us and talk through the issue.

Park Lane is a major thoroughfare, and due to the IOC and VIPs being based in the hotels there - from Marylebone Road and down into the city is going to be a complete nightmare.

Travelling to the Games from the West End, or main stations like St Pancras, Euston and Paddington will be difficult.

Cab fares will increase four-fold because of the time spent in clogged traffic as we won't be allowed to use the Games Lanes.

Customers will be sent on lengthy diversions and it doesn't have to be like that.

I don't see what the problem is with letting taxis use the lanes to get to the Olympic Park. If people want to get from central London, Heathrow or St Pancras to the Games I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to use the Games Lanes.

I've suggested a taxi-share scheme that could involve all London cabs - four or five people in a cab from a station to the Olympic Park at a fixed price.

None of the drivers who are members of the black taxi company I've set up - which has 2,700 members and is growing every day - agree with the idea of putting up taxi fares during the Games. We won't be taking a three-week break during the Olympics either - we'll be here trying to earn a living.

Talk is cheap; money pays our wages."

What are your thoughts on transport during the London 2012

All is Not Well, at the Comic....

2012-01-26T14:16:00.000Z

The LTDA's bi-weekly propaganda rag seems to have found itself in big trouble over the past few months.

First came the unexpected departure of the editor, Stuart Pessok, then an unexplained different tact where its target of lies and spin moved over from the RMT London Taxi branch, to the United Cabby's Group.

Well we can now give a brief outline on why this change in team and target, has taken place.
Quite simply, the legal team representing the RMT has sent out letters to the magazine, the editor, the publishers and the printers and informed them that if they published any more lies, they would be held personally responsible and action will be taken against them. Pessok as editor, was informed he would be held accountable for the many unsigned attacks in Taxi.

After Stuart Pessok received his letter he immediately resigned.

Persons applying for the job advertised in the last few issues, after being informed of their personal responsibilities and when told of the RMT threat, changed their minds and poor old Alf Townsend has been dragged out of retirement to fill the gap on a temporary basis.

Advertisers drop out:
More damaging though is the fact that big names who normally advertise over many pages in the Taxi Mag have pulled their support, with this weeks issue substantially reduce (bigger Photos on Articles and less pages) due to the lack of advertising support.

The magazine has recently had to reduce its print run, as copies are left in drop bins for weeks on end. Complaints have been made by BAA as copies are strewn across the floor. This has been picked up by four of its biggest customers and so, in the latest issue, no adverts for Get Taxi, Hailo, Verifone and Mercedes Vito.

Good news however is that the UCG will be extending the next issues of United Cabby News print run by 25% and as usual will endeavour to hand copies direct to drivers at ranks all over London.

SACK BORIS...by Dave Davies

2012-01-25T16:50:00.002Z

It has been shown on many different issues that TFL will never act in accordance with Public Law; it is human nature that people will often do what they can get away with. It is clearly the case that no one seems to hold TFL or The Mayor to account so they will continue to act in the same way until action is taken to stop them.

We have seen what it is blatantly corrupt and unlawful action yet absolutely nothing is done. In fact not only is no action taken by the powers that be, but the media seems to deliberately avoid exposing what is taking place. I have spoken to many journalists about these issues and have been told that investigations are ongoing, but there seems to be something happening to stop the issues being widely reported.

David Cameron said last week that his number one objective for 2012 is to help Boris get re-elected. Surely the Prime Minister should be focussed on more important issues than getting his buddy re-elected ? He has recently criticised cronyism yet he is the worst culprit. Boris has an appalling record as Mayor; The Environmental Audit Committee gave a damming report about emissions in London , which have caused more than 4000 deaths and these deaths are directly attributable to the Mayors unlawful and improper strategies.

TFL has existed unchecked as a corrupt body which receives £9.6 billion a year in public funds yet is accountable to no one; the Government says The Mayor is responsible and he does nothing so is it the case that he is either grossly incompetent or as corrupt as TFL themselves ?.

The Mayor has implemented an Age Limit which will see many older owner drivers being put out of work. Many of these drivers were relying on the last couple of years of work or on part time work as their pension. Those drivers are now out of work without a pension; surely they deserve the support of the entire taxi trade?

The Age Limit strategy is aimed at reducing emissions and yet it will do nothing to reduce emissions. The Mayor has done this with no research and his decisions are unlawful. He seems to forget that it is the drivers themselves who are exposed to the pollution in London more than anyone else; they are sat in it for many hours every day of their working life. Taxi drivers are as keen as anyone to improve emissions but would surely want cost effective strategies put in place which will actually reduce emissions;

A peak time delivery ban could stop commercial vehicles from blocking London’s streets. If commercial vehicles delivered at off peak times then their emissions could be reduced by 80% because emissions are caused when a vehicle stops and starts. Instead of banning deliveries at peak times TFL has banned night time deliveries-the exact opposite of what needed to be done.
Stop smaller delivery and other vehicles from blocking a lane of traffic. How many times have you seen a huge tailback of traffic caused by a van or truck making a delivery without a care in the world for the hundreds of people they are holding up ? This situation creates a huge amount of pollution yet TFL continue to allow it to happen
Manage roadwork’s in a more effective way. How many times have you sat in a tailback for a long time only to find the cause is a section of road closed with no actual work taking place or if there is work taking place it comprises of a couple of guys leaning on their shovel? Roadworks should be carried out off peak with a sense of urgency.
Proper and effective emissions projects for taxis instead of half baked ideas which only exist for political gain.

The Mayor continues to insult the intelligence of taxi drivers. He seems to forget that taxi drivers have to take the knowledge test; something that many people including him may not have the brain power to do. He seems to forget that as a result of the stringent requirements to be a London Taxi driver that they have an excellent worldwide reputation for providing a professional service, which many other capital cities do not have the benefit of. He seems to forget that it was the support of the thousands of taxi drivers with their ’Back Boris ‘ campaign which helped him to get elected.

Perhaps it is time for London Taxi drivers to remind him of these things?
Perhaps a ‘ Sack Boris’ campaign and a campaign to support a Mayoral candidate who is going to address the serious issues of the improper action of TFL and support the taxi drivers in return?
Perhaps it is time for the London Taxi Trade to unite and take action to make sure that the corrupt and improper actions of The Mayor and TFL are reported fully?

Perhaps a mass demonstration with the sole purpose of exposing the Mayor and TFL for what they are is what is needed?

A Clear Strategy Behind A Demo....by David Davies.

London Taxi Drivers are being subjected to many improper and unlawful decisions by TFL which include access to the Olympic Routes, the Age Limit on Taxis and failed enforcement and regulation of private hire law to name but a few.

The crux of the matter is not these individual issues by themselves, it is the body that is making these improper and unlawful decisions; Transport for London.

There seems to be an identity crisis at TFL.

It had an annual budget for 2010-11 of £9.6 BILLION of taxpayers’ money yet it seems to think of itself as a private corporation which is not subject to any of the legal requirements for the conduct of a public body. It is required by law to conduct proper research and have a proper process to make decisions and about its policies and practices. It is clear that TFL has not done this on many occasions, which is not an opinion it’s a fact.

A good example is the Age Limit.

The Department of Transport advises against an age limit because there is no evidence that older vehicles create more pollution. TFL have conducted absolutely no testing to show that older taxis create more pollution and in fact by their own standards they say that all taxis are at least Euro 3, which means that 16000 taxis are Euro 3 and the rest Euro 4. How can it therefore be a proper and legal decision to implement an age limit when TFL has not complied with the legal process to make that decision?

In addition TFL allows many improper situations to exist.

An example of this is the fact that, Bob Oddy who was supposed to represent the interests of the LTDA and challenge TFL on issues that his organisation and members objects to, is a MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TFL where he is supposed to represent the Taxi trade as a whole. How can that possibly not be a conflict of interest?

Confidentiality agreement.

I have recently been told that when PCO staff were made redundant they were forced to sign a confidentiality agreement to prevent them disclosing information about improper conduct that had taken place.

How can it be correct practice for a Public Body to effectively bribe ex employees to keep quiet?

The demonstrations therefore should not be about any one unlawful or improper decision that has been made. It should be about the unlawful and improper organisation that has made them; TFL.

If the demonstrations continue to be about any one individual bad decision or policy implemented by TFL then all that will ever happen is that compromised solutions will be made to appease the Taxi Drivers for these individual issues. That is all well and good until the next bad decision.

Reason behind Demo.

The campaign needs to be for a complete regime change at TFL.

It needs to call for the sacking of its chairman, Boris Johnston.

Taxi Drivers helped the election campaign for Boris in 2008, in the hope that he would deliver fair and proper decisions and policies.

I want to deliver those changes that Londoners, and visitors to the city, tell us they want to see: a cleaner city with safer streets, better transport, and good quality affordable housing.

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson

Setting the vision and developing strategies to deliver it

The Mayor is in charge of setting the overall vision for the capital and draws up strategies and policies to deliver the vision.’’

http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor

The Mayor has repaid the Taxi Drivers support by implementing strategies and policies which have had a direct negative impact on Taxi Drivers. As chairman of TFL he has allowed LTPH to act improperly and not enforce proper enforcement of Private Hire regulations. He has conducted a report which says 4267 people a year are dying from pollution in London and that 30% of that is attributable to Taxis. He has implemented no proper strategies to improve emissions in London, there are many things that could be done to significantly reduce emissions in a simple and common sense way.

1. A peak time delivery ban could stop commercial vehicles from blocking London’s streets. If commercial vehicles delivered at off peak times then their emissions could be reduced by 80% because emissions are caused when a vehicle stops and starts. Instead of banning deliveries at peak times TFL has banned night time deliveries-the exact opposite of what needed to be done.

2. Stop smaller delivery and other vehicles from blocking a lane of traffic. How many times have you seen a huge tailback of traffic caused by a van or truck making a delivery without a care in the world for the hundreds of people they are holding up ? This situation creates a huge amount of pollution yet TFL continue to allow it to happen

3. Manage roadwork’s in a more effective way. How many times have you sat in a tailback for a long time only to find the cause is a section of road closed with no actual work taking place or if there is work taking place it comprises of a couple of guys leaning on their shovel? Roadworks should be carried out off peak with a sense of urgency.

These are just a few examples of what could be done.

Instead Boris is implementing ridiculous and ineffective strategies like an age limit or taxi idling which will have no effect on reducing emissions.

The Mayor has used PR to create the impression that Taxis are creating pollution and he is going to clean it up. He has actually mocked London Assembly members when they have challenged him on his failed emissions strategies. He is mocking the taxi drivers who helped him get elected by the decisions he has implemented.

The Taxi drivers need to use PR to show that they are the people suffering from his flawed emissions strategies; they sit in this pollution day in day out and are keen to clean it up but want to do so in an effective way.

Taxi Drivers need to have a clear and defined strategy as to what they are demonstrating about. In my view it should be to campaign for The Chairman of TFL (Boris) to be sacked and for a Public Inquiry into his failed strategies which have resulted in 4267 deaths each year from pollution.

He has overseen the improper and unlawful conduct of TFL. He is the person that is ultimately responsible and he is the person that Taxi Drivers should make the subject of their campaign. One of the reasons that the Taxi trade has not successfully challenged TFL is because it has not been united. If a particular issue does not affect a driver then he will not campaign against it.

The fact is that the conduct of the Mayor in allowing TFL to make improper and unlawful decisions will affect every single Taxi Driver in some way and that is why he needs to be the subject of any campaign. I am sure if this is done then the Taxi Demonstrations will receive huge support from the media and public.

Instead of the demonstrations being seen as an inconvenience they will be seen as a valid objective for people who want to see the cleaner and safer London that Mayor promised and has not delivered.

Please see the article below written in 2009 highlighting the improper pay at TFL . It was then reported this year the figure for TFL employees earning more than £100k had risen to 379. It has increased significantly after previous assurances were given 2 years ago that this would be addressed.The pay of tube drivers is cut and the number of employees paid in excess of £100k is increased by a huge margin? This is a clear indicator that TFL is not managed in compliance of Public Law and the question again is why?

In my view TFL is corrupt and should be exposed.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23709698-15-tfl-managers-earn-more-than-pm.do

Link to recent article showing 379 TFL £100k a year employees

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13933599

15 TfL managers earn more than PM

Andrew Gilligan
19 Jun 2009

The number of Transport for London managers earning more than £100,000 rose by a third in Boris Johnson's first year as Mayor, new figures out next week will show.

The Standard has learned that 163 TfL officials were paid six-figure salaries in 2008/9 - 40 more than the previous year.

The figure will be contained in the organisation's annual report, to be published on Tuesday.

When staff at Metronet and Crossrail - also now part of TfL - are included, the number of six-figure-earners rises to 231, almost double what it was two years ago.

TfL's top earner last year - Commissioner Peter Hendy - collected a base salary and bonus of £494,884, or £9,500 a week.

This is more than twice as much as the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, and almost four times as much as the Mayor. Mr Hendy's bonus alone was £146,440, more than the Mayor's entire salary.

Freedom of Information requests by the Evening Standard established that 15 TfL managers, including the director of marketing, earn more than the Prime Minister.

Of the 46 most highly paid officials, only 16 are directly involved in operating services.

The number of TfL staff earning over £50,000 has also risen from 1,954 to 2,565 in a year. When Metronet and Crossrail are included, the number of £50,000 earners goes up to 4,204, a seventh of the workforce.

The new figures are likely to prove highly embarrassing as TfL fights a damaging pay dispute with Tube drivers, which led to the strike last week.

Even TfL's 2007/8 total of big earners was condemned as "excessive". That year the Treasury, responsible for the entire UK economy, employed only 15 staff on salaries of £100,000 or above.

TfL today blamed an above-inflation pay deal agreed by the previous Mayor, Ken Livingstone, for the dramatic rises and said that the salaries of Mr Hendy and other top managers had been frozen in the current financial year.

Their bonus pot has also been reduced. Several hundred TfL staff are affected by the freeze.

Mr Johnson said: "In these tough economic times, it is right to freeze the salaries of TfL's management and reduce bonus levels."

But he defended the rises of previous years, saying: "It is also right that TfL has the calibre of people needed to deliver a huge work programme, including upgrading the Tube and building Crossrail."

TfL said that the number of six-figure earners represented only 0.8 per cent of its 28,000 workforce and insisted that top salaries at the organisation had to compete with those paid at private-sector transport companies such as Stagecoach and First Group.

Mr Hendy said: "We continue to seek efficiencies across the organisation. It is vital we have an experienced and capable management team to deliver that."

TfL has said it is committed to finding £2.4billion of savings over the next nine years.

The target has caused clashes with the workforce, with Tube unions claiming that up to 3,000 jobs could be axed and demanding a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies.

The whole operations of London Underground and TFL needs to be scrutinised,there have also been rumours of corruption around contracts for many years.
Andrew,as a respected and feared investigative journalist Londoners would want you to take this on.

- James Connolly, London ,England, 19/06/2009 10:25

I would like to give further evidence about corruption at TFL.

1/ There are ex PCO employees who objected to the improper practices and were moved out of their jobs. They can provide evidence of corruption.

2/ A High Court Judge ruled the PCO had made unlawful decisions which constitutes Misconduct in Public Office (a criminal offence) and no action has ever been taken with regards to this. Why?

3/ There is a huge amount of documentary evidence that TFL does not comply with its legal requirements as a Public Body.

This has been reported but no action ever taken. Why?

4/ It has been recently been reported that 379 employees at TFL are paid in excess of £100k. This is not consistent with the lawful actions of a public body. How can this amount of money being paid to employees be justified at all let alone at a time of public spending cuts. Why is this allowed to happen?

5/ TFL consults with London taxi trade organisations. One is the LTDA and its representative Mr Bob Oddy, who is paid £30k a year by TFL. This is obviously a conflict of interest as Mr Oddy is supposed to represent the LTDA not TFL. How is this possibly correct practice?

6/ Eco-Power was vindictively persecuted by the PCO because we undercut suppliers of other systems who were closely affiliated with the PCO. The very people who were profiteering from the emissions systems in 2007/8 were the same people who were involved in consultative meetings with the PCO and are known to have close affiliations with them. How can it be correct practice for a public body to act in the best interests of commercial entities and not in the best interests of the public?

7/ TFL have announced an age limit for taxis but have conducted no proper testing or conducted no proper process to validate what they are doing. In fact the DFT advises local authorities against imposing age limits as it will be of no benefit to emissions and seen as arbitary.

The only people who will benefit from an age limit is 2 vehicle manufacturers who have publically declared that they will sell more taxis because of it. How can it be correct practice for a public body to implement a strategy on the basis of emissions reduction which will not actually reduce emissions and will only serve to give commercial benefit to 2 companies?

8/ The BBC filmed with a London Taxi 2 years ago to report the issues of illegal taxis in London. During the filming one illegal company claimed they had ‘Mason in their pocket’ John Mason is the director of London Taxi and Private Hire at TFL.

There have been many reports about possible corrupt action involving TFL and private hire companies, yet there is never any investigation of this. Why?

The United Cabbies Group are calling for a Public Inquiry into the corrupt, unlawful and improper conduct at TFL.

The only way that this corruption will be exposed is by a proper investigation being conducted by the media or by a Public Inquiry.

Regards Dave Davies

Guildford Cabs Olympic Protest Over Private Hire Touting

2012-01-25T16:30:00.001Z

TAXI drivers in Guildford will protest as the Olympic Torch passes through the town next July if their complaints are not listened to by the borough council.

The Guildford Hackney Association (GHA) wants a fare increase of 2.7% to be implemented plus new rules to stop unlicensed private cabs picking up passengers.

The peaceful demonstrations will not disrupt the taxi service in Guildford but it is hoped by the GHA that it will be seen in front of the world’s cameras.

“We are not being listened to,” said David Williams-Wynn, chairman of GHA, who has been a Guildford cabbie for 37 years.

“We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring pressure to bear on local councils that are not listening to our complaints.”

The 72-year-old added: “We are not out to cause trouble.”

Mr Williams-Wynn said the costs of running a taxi service had spiralled out of proportion due to increasing costs in fuel, car repairs and paying £536 per cab each year to be able to collect fares from the railway station.

Guildford Borough Council will hold a licensing meeting on Wednesday, January 4 to decide whether the tariff used by GHA to come up with the 2.7% proposed increase is justified.

The council said it was not opposed to any fare increase if it was deserved, but has asked for evidence about why the rise, based on London taxi fare increases, is legitimate.

Councillor Matt Furniss, chairman of the licensing committee, said the council wanted to come up with a methodology that actually reflected Guildford prices.

The evidence the authority needs is based on fuel costs, car maintenance, mileage and cost per mile among other aspects.

However, Mr Williams-Wynn said that the fare increase was accepted earlier this year, but the council was now asking for evidence before it goes through, which he said was unexpected.

When asking for the minutes from that meeting, Mr Williams-Wynn said the council could not produce them.

“It is all very bizarre,” he added.

Cllr David Goodwin, vice-chairman of the licensing committee, confirmed there were no recorded minutes from the meeting earlier this year, however, he pointed out that as there were no borough councillors present, no formal decisions on taxi fares could have been made.

“Those decisions have to come from a licensing committee,” he added.

Mr Williams-Wynn believes basing prices on London fares is appropriate because the capital has a much larger fleet of vehicles and Guildford cabbies rack up almost twice as much dead mileage, which is driving without a paying passenger.

The GHA also believes the council is not dealing with the issue of private hire cars picking up passengers wherever they want, as opposed to when they are allowed to.

The association claimed evidence of this had not been accepted by the county council.

For more information on the planned protests, visit www.taxi-driver.co.uk.

EDITORIAL COMMENT:

More proof that up and down the country (not just in London) councils are constantly turning a blind eye to PHV's picking up illegal hirings.

Perhaps we should have a national protest, with drivers from all over the country, turning up and blocking access to the Olympic stadium for the Opening ceremony

Oddy Out, Mac the Hood In..By Thomas the Taxi.

2012-01-24T19:41:00.002Z

Stories of Bob Oddy's demise have been rife in the shelters and on the ranks for a couple of weeks. We were told that after an emergency board meeting to discuss the deluge of membership resignations, the General Secretary of the LTDA Mr Bob Oddy was asked to step down. Rumour had it, Bob's outburst about the Olympic fare hike was thought by many members to be the last straw which crashed the phone lines at Taxi House with resignation requests.

"Transport for Mr Oddy at gate"

It has now been confirmed in Taxi Magazine (known in the trade as the Comic, because of the amount of fictional stories it contains), that Bob is to go on Friday this week, clutching a brown envelope containing a large slice of the Org's reported £4M savings.

At first, the trade breathed a sigh of relief until it was pointed out that Bobs protege Steve MacNamara, was to take over the role.

John, an LTDA member of 40 years said " The final straw for me was when I read on the Anderson Shelter that Bob Oddy was a non executive board member for a company wholly owned by a large minicab operator, that's disgusting."
John continued " I didn't realise that the set up of the LTDA management was so similar to the Politburo in Russia. Apparently the board vote in an executive committee, who then vote among themselves (all four of them) to set policy and elect their leader. Sort of jobs for the boys. After that no member is consulted. Its just wrong!".

A New Beginning?
This is a wonderful chance for MacNamara to unite the trade by demanding a fairer engagement policy with LTPH. Bob always said he would not sit at the same table with the RMT and was also said to be against the UCG being accepted as a representative trade group.

It will be interesting over the coming weeks to see if the dirty tricks, lies and propaganda printed weekly in the LTDA's rag, finally stops.

For the sake of a trade under a massive attack, I hope Steve takes the sensible route and doesn't become Bob Oddy no2.

John Mason and the Turning Circle.

2012-01-24T02:28:00.000Z

John Mason has answered claims that he intends to scrap the turning circle.

A poll has recently appeared on the LTDF Taxi forum. It seems Mason isn't a fan of Taxi forums or blogs.
Wonder if that includes the LCDC blog, which under the engagement policy has to submit all content to him for approval, before being published?

Poll reads:
Word is that John Mason is looking to do away with the 25' turning circle.
What are your views?

Doing away with it will open up the market for alternative vehicles, many that are already used by Private Hire but this will also bring down the price and raise the quality.

Uniformity.
Should there still be a free for all on colours, or should all Taxis regardless of make & model be black with an orange Taxi livery?

Optional.
Should drivers have the choice whether to have the turning circle or not? It is said to cost somewhere in the region of £8000 - £10,000 extra to have the RWS on the Vito.

John Masons Answer

Thank you for your email.

Like most articles bought to my attention that are posted on the various taxi forums and blogs this isn’t factually correct.

As I am sure you will be aware there are many differing opinions within the taxi trade and driver groups as to whether different types of taxis should be licensed as traditional London black cabs and if long standing requirements such as the “turning circle” should be removed to allow a wider range of vehicles to be used as licensed taxis in London.

I am aware that there are many drivers such as yourself who feel that taxi drivers should have more freedom of choice of the vehicle they use as a taxi and this is something that I would expect whoever is the Mayor in May to discuss with us in more detail.

Kind regards

John Mason
Director - Taxi & Private Hire
4th Floor Yellow
Palestra
197 Blackfriars Road. London. SE1 8NJ

RMT consider legal challenge over introduction of identifiers.

2012-01-21T03:31:00.001Z

from General Secretary Bob Crow - TFL (RT/14/2)

Further to my circular dated 14th December (IR/608/11) I write to update branches on the TfL scheme to introduce Identifier tags from March 2012 for all Taxi driver members.

This would distinguish between those drivers licensed for hire in all of Metropolitan London (green badge) and those who were licensed for particular sectors outside the centre (yellow badge). Yellow badge drivers might be typically licensed for the London Boroughs of Redbridge, Greenwich, Merton, Harrow, Hillingdon and so on.

Following a meeting with our London Taxi Branch Representatives and Lead Officer, I have now written to TfL to demand that the introduction of identifier tags for London taxis be reconsidered. I am also in the process of seeking legal advice from our solicitors on the issues below as your Union firmly believes:-

That the implementation of this scheme has not been subject to meaningful consultation with all parties concerned (According to information obtained under Freedom of Information Act only 13 organisations have been consulted, which we believe is flawed. A clear indication that the process has been flawed is the fact that the first time the vast majority of the tens of thousands of London taxi drivers heard about the scheme was when they received a letter about it post-consultation. The exclusion of RMT, a bona-fide organisation which represents a substantial proportion of London taxi drivers, from the consultation process is another clear indication of the flawed process. The consultation also did not deal with the enforcement process or the rights and responsibilities of drivers.

According to documents submitted TfL plan to enforce this scheme using paragraph 28A of the London Cab Order 1934 (as amended by the new Cab order). However correspondence dated 21st October 2011 from TfL states they intend to use Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 sections 6 and 8. We believe that TfL have not been consistent in this matter.
Access to drivers personal information would be easier obtained once the identifier tags are displayed, which we believe breach data protection act and puts our taxi members at risk.

I will of course update branches on any further developments.

UCG Hit Squad Hit Abacus...by Thomas the Taxi.

2012-01-20T14:16:00.001Z

Another great victory for the UCG flash mob!

At precisely 11pm last night, Taxi drivers from the UCG flash mob, along with many other ordinary working drivers (who had been informed using social networks and word of mouth) assembled in Finsbury Square. Led by the Chairman and secretary of the UCG, dead on the stroke of midnight, the order was given "Wagons roll !!" and the hit was on.

Drivers made their way down Moorgate to Abacus and formed a virtual rolling rank in exactly the same fashion as the touts use. Cabs ranked outside the venue and doubled back on the opposite side of Cornhill. We found the clipboard Johnnie standing on the pavement outside the club, openly touting. But customers leaving the venue saw the bright orange lights, pushed the touts aside and came over to the Taxis.

If it's legal for them to form a rank anywhere they like, then it's got to be legal for us.

The City of London police turned up but soon realised they were powerless to do anything as night after night, they have sat back and allowed the touts of Diamond cars and other minicab firms to do exactly what we were doing.

Well done to all the drivers that put themselves out and attended this "Club Hit", the first of many that we will be seeing over the coming months.

We listened to trade leaders who advised we should do this by the book!
Well, all I can say is, "You need a new book".

We have tried every avenue to avoid an on street "Taxi War", but after the shambles made of the appeal by Diamond cars, we know we can't leave this in the incompetent hands of the LTPH.

We have had club hits in the past and we know they can sometimes be very successful. Look at NOBU and Funky Buddha , for many years the touts had a free hand at these venues and now there is a well used Taxi rank outside the doors. This is what we hope to achieve with other night spots.

It will take time and we will take it one step at a time. When we get success, we will move on to the next venue. Our aim should be to put large taxi ranks outside the front door of every major night venue, so the first thing punters see when they leave a club is a big yellow for-hire sign and not a clip board Johnnie.

Meanwhile, until the councils give in to our demands for new ranks, we will do what the touts do and that's form our own virtual ranks.

Just look at the success of the Charing Cross Road Rank!
We have seen one minicab kiosk close and the 24 hour shop/minicab office being starved of work. We know the public want Black Cabs, so lets be there for them. Another great success was the expansion of the rank in Coventry street. Although the "Golden Rank" was a failure, this new rank put paid to two minicab outlets opposite.

We just have to rank under their noses, right outside the exits of all night venues. As the Council move our ranks away from the doors, we must ignore and rank where the touts wait. Block them in if we must and take back the work.

This can only be done with help from the rank and file drivers, there will be no help from the LTDA, LCDC or Unite management. LTPH will not be behind us and the touts will fight back.

So who's up for a fight!!!

Press Statement from Helen Chapnan

2012-01-19T16:22:00.001Z

Helen Chapman, Deputy Director of London Taxi & Private Hire, said:

“Touting in London is a significant issue. As far as we are concerned there was clear evidence that this company did not operate this private hire service in line with their clear legal obligations and we are naturally disappointed with the outcome. We will not sit by and watch such operators work outside of the legal framework that they are required to work within. Working with the Police, TfL will continue to fully investigate any reports of illegal activity and together we will pursue perpetrators with the full force of the law.

Touting puts the travelling public at risk and undermines the legitimate and law abiding taxi and private hire trades.”

Additional information

· Licensed private hire operators within shared or late night venues are only permitted to take bookings inside the premises. Bookings taken on-street, even in a roped off area are illegal.

· In 2010 TfL undertook a consultation on a range of private hire matters. As a result, a number of new policies are being introduced, with particular focus on additional measures to ensure tighter control on private hire operators within shared or late night venues.

· Since 2003 the Cab Enforcement Unit has made more than 7,000 arrests for touting and cab-related offences;

· Cab Enforcement operations are carried out on a regular basis in line with current intelligence on touting and illegal activity. They also cooperate with clubs to crackdown on the touts who operate in the area and ensure compliance with regulations and importantly enhance the safety of the travelling public;

· Licensed and law abiding taxi and private hire drivers and members of the public often have valuable intelligence that is used to inform both the Safer Transport Command’s and TfL’s enforcement activities to deal with touting and other illegal cab activity. It is for this reason, that we have recently developed an online reporting form to make it easier to report issues and we would encourage members of the public and drivers to report issues to us.

· For more information on cab enforcement activities or to report touting issues using the new online form visit: www.tfl.gov.uk/cabenforcement

Its a Shambles: LTPH lose appeal against Diamond Cars

2012-01-19T15:11:00.000Z

On Tuesday, The Taxi Trade stood stunned, as the news emerged of the result from the appeal against the revocation of the satellite office license at Abacus in the City of London.

No reports or statements have been forthcoming from LTPH. The only news report of the case was an email we received from Diamond cars and a couple of lines on the LCDC Blog.

The LTDA had claimed the glory for the original revocation, was it again their fault again that the case collapsed?

We all remember the license fiasco a couple of years ago when the LTDA undercover team produced a DVD that bought about the revocation of 4 major clubs operator licenses. There was a blaze of glory posted all over the net and in the Taxi Trade magazines.

But within days, the clubs minicab services were back up and running again. Since then not one word has been published in the Taxi or other trade media, about the operation or the appeal that followed. We must assume then, after all this time, the cases were lost by the LTDA/LTPH.

An Offer to John Mason Director of LTPH:

So, I offer the Director of LTPH John Mason, the chance to explain what went wrong with this important case (Abacus) by posting the full story on this blog. We will allow the post to be completely unedited and their will be no "narrow-minded" editorial comment.

We will then throw open the comment box, to the ordinary taxi drivers for discussion. Only insults and profanity will be moderated.

The ball is in your court John Mason.

Article by Jim Thomas AKA Thomas the Taxi.

Enhanced CRB Checks to be Reinstated

2012-01-19T14:04:00.001Z

Taxi drivers are to be subject to enhanced background checks under new proposals announced yesterday.

Proposals will allow taxi licensing authorities to carry out enhanced criminal records checks on their drivers before they are issued with a licence. Current drivers will get additional checks when they renew their licence.

Under the current regime, only drivers who pick up children or vulnerable adults are automatically eligible for enhanced checks, although some firms do choose to get these extra checks for drivers as a matter of course.

Protecting the public

These proposals standardise the practice and simplify the system giving additional reassurance to women travelling alone and other vulnerable customers using taxi services.

The proposed changes are part of plans to simplify and reform the system of criminal records checks, while ensuring adequate protections are in place where they are needed most.

Licensing authorities will make the final decision on whether to grant a licence based on the information available to them. Criminal records checks play a vital role in recruitment practices, providing employers with the information they need to employ the right person for the role.

Respecting civil liberties

Criminal Information Minister Lynne Featherstone said: 'We are determined to ensure the criminal records scheme is balanced to respect civil liberties and protect the public.

'Taxi drivers provide a valuable service transporting children to school and lone women home after a night out so it is only right that the public should have confidence proper checks have been carried out.

'These proposals will ensure that licensing authorities have all the information they need to make informed decisions before granting licences to drivers.'

Editorial Comment: This press release direct from the home office mentions Taxi Drivers, there is no mention of Private hire drivers. We have asked LTPH for a statement about this, but so far they have not replied.

West End parking plan 'cost Westminster Council £1m

2012-01-19T14:03:00.002Z

London's West End parking "fiasco" has cost taxpayers £1m, the local Labour Party has alleged.

Plans to charge for Sunday and evening parking were abandoned by Conservative-run Westminster Council on Wednesday after prolonged protests.

Westminster Labour says a total of £1m was spent on preparation for the parking scheme that never was.

Westminster Council disputed the figure, saying the total spent on the project was £250,000.

Labour insists its calculations are accurate.

It says the council spent money on:

Legal fees, as the council unsuccessfully fought a bid for a judicial review.
The cost of private transport consultants.
The salaries of people in the transport and communications departments which worked on the project for six months.
The outlay on several public consultations.

As BBC London revealed in December, the council also spent several hundred thousand pounds creating signage for the new scheme - before consultations were even complete.

At the time critics said the outlay showed people taking part in the consultation were being treated with contempt. The council insisted it would recoup the money once the charges started.

Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, leader of Westminster Labour, said: "The council's arrogance and belief that it could do just as it pleases has finally been exposed and defeated.

"There needs to be a full inquiry into why the council ignored everybody until today and why it acted in such a high-handed and irresponsible way.

"This whole fiasco has cost Westminster taxpayers at least £1m at a time when huge cuts are being made to front line services to children, the elderly."

Mr Dimoldenberg also called for the resignation of Westminster's parking supremo, Councillor Lee Rowley.

Project 'research recyclable'

Mr Rowley, the council's cabinet member for transportation and parking, challenged the £1m figure, adding that it could be lower than £250,000.

He said: "Westminster has spent approximately £600,000 on commissioning and implementing its parking policy review, but around only a third of that relates to the withdrawn changes to hours of control in the West End.

"The remainder of the spend, along with much of the time officers spent on this project, will be re-used as it relates directly to wider research and policy development, all of which is still required.

"Once the decision to withdraw the policy has been confirmed by cabinet, and a report has been produced, we will be in a position to give exact figures on costs associated with evening and weekend charges, but we expect it to be around £250,000.

"Many aspects of this project are recyclable and so it could be that the true cost is even less than that."

The leader of Westminster Council, Colin Barrow, resigned last Friday insisting his departure was unconnected to the parking row.

The council had planned to charge up to £4.40 per hour for parking until midnight Monday to Saturday and on Sunday afternoons.

Protest groups argued it was aimed at raising revenue and not cutting congestion, as the council claimed.

source:BBC News.

Even The Opposition Is Having It Hard

2012-01-18T12:13:00.001Z

GMB Complain That Westminster Council Is Deterring Private Hire Cars From Accepting Work In The West End

As drivers earn £60 a day, a parking fine incurred while waiting to pick up a customer leads to the loss of a full day’s pay which members cannot risk, so West End abandoned to the illegal touts says GMB.
GMB is complaining that Westminster City Council’s increased parking restrictions is deterring licensed private hire drivers from accepting jobs in the West End as they risk losing their living if fined while waiting for customers.

Terry Flanagan of the GMB Professional Drivers Branch said, “Westminster Council’s parking restrictions is deterring licensed drivers from operating in the West End. This in turn is exacerbating an already dangerous problem as even more unlicensed touts operate picking up unsuspecting passengers from clubs, pubs, theatres and music venues that are the lifeblood of the West End’s economy".

Legitimate drivers are licensed. They have had criminal record checks, medical and topographical tests. Their cars have been properly checked and they are properly insured for passenger transport”.

These drivers struggle to make £120 a day. Half of that will go on rent to the proprietor, petrol, passenger carrying insurance, maintenance and other overhead costs. That leaves the driver earning £60 net for the day. So if a parking fine is incurred while waiting to pick up a customer the day’s pay is gone. As the drivers have to pull up to pick up customers there is no alternative but to abandon the West End to the touts.

Many drivers will simply not risk a Westminster pick up. This means more and more unsuspecting, and at times very vulnerable passengers accepting lifts from touts posing as legitimate drivers.”

What this means is that unlicensed drivers in uninsured and in many instances unroadworthy cars, who have not been criminal record checks could have other motives other than ripping the travelling public off. GMB believes that the attacks on lone women passengers that have taken place over the years could increase as a result of the outrageous decision of Westminster council to extend it’s night time and weekend parking restrictions.

GMB members have the support of Westminster Councillor Dimoldenberg and GMB backs the Labour opposition’s calls for the Leader of the Council to resign.”

Ken Livingstone, London Mayor candidate said, ‘I believe Westminster council’s plan to massively increase the number of double yellow lines and introduce huge parking charge increases will make it harder for licensed mini-cabs to operate in the West End. Where the legitimate cab trade cannot work we know that illegal touts will prosper, putting Londoners at risk.

‘Westminster council’s parking policy seems designed to fill council’s coffers rather than catering for the needs of businesses and residents. It’s time for the council to drop its plans which are going to make it harder for people to get home safely and threaten real damage to the private hire and black cab trades.”

source: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/45404

HASSAN: RAPIST MINICAB DRIVER IS JAILED 16 YEARS AFTER ATTACK

2012-01-17T19:38:00.001Z

THORNTON HEATH, SOUTH LONDON; ERITH, KENT
A pensioner who raped a drunken passenger 16 years ago was jailed for just five years today (Tues).

Cypriot Mustafa Hassan, now 68, attacked the woman as he drove her home following a night out celebrating her 29th birthday in central London, the Old Bailey heard.

His victim, who had earlier been separated from her husband, woke up in the reclined front seat of Hassan's minicab the following morning to find herself being raped.

Hassan was caught by a DNA match after being arrested for driving an unlicensed cab in 2005

High Court rules on Addi Lee bin advertising.

2012-01-17T12:48:00.000Z

Adverts on cigarette bins outside pubs and other premises promoting minicabs may have to be removed following a court ruling.

Westminster Council fought off an appeal by Addison Lee against a magistrates court ruling, during which the company said they should be allowed to leave their branded bins on buildings and streets despite not applying for permission.

The High Court ruled that the adverts did not relate to a service being provided from the premises, and therefore advertisement consent should have been obtained before posting them.

Councillor Robert Davis, deputy leader of the council and head of the built environment, said: "We are of course pleased with the High Court's decision.

"Unfortunately, Addison Lee and Addbins put up their cigarette bins without the relevant permission.

"We advised them as far back as 2008 that they were in the wrong but they refused to take the bins down. That is why we took this action through the courts.

"Given the High Court's decision, we will now look at grounds for enforcement action on the remainder of their bins.

"We will always be fair and flexible as far as possible when considering applications for advertising consent, but the merits of the advertising or the purpose of the bins is irrelevant."

The initial hearing related to the unauthorised display of 21 adverts on cigarette bins, at seven sites, all but one of which are within conservation areas.

Anyone wanting to put up one of these bins should first check whether they need consent for any adverts on it.

Source: Westminster Chronicle, posted by Emma Heseltine

Bridgnorth Minicabs Concerned over Rogue Taxis. They Don't Like It Up Em, Up North.

2012-01-16T16:53:00.001Z

Private hire drivers in Bridgnorth, who are employed by local firms, see themselves as ambassadors for private hire. They now believe that out of town Hackney Carriage Taxi drivers are coming into their area and impersonating them. They say this is not giving a good impression, as these Taxi drivers don't know where they are going.

David Gordon, who runs TD Taxis (Private Hire Firm), said:
“The drivers have Shropshire plates and badges and are impersonating local minicab firms".

“It’s becoming a big problem for the public because once they get in the car they are responsible for whatever’s on the meter”.

Shropshire Councillor Steve Charmley said the council would not tolerate any illegal activity by licensed drivers.

The licensing committee has recently revoked one hackney carriage licence and 20 more are under review.

Peter Quinton-Jones, owner of Bridgnorth Taxis, said:
“I am a private hire business and I’ve had four complaints since November with people getting into Hackney taxi and being overcharged because a certain driver has been pretending to work for Bridgnorth Taxis, private hire cars”.

Councillor Charmley added:
“As far as we are aware, no drivers have obtained a licence by falsely claiming to work for a local operator”.

The Worm Has Turned!
HACKNEY CARRIAGE IS FIGHTING BACK UP NORTH.

Setting the record Straight Bob... by Thomas the Taxi

2012-01-14T14:29:00.000Z

L (last) T (to) D (do) A (anything).
I see from the latest edition of the Woodfield road comic, that the gloves are off.

Bob Oddy made John Mason an offer of £50,000 of subscribers money, to limit the issue of new Taxi driver licenses, (without consultation of course, just like the Olympic fare hike).

Actually this was an offer Bob knew Mason would be a fool to accept, as this money could be interpreted as no more than a bribe. A bribe to help Bob retain his seat on the board of TfL, much like Griffin's donation to Boris's campaign funds for the mayoral elections.

John Mason announces the suspension of new licenses in 3 of the 9 suburban sectors (TfL notice 13/11)

A few months previous to this, John Mason was asked to put a suspension on the issue of Private hire Licenses by the RMT and he replied he was unable, legally to do this. So John, could you explain, how you can suddenly, legally, suspend the issue of new Suburban licenses and not new private hire applications?

The general secretary of the LTDA, who has sat back and said nothing as suburban sector ranks disappear at a rate of knots, refers to the 3,630 (actually 3,861 Bob) suburban drivers as being a threat. Yet he never makes comment about the 60-70K private hire licensed drivers.

I wonder why?

As a paid, non executive director of Com Cab, which, as we all know is fully owned by the worlds largest private hire operators ComfortDelGro, could it be that this would be highly frowned upon by the companies share holders?

Does this mean that Bob's position as general secretary of the largest of our trade representative group, is compromised as he marches to the tune of Private hire and is no longer his own man?

Should Bob resign?

LTDA finally endorses the UCG as a trade representative body.
The LTDA has never commented about the United Cabbies Group before! In the latest edition of the Taxi or Comic as it is now generally known. Steve McNamara slates ordinary working Taxi drivers who came together to demonstrate against the failings of the LTDA.

Steve decided to have a pop at the drivers who held the "Not in my name" demo at Taxi House, referring to them as UGC (was this because Bob has forbidden you to use the correct acronym?).

Wrong again Steve!!!
The drivers demonstrating were a mix from all trade body including LTDA members.
He says in his column;
"When I arrived I only saw about 26 cabs, some of which were just cutting through Woodfield Road".

When you arrived you say, when actually was that?
Because I (TtT) was the first driver to arrive that day and I parked by the entrance to Taxi House gates. You can see my Taxi in all the photos and videos we took on the day. I got there an hour before the start of the demo as Bob Oddy and Richard Masset were chaining the gates up. I stayed by the gates and was the last Taxi to leave.

Steve you never arrived mate!!

Not even wearing you infamous hoody. Your making it up.
No one went in or came out of Taxi house except for a delivery of credit union printed material.
This can be confirmed by many drivers who stood there beside me, which included LTDA members.

By the way Steve, why have you left this so late to comment...it happened way back in November! Must keep up mate. Try reading the UCG news.

Richmond Station To Lose Rank...LTDA Does Nothing, Again.

2012-01-13T17:01:00.000Z

News Flash:

Richmond Station forecourt rank

After 100 years of loyal service to the public, Richmond Station rank is to be moved away from station!

Although we don't have full details at the moment, it is to be announce that plans to move Richmond Station Rank will go ahead. This is now confirmed. Local Taxi drivers will be meeting to discuss their intended action on the 16th of this month.

With the LTDA complaining there are too many drivers in this sector (which has led to a moratorium), how is it that Bob Oddy can sit back and agree to plans to move the rank away from the station. Is the minicab office on the station forecourt part of Bobs mates at ComfordDelGro?

This is another attack on the Yellow badge driver by the LTDA who have always blamed them for blocking their chance to set up a marshalled private hire rank at Sutton, like the one they were instrumental in setting up at Kingston.

With Bob Oddy and other committee members connections to private hire companies its time the members investigated the situation for themselves before ODDY and Co give all the suburban work to his pals at ComfortDelGro.

Read article from 2009 regarding TfL's plans to pedestrianise forecourt of Station click here

STaN...Dead, Long Live Project Horizon...Part 1

2012-01-13T04:12:00.002Z

Project Horizon: A brief history.
Because of all the adverse publicity and the threat that in the near future TfL's friends in cab trade orgs may soon be replaced, TfL have put the STaN agenda out to grass.

STaN has long served its purpose and almost done the job it was designed to do, being undetected for so long.
As STaN got underway, satellite offices with lines of cars started to appear under the watchful eye of the clipboard Johnnies. Confrontations started to take place. Emails of complaint were sent to Ed Thompson, Ken Livingstone, Peter Hendy and drivers started to ask questions of their trade leaders. Trade leaders as usual were clueless and unwilling to get involved.

TfL isolated themselves from the furore, by passing all complaints to the PCO, who panicked and put the job of replying in the hands of three managers, Mary Dowdye, Len Simkin and Luke Howard, all now replaced.
This led to the now infamous email reply from Luke Howard that clearly stated;
"After taking advise from their legal team, TfL feel it is perfectly legal for these cars to park outside venues and wait to be hired".
The truth was TfL's legal team was never consulted, this was a complete lie from Mr Howard.
This information has just been released after an FOI request from the RMT.
Trade bodies took Luke Howard's word as gospel and went back to selling holidays and insurance schemes.

It was only after the Whitcomb Street private hire rank story appeared on the Anderson Shelter, exposing the blind eye approach from the PCO that a hurried demo was arranged. Leaders were called in to the PCO and formed an unholy alliance known as the UTG, and all resistance to satellite offices, illegal plying for hire and clipboard Johnnies suddenly stopped. In fact the United trade group demo in February 2009 was a huge flop and nothing was achieved.

This led to the formation of a new union (RMT) and an umbrella group (UCG) for dissatisfied drivers who felt their subscriptions were not being put to good use.

Now after 3 mass demos , 4 flash-mob type demos, the publication of a new trade journal, involvement from MPs and assembly members, TfLs top brass have developed a case of the twitches.

The STaN Agenda is now dead... long live "Project Horizon".

"Project Horizon" is really STaN under a different name but with an added twist which we will reveal later.

What is "Project Horizon" all about?
It is no coincidence that "Project Horizon" and private hire have the same initials, it's a code name that stands for an objective.
So what is the objective ?...same as in STaN, but with a new twist.
When you are told "It's not about the money", you can bet your bottom dollar it's about the money and thats exactly what it's all about.

This is a story about the corruption, misapplication of funds, refusal to safeguard passenger safety, turning a blind eye to sexual assaults and rapes, refusal to enforce the law, putting peoples lives at risk and one lie after another. This story will take some time to explain so we will take one subject at a time and post articles in serial form. Please keep an eye out for the next thrilling instalment of "Project Horizon".

Editorial Comment:
Should you wish to reply to a particular comment you can now click on the reply button. Should make things a bit easier.

Jason Byrne.

Be Careful what you wish for!...By Travis B.

2012-01-10T21:04:00.003Z

Now that the much discussed identifiers are appearing on cabs (weall wish that PH's disc were as visible and required to be so by LTPH), reportshave reached the Anderson Shelter that following the dismal failure of the LCDC, LTDA andUNITE to protect ranking space in the suburbs and even conspire in the case ofthe LTDA, to throw taxi's off a rank and give it to Private Hire at Kingston,with the thwarting of another attempt by the LTDA to do the sameat Sutton (stopped by the local drivers and local police), plus thegeneral villification of suburban drivers, they have now united as never beforeand have considered the best way to get more work in sector rather than causethe occasional desperate driver to chance their arm in town.

Well we have news that:

W/SWSector Yellow Badge Drivers will mount a legal challenge for the right to plyfor hire at Heathrow.

'Cant happen', 'Its the bye law' etc.etc. will all have been said by the faces in the past, but that wasthen and this is now, after all it works at LCA does it not?

Initial legal soundings indicate a verygood prospect of success for the challenge.

Possible outcomes:

1. The 'Status Quo' remains andnothing changes.

(unlikely as theYB's will just quote the LCA as an example and that they do the 'inners' andthat that many jobs are either local or out of the Met).

2. The YB's can put on just like the GB Drivers.

(More income for BAA/NSL whichwill also see the scrapping of the 'local' ticket.)

3. BAA decide the cab trade ain't worththe candle anymore as its all grief and give the supply contract toPH consortia.

('Cant happen'? It did in Manchester andmaybe Addi Lee and others are big enough to take it on. For those who say theycant cope if Code Red, cast your mind back to the demos when the Feeder ParkCharges came in, Plenty of our fellow cab drivers broke the 'blockade', theywill no doubt be happy to 'help out' wearing a cheap suit!)

So Boys and Girls, if in the months tocome 000's more drivers appear in town as the 'Flyers' is finished, youmay wish to read a back issue of The Badge whilst waiting past the roundaboutat Waterloo or in Gillinghan Street for the Vic and ask yourselves 'howdid all this come about'?

Look no further that the 'Biscuitfactory and Taxi House.

Editorial News Flash:
Late this morning the Anderson Shelter reached half a million hits on the counter which had to be reset (due to technical problems, in January 2009. Big smiles all round.
Thank you for your loyalty, we will endeavour to keep bringing uncensored news coverage of the real issues facing your livelihood.

TFL CORRUPTION TO BE EXPOSED ...by David Davies

2012-01-09T21:29:00.001Z

A media investigation into corruption and fraud at TFL/ The Mayors office is about to be released.

This fraud and corruption is not just a London issue; it has been covered up by the Mayor and a High Court Judge and yet David Cameron said last week that his number one objective for 2012 is to help Boris get re-elected. Surely the Prime Minister should be focussed on more important issues than getting his buddy re-elected ?

He has recently criticised cronyism yet he is the worst culprit. Boris has an appalling record as Mayor; The Environmental Audit Committee gave a damming report about emissions in London , which have caused more than 4000 deaths and these deaths are directly attributable to the Mayors unlawful and improper strategies.

TFL has existed unchecked as a corrupt body which receives £9.6 billion a year in public funds yet is accountable to no one; the Government says The Mayor is responsible and he is either grossly incompetent or as corrupt as TFL themselves.The clear evidence that TFLs strategies have failed is the report from the Environmental Research Group at Kings College saying there has been no improvement in emissions in London for 10 years, The Mayors own report showing 4267 people a year dying from pollution, the impending EU fines of £300 million for London’s failure to meet emissions standards and the Environmental Audit Committee Report condemning the Government and London’s pollution.. It begs the question why has this been allowed to continue unreported and with no accountability?
The Mayor openly mocks assembly members and MPs when he is challenged; he recently said that they should be congratulated for getting the EU fines deferred (which was done by cheating the air quality measurements by using dust suppressants at the measuring stations). He also said that the pollution had been ‘blown in to central London from Europe’ (miraculously avoiding outer London).
TFL have failed strategies include the LEZ and more recently they have introduced an Age Limit on Taxis, which will not reduce emissions at all.
TFL have failed to uphold the law with regards to Private Hire regulation and it is reported that widespread corruption has taken place to allow for this to happen. Many hours of video footage with strong evidence of corruption has been filmed.
In 2008 a High Court Judicial Review was brought against TFL . Justice Hickinbottom who was appointed to hear the case against TFL, had previously worked with TFL as a Parking Adjudicator. When he was appointed as a Judge he was congratulated on his appointment by them in a report. He ignored obvious evidence of improper and unlawful conduct and upheld one of TFLs decisions.

I have filed a complaints to TFLs internal and external Audit, GLAs internal and external Audit, the GLA standards Committee and the Local Government Ombudsman. The complaint below about unarguable fraud and corruption which took place with regards to a taxi emissions strategy in 2008 was filed with the Metropolitan Police. The completely ignored this complaint (which is hardly surprising because the Mayor is also responsible for the Met) and this is now being investigated as an IPCC complaint.

The summary of my complaint to the Met;

In 2006 the London Cab Drivers Club tested some of the Public Carriage Office approved emissions systems which were not working effectively and these systems failed a Vehicle Certification Agency test.
In a subsequent High Court Judicial Review brought by the LCDC the PCO successfully defended the approval of these systems saying that one or two failed tests was not enough to withdraw the approvals as the systems had undergone rigorous approval testing and that the test conducted by the LCDC were not valid because the taxis were not in a fit condition (in one case they said the engine was overheating)
In 2007 Eco-Power started selling its approved emissions system at £1100 + vat (nearly half the price of other systems) and sold through smaller garages (not through exclusive dealers who were making a profit)
n January 2008 the PCO conducted a rigged test on an Eco-Power system. There was no baseline test to prove the fitness of the taxi as required by the PCOs own test protocol and procedure. The taxi was not in a fit condition; the garage who installed the system refused to sign a Certificate of Fitness because the engine was overheating. The PCO still proceeded to test the taxi and did this so it would deliberately fail.
In complete contradiction of its previous statement in 2006 that a single failed test was not enough to fail a system , the PCO used this single rigged failed test to with draw the approval.
In a High Court Judicial Review the Judge ruled that the PCO had made 2 unlawful decisions and had acted in a high handed manner and discourteously, but upheld the decision to withdraw the approval.
Subsequent to the Court case Finn Coyle who had conducted the rigged test by the Energy Savings Trust on behalf of the PCO and who also gave false information to the High Court Judge, was rewarded with a highly paid job at TFL.
No other emissions system has ever been subjected to any emissions testing or therefore had its approval withdrawn. This is despite the fact that 2 companies went out of business because their systems were failing so badly; their approvals are still in place to this day even though their systems did not work at all. Many London Assembly Members and MPs have asked the Mayor on many occasion why no other testing has ever been carried out and he has avoided their questions.
The companies that were profiteering from the sale of the ineffective systems had close affiliations with the PCO.
Ex-PCO employees have given statements saying that corruption has taken place and nothing has been done; no investigation has been carried out and no statements taken from anyone.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNARGUABLE THAT CORRUPTION HAS TAKEN PLACE AND THERE IS UNARGUABLE EVIDENCE TO PROVE SO.

The complaint (which is outlined in more detail below) is that the Public Carriage Office carried out a rigged test on an Eco-Power Emissions Reduction system and withdrew its approval which was in complete contradiction of its previous action; in 2006 the London Cab Drivers Club had tested some other emissions systems which failed and in a subsequent High Court Judicial Review the PCO defended these systems saying that they had undergone a rigorous approval and that one failed test was not enough to withdraw an approval. The EST employees who conducted the rigged test and provided false evidence in the High Court were later rewarded with highly paid work for TFL.

I believe that the Eco-Power system approval was withdrawn because we had sold the system at a reasonable price which had effectively stopped other distributors from profiteering from the project. There is strong evidence to show that these other distributors had close association with the PCO.

There are former TFL employees who are prepared to give evidence.
(This list has been removed by the editor)

The further details of this complaint are below. The latest questionable decision is an age limit on taxis, which on the face of it seems like a reasonable thing to do to reduce emissions. In reality the technical evidence shows that this project will not create any significant reduction in emissions. The only benefit to this project is a huge commercial benefit to 2 companies who are selling new taxis, and begs the question why would TFL implemented a strategy which has not be properly researched and will only serve to give certain entities commercial gain?

My complaint is that the PCO have made unlawful decisions (as ruled by a High Court Judge) and its decisions have been unfair and inconsistent. A public office has a legal requirement to have fair and consistent decisions, so the conduct of the Head of the PCO and the Head of Delivery (Thompson and Stock) could constitute a criminal offence. i.e. misconduct in Public Office
I would question the motivation for these decisions and the only way that this will be exposed is by a proper investigation. I have filed complaints to TFL and the Mayors Office but every complaint has been answered by the PCO, which is in itself an incorrect practice.

TFL has recently said that they intend to impose further emissions controls on London Taxis, when the emissions programme that they have already implemented has been completely mis managed meaning that most London Taxis are no cleaner than they were before. In fact some are causing more pollution. The whole project is a complete farce

My company, Eco-Power designed, developed, manufactured and distributed an emissions reduction system for London Taxis which was approved by the PCO. My company has no affiliations with the large taxi fleets, the EST or the PCO. Prior to the Eco-Power system being sold the other approved systems were sold through the main taxi fleets and garages at a price which enabled profiteering to take place and which would force the smaller garages and operators to buy them.

Eco-Power sold its system at £1100 +vat when the other systems were previously sold at £2000 or more. We also sold to the smaller garages and operators (over 70 were approved installers) which meant that the bigger players were no longer selling any where near the amount of systems that they had previously.

There is clear evidence that the bigger garages and operators have close associations with the PCO.

In February 2008, only 6 months after the approval of the Eco-power system, the PCO contacted Eco-Power and claimed that there were problems with the system. They independently tested the system on a taxi which would have not passed a test with any system installed and when it failed they withdrew the approval.(The taxi they tested on had not been serviced properly which meant it was creating far more smoke than a properly serviced taxi would)

This test did not comply with the EST/PCO test protocol which required a baseline test to be conducted to demonstrate that the taxi was in a fit condition to be tested.

I protested that this was completely unfair- the Eco-power system was working very well at reducing the emissions with no complaints from anyone and they targeted this system alone. This completely contradicts their policy just a year before when the London Taxi Drivers Club complained about the failure of the other systems which were actually causing more smoke than they stopped and actually took the PCO to the High Court for a judicial review . The PCO argued that the taxis which had been independently tested had other faults which caused the taxis to fail an emission test. They then tested the Eco-Power system under the same conditions and declared the tests were valid.

The garage that was appointed by the PCO to install the Eco-Power system to be tested said that the taxi was not in a fit condition to test and refused to sign a certificate of fitness. The garage owner gave a statement saying that the engine was overheating (among other faults) and that the vehicle should not be tested.

The PCOs own test protocol and procedure was for a baseline test to be conducted on a taxi before an emissions system was fitted to prove that the taxi was in a fit condition to test. No baseline test was conducted prior to the test used to fail the Eco-Power system, and if it had been conducted the taxi would have failed because of the faults highlighted by the taxi garage.

During the High Court case which resulted from the PCO withdrawing the approval, Eco-Power requested that comparative scientific testing should be done for all the systems which had been approved to give a true picture of the effectiveness at reducing emissions to the required level. This was refused so Eco-power did some further independent testing to compare with another system. A taxi was fitted with the Eco-power system and tested and then with a Taxicat system and tested. Both systems got very close to the required emissions levels but did not achieve a pass. However the Eco-power system performed better than the Taxicat system which was still approved by the PCO.

This controlled test gave a clear indicator that the PCO had withdrawn the approval for the Eco-power system which was performing better than a system that they had not withdrawn and they still did nothing. They actually subsequently appointed TaxiCat to try and modify the existing Eco-Power systems to improve their performance (even though they had evidence showing this companies system performing worse than the Eco-Power system)

I need to make the point that in order for any emissions system to pass a test it takes months of preparation to get the engine in the correct condition.

An approval for an emissions standard does not necessarily mean that if you take that vehicle off the street and test it will pass the emissions standard for which it is approved. An example of this would be a test that was carried out on a brand new TX4 (which is supposed to have a Euro 4 approval) failed a Euro 3 test (which is half of a Euro 4 standard)

As a public body the PCO has a legal requirement to have fair and consistent decisions. This has certainly not been the case. (please see email detailing PCO notice 50/06)

The reason I would question the motives of the PCO is the way in which the PCO targeted the Eco-power system which in practice was working well and at the same time they had previously defended the other systems which were failing dramatically.

These other systems were failing so badly that the filters were blocking and then being bypassed by a hole being made through them (they were doing absolutely nothing to stop tailpipe emissions) Garages installing other systems said that they were having to disable them as soon as they had gone through an inspection to stop them causing problems with the engine. It is worth mentioning that during the approval procedure the systems were required to conduct a 10k mile durability test. In order to maintain the integrity of the test Eco-Power installed a very comprehensive tracking system on the taxi being tested which had online access 24/7 for the PCO/EST to monitor the taxi. It gave the exact position and speed of the taxi to show that it was completing the 10K miles in the normal drive cycle and that it was definitely doing 10k miles and not having the Speedo adjusted to look as if it had. None of the other systems were tested in this way, only Eco-power. One of the other systems had so many filters blocking and parts breaking that they went out of business yet the PCO still kept their approval in place

During the High court case the Judge found that the PCO had acted in a high handed way and that the PCO had unlawfully withdrawn 2 of the Eco-power approvals. He also said that Eco-power had fulfilled the requirements of the approval procedure for the 3rd approval legitimately but the PCO had the right to withdraw it following their subsequent testing (even though this testing was not conducted properly)

The entire project has been completely mismanaged from the start by the PCO and EST. What is worse is that they have not been held to account for their mistakes.
The result is that London taxis are creating more pollution now than they were previously.

Eco-power has had a London Taxi fitted with the system for which the approval was withdrawn and it has been tested at a VCA approved laboratory. It has passed the required Euro 3 test and the PCO have been informed. They are refusing to re-instate the approval saying that the entire approval procedure will have to be carried out again, which includes a 6 month 10,000 mile durability test. This is despite the fact that a high court judge has ruled that the original approval procedure was legitimate; they are obviously changing the rules to suit their position.

At the same time they have conducted absolutely no conformity tests on the many systems which are failing dramatically.
The above conduct does not comply with TFLs legal requirements for Fair and Consistent decisions and practices.

The evidence that they have not complied with their legal requirements is unarguable. It is therefore the case that whoever has made these unlawful decisions is guilty of Misconduct in Public Office which is a criminal offence.

You Want Better Enforcement? But Are You Willing to Pay the Piper

2012-01-08T16:37:00.001Z

We are constantly told by TfL that there is no budget for enforcement.
With 25,000 all London Taxi drivers paying their license fee every 3 years, it doesn't leave enough over for adequate enforcement.
OK not a lot we can do about founding the exorbitant wages paid to top brass at TfL and LTPH.
Personally I don't believe they have no money, I believe they have no will.

But lets not waste time dwelling on something we cant change, lets call their bluff.

9000 drivers currently pay £18 a month and get little more than a new lanyard and diary.
So would you be willing to pay approx half that to fund more enforcement. If you would they would have no excuse.
Just think about it:

Enforcement for 36p a day

Approx 30,000 YB/GB Taxi drivers.
But why should we pay on our own, after all its not us that causing the problem. Lets make PH drivers pay as well.
Approx 70,000 PHV drivers.

If we all paid the sum of £10 a month by direct debit, directly to LTPH enforcement fund, we would be raising £1m per month, £12m per year. That works out at just 36p per driver, per day.
This would fund an army of enforcement officers with a fleet of transport who could operate on a 24 hour basis 7 days a week. Plus a 24 hour hot line so driver could report any illegal activity.

36p a day would see the streets cleared of the lines of illegally plying for hire minicabs.

Obviously the number of PHV drivers would decline as the work they steal from us dries up, but the drop off rate wouldn't be too dramatic. We forecast somewhere in the region of 10-15%. This still leaves a substantial amount of revenue to fund the scheme.

This new finance would also provide funding for the set up of long awaited new Taxi ranks, like the excellent new rank on the corner of Bear Street and Charing Cross Road.

Perhaps to help with initial funding and set up costs our 3 yearly license fee could be spread over the 36 month payment scheme, which would bring our direct debit to £20 per month. It would mean no more huge bills every 3 years. But we don't want to over complicate the scheme after all it is TfL we are dealing with after all.

Ed Thompson once famously said, in an interview with BBC news:
"Black cabs are the only ones who can ply for hire. That's the way it is and that's the way its going to stay"
At present, this statement is another LTPH LIE

Well now Mr Hendy/ Mr Mason, you've got the chance to make this statement come true.

Editorial Comment:
Truthfully, would you notice a direct debit of £10 a month coming out of your bank account, I don't think so!
For this scheme to work the enforcement officers would have to be trained to the highest standard in Hackney carriage and Private hire law. We don't want officers like the enforcement team who turned up at Tiger Tiger and told the touts they could quite legally sit and wait to become hired in the 24 hour Bus Lane/Stand come Licensed Taxi rank.

If you wish to debate this issue please you the comment box below but -please stick to the subject matter of the article.

TtT.

RMT, A Statement On The Introduction Of Identifiers

2012-01-07T20:33:00.001Z

The RMT London Taxi branch, as all good trade organisations should, consults with its membership through monthly branch meetings.

We are totally democratic and will uphold our members wishes, right to the final conclusion.

TfL/LTPH are failing ALL of London's Taxi drivers, by their point blank refusal to increase the number of enforcement officers throughout the whole of London.It is not for the Taxi trade to act as TfL's private enforcement company.

Mr Hendy, Mr Mason it's your job to enforce the Law.You have failed in such an enormous fashion you should be ashamed.

I, and the Committee of the London Taxi branch will not condone any driver, whether All London or Suburban, working illegally.These identifiers will serve no purpose other than to put driver against driver, a situation which cannot be allowed.

More funding for more Enforcement officers is needed to empty the streets of illegally working vehicles.

Mike Tinnion.

Chairman.
London Taxi branch 930.
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
Unity House
39 Chalton street
London,
NW1 1JD.

Semtex take on the new ID Badges

2012-01-07T09:50:00.001Z

The proactive ranks of the UCG saw through this expensive smokescreen ages ago !
Naturally there was an issue with a few yellow badge rogues going under the fence and working off patch, we know that.

But creating enough attention and causing a fight between our own was a very clever ruse by TFL, to give them time to recover. Instead of our trade amalgamating and using our combined strength as a negotiating tool, we were busy slagging each other off with gusto.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes at Palestra and City Hall, other much more relevant issues were being discussed.

Transport for London's revenue greed have created a monster that they simply cannot control. There is not one senior police officer in any of the forces of either Metropolitan, City or British Transport Police who could look me in the eye and say that in respect of enforcement control in London, they have their finger on the pulse.
BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T !

The situation is seriously out of control, and London's combined police forces are putting their hands together each and every morning, and thanking the Almighty that they have got away with another day !

The free for all toffee apple sales of TFL's mini cab roundel shop is in full swing.
I am not aware of how many mini cabs are currently licensed. I am not aware of how many illegal touts are currently blatantly working in London.

But I AM aware of how many officers make up the current enforcement team to deal with them, and take it from me, it is absolutely nowhere near enough.

Time and time and time again, I have banged on and on about the lack of enforcement in London regarding mini cabs, will eventually cause a National Security breach. I have even told Helen Chapman this on the phone !

One day, the run of good luck combined with the law of averages will eventually run out for TFL and the Police.

When it does, the broken chain of security to London, will be cordoned off by investigators, keen to find out just who let the situation get this bad.

I am not going to incriminate myself at this stage, forecasting who will be blamed for the heads, arms, legs and torsos being seperated from the rest of the bodies of Londoners going about their business.

But I am sure that I know who it will be, and I am sure that this horror will eventually happen.
I am also sure that the ongoing investigation will reveal that a driver of a TFL/PCO licensed mini cab will be at the bottom of it.

Mystic Meg ? No, of course not. Prior information ? No, of course not. Dramatic and over the top reaction ? No, of course not. Just plain common sense and former experience, that's all.

Creating green and yellow cardboard squares in the back of cabs may well be the answer to the TFL Enforcement Programme, but it certainly isn't mine, and going on this post, neither the UCG's !

As I type this on 7th January 2012, the current MI5 Security Threat Level is 'SUBSTANTIAL'.
There are over 70,000 mini cabs that TFL are aware of out there, and God knows how many mini cabs off radar are operating illegally.

The issuing of bits of green and yellow cardboard squares will be seen as a major thrust forward by the PCO by many. After all, the threat of the odd yellow badge working in town was a worry to us all.

Personally, I would have rather have seen how ever much these cardboard squares has cost us all, go towards a far better cause in my eyes...............BETTER ENFORCEMENT, MORE COMPLIANCE AND A SAFER LONDON !

Keep cutting the cardboard out TFL. Keep selling the roundels and keep selling the toffee apples.

Above all though, keep up your friendship with Lady Luck. She has been extremely good to you so far, and for all our sakes, I hope she continues to do so.

8829 Semtex

Press Statement from the UCG about IDs

2012-01-07T03:03:00.001Z

The UCG does not condone and is opposed to any Licensed Taxi driver illegally working outside of the area they are licensed for.

However we believe that these identifiers are not the solution, the solution is to massively increase enforcement on the streets not just for Taxi drivers but predominantly for the army of licensed and unlicensed minicab touts.

Although these identifiers may have some effect we believe that TfL are ducking their responsibilities and are attempting to obtain enforcement on the cheap, this will only lead to infighting and set driver against driver.

The UCG will continue its fight to increase the number of enforcement officers and are currently making representations to TfL in respect of this issue.

Also see Euston, We Had A Problem. (Click Here)

The Hope and The Glory....by Semtex

2012-01-05T02:50:00.001Z

I have had several conversations with Helen Chapman.
She is a charming lady, and one who takes her brief seriously. Although she has never said it to me herself, I have had the opinion that she has been deliberately held back and forced to carry out her brief, well and truly under the cosh.

Inside the corridors of power

I have always publicly stated that I believe the appointment of a joint head of our Licensed Trade and Private Hire is a dangerous conflict of interest. It is a ludicrous appointment, and can only ever find itself surrounded by distrustful, disloyal and precarious situations.

The London Licensed Taxi profession and Private hire Mini Cabs are two different Trades.
The fact that TFL see us as one, is probably a good barometer of how things have got this bad.

Furthermore, it is probably the reason why there has been one Chief to watch over both the London Cab Trade, and the Private Hire industry. It is no surprise therefore to see the enormous gap of discontent getting wider and wider each day.

With no separate Commanders appointments in the pipeline that I know of, it may well turn out to be that Helen Chapman may have to take the reins.

Personally, and as much as I like her, I cannot see her being strong enough. The command and control of 25000 Licensed London Taxis and somewhere in the realms of 70000 TFL approved mini cabs, driving through our metropolis, is one hell of a specialised brief.

I have seen both Mason's and Helen's professional CV's and neither of them are qualified to hold the fort.
To ensure and expect such a huge responsibility and duty of care to run like clockwork, will require a person who has a background of high profile logistic and strategy planning experience. Probably a high ranking police officer or former military commanding officer.

Helen Chapman to replace Dave Stock

In the absence of such excellent professional criteria, we may very well see Helen Chapman attempt to achieve the impossible.
I said on the LTDF forum three days after Mason's 'breath of fresh air' appointment that he was way out of his depth and would most certainly fail.

To be honest, Helen can only give it her best shot from this day onwards. If she fails, it will be as we all expected. But if she manages to turn this huge and important remit on it's axis and gets stuck in, then both her personal and professional future will not only be guaranteed for the remainder of her career, but she will leave a massive legacy of respect and example in her footsteps.

Personally, I would relish such a massive opportunity as this, in my lifetime, and I am envious of Helen's New Year prospects. However, if there is one tiny bit of naiveity, hesitation, backtracking, blame or incompetence along her path of professional edge, the crushing jaws of the disloyal civil service jelly fish, will literally eat her alive.

Going on the previous post and the rumours on the street then, Helen Chapman will be the face to lead us out of this treacle.

Way to go girl, this is your stage and the spotlights are on !

I wish you well, and will watch your progress with hope and interest.

8829 Semtex.

New Year, Same Old Problem....By Thomas the Taxi.

2012-01-04T16:31:00.000Z

Welcome to the Olympic year of 2012.

Deputy Director of LTPH Helen Chapman

In a bid to take some of the pressure off the extremely poor performance of LTPH over the last two years, the director John Mason, has decided to hand over the job of enforcement and compliance to his deputy Helen Chapman. Helen remains as Deputy Director but takes on the extra role vacated by Dave Stock.

The biggest issue facing our trade, that of illegal plying for hire (forming unlawful ranks), by private hire drivers, is in a worse state now, than when John Mason and his team took up the appointment.

Two years ago, as ranks and highways representative for the RMT, I spoke to John Mason and bought this issue to his attention.
I pointed out that one of LTPH's officers (Luke Howard) had sent out an email informing drivers that after consulting with TfL's legal department and in their opinion, PHVs could legally wait to be hired outside any venue if legally parked. When I tried to refer to recent case law and relevant Hackney Carriage acts, John stopped me in mid-flow and said;
"If I had been in charge at that time, these emails would never have been sent out"
This statement inferred that he (Mason) agreed that PHVs could not legally wait to be hired and we left Palestra believing this matter would be dealt with.

However since that day, Mason has done absolutely nothing about the issue and has now put up a barrier between representative groups in the shape of an unworkable engagement policy. A policy that contravenes the Data protection act, whereby all members records would be available to LTPH.

Also, Section 4 states; that any trade body with a media outlet, be it a Blog, Magazine or Paper, if commenting on TfL/LTPH, must first submit copy to Mason for approval or face expulsion from consultation meetings. So basically a gagging order, denying freedom of speech.

Mason initially excused trade bodies he felt would not rock the boat.
This group known to the trade as the United Trade Group, did not have to sign or conform to the engagement policy, Mason gave them a free pass.

Another condition of acceptance to consultation rights was the need to have at least 5% of the trade as members, a condition that 2 of the 3 UTG members (LCDC and Unite) did not meet. The engagement policy does not apply to private hire groups such as the GMB and the PHA, who wish to consult with LTPH.

If and only if, Helen Chapman is not working under orders from on high and has a complete free hand to deal with the problem, this could be one of the best things that has happened to the trade for many years.

An LCDC blog moderator recently went against the grain to criticise LTPH's lack of will to address the problem and dug up information on case law and relevant acts that state PHVs can not stand and wait to be hired ( Click here for article).

We have seen many cities around the UK deal with this problem and now it is time to deal with it in the capital.

Good luck Helen, I think you're going to need it.

Editorial Comment.

The lies have to stop!
Multi agency action has to take place on a large scale.
Drivers illegally plying for hire must be prosecuted using the law that is there to protect the License Taxi trade.

Before any new policy is introduced this issue must be dealt with.
It can be done, just look at what Birmingham City Council have achieved.

New Year's Message, Travis B Writes.

2012-01-02T10:39:00.001Z

TfL, Ministry of misinformation!

We all thought that the director of LTPH, John Mason, had always told the trade that he had legal opinion that stated that ranks of PH outside satellite offices etc. were 'legal' and nothing could be done.
Indeed Mr Hendy kept Eddie Nestor of the BBC well away from them on their 'Fact Finding' tour.

Well boys & girls, the big New Year News is that an FOI request from the RMT has discovered:

'LTPH has not sought legal advice on the matter of Private Hire waiting outside premises'

So there we have it, of course the Badge, TAXI and CTN has reported all this to the trade, Tragically no they have not to their eternal shame, Why?
*They are supposed to be on the 'Inside' and keep telling us Mr Mason is doing 'all he can'.

**Still it sure beats driving a cab in the recession does it not?

As for LTPH why had they not sought such an opinion?

Case law stated many times over many years clearly indicates that waiting in view of the public whether on public or private land is Plying for Hire'.

Well its pretty obvious to anyone who is not hungover from the festivities:
If LTPH get the legal opinion it will tell them what they don't want to hear:

The Satellite Office is both unworkable and results in illegal activity and must be abolished.

Over to you then Mr Mason and what seems TfL's PR Dept. called the UTG for an explanation of this dereliction of duty and over to us to expose this scandal to the Mayor, GLA, Public Safety and Women's Groups,BBC, LBC, The Press, M.P.'s etc.

No doubt another set of high profile demos etc. along with the necessary legal angles by the Union beckon.

EDITORIAL COMMENT:
*The UTG cannot comment on this fact, as they have signed LTPH's infamous engagement policy, drafted by Mason which effectively gags their media publications from critical articles directed at TfL.
** It would appear that one of the editorial staff of the unelected trade representative group (since their AGM failed to attracted a quorum), the LCDC, failed to ad-hear to Masons engagement policy and published a damning report on-line (Click here to read) and has since been removed from the editorial team.

What happened to freedom of speech?

A New Year Message... From Semtex

2011-12-29T13:19:00.000Z

To all my colleagues and friends in the great London Cab Trade, may I wish you and your families a very healthy and lucky New Year.

I have met some fantastic mates in our profession, from all Unions/Clubs/Associations and Groups.
However, I would like to wish a special lucky 2012, to my close colleagues of the brilliant UCG, the mighty RMT and of course our very own LTDF, which allows us to converse with each other, without having to hold court at the front of a rank somewhere !

It has been a rocky ride for most of us during the global economic downturn, and our barometer like trade has dealt with it as best we could.

The financial analysts are still indifferent to their prognosis of the future, and I guess despite the huge salaries that they earn to predict the economy, nobody really knows what's in store.

Likewise, the London Cab Trade have a lot to contend with this coming New Year, and we have much work to do.
For me personally, and without doubt the most worrying of all, is the meddling and poking around of our 350 year old legacy, by the inexperienced and ill advised Law Commission Officers.

Despite their ignorance of the mechanics of our trade, their combined power of authority should never be undermined.
Although it is only Parliament itself that can turn a recommendation into law, advisories from this extremely high ranking panel, are more than likely turned into the laws of our land.

Naturally, the Commissioners themselves do not have a knowledge of everything, so instead rely on the evidence and advice from advisers within the various trades.

Looking at the advisers who represent us for example, doesn't actually fill me with optimism.

I shall be watching the movements of this brief with eagle eye, and our UCG and RMT already have their fingers firmly on the pulse.

As we all know, the STAN project turned out like we all knew it would. A load of old ill informed cobblers. Misleading, unworkable, deceitful, poorly policed and dreadfully ill advised.

With the City Police especially, taking a unhealthy and short sighted view of satellite venues, we are having difficulty holding back the tide. The rapes in mini cabs still take place, the touting still goes on and the piss poor enforcement is an International embarrassment.

Today, our Capital City is rolling along on a wing and a prayer. The weak link of the TFL chain is being stretched tighter and tighter and tighter. The welding has broken away,the link has widened and the chain is in imminent danger of breaking altogether.
Sadly and predictably, when it eventually breaks, people's lives will be taken, and their grieving loved ones who are left behind, will change forever.
Irrespective of this certainty, the financial revenue money making machine of Transport for London, chugs along in contemptible defiance.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of pounds roll in to TFL's Toffee Apple business, selling mini cab roundels for their existence.

To my mind, it is akin to a gorgeous trainee barrister being unable to make the law grades in which she set out to achieve , and so turning to prostitution instead. And that is exactly what Transport for London are..........Prostitutes. Selling themselves for money, because they cannot do the job that they were put there for.

This year, has seen our trade seemingly fighting in every corner. Millwall may reckon that "no one like us " but London Cabbies must be a pretty close second !

It seems as though the whole of the bent, unworkable system is attacking our legacy.
It is outrageous of course.

For hundreds of years, our profession have dealt with billions of miles of London's traffic chaos, safely taking Londoners, professionals, foreign nationals, children, business people and royalty to their chosen destinations, with a platinum service that the whole world envies.

Our loyalty and commitment have been swept aside in ruthless disregard, by a new breed of multi-cultural idealists, uncaring and disinterested in tomorrow...........only today.

By the time they realise what they have done, it will all be too late.

Irrespective of our plight, our London Taxi Trade still have much to fight for, and plenty to win.
Despite the touts, despite the flawed and useless STAN, despite the City Police's cosy relationship with satellite mini cabs, despite a woeful and appallingly useless enforcement team, despite the Olympics and despite everything else that makes us believe that our time is up.................it really isn't !

There is enough of us in unity to fight these traitors. There is enough combined strength in our ranks to DEMAND WHAT WE ARE HAVING, NOT WHAT THE IMPOSTORS SAY THEY ARE GIVING US !

We cannot and WON'T lie back and take it anymore !
Oliver Cromwell The Protector gave us the rights to ply in the metropolis unhindered if we could demonstrate and prove our criteria to be fit and proper persons.
We are ! They ain't ! So bollocks to the lot of them !

God must have been looking down on our trade when we saw the creation of the UCG.

This group will undoubtedly go on to become the strongest London Taxi Trade Representation that we have ever seen.

I am extremely proud to be a founder member, and may I say, that the colleagues of ours who work so constantly hard to keep it alive are amongst the most honourable, professional and dedicated men that I HAVE EVER STOOD WITH.
Trust my judgement when I tell you this, as I have been privileged to be associated with some extraordinary special men in my past life.

With the tungsten teeth of our green lanyard pals of RMT Taxi Section, our trade will soon see a regroup of strength that we have never seen or witnessed.

Although 2012 will surely be a difficult balancing act, I am convinced that due to the two assault battalions already mentioned, our trade will be victorious in dealing with the battles that face us.

We haven't lasted hundreds of years because we are impostors, weak and clueless.

Our trade has survived through the centuries due to our professionalism, our gold service, our knowledge, our pride, our dignity, our camaraderie and our skill.

There is no way we are going to let a group of spineless pension guided civil servants or mealy mouthed bent politicians steer us into oblivion !

There are some massive surprises cooking for our useless hierarchy coming any minute now. When they come, it will weaken the establishment severely.
It is at that point that we shall strike, and our great trade will live on for another 300 years.

Bring it on TFL, we are waiting for you.
To all my colleagues and friends, regardless of badge colour, skin colour or eye colour, may I wish you all a safe, happy and lucky New Year.

Look after your families, look after your health and look after your own.

2012 will see us re-establish in massive unity.

Just before closing, may I just say this.

During my time involved in this proud occupation, I have talked, stood and sat side by side with some wonderful men and women.

I could name dozens who I am so very very proud to be seen with, and they all know who they are.

8829 Semtex

A prediction of more to come... from a yellow badge driver

2011-12-28T10:59:00.001Z

The truth is GB's wouldn't know a legal YB pick up when he saw one, and for that matter neither would a YB! For example......

Whilst plying for hire on the arndale (island) rank in Wandsworth one rainy Sunday afternoon I was allocated a job on Com-Cab which I accepted without checking the pickup since I was chatting and there was so little work around I didn't care what it was.

When I checked it was picking up at the Ismaili centre going to Ealing. I called in to the office to say that I was bidding up to three miles and the Ismail centre was about four or five miles away and was told it was three as the crow flies and the woman was prepared to wait the half hour I predicted to get there as there were no other cabs available.

So I went to pick her up on a legally acquired job starting in south Kensington. I was wearing my yellow badge as I got out to assist her with the low step and was suitably snarled at by a GB who saw it as I rounded the cab to get back in.

What the f**k do you think your up to? I believe was the exact phrase he used as he took note of my plate number and threatened to report me,
"My job"
was my less than convincing reply, but let's face it, who would have believed me short of the pco contacting comcab and finding out my location at the time of allocation?

Add to that, that most GBs would have thought I was illegal on the arndale to start with and you begin to see how many false accusations will start to be made once the identifiers are in.

I never take jobs I am not legally entitled to but I rarely work outside the all London area which although being totally legal is also fraught with angry GBs who can't wait to kill the YB scum as they see us!

Don't think it's our fault because we didn't do the green, it's your fault cos you never bothered to check the laws and accuse without facts or reason.

All the ids will do is highlight how many yellows work legally in town which will only serve to hack off the greens obsessed with picking on YBs rather than PHV!

There are a few rogues who will disappear with the IDs leaving us law abiders to take the flack for your prejudice (note spelling... barrister bastard).

If you see a YB getting hailed and stopping fair play, they deserve all they get, but any other action could easily be and probably is legal or accidental. (ie checking your takings on the meter whilst stuck in traffic and your light goes on. If you don't permit anyone to get in your cab or accept a fare, it's not illegal for your light to go on out of sector. What is illegal is plying for hire and a hire light illuminated on its own does not constitute this!!)

I'm not saying don't report wrong doing, just be sure it's wrong doing that you report. Imagine how exhausting it would be if you had to keep explaining yourself although you had done nothing wrong!!

Anyone want to buy a soap box?

Westminster put under pressure from Wood and Vale

2011-12-27T11:42:00.001Z

Westminster Council has agreed to write to all motorists who were wrongly given £60,000 worth of parking tickets after pressure from local news paper, the Wood&Vale.

On Thursday the Wood&Vale reported the council would be making a profit of tens of thousands of pounds from its own mistake, after issuing £130 fines to 445 drivers on the Lisson Green Estate between April 4 and October 23.

Parking chiefs admitted all tickets issued during that time were unenforceable as it was a trial period.

But in in true Westminster fashion, true Westminster fashion, they said refunds would only be given out on receipt of a written request with details of when, where and why the parking ticket was issued.

However, the council has now agreed to change its policy by actively contacting every person who was wrongly issued a ticket to tell them they are eligible for a refund.

Parking boss Cllr Lee Rowley said: “Following a complaint a full investigation was carried out and we are confident this will not happen again.
“In line with our usual policy we will be offering refunds to customers who apply.
“We will also be issuing a letter to the Residents Association for inclusion in their newsletter and will add notes to the website as a way of communicating this.
“As a one-off, and because we take this very seriously, we will also be writing to every individual who has had a ticket and who we have details for.”

Travis B, A Christmas Message

2011-12-23T10:13:00.001Z

As I sit here opening a tin of SPAM ready for Christmas Day.

I gave some thought as to the contents of my annual message to you the working cab driver, I thought of reviewing who did and, perhaps just as importantly who did not, defend the cab trade in 2011.
But no, that's been done many times over and if it was a court room the UTG would have already been banged up!

I thought about Mr Mason's LTPH and its continued bumbling, once again the prosecution has rested its case and the inevitable verdict has been passed.

Then, like the ghost of Christmas Past, it appeared, a vision of Mr Peter Hendy CBE, Commissioner of Transport for London,
Ah! thats the Captain of the Ship that carries our destiny.

Let's have a gander (sorry the goose has been cooked) at what his organisation has done for us, the taxpayer and the travelling public:

1. After instruction from Boris, finally removed his beloved Bendy Bus from clogging up the Metropolis. Soon to be replaced with another white elephant (or is it red?) costing who knows what?

2. Brought in a 15 Year Age Limit for Cabs that will do NOTHING to improve air quality as a 14 year old cab has the same Euro engine.
This will inevitablty lead to a lower age limit and 'we will remember them' who have agreed this on our behalf.

3. Used the statistics that were rubbished by his goodself only the week before as the product of 'A militant (that's you Editor!) Cab Drivers Blog' when it suited TfL to massage the appaling statistics on sexual assaults in PH/Non PH tout vehicles.

4. Will soon sign off on identifiers, tried to sign off on moving LTPH workers out of town, refused point blank to allow us ORN access and no doubt has many more 'benefits' in store for us in 2012.

Still as he said 'we need to get out more' or some of us are 'selfish arrogant fools'.
Perhaps we should conclude that this man's "achievements" indicate he ain't no friend of the cab trade and prepare accordingly.

If that was all there was, that would be bad enough, but we are big boys & girls (and I keep getting bigger!) and as we have proved outside Windsor House, Palestra, Woodfield Road and Trafalgar Square we can look after ourselves.

Pat yourself on the back all those that supported these actions in your own time without a penny in 'stand down pay'. No wonder the UTG mob was absent!

Also the magnificent efforts on Remembrance Sunday that again shamed TfL.

Unfortunately todays news raises somewhat more serious matters:

The failure to implement any of the Coroners instructions about First Aid Provision on the tube and much more following 7/7.
LU is under the command of Mr Hendy, Surely the rush to have driverless trains and cost cutting have no bearing on such public safety concerns can it?.
Well I can think of an immediate saving of £350K that would help..

An enormous increase in violence and assaults on Tube, Bus etc.
Its hard to tell about PH/Non PH stats. as TfL keep using different sources.

STaN in action? Stan Laurel more like!

So there we have it, Mr Hendy's TFL 2012 & beyond 'Olympic' London:

Less Safe, Less Cabs, Less Ranks, Less Work, Less Road Space, More Requirements (2 MOT's, & Taxi Compliance Test, Identifiers, Names on Websites Etc), More Touts, More PH. The Law Commission, The UTG. and there's more, much more, still lets not get depressed at this time of goodwill.

Merry Christmas One and All (well not quite all!).

EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Let's not forget that as these top TfL incompetents sit down with their families on Christmas day, to enjoy each others company and reflect on another wonderfully profitable year, there are another 120 families this year that have had their lives shattered by acts of sexual assault and rape, carried out on one of their love ones.

Hendy, Mason, Royle and Taylor, should be held totally responsible by their inaction and refusal to deal with the many lines of illegally ranked PH cars outside night venues.
All in the name of revenue, in the shape of "Satellite Office" license fees.

It will soon be time to elect a Mayor for another four years and as Boris wishes every taxi and PH driver a more PC Happy Holiday, instead of the traditional Merry Christmas, let's not forget that he, as Chair of TfL, by his inaction and inability to deal with our problems, is part of the problem, not the solution.
TtT.

And on that note, the Anderson Shelters editorial staff;
Jim Thomas (Thomas the Taxi),
Jason Byrne,
Travis B,
Semtex 8829
and Simco,
would like to wish all its readers
"A very Merry Christmas"

Three years for Addison Lee driver convicted of manslaughter

2011-12-22T09:34:00.001Z

A minicab driver who left his passengers screaming in terror after running over a homeless man in the West End was convicted of manslaughter today.

Imran Raja, 37, was ferrying a married couple and two friends to a bar in November last year when Robert Scott, 58, splashed drink over his car and banged on the windscreen. Raja knocked down Mr Scott and drove over the body, the Old Bailey heard.

The driver, who worked for London's largest minicab firm Addison Lee, insisted he was unaware he had hit the victim until he was alerted by his passengers.

Raja, from Ilford, was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis he did not intend to cause serious harm. He was jailed for three years and nine months.

Prosecutor David Fisher QC said: “The passengers could hear and feel the bump as the tyres of the minicab went over Robert Scott.” They got out to see Mr Scott lying in the road with severe head injuries.

Missing People Appeal from Colin Outhwaite.

2011-12-21T13:05:00.001Z

Colin Outhwaite, Taxi driver and father of the famous actress Tamzin Outhwaite, was so moved after watching Gloria Hunnifold's piece about missing family members on ITV's "This Morning" he decided he would do all he could to help. Within days he had organised posters which he and his friends are now displaying on the drop seats of their Taxi's.

This morning, he put out an appeal for more Taxi drivers to come forward and volunteer to display these posters on their drop seats to help find these missing friends and family members.

This is something we can do, which will help to make such a big difference to so many families. Within minutes of the program being aired, the phones started ringing with sightings of lost friends and family members.

Please help Colin and his friends with this fantastic idea, together we can help make a huge difference to some desperate peoples lives.

If you have a face book page, upload the video or just post this link to the appeal;
http://youtu.be/Dx30e1AiAfE

Please send a link to this video to everyone in your contact list by text.
Lets give Colin all the support we can muster.

If you can help by displaying posters on your drop seats please email;
pr@missingpeople.org.uk

or phone;
020 8392 4583

One day, these posters may contain the face of someone you love.

RMT joins the ID Badge and Database fiasco.

2011-12-20T11:54:00.001Z

The RMT London Taxi Branch has had many enquiries about names being placed on TfL's website and the upcoming 'identifiers'.

We ask TfL the following:

1. What purpose does it serve?
Surely all anyone needs to know is if the badge number or cab plate is valid. Why does anyone need our name?

2. TfL state that 'Private Hire has had this facility for sometime now, with no problem'.
Well not quite accurate, all an enquirer can find out is the name of the operator.

3. How much is this costing and who was consulted?
We require to see any minutes, so the cab trade can note who agreed to this.

4. Concerning the identifiers about to be imposed, again how much did this cost?
Who agreed it?

5. If an identifier is lost or stolen, can a driver continue to work and will it necessitate a new bill and badge?

6. If as stated by TfL the identifiers are just to aid their enforcement staff rather than cause issues between cab drivers then just a small barcode label would have sufficed. Was this an option considered and again who was consulted and who agreed it?

The RMT are taking legal opinion on the Data Protection aspects of this and will also be raising the issue of wasting licensees and tax payer's money with TfL, the Mayor, Audit authorities and the GLA. We will also be exposing who agreed to what, without asking YOU the working cab driver. You have an absolute right to know what has been agreed in your name.

The RMT will defend its members and the whole cab trade without fear or favour.

Once again the Cab Trade has yet another requirement to needlessly follow whilst touting by PH and non PH vehicles carries on with minimal effective enforcement.

Director of LTPH John Mason, has replied in part with regards to question 5:

Dear Stan

I do not know where these ridiculous rumours come from but they never help and we have never stated this would be the case.

We would, of course, not stop anyone working as a result of such instances. We will, however, insist on immediate reporting to us of such (along with crime reference numbers if reporting as stolen) and we expect taxi drivers to treat the identifiers with the same level of respect and importance as their own badge.

Clearly anyone who continually "loses" their identifiers would need to be warned to be more careful and could be subject to action if this was more deliberate rather than accidental.

All will become clearer when drivers get the identifiers and the guidance notes and we will issue some more notices as well.

I hope this answers your question and allays your members concerns.

John Mason
Director - Taxi & Private Hire
4th Floor Yellow
Palestra
197 Blackfriars Road. London. SE1 8NJ

EDITORIAL COMMENT:
Still not clear if a driver will have to be issued with a brand new badge number!
So far, in our opinion, this new ID requirement is far from ready to implement.

Source; RMT London Taxi Blog http://t.co/SOvYLj0

Government to review ban on enhanced CRB checks for all taxi and private hire drivers

2011-12-19T13:31:00.000Z

Lord Henley, Minister for Crime Prevention, has announced that the Government will reconsider its view that enhanced criminal records checks are not needed for taxi and minicab drivers. The Criminal Records Bureau informed councils earlier this year that it was ending the 10-year practise of checking drivers through the enhanced check.

Lord Henley made the announcement during the Lords debate of the Protection of Freedoms Bill following a proposed amendment to reintroduce the checks by Baroness Doocey.

Baroness Doocey stated that, in London alone, 10% of all licence applications were refused as a result of discoveries made through an enhanced check, demonstrating the check’s clear contribution to passenger safety.

Both Transport for London and the LGA have been lobbying for Government, along side with an increasing number of local licensing districts, to reconsider its position and welcome the announcement.

TFL worked closely with Baroness Doocey over the tabling of the amendment. The amendment was withdrawn, but Government committed to taking this forward through other methods. The changes can be made using an amendment through the 1997 Police Act and could come into force as early as February 2012.

Lords Taxi/PH CRB check debate

............................................................

Stop Press:

LTPH take down controversial Taxi driver badge/names check page on TfL website.

Well done to all who helped by complaining.

United we stand but divided we will fall.

Tweeting Drivers Force LTPH Rethink Over ID Badge and Data Base

2011-12-18T17:28:00.000Z

On Saturday drivers finally came to terms with the danger of personal details being given out freely on-line on the TfL website. After it was revealed on Twitter that drivers full names could be obtained by simply entering badge numbers, or badge numbers could be obtained by entering names, all hell broke lose. Many tweets and emails were fired off, complaining to MPs, MEPs, the Mayor, Assembly Members, local councillors and trade representatives.

While fury swept the screens of drivers smart phones, LTPH desperately tried to console the angry mob by making an announcement, that from early next week the service would be temporarily disabled, while further legal advise was taken and to give trade representatives a chance to consult further on the subject.

I was told by a spokesperson that the reason drivers details were available on-line was because they (TfL/LTPH) have a duty under the London cab act to supply drivers details to members of the public on request and that this service has been available for private hire for some time. LTPH have been informed by their legal department that this would not be a breach of the data protection act.

But an on-line data base, openly available to anyone is surely going too far and not quite what the London cab act meant by available on request...
I believe this is not only a breach of the data protection act, but also (as stated in previous post) the "European Human Rights Charter".

To prove my point about how dangerous this situation is, using software freely available on-line I found out the badge numbers, home addresses, number of people in the residence, names of neighbours and took photos from "Google street view" of the front doors of most of the UTC committee members. These details however will not be published, as this was purely an academic exercise.

I must thank Deputy Director of TPH Helen Chapman, who, as the fuss reach fever pitch, immediately contacted John Mason and together they agreed to disable the facility later this week until further notice.

I have been informed the reason badge numbers are to be displayed in such a large font on these controversial ID badges, is to assist licensing officers who as non warranted officers have no right to stop a Taxi for Badge and Bill or compliance checks if a driver refuses to stop.

But my argument is, private hire drivers are not compelled to have there badge number emblazoned on their windscreen in large format and in fact are allowed to hide their license details with tinted glass.

So how do Licensing/Compliance officers currently stop and check private hire drivers???

So again it would seem there is one rule for us and just guild-lines for them.

I am not totally opposed to some form of distinction between London central and suburban drivers if that's what the trade in general wants, but the ID badge that are intended to be issued this week are an insult to ever London licensed driver.

I believe a new design of ID badge with the drivers badge number not so prevalent would be a better compromise.

Unacceptable............................................More acceptable

TfL Database to compromise your families safety.... By Thomas the Taxi.

2011-12-17T12:30:00.001Z

LTPH have announced that Licensed Taxi drivers details are now available to anyone who goes on-line to the TfL web page. They say the reason for this is to bring the Taxi trade in line with details already available on Private Hire drivers.

We decided to check out the new Database for ourselves and were quite literally horrified.

In regards to the Private Hire Database, most complainants would only be able to observe either the vehicle registration number, or the vehicle LTPH license number from the vehicles roundel. That's if you can get close enough to read the very small print and the vehicle doesn't have heavy tinted windows!
Inserting these numbers will tell you only if the Vehicle is registered as a PH vehicle and which mini cab firm it is currently registered to.

With the Taxi driver page, we found entering the drivers badge number, which will shortly be compulsory for every green badge driver to display on front and rear windscreens, will give you the drivers current status and also his full name.
Also if you know a drivers name, say someone who is high profile such as a trade leader or trade journalist, entering this name gives you that drivers badge number.

Now, with other Internet software freely available on-line, unless that driver is ex-directory you can find his/her address. But even if you are ex-directory there is other software available, plus checks for CCJ's and credit rating. Its amazing what's kept on-line!

This Database does not bring the trade in-line with PH as the PH drivers personal number is only available on demand from the driver and not to the casual observers.

Anderson Shelter Comment:
We strongly feel this Database is a breach of article 8 section 1 of the EU charter on the human right of privacy for individuals and their families. This Database compromises every Licensed Taxi drivers safety and that of his/her family.

The ability to acquire a drivers name from his/her badge number, must be removed from the TfL database, as there is no reason why casual observers should need this information.

We would advise every concerned Taxi driver, who is worried about their families safety, to contact their MP, MEP and if you live in London your Assembly Member. Use the box below to find your local and national representatives, don't wait for the UTG to do this as they are in favour of this Database.
I believe the RMT and the UCG are the only groups currently taking legal advice on this matter

Until such time that this safety issue is dealt with, I personally will be refusing to display the ID badges in my vehicle and invite other concerned drivers to join my passive disobedience.

Minicab Driver Rapist Jailed.

2011-12-14T20:04:00.001Z

Police today renewed a Christmas warning to women about the dangers of unbooked minicabs after a driver was jailed for nine years for raping a teenage partygoer.

Marcos De Souza, 32, was trapped because his DNA was held on file even though he had no criminal record. The Brazilian had lured the drunken 19-year-old into his car as she left a house party in Camden in February.

The victim was so drunk the sex predator believed she would never remember what was about to happen to her, Inner London crown court heard. But when she arrived home dishevelled, her boyfriend encouraged her to call police and De Souza's DNA was found after tests. The sex predator was traced because police had taken his DNA when he was arrested after a previous girlfriend claimed he had assaulted her. The case was discontinued but his profile was retained on the national database.

De Souza was arrested two months after the rape when he went to report a car break-in. Investigators put his name into the database and were stunned to discover he was a wanted man and arrested him.

Jurors found him guilty at a retrial after a previous jury had been unable to agree a verdict. As a result De Souza, who had denied rape and claimed the young woman was a willing participant, forced her to relive her ordeal twice.

On his release he will face deportation and has to sign the sex offender register indefinitely. Outside court detective constable Richard Huggins, of Lambeth's Sapphire Unit, said: "Mr De Souza's conviction, particularly in the run-up to the Christmas party season when people are enjoying a drink, highlights the dangers of getting into unlicensed minicabs. Always book a cab using a licensed company as it is not worth the risk"

Identifiers, brought to you by the people who gave you; Age Limits, Law Commission, Olympic Zil Lanes, Satellite Offices and Illegal Plying for Hire.

2011-12-13T03:21:00.000Z

On Thursday last week, certain interested drivers received notification by text, that the ID stickers for all London's Green badge drivers would be delivered to Palestra by the end of December, with Yellow Badge identifiers arriving no later than the end of January.

We are informed the ID badges will have to be displayed in both front and rear windows of every Taxi, although we have not been informed what is to happen with Taxis containing full rear screen adverts.

No view for identifiers

This has to be seen as fair for all London Taxis not just the ones that are not part of corporate sponsorship. Mind you, this has never stopped PH from hiding their green roundels completely from view with heavily blacked out windows.

But as we know from the past, there is one rule for them and another one for us.

Easily Removable!
The identifiers will be contained in plastic wallets that will attach to the glass, so the ID badges can be easily removed. We're also informed that should a driver lose his identifiers or if they are stolen from the vehicle, the driver will have to apply for a new badge number and cannot work until it is issued. As PCO/LTPH have no counter services, this will have to be done by post and going on past experience (renewing bill) could take many weeks.
Many weeks where the driver will be unable to work and earn a living.

***Worrying and Dangerous***
The most worrying aspect of these identifiers is, they carry the drivers badge number in big bold print. At present, these is no reason why an interested passenger or enquiring enforcement officer should not be given access to a drivers badge number, but why should any pedestrian, cyclist or angry nut job be given this information.

More worrying, is the fact that LTPH are currently collating drivers details to use on a database, which will be accessible to any member of the general public with a drivers badge number.

We already have a registration number and a PCO plate numbers on full view to the public. Why would anyone need a drivers personal details?

The Anderson Shelter, along with the UCG and the RMT believe this is going to compromise the safety of every Licensed Taxi driver and their family.

It seem officers at TfL have no conscience over peoples well-being or safety. We have already seen the death of one of their own, compliments of "Project Horizon". Just what will be the consequence of this data base, I dread to think.

Last week at a democratic branch meeting, the London Taxi branch of the RMT voted 29-1 to oppose the introduction of these stickers based on these principles.

Drivers already wear Yellow and Green Badges that are available to passenger and enforcement officers alike.
Private hire is not required to have any new stickers or badges exclaiming they cannot be booked without being pre-booked.
If an ID badge is stolen from the back by a passenger, then the driver has to stop working completely until a new badge number is issued. This we understand could take several weeks.
A database, currently being compiled by TfL will allow members of the public to look up the details of a badge number and be able to identify the driver.

Cover-Up
The Anderson Shelter now believes this whole issue of ID badges has been a cover-up for the scandalous, ineffectual handling of the stolen Bills from Penton Street.
It has also been used to keep the trade fragmented and defuse the issue of non enforcement of illegal plying for hire by licensed PHVs outside so called operational centres (satellite offices), seen as a major revenue source to TfL.
The editor of the LCDC publication "The Badge" has allowed LTPH to continually publish untrue scare tactics and lies about the current Yellow badge/Green badge issue.

Editorial Comment by Travis B.

So where are we now folks?

Cloned Bills of unknown quantity on the streets with TfL panicked into Bill & Badge Checks that may or may not catch a few. Too little, too late yet again.
Money spent on identifiers that have been divisive, will cause us all grief if taken from the cab,dressed up as a GB/YB issue when it was clones all along as the reason. yet no 'pre booked only' for PH, why?
PHV's out of control and touting getting worse, due to TfL's denial of reality and its inability to take the decisions necessary to beef up the enforcement or regulations. The PH consultation was laughable and a non event.
A 'United' Trade Group obsessed with 'keeping in' with TfL rather than defending the trade in any real way. The fight is being taken by others, join them today.
Olympic Lanes, Age Limits, Law Commission, all threats and disadvantages to be faced for the world's No.1 Cab Trade. (please note FYI TfL, the surveys have never included either your 'splendid' organisation or private hire).

Many of us heard the usual PR Script from John Mason on Eddie Nestor last week and that Mr Mason expects his bonus and the avoidance of anything challenging.

Well all I can say, if Mr Mason is performance related, he owes the council tax payers and the cab trade a rebate!

Be Lucky, (we are all gonna need it!)

Editorial Comment from Thomas the Taxi.

The Anderson Shelter in no way condones the practice of suburban drivers working out of sector and feel they should be dealt with by the official channels. Had we known about the real problem with the stolen bills earlier, we would have shown more favour to the increased badge and bill checks.

How Many Cloned Bills Are Out There?

2011-12-11T04:52:00.001Z

Just How Many Cloned Bills Are Out There?
Drivers are now complaining that they are being inundated with Badge and Bill requests all over Central London. Last week saw enforcement officers at many different locations, in and around the West End. I for one was ranting about the continued harassing of Licensed Taxi drivers when illegal ranking by PHV's is being completely ignored.

I have now been informed these B/B exercises are for a very good reason.

Earlier this year, a member of the RMT approached Chairman Paul Walsh after being called to attend a police station in the City of London, over discrepancies in the details recorded on his Taxi drivers licence (Bill).
It transpired, or so we were led to believe, that the "Bill" which had been presented to the station was in fact not the genuine article, (but was good enough to fool the examining officer). The driver whose name was on the bill had no knowledge of an offence, or the presentation to the police station. The driver was subsequently released and told that the City of London police would carry out an investigation.

RMT Meet With Mason.
Not satisfied to let the matter be buried, the RMT contacted John Mason, director of LTPH, and although he had repeatedly refused to meet with an RMT committee in the past, a meeting was hurriedly arranged. Mason assured the assembled contingent that this was no more then a one off. In fact he insisted the Bill was just a bad photocopy.
He seemed uninterested in reports that someone in his department was offering bills for open sale and said the rumours were unfounded. He added "if this were the case, then LTPH at Palestra would go into "Lock Down" mode".

Fuel of the Flames

Just a few months earlier an incident (still unexplained) took place at Victoria Station.
Reports of a major collision between a Toyota PHV and a Black Taxi were published on twitter by a number of Taxi drivers. I attended the scene personally, and was told by the officer in charge that the driver of the Taxi had absconded. The officer was visibly upset, as a number of elderly American passengers were taken to hospital in quite a serious condition after the roof had to be removed from the Taxi. I made enquiries to LTPH on a number of occasions and have been informed that, so far, the police have been unable to trace the Taxi driver. The condition of the passengers remains undisclosed as the police investigation is still ongoing.

How did this driver manage to disappear without a trace?
How did he manage to hire a Taxi in the first place?
Until today, no answers have been issued.

It is believed that the licence used to hire the Taxi was in fact another cloned Bill. Garages are now being advised by LTPH to ask to see the drivers badge as well as holding the Bill copy.

Now We Have Cloned Bills, Turning Up Again.
It is alleged that cases involving cloned Bills are regularly turning up in court. Apparently fines of £80 are being dished out along with 60 hours community service. I have been informed of one knowledge student, who paid £5000 for the fake Bill and after being fined, as he did not disclose where the fake was purchased, was given a complementary one and is now back behind the wheel of a Taxi.

Knowledge Students Targeted.
Targets are selected carefully from amongst Knowledge students that have completed over a years training to give them a reasonable chance of blending in unnoticed.

Unconfirmed reports
There have been unconfirmed reports that a large number of genuine Bill blanks disappeared when the PCO moved from Penton Street to Palestra. Could this be the reason behind the sudden change from the old styled bill to the new issue?

This would explain the increase in on street badge and bill checks of late as PCO enforcement would be in possession of all the numbers of the stolen Bills.

LTPH say, the increase in on-street Badge and bill checks are a result of too many yellow badges working out of sector. Many green badge drivers say they won't display these ID badges in their present form as, if stolen by passengers from the rear windscreen, the driver has to apply for a new badge number and cant work until it has been issued. As there are no counter services at Palestra, this could take several weeks.

LTPH have been unable to back up the supposed mass exodus from the suburban sectors with statistics of revocation or suspension of Yellow badge licenses.

Perhaps LTPH think these drivers who are in possession of stolen or counterfeit Bills are suddenly going to disappear if/when ID badges are bought in. The people behind the fraud will just add fake ID's to their illegal transactions.

200 licences at £5k a pop, a cool million pounds! We're not talking about peanuts here.

Suddenly they find a couple of dozen foot soldiers to look for stolen Bills...

Where have these PCO enforcement officers been for the last two years, when over 270 serious sexual assaults have taken place in Licensed Private Hire vehicles???Not unlicensed minicabs!!!! but licensed Private Hire vehicles. How do the officers in charge of policing the Taxi and Private Hire trades sleep at night?

Joe Royle (now removed from his position) Sultan Taylor, John Ryland, John Mason, Helen Chapman, Peter Hendy and Boris Johnson...It is your incompetence that has kept this number so high. Your inability to deal with illegal plying for hire has meant that 270 young lives have been shattered.

How do you sleep at night?

A friend of mine has just come back from New York, where they have 13,000 licensed Taxis. The tour guide told him they have 400 enforcement officers to deal with illegal plying for hire and plenty of rank spaces.

What are they doing with our licence fees?

Why have they suddenly not got the budget for enforcement?

Where has the money gone?

Thomas the Taxi.

Reply to email from John Mason, Director of LTPH.

2011-12-09T21:31:00.001Z

Regarding the earlier post ;

More Scandal from LTPH

I received an email from the director of LTPH, John Mason, who obviously hasn't read the post properly, or understood the legal implications of said article.

John Mason accuses the Anderson Shelter of posting before any facts had truly been established.

He also states that according to records held by LTHP there are no instances of any Taxi or Private Hire vehicle being registered in Spain or any other Country for that matter other than the United Kingdom.

In Reply:

First of all, the Anderson Shelter was happy to consult with LTPH and supplied all relevant information in our possession, to Deputy Director Helen Chapman.

Secondly, the details of this incident are to be subject to a Police investigation, therefore the exact details of the vehicle and driver will be held by the RMT who are currently dealing with the case. The Anderson Shelter merely reported the story, as given by the RMT. It is not our job to investigate but to report. It is LTPH/TfL's job to investigate.
If you want to know the full facts, then I suggest you arrange a formal meeting with the secretary of the RMT and not just the odd text on such an important matter.

Thirdly, at no time did the article state the vehicle was registered in Spain.
The post says quite clearly that the registered keeper of the vehicle is listed as living in Spain. We have also been informed since the article was posted that the PHV is insured with a Spanish company.

John, I was disappointed to say the least (although not surprised) by the belligerent and aggressive tone of your emails and find your behaviour unbecoming for someone who holds the office of Director of LTPH.

I suggest you read the EU directorate on freedom of movement of workers which guarantees its citizens freedom to move and reside freely, the right to establish services and the right to take up employment within the member territories.

If you haven't got the nerve to prosecute PHV's for illegally plying for hire in case you lose, assumed by your evasion of my question to you on the Eddie Nestor Show (sent two hours before the program started, as requested), then I wouldn't advise going down the EU free movement of workers road.

The Anderson Shelter have always stood by its policy of removing posts that are proven inaccurate. In this case the editorial board feel that no evidence has been submitted to prove the article inaccurate and therefore the post will stand.

Jim Thomas

Editor, The Anderson Shelter.

New Landmark Court Ruling Acts As Warning To Taxi Drivers

2011-12-07T19:38:00.001Z

Taxi driver runs foul of the law as he imprisonspassengers over fare dispute – new court case should act as a warning

Taxi law experts Howards Solicitorsare warning taxi drivers not to take the law into their own hands, even if theybelieve they are being provoked, after a new landmark ruling.

The case of Eve Lamb v Equity RedStar has set a new precedent for theduty of care demanded of taxi drivers towards their passengers and other roadusers.

The taxi driver who was insuredEquity Red Star had been found liable of false imprisonment after he refused tolet his passengers leave his vehicle over a fare dispute.

In the ensuing confrontationbetween the driver and Ms Lamb’s partner, she suffered a broken hip requiring 6weeks in hospital after the driver lost control of his vehicle.

The taxi driver had decided to takethe couple to a police station despite repeated requests to be allowed to exit– an action that was deemed false imprisonment by the Court.

This has led to a key ruling thatthe driver had a strict liability, which makes him legally responsiblefor the damage and loss caused by his acts regardless of fault – Ms Lamb wasawarded £13,250 in damages.

Deputy District Judge Jones alsocommented in his judgement that the driver had the option to stop his vehiclebut continued and so posed a significant danger to other road users as well ashis passengers.

Howards Solicitors, which worksclosely with the taxi trade, represented Ms Lamb, believes that taxi driversmust take away key lessons away from this case.

False imprisonment over fare dispute leads to taxi driver held responcable for serious accident

Gavyn Atkinson, head of personalinjury and civil litigation, who worked on the case at Howards Solicitors,advises: “If you are a taxi driver that believes that they have been wronged donot take the law into your own hands, pursue other options.

If you find yourself in a difficultposition call the Police if possible, drop off passengers outside their homesor places of work and note the address, install cameras in your cab.”

Atkinson continues: “Only in casesof self-defence where you honestly believe that there is a threat to yourphysical well-being would we acknowledge that there might not be any reasonablealternative. However, cases that go toCourt are often not clear cut in regards to self-defence.”

Oliver Gardner managing partner ofHowards Solicitors, which specialises in criminal and motoring law comments:“The law is still far from satisfactory for taxi drivers. There are few, if any, cases that give muchneeded guidance to taxi drivers in this area.

Moreover, Gavyn’s research showedthat no approved guidelines are in place, from councils or colleges offeringNVQs for taxi drivers. It is a situationthat needs to be resolved quickly to protect taxi drivers and theirpassengers.”

Notes:

The above release is of a new court ruling which has ramifications for taxi drivers who take the law into their own hands, despite however provoked they might feel.
The case centres on false imprisonment after a dispute over a fee.
The resulting accident and the liability, which was attributed to the taxi driver, for the injuries sustained shows that should an incident happen, such as refusal to pay a fare, then alternatives legal ways must be sought. The consequences in this case over a fare dispute amounting to £3 should act as a warning now that the Law has further clarified this issue

Rob
Artisan Marketing Communications
07957611834
Twitter: robartisan
Blog: www.artisanmc.co.uk
rob@artisanmc.co.uk

More Scandal from LTPH......Thomas the Taxi

2011-12-07T18:14:00.001Z

We have been informed that the RMT are to represent a driver who unfortunately, has been involved in a set with a licensed private hire vehicle.

The driver of the Taxi, who is a member of the RMT, explained that he tried to get his cab repaired by one of the companies that offer a no-fault service, as he was clearly not responsible for the accident. He gave details over the phone to the company and arrange for his Taxi to be picked up and the drop off a replacement vehicle.

But later the same day, the company rang back to inform him that although the vehicle had British registration plates, the private hire vehicle's registered keeper was listed as living in Spain. Therefore the repair company said there was no way they could touch this case on a no fault contract.

The question has to be asked, how can a vehicle who's registered owner,
live in another country, be licensed as a London private hire vehicle?

The implication is that this vehicle's driver's details can not be acquired by LTPH should any offence be committed (Speeding, Parking, Moving Traffic Offence, Zig Zag lines etc.).

Is this one of the reasons why so little is being done about the epidemic of licensed private hire drivers breaking laws?

How many of these minicabs with owners who live abroad, are driving round with no way of finding out who is driving them?

What will happen if/when a rape victim gives details of a vehicle registered to a foreign owner?

Perhaps someone from LTPH would like to tell us why they are licensing vehicles for use as private hire mini-cabs which are owned by non residents and how they intend to prosecute driver of such vehicles?

TO PLY OR NOT TO PLY, THAT IS THE QUESTION.... By Alan Fleming.

2011-12-05T02:46:00.001Z

I read with interest in the last edition of United Cabbies News the proposals of T&PH, for allowing PH ranks. Some ten years ago when at the Club I was informed that this was going to be the case in Kingston. I informed the other trade organisations but had no response. I did take it up with the then PCO but my observations fell on deaf ears. I thought that your readers may wish to know what constitutes plying for hire.

What is plying for hire? That is a question that we all think we can answer, but can you? Since I first became a cab driver almost forty years ago I made it my business to understand the laws that we have to abide by. Further very early in my time as a driver I spent many hours reading all the stated cases involving plying for hire. Because I have done this many consider that I am an expert on the subject. Knowing what I do it has long been my opinion that the relevant laws that govern both taxis and PHV are not fully understood by those, who regulate both trades. This also applies to those who make the laws and the solicitors who advise them. Most will know that PHVs have been licensed since 1976 under the Miscellaneous Provisions Act. It was always said that London should not and did not need mini-cabs to be licensed as London was a special case. What ever was meant by that has always been a mystery. So now let us get on with the question of what constitutes plying for hire.

There has never been a definitive explanation for this particular part of a taxi drivers daily work. However, Butterworths legal dictionary states that the phrase is akin to waiting. Never the less we have to look at the many cases that have gone to the High Court to find the true definition. I will take you back to one of the earliest cases of unlawfully plying for hire this took place 140 years ago. The location was Harrow Railway Station in 1871. The case in question is Clarke & Goodge v Stanford. The facts of this case are that a driver a Mr. F G Clarke took up a position on the station forecourt to await being hired. Clarke and the owner of the vehicle obviously felt they were safe as the forecourt of the station was private, but they were wrong. The driver Clarke was convicted of plying for hire and the owner Goodge convicted of owning an unlicensed hackney carriage, which both of them appealed against the conviction.

On April 29 1871 the case came before the Court of the Queens Bench in the High Court.
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn presided over the case accompanied by Mr Justice Mellor and Mr Justice Lush. The conviction was upheld. The summing up of the Lord Chief Justice is very interesting as you will read. This was what the LCJ had to say about the activities of F G Clarke. The carriage was on the private forecourt of the station and was available for anyone who wished to hire his carriage, it was plying for hire. Although the place is private property the public are entitled to travel by train, and has a right to pass over the premises of the railway to get in or out. Therefore if a man is standing on those premises with his carriage to take persons who are desirous of hiring said carriage, he is plying for hire. So the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public at the time of hiring. Mr. Justice Mellor stated in support the following.

It is said there is no plying for hire as the carriage is admitted on the railway premises under certain regulations, that is it is only to carry persons who come by train. But what is the carriage there for? Though the driver makes no sign he is there to be hired by persons who arrive by train, and there is no restriction as to the persons who, arriving by train shall hire the carriage, therefore it is plying for hire.

Now let me rephrase that comment and apply it to Leicester Square as it was at Xmas
The cars are in Whitcomb St under certain regulations and are only to carry passengers who make a booking at the ticket office in Leicester Sq. But what is the car there for? Though the driver makes no sign he is there to be hired by persons who apply to the ticket office, and there is no restriction as to the persons who apply to the office to hire the car, therefore it is plying for hire

Further to this as you know there is a taxi rank in Whitcomb St outside the hotel were cabs ply for hire, by waiting to be hired. So what is the difference between the cabs on rank and the cars who wait to be hired on the opposite side of the street? The answer is obviously none at all. So where does this leave PHVs who stand round London, and await to be hired by radio. If they are standing in a public place at the time of the hiring they must be on view to the public. Therefore they are unlawfully plying for hire.

During that same year of 1871 there was another case came before the courts. This was Allen V Tonbridge. The case was about a Mr. Tonbridge who owned a carriage and was allowed to stand on the property of Cannon Street railway station. He had permission to do this by the railway company. Tonbridge had placed his carriage a Brougham on the arrivals platform and waited for the train to arrive. The sole purpose of this was so that his carriage could be hired, which it was. However, a Met police inspector Robert Allen saw the carriage hired and Tonbridge was summoned. He was convicted of plying for hire in the magistrates court and consequently appealed against, the conviction. The appeal came before what was then known as, The Court of Common Pleas. This was where three Chief Justices sat in Judgement. Counsel for Tonbridge argued that there was no plying for hire as the station was private property. The senior Chief Justice summed up and delivered this judgement.

Mr. Justice Willes made the following judgement.
The carriage was in the station and was intentionally exposed so as to be hired by any person. Moreover it was proved that actual application was made to two persons who arrived by train to hire the carriage. And the decision of the magistrates court to convict must stand. As you can see the conviction was based on the fact that the carriage was on view to the public at the appropriate time.

Mr Justice Smith in support agreed with the judgement stating the following.
I base my judgement on the case in the Queens Bench referring to the case of Clarke and Stanford V Allen. This was his judgement. It was held that if a person exposes his carriage where every body passing by may be willing to hire it, that is plying for hire.

I now come to the case of White V Cubitt 1929 LCJ Hewart presiding in the Kings Bench Division of the High Court. This little escapade occurred in the private yard at the side of The Railway Tavern public house at the junction of, Rocks lane and Upper Richmond road. The owner of the vehicle rented the space in the yard from the publican to carry out his business. Two ladies walked into the yard from the street and hired the car to go to Richmond Park Golf Club. The owner of the car a Mr. Charles Cubitt was seen by Sgt White of the Met police accepting the hiring, and Cubitt was summoned to appear in the magistrates Court, where he was convicted. He appealed against the conviction and the case came before the High Court.

The argument put forward by his defence counsel was that he did not ply for hire in a public place as, the yard was private property. Counsel further laboured the point that the public did not have access to the yard. However the Lord Chief Justice stated the following facts.
Although the car was on private property and the public did not have access to the yard, the vehicle was plying for hire. Again his comments in summing up are very interesting for the following reasons. The Lord Chief Justice made the following Statement. The car may have been on private property but it had been placed in such a way in the yard and with the gates to the yard wide open, it was on full view to the public. And the conviction in the lower court was upheld. Again I have to say this puts PHVs in a position of breaking the laws of plying for hire. This for the simple fact they are on view to the public at all material times.

Lets us now come forward a few years to 1946 this is the case of Gilbert V McKay.
McKay had an office in Rupert St. with a sign over the shop window showing that cars were for hire. Several cars belonging to McKay were standing in the street outside of the office.
Several people were seen to enter the office for the purpose of paying for the hire of anyone of the cars, in which they were driven away. McKay was charged with being the owner of unlicensed hackney carriages. He was convicted and fined by the Magistrates court and lodged an appeal, the appeal was dismissed. The Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard had the following to say. In my opinion even if the cars had been standing in a private yard and could not be seen by the public, there could still have been a plying for hire if they had been appropriated for immediate hiring. The important thing here is the reference to a private yard and not on view to the public at the time of hiring. Even more important is his reference to an immediate hiring. This is what was happening in Leicester Sq. As you can see the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public. Is this the position of the PHV or not?

We now come forward in time to 1962 to the case of Rose V Welbeck Welbeck motors being the first minicabs to hit the streets in London. This was brought to court by a London cab driver, Emanuel Rose. The car was standing in the street at Stratford Broadway obviously waiting to be hired. The police were summoned to the scene by Mr. Rose and the upshot was that the driver of the car was summoned to appear in court, for plying for hire.
When the case was heard the magistrates court dismissed the case so an appeal against the decision was entered. The case came before LCJ Parker in the Queens Bench division of the High Court. The car had Welbeck motors emblazoned on the side of the vehicle and a telephone number. It had been argued by counsel for Welbeck motors that the advertising on and the appearance of the car were incapable of conveying to the public an invitation that the vehicle was for hire. The following is the judgement of LCJ Parker.

It is perfectly true that the inscriptions were advertising Welbeck motors and if you ring Welbeck 4440 you can have one of the vehicles that they hire, known as a minicab. He went on to say that the inscription was saying more. What it was saying was the following. I am one of those minicabs and I am for hire, I think in that connection that the reference to minicabs is important as it is saying I am one of those vehicles and I am for hire. And referred the case back to the lower court where Welbeck motors were convicted for plying for hire. Again the conviction was due to the fact the vehicle was on view to the public.

Just a few days later the case of Vincent V Newman came before LCJ Parker the circumstances were similar. The vehicle had been stood in Addison Crescent were it was observed by a police officer and was summoned to appear before the Magistrates court, for unlawfully plying for hire. The magistrates dismissed the case and the Met police appealed.
The appeal was upheld and referred back to the Magistrates, where the driver was convicted. Once again due to the fact that the car was standing in a public place.

I now come to the most recent case which occurred in Eastbourne in 2000. This case came before Lord Justice Pill and Mr. Justice Bell. This was in the Queens Bench division of the High Court. The case had been brought to court by Eastbourne Borough Council against two PHV drivers. They had been found on the rank of the forecourt of Eastbourne station. And were summoned under sect.37 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 of plying for hire without a licence. The magistrates dismissed the case on the grounds that the forecourt was not a public place. Lord Justice Pill quoted the case of White V Cubitt where a vehicle parked in a private yard was plying for hire, as it could be seen from the street. He went on to say applying the principle in White V Cubbit since a vehicle parked in the station forecourt was likely to attract custom from members of the public using the adjoining street, the defendants were plying for hire. Again we have the situation of being on view to the public.

This now brings me to the situation in Leicester square where the theatre ticket booking office has been licensed as a Licensed PHV Operator centre. Not only has it been licensed it advertises the following by a revolving neon sign, the following message. Need a safe journey home fully licensed private hire minicab service available here. That in itself is unlawful as it is soliciting business and is tantamount to touting, under sect 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994. The cars are parked up like a taxi rank in Whitcomb street and are waiting to be hired, and are on full view to the public. A person goes to the booking office hires a car and is taken by a marshal to the waiting car. This is a repeat of Gilbert V McKay 1946 which was judged by LCJ Goddard to be plying for hire.

Now Westminster City councils director of transportation Martin Low states this is not plying for hire. Well I have news for Mr. Low he is 100% wrong. For his enlightenment and for the PCO I will tell you why. Sect 35 of the London hackney carriage act of 1831 states the following. Every hackney carriage which shall be found standing in any street or place, unless actually hired, shall be deemed to be plying for hire, this is what the cars were doing in Whitcomb St. The powers that be would of course argue that the cars are not hackney carriages. Well the 1907 London Cab and Stage Carriage Act sect. (6) is laid out like this.

It Is hereby declared that for the purposes of any Act relating to hackney carriages, stage carriages, metropolitan stage carriages, or cabs, in London, the expressions “ hackney carriage,” “stage carriage” “metropolitan stage carriage,” “or Cab,” shall include any such vehicle, whether drawn or propelled by animal or mechanical power.
As you will have observed a hackney carriage is a vehicle that is not necessarily a taxi, although a taxi is a form of hackney carriage. What this means is that any vehicle that carries passengers is a hackney carriage. As you all know a hackney carriage to be able to carry passengers for hire, has to be licensed under sect 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869. The offence that was being perpetrated here is that we had a situation where unlicensed hackney carriages were plying for hire. The cars in Whitcomb St may have had a PHV licence, however, they were in fact unlicensed hackney carriages. Therefore as the vehicles were unlicensed all persons who entered one of these cars were a passenger in an uninsured vehicle. And this with the approval of the police and TFL/ PCO.

Sect 4 of the 1831 Act states that every carriage with two or more wheels which shall be used for the purpose of standing or plying for hire in any street road or public street or road at any place within 5 miles now 12, from the General Post Office in the City of London, whatever may be the form or construction of such carriage, or the number of persons which it shall be calculated to convey, shall be deemed and taken to be a “ Hackney Carriage” within the meaning of this act.

It seems quite obvious that a pedicab is a form of hackney carriage as it has 3 wheels, and is propelled by mechanical power, that being the pedals. Further as they wait to be hired they are plying for hire. The Pedicab comes within the scope and definition of a hackney carriage. Any hackney carriage that takes passengers for hire has to comply with the Metropolitan Conditions of fitness (MCF) This is covered by the 1934 London Cab Order, Statutory Instrument 1634. Therefore as Pedicabs do not comply with the MCF they cannot wait to be hired. As I have said earlier the essence of plying for hire is being on view to the public at the time of hiring.
Further as has been stated in many cases if the vehicle is waiting to be hired, it is plying for hire.

So as you will observe the brain dead at TFL/ T&PH do not know what they are doing, or do they? For hear we have a group of people who do not know the laws that they are charged with enforcing. The phrase, “Not Fit For Purpose” comes to mind.

P Bond, RMT London Taxi Branch, Comments on Bob Oddy's performance at the Law Commission Advisory Panel.

2011-12-03T17:39:00.001Z

Fellow Licensed Taxi Drivers, we are in the fight of our lives!
And we have Bob Oddy talking about 'turning circles"???

Surely that's a local conditions of fitness matter that could be changed today.

He then talked about delimiting of numbers and linking it to raising fares.
Have I missed something here?
When has over supply driven UP prices?

He also talks about a proper definition on Plying for Hire, well that's pretty simple to solve, TfL takes someone to court and the judge rules on it.

Some say 'if you do that and they get off we are in trouble'.
So no one takes any enforcement action then? that will stop it!

My view is that TfL (Our representative board member, Mr Oddy) are colluding not to do so as they don't want the court to find anyone guilty and they then can be in breach of their statutory duty to enforce the law every day and night.

Be assured however that the RMT will bring its political and legal expertise to bear and do whatever it takes to protect its members.

We are the only organisation to do anything meaningful about pedicabs and could have done more on age limits had others not agreed to to it with nothing in return. we will keep trying.

We take no lessons from anyone on member representation, love us or loathe us, we are 100% on our members side not just the select few on a board or committee!

MEN ARE COMING TO KILL US!

2011-12-02T14:33:00.001Z

LAW COMMISSION ADVISORY GROUP ON TAXI AND PRIVATE REGULATION
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 22 NOVEMBER 2011
ATTENDEES
Law Commission
Frances Patterson QC Commissioner, Public law team
Richard Percival Team manager, Public law team
Vindelyn Smith-Hillman Economic Adviser
Jessica Uguccioni Team lawyer, Public law team
Hannah Gray Research assistant, Public law team
Trade associations
Paul Brent Chairman, National Taxi Association
Bob Oddy General Secretary, Licensed Taxi Drivers Association
Patrick Connor National Taxi Trades Group
Tommy McIntyre National Taxi Representative, Unite the Union
Mick Carty RMT
Bryan Roland General Secretary, National Private Hire Association
Steve Wright MBE Chairman, Licensed Private Hire Car Association
Patrick Raeburn Private Hire Board
Mick Hildreth Secretary, GMB Professional Drivers National Organising Committee
Bill Bowling Legislation officer, National Limousine and Chauffeur Association
Geoffrey Riesel Chairman, Radio Taxis Group – representing radio circuit operators
Julian Francis Government Affairs Manager, London Taxi Company
Donald Pow General manager, Allied Vehicles
Deborah Hunter Sales and marketing executive, Digitax Electronics UK Ltd.
Regulatory bodies
Sarah Wooller Head of Taxi and PSV regulation branch, Department for Transport
Pippa Brown Taxi and PSV regulation branch, Department for Transport
Simon Woodward Lawyer, Department for Transport
John Mason Director of Taxi and Private Hire, Transport for London
Tom Moody Transport for London
Roger Butterfield Honorary solicitor, National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers
Eddie Gorman National Chair, National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers
Huw Thomas Integrated Transport Division, Welsh Government
Yvonne Lewis Licensing Officers, City and County of Swansea Council
Dafydd Jones Principal Licensing Officers, Gwynedd County Council
Myles Bebbington Vice Chair, Institute of Licensing
Vicki Ball Policy Manager, People 1st, Go Skills
User groups
Dai Powell OBE Chair, Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Group
Ian Millership Vice Chair, National Association of Taxi Users
Consultants
James Button James Button and Co Solicitors, author of Button on Taxis
Darren Tenney S2IPA Consultancy (Shared Service Implementation and Policy Advisers)

Introduction
As we noted in the briefing paper, the views set out during the advisory group meeting outline our current thinking and were intended to encourage discussion on the topics which appeared on the agenda. It is important to understand that they are not the official views of the Law Commission but merely the current views of the project team. Nothing has yet been approved as the Commission’s official provisional proposals, still less the final views of the Commission. Any references to the Law Commission should therefore be read accordingly.

One-/two-tier
1.1 Jessica Uguccioni (JU) opened the meeting by welcoming those present. It was explained that the views expressed in the briefing paper were provisional. The Law Commission was to publish a consultation paper in April 2012. The proposals contained within the briefing paper circulated prior to the meeting remained susceptible to change pending the outcome of the consultation period.
1.2 The first issue on the agenda was that of the structure of the taxi and private hire industries. JU explained that the Law Commission felt that analysing the markets on a simple one or two tier basis oversimplified matters. In reality, many one–tier proposals contained aspects which rendered them more like a two-tier system. The Law Commission’s current thinking preferred a modified two-tier system.
1.3 A two-tier system allowed for more targeted regulation and could accommodate the imbalance in competition in the two industries.
1.4 Steve Wright (SW) expressed a preference for a two-tier system. He felt that it worked very well in London and that, with the introduction of improved technology, its functioning would improve. The introduction of a one-tier system would lead to the collapse of the private hire industry and thus passengers’ ability to pre-book.
1.5 Tommy McIntyre (TM) agreed that maintaining the pre-booked market was positive for customer choice. He also noted that fare setting in one market was often done by reference to fares in the other market. Furthermore, the problem of insufficient rank space would only be exacerbated by shifting to a one-tier system.
1.6 Dai Powell (DP) noted that pre-booking was essential to disabled persons who could not obtain a vehicle in another way.
1.7 Patrick Connor (PC) felt that moving to a one-tier system risked creating a “honeypot” situation which would reduce provision in non-urban areas.
1.8 Bryan Roland (BR) noted that 95% of drivers were self-employed. Private hire operators were concerned that a one-tier system would not give them sufficient control over drivers to allow them to cope with demand. The labour market was a different shape in each area and it was not possible to say to what extent driving work represented the main source of income.
1.9 SW added that he felt a one-tier system would lead to a “honeypot” situation. Drivers would not be willing to pay operators’ fees and, given that there was very little hailing in suburban areas, all vehicles would work in city centres, reducing provision elsewhere.
1.10 James Button (JB) questioned why it was not possible to allow for pre-booking in a one-tier system.
1.11 Geoffrey Riesel (GR) felt that a two-tier system was required for practical reasons; however, he noted that many other countries operated one-tier systems which allowed for pre-booking. The private hire industry had come into existence where there was a lack of taxis, often due to quantity restrictions. It was not possible to tear up the existing system and start again, as this would be very damaging to business.
1.12 BR felt that outside of city centres, vehicles worked in what was essentially a one-tier system. There was no ranking or plying.
1.13 Julian Francis (JF) expressed the view that taxis and PHVs could be distinguished on the basis that taxis were an emanation of the state and part of public transport, whilst PHVs were not. PHVs represented a market-led response intended to fulfil specific pockets of demand.
1.14 Bob Oddy (BO) noted that a one-tier system would be in conflict with requirements for disabled access.

Technology
1.15 JU raised the issue of technology. It was important that future regulation was structured in such a way that it was not rendered obsolete by the development of more advanced technology. It was noted that the distinction between plying or ranking and pre-booking was not always clear from the consumer’s point of view.
1.16 SW felt that technological advances interfaced better with private hire and the position of the operator than with individual drivers. Technology connecting passengers directly with drivers had not been successful in London. Where taxi drivers could pick up an immediate fare, they would choose this over driving further to pick up a booked fare.
1.17 GR felt that apps struggled to get leverage where the interface was with the driver rather than a circuit or cooperative. In Sweden and Denmark 75% of taxis worked on radio circuits and were pre-booked. In other countries the majority of taxis belonged to radio circuits and operated in this way. He felt that this worked well in Scandinavia because of weather conditions. Private hire vehicles could provide services which taxis could not, such as variation in degree of luxury, size and accessibility. He felt that the distinction between the two had arisen for licensing reasons.
1.18 Richard Percival (RP) questioned whether the market might shift to a greater use of circuits and cooperatives in a single tier system.
1.19 GR noted that outside London provision varied greatly. Where taxis and PHVs essentially amounted to the same thing there was the possibility of allowing PHVs to ply for hire.
1.20 BR questioned whether it was necessary to link the idea of a taxi to that of a rank, as in many areas ranks did not exist. Taxis received most of their work from the radio. This was a significant distinction between London and elsewhere.
1.21 JB noted that the group was working under the assumption that taxis should be allowed to ply for hire, rank and undertake pre-booked work. He questioned whether there was scope for prohibiting pre-booking in the taxi market. RP responded that it was unlikely that taxis would be prevented from undertaking pre-booked work.
1.22 RP explained that the Law Commission was considering proposing a two-tier system with national standards for PHVs but a more local approach for taxi licensing. The main concerns here were the impact of technology on the distinction between the two and the extent to which the two trades were closely linked, for example in relation to training. He further noted that it may be possible in such a system for local authorities to create a de facto one-tier system by applying the national PHV standards to taxis.
1.23 Myles Bebbington (MB) noted that if mandatory PHV standards were set nationally, local authorities might see taxi conditions as their only tool to raise standards. This could lead to the imposition of onerous conditions, effectively destroying the taxi trade in that area by imposing costly barriers to entry. JU noted that one potential proposal was that licensing authorities would be restricted as to the conditions they could impose.
1.24 TM expressed agreement with the suggestion of national standards. Many of the conditions imposed by local authorities were ludicrous.
1.25 RP noted that the idea of national standards went against the current trend in favour of localism. For such a proposal to succeed it would have to bring clear benefits.
1.26 SW summed up the arguments against a one-tier system as follows: supply for pre-booked customers would be compromised, as would accessibility for disabled persons; increased cruising would lead to environmental problems; consumer choice would be damaged.
1.27 GR noted that de-regulation in Ireland had led to a particularly difficult situation. RP noted however that it was important to recognise that Irish deregulation had occurred instantly following a court decision and as such had not be a managed process.
1.28 John Mason (JM) agreed with comments on service provision under a two-tier system. He noted the pride invested in London taxis, particularly in relation to their accessibility, and the importance of passenger choice. He did not feel that answering the challenges posed by technology necessitated revisiting the one or two tier question.
1.29 Roger Butterfield (RB) believed that most local authorities would accept basic national standards such as the age of a vehicle. This would prevent licensees shopping around for cheaper fees and lower standards and would reduce complexity.
1.30 BR noted that prior to the 1980s, taxis had been classed at public transport. The subsequent exclusion of vehicles with fewer than nine seats had changed the taxi footprint. He questioned whether taxis should be brought back into the public transport category and be included in local transport plans.
1.31 RP responded that the legal status of taxis was not the issue here; rather, it was important to think about how we conceptualise the fleet. This tied in with the question of the taxi as an aspect of civic pride – did this make them a semi-public entity?
1.32 Some examples were given of ways in which taxis integrated with public transport, for example distribution of taxi vouchers for people unable to use the bus in Kirklees and smartcards giving an automatic discount in Dundee.
Night-time economy
1.33 JU noted that issues relating to the night-time economy placed a strain on the two-tier system. There were insufficient taxis to service the night-time economy and PHVs could only be used where they had been pre-booked. The group was asked to consider the sorts of schemes which could be used to alleviate these problems, following examples such as the Best Bar None and Purple Flag schemes and marshaled ranks.
1.34 BR felt that much of the problem stemmed from the lack of alternatives such as night buses. He suggested that allowing taxis to have more than eight seats could help with clearing town centres. In 1982 the Department for Transport (DfT) had encouraged licensing authorities to licence vehicles with as many seats as possible, but since 1985 a taxi or PHV had to have eight seats or fewer.
1.35 Eddie Gorman (EG) raised the possibility of using bus stop and bus stations as taxi ranks. He had attempted to introduce this in Bolton but had met with resistance
1.36 RP explained that the Law Commission was exploring the possibility of different regulatory structures for the night-time economy and was particularly interested in the question of supply. The suggestion had been made of allowing PHVs to use marshaled ranks. It was felt that this could help with supply and enforcement, for example enforcement against illegal plying by PHVs and touting by unlicensed vehicles.
1.37 The group generally was clearly against the concept of ranking for PHVs. MB felt that this would encourage cross-border issues with PHVs coming into town centres from outlying areas.
1.38 SW felt that allowing marshaled PHV ranks would destroy pre-booking as operators would lose control of their workforce. RP noted that the suggestions only extended to night-time and that what was envisaged was a window of de-regulation.
1.39 BO believed that the suggestion of a window of deregulation amounted to a window during which PHV would effectively become taxis. He did not think this was desirable.
1.40 Patrick Raeburn (PR) explained that he operated entirely in the night-time economy, servicing clubs and bars. He was concerned that he would lose all his drivers if they were allowed to rank at night.
1.41 GR felt that if there was a need to allow PHVs to behave like this, the solution was more taxi drivers. If there was a justification for higher standards in the taxi industry then that justification applied equally, if not more so, at night.
1.42 SW expressed the view that PHVs needed to be able to pick up and set down more easily. Where PHVs could not get near their pre-booked passengers there was greater opportunity for touts to operate.
1.43 Mick Hildreth (MH) pointed out that the night-time economy operated differently in each local authority. He felt that a national decision on these matters would be very difficult.
1.44 TM noted that most major cities already operated marshaled ranks and related services in order to ensure a good service at night. One of the main issues was that drivers were unwilling to work at night. MB pointed out that problems persisted in smaller towns. He felt that this was an argument in favour of a one-tier system, given that passengers simply wanted to get in a car.
1.45 BR felt that PHV ranks already existed in the form of booking offices with cars stationed nearby. Ian Millership (IM) noted that some passengers made return booking with PHVs when they went out and were able to ensure they took the correct vehicle. He agreed with the point made by BR that the booking office represented the PHV rank. However, the night-time user was very different to the day-time user. At night users simply wanted to get home, making safety the paramount issue.
Enforcement and licensing
1.46 JU explained that the Law Commission was looking at the interface between national standards and localism in relation to enforcement. Of particular interest were powers against out-of-area vehicles and touts, and the increased use of joint enforcement operations.
1.47 RB believed that joint enforcement operations could work well. In his previous job he had been an authorised officer for the five districts of West Yorkshire. Enforcement officers would work between the areas and were able to recognise vehicles licensed in their own area. Where vehicles used radio circuits the presence of an enforcement officer acted as a deterrent as word spread amongst drivers. He felt that this system had worked well.
1.48 JB noted that enlarging borders would only reduce the scale of the problem, rather than eradicating it. Local authorities were empowered to set up joint boards to licence vehicles but did not do so. RP added that many authorities were currently merging their management. JB felt that although this was happening, policies remained distinct as local authorities wished to maintain their autonomy. Officers might work together but under different policies.
1.49 Yvonne Lewis (YL) explained that Swansea had a significant problem with cross-border hiring. Neighbouring authorities had lower fees and standards. Swansea had a vibrant night-time economy and experienced problems with taxis and PHVs; for example, there was insufficient room for PHVs to pick up and drop off. She felt that the cross-border issue concerned standards, fees and a lack of powers. Drivers knew that enforcement officers lacked powers and were happy to let officers know this.
1.50 RP noted that one of the significant problems was the difficulty of enforcing against touts. Enforcement officers did not have the power to stop cars or demand that the driver produce the requisite licences. He noted that there may be issues of principle in giving enforcement officers powers over members of the public who were not licensed at all.
1.51 Darren Tenney (DT) noted that his organisation was currently engaged in a consultancy looking at shared service agreements for licensing. The local authorities concerned were a city centre authority and the five districts surrounding it. A major driver for the scheme was the procurement needs of the education/social services authority for transport for children and vulnerable adults. He felt that there was a huge lack of communication and information sharing between authorities, which severely hampered enforcement. Enforcement officers needed to be able to enforce against any vehicle in their area. He noted that the authority his company was working with had considered expanding its borders but that it had struggled to conceive of a licence which would be suitable for both urban and rural areas. The “honeypot” situation risked increasing touting, as there would be a rise in the number of vehicles and increased enforcement difficulties. Where areas were merged officers had to have information on vehicles from other areas in order to be able to enforce against them.
1.52 Bill Bowling (BB) explained that limousines encountered major problems with cross-border restrictions. They could not readily operate within just one area.
1.53 BR felt that a lack of clarity was to blame for many of the cross-border issues. Legislation did not make it clear who had the right to work where. This lack of clarity had led to situations such as that in Berwick. He also felt that the inability to re-zone was a problem, given the problems that Durham had recently experienced. JU noted that the ability to re-zone was something that the Law Commission was considering.
1.54 SW felt that borders failed PHV users. He believed cross-border restrictions to be an example of protectionism. He gave the example of London, with 32 boroughs and ten million people, which is controlled by one regulator. JU clarified that the Law Commission was not proposing boundaries in relation to PHVs.
1.55 JB questioned the need for taxi boundaries where licensing ensured the safety and reliability of the driver and vehicle. RP thought that this was an interesting question. The current thinking of the Law Commission tended to prefer a borderless system for PHVs but recognised the link between taxis and localism. JU noted that a two-tier system would allow regulation to be tailored to local needs.
1.56 MB raised a concern about the cost to the trade of fees set by licensing authorities, and lower fees attracting a greater number of drivers and vehicles. RP noted that where standards were set nationally, it may be appropriate that fees also be set nationally. It could be possible to require taxi license fees to be set no lower than those for PHVs, or it could be expected that local authorities would ensure this. Appropriate setting of standards and fees could remove the incentive for Berwick-type licensing.
1.57 TM expressed the view that the concordat between local authorities on Merseyside did not assist in solving cross-border problems. He felt that the solution would be to require vehicles to return to their area after a drop-off. He had no objections to vehicles taking a radio job outside their own area. He felt that this would create a level playing field. RP noted that the Law Commission did not currently envisage creating such an obligation and that PHVs should be allowed to respond to the market wherever it was located. Requiring PHVs to return to their own area could be anti-competitive and would not help customers.
1.58 GR added that allowing PHVs to pick up anywhere ignored the question of pre-booked taxis. RP responded that a pre-booked taxi could already pick up anywhere. GR noted that issues may arise where technology has been used to secure the taxi, as it may be unclear whether it had been booked or not.

Operator licensing
1.59 JU raised the question of operator licensing and its justification as an extra layer of regulation above vehicle and driver licensing.
1.60 BR was strongly of the view that operator licensing provided the first line of enforcement. Operators were obliged to carry out checks on drivers and vehicles. He could not understand why this should not apply to taxi operators.
1.61 JB felt that the only legal justification of operator licensing was that it created a paper trail capable of showing whether a booking had in fact been made. He questioned whether they served any other purpose. If it was felt that there were good safety reasons for retaining operator licensing, then it should be extended to taxis. If it did not concern safety then the requirement was meaningless.
1.62 SW felt that operator licensing gave massive benefits. It assisted in the detection of crime, ensured vehicles were properly insured and generally provided checks and measures to ensure safety. None of these checks were in place in relation to taxis. He agreed that operators provided the first line of enforcement.
1.63 EG felt that ceasing to regulate operators would encourage organised crime as the threat of enforcement currently deterred this. Tracking vehicles and drivers helped with enforcement. He did not, however, feel operator licensing was necessary for taxis.
1.64 RP concluded by noting the two central aspects of operator licensing: information gathering and ensuring that the operator was a fit and proper person. It might be possible for the former to be done using other means, but the latter would not be easy without licensing.
Conditions
1.65 JU invited views on the Law Commission’s suggestions regarding the setting of conditions for taxis and PHVs.
1.66 RB was in favour of limited conditions within a tight framework. BR agreed. He was in favour of the London structure, where regulations were set by the Secretary of State. Locally imposed rules were acceptable but should not be allowed to go further than fares.
1.67 MB felt that regulation needed to be very clear and restrictive on discretion, otherwise authorities would take conditions to the extreme, undermining the system. It was important to look at the cost to the trade and to bear in mind the political influence behind the setting of conditions.
1.68 JF agreed that it was important to bear in mind the political angle. If councils were given even limited discretion they would be creative with it in order to impose further conditions. Many councils were driven by political pressures and their responsibilities to constituents and would be willing to have their licensing conditions tested in court.
1.69 JB felt that some authorities saw licensing as a cash cow and sought to profit from conditions. It would be difficult to create an entirely level playing field in terms of fees charged.
1.70 JM noted that standards as currently set in London had been accepted politically and that change would not be politically acceptable. He believed that the project was unlikely to succeed if it had a negative impact on London.

Disabled access
1.71 Hannah Gray (HG) asked the group whether a) they felt that it was necessary to regulate PHVs in order to ensure proper provision for disabled persons, as opposed to relying on the market, and b) how they envisioned provision being made in the taxi market. She noted that the distinctions between the way in which provision could be ensured in the two markets strengthened the argument for a two-tier system.
1.72 DP explained that taxis provided a vital service for disabled people. However, it was important to recognise that wheelchair accessible vehicles were not accessible to all disabled persons. He was against a 100% wheelchair accessible requirement across the board. He was in favour of mixed fleets. The PHV trade outside of London contained a higher number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) than the taxi trade.
1.73 DP was in favour of a requirement that there be a minimum number of WAVs. He felt that training was paramount, on the grounds that taxis should be seen as part of the public transport network. Furthermore, many of the obstacles faced by disabled persons were attitudinal, with drivers refusing to stop for them or unable to respond to their needs. In addition, he felt strongly that there should be a national identifier on vehicles.
1.74 GR recognised that wheelchair accessible vehicles can be difficult to access for other users. In the US a separate industry had arisen to deal with these issues. The paratransit industry was entirely made up of trained drivers with specially adapted vehicles.
1.75 PC explained that Manchester had been the first city to have a 100% wheelchair accessible fleet. Problems arose where drivers on radio circuits were not told that the passenger they were picking up was disabled. Sometimes their homes were not equipped to enable the driver to give them assistance in leaving the house and getting into the vehicle. He also felt that the requirements on taxis were at times more onerous than those on buses, and that this should be rectified.
1.76 BR raised the issue of transport hubs served only by PHVs, leaving no taxi provision. He questioned whether there should be a requirement for contractors such as railway stations and airports to ensure that their disability duties were met by ensuring provision of WAVs.
1.77 DP was in favour of a national standard for PHVs as this would ensure passengers knew what they were booking.
1.78 JF noted that the issue was accessible vehicles generally, not just WAVs. Allowing mixed fleets would lead to increased commercial pressures, with drivers preferring low cost vehicles and thus limiting the range of vehicles available to passengers. He questioned how prescriptive local authorities should be allowed to be in order to avoid this race to the bottom. MH agreed that problems arose in relation to the affordability of vehicles.
1.79 TM felt that training should be a pre-requisite. He had been involved in training and the Vocationally-Related Qualification included working with disabled passengers. He believed that private hire drivers were also in favour of training.
1.80 SW expressed the view that a quota system would be unworkable. The majority of drivers were self-employed and operators could not stipulate which vehicles drivers should use. Problems would arise if any of the fleet’s accessible vehicles broke down. He believed that the provision of WAVs within the PHV market was sufficient, with many specialist companies on the market. Where a journey is pre-booked the operator can provide an appropriate vehicle.
1.81 Donald Pow (DoP) felt that training was very important. He recognised that one style of vehicle would not suit all disabled passengers. He raised concern that very particular technical conditions led to a restricted market and limited the diversity and range of vehicles available. This tied in with the themes of equality and safety.
1.82 JM noted that a disabled person was far more likely to be able to flag down a WAV in London than elsewhere. He believed accessibility issues to stem from training and attitude rather than vehicle specification and availability.
1.83 BR stated that 132 councils had no requirement on WAVs. He hoped that the Equality Act would have an impact as councils needed to be obliged to do something.

Quantity restrictions
1.84 RP explained that the blunt nature of quantity restriction and the current de-regulatory climate meant that restrictions would have to be justified. Currently it seemed that only defensible argument was that linking deregulation to congestion, rather than unmet need.
1.85 JM noted that there were no limits in London but that he was under huge pressure to introduce them. This was particularly the case in suburban areas where there was oversupply.
1.86 GR believed that there were effective barriers to entry in London. Quantity restriction arguments tended to centre on plate value. He believed that sensitive regulation looked at the economic situation of the area in question and allowed for periodic growth. Although the Law Commission did not believe that arguments as to driver earnings justified restrictions, GR believed that maintaining earnings was important to maintaining the industry. Deregulation in Sweden had led to ten years of chaos before good companies had emerged. JU responded that the distinction between good and bad companies could be resolved by setting standards at the correct level. Quantity restriction should not be used as a tool to ensure quality.
1.87 Vindelyn Smith-Hillman (VSH) noted that problems around numerical deregulation could arise as a result of other reforms which had taken place at the same time. National standards could help to avoid these problems.
1.88 JB recognised that quantitative restrictions were an emotive issue. There was no argument for quantity restrictions in the PHV trade, which led him to question the need for restrictions on taxi numbers. He believed this to be an example of protectionism. An area could sustain a particular quantity of vehicles and this could be split between taxis and PHVs.
1.89 DoP felt that the public was served not only by the number of vehicles but also by the quality of the fleet. He believed this to be higher in restricted areas. Restrictions led to greater confidence in business models and guaranteed reasonable earnings. De-regulation could also have a negative impact on supply in the night-time economy as there would be fewer PHVs.
1.90 VSH asked whether this could be countered by setting high standards. DoP felt that it was preferable for the market to lead standards.
1.91 TM explained that the Wirral had de-restricted following two unmet demand surveys. Taxi numbers had risen from 82 to more than 360. Many of those who had migrated from the PHV trade went bankrupt. The police had supported re-regulation because of the impact on congestion.
1.92 JF noted that taxi drivers tended to be sole traders and as such had limited earning potential. De-restriction discouraged entry to the market and affected supply. It would encourage drivers to push for higher fares, thus reducing public uptake and creating a downward push on standards. Examples that he was aware of included owners using unaccredited garages for MOTs and “cannibalising” vehicles.
1.93 BR argued that evidence showed that deregulated areas with high standards were very successful in controlling numbers and congestion and ensuring a mixed fleet. He was in favour of a qualification for operators, as they were often inexperienced in running businesses.
1.94 PC explained that Manchester had introduced a growth rate, with surveys every three years and an average of 20 vehicles added each time. He noted that finance companies were reluctant to lend to would-be drivers in de-regulated areas.
1.95 BO felt that the question was very complex. A survey undertaken by Ipsos MORI had shown sufficient supply in London. He believed that quantity restriction had to be considered alongside fare regulation, and thought that if an area was to be de-restricted, drivers should be compensated by being allowed to charge higher fares.
1.96 MB believed that de-regulated areas lost a significant proportion of their WAVs, resulting in a mixed fleet run on a low-cost basis. One local authority he had in mind had since re-regulated but had required all new licensed vehicles to be WAVs. Those coming into the trade should be encouraged to consider the business case for doing so.
Scope and other issues
London
1.97 JU asked the group whether there was any justification for London continuing to be treated differently to the rest of England and Wales.
1.98 JM felt the review provided an opportunity to tidy up some of the legislation but that in general London provided a good model for elsewhere.
1.99 BO expressed the view that choice of vehicle in London should be less restrictive. The financial burden fell on drivers and he did not think it was right that their choice should be so limited. He agreed with maintaining accessibility but felt that other aspects could be altered. For example, the need for a particular turning circle could be left to the discretion of the driver. RP responded that this question was likely to be one of standards setting, which, at the moment, the Law Commission saw as being set locally for taxis. It was subordinate to the question of structure.
1.100 Deborah Hunter (DH) questioned whether the prohibition on meters in PHVs in London was necessary. SW responded that PHVs had a different mode of operating whereby operators told the passenger the fare before travel. The use of a meter was linked to the driver having the Knowledge. DH felt that meter use was both in the interest of the travelling public and a useful management tool.
1.101 GR explained that the meter was used due to the vulnerability of a taxi passenger. DH did not believe that this was representative of the rest of the country.
1.102 DT noted that his company was working with a local authority to require both taxi and PHV drivers to take a topographical knowledge test, and that this represented a barrier to entry. The same area had capped the number of saloon car taxis, allowing only WAVs. He felt that meters could provide a useful form of identification for PHVs.
1.103 Sarah Wooller (SW) asked whether it was possible to have a quote per mile or only for the journey. SW responded that this was not possible where the operator had different price bands. Operators could also give discounts.
1.104 JB noted that none of the arguments made above went to the question of different legal status. If London was considered to work well there was an argument to use it as a model elsewhere. He did not believe that London differed from the rest of England and Wales in terms of the principles at play.
Scope
1.105 HG explained that the Law Commission was currently considering two options. One was a broad functional definition which would encapsulate vehicles such as limousines and pedicabs. The other was a definition which would be aligned with the requirement to hold a DVLA driving licence.
1.106 BO pointed out that the central issue was the lack of definition of plying for hire. It was important that there be consultation on a precise definition as it affected both taxis and PHVs.
Other issues
1.107 DoP asked whether the Law Commission was considering environmental issues. He felt that it was important that drivers have the freedom to choose a more environmentally friendly vehicle. RP responded that this would be looked at primarily in the context of externalities (that is, the environmental costs imposed by the trade) and standard setting. It was important that standard setting be done at the appropriate level. JU pointed out that the Law Commission was aware of concerns as to dead mileage, amongst other issues. VSH noted that this provided further links with the issue of public transport.
1.108 MB felt that there should be training for drivers but also for licensing and enforcement officers. The latter could be quality assured rather than regulated. He also felt that magistrates could have greater knowledge of matters relating to taxis and PHVs.
1.109 PC explained that in Manchester licensing officers had trained police on enforcement matters. BR noted that the latest Go Skills qualification had gone live on 16 November. He was in favour of a national driver’s licence comparable to that of a bus or HGV driver. The latter licences lasted far longer than a taxi or PHV driver’s licence.
1.110 TM was in favour of fixed penalty notices as they saved time and money for individuals, local authorities and the courts. They could also create revenue to be used in enforcement. JM noted that there was a danger that fixed penalty notices would be perceived as a revenue raising tool. He did not think fixed penalty notices were sufficiently severe to deal with touts.
DH raised the issue of the Measuring Instruments Directive. Although it had been given effect across Europe, she felt that it had been ignored in the UK. She felt that licensing officers wanted to be able to enforce it.
End:

EDITORIAL COMMENT FROM SEMTEX:

Please God I am wrong, but I have been worried about this Law Commisioners brief since it was announced.

The attendees of the Project Team all appear very civilised and democratic, but read further into it and you will see sentences like this :

"It is important to understand that they are not the official views of the Law Commission but merely the current views of the project team. Nothing has yet been approved as the Commission’s official provisional proposals, still less the final views of the Commission. Any references to the Law Commission should therefore be read accordingly."

I am extremely cynical about this reform, but I am naturally distrustful of 'experts' outside our profession anyway.

Our Great Trade has given London a platinum service for more than 300 years. Surely, if it were lame or unworkable, then a solution would have been found before now.
The fact is, there is nothing wrong with our world famous iconic brand. Look at any London movie, any postcard from London or any of the Capital's backdrop, and there we all are, as proud and professional as we have always been.

Then why the interference from The Law Commission and a Project Team of 'experts' ? .

I will tell you. This consultation my friends is to lawfully give mini cabs the rights of public ply that we have worked hard to attain, by virtue of The Knowledge !

They want to be like us, they want our status and they want our credibility, BUT......they don't want to earn it !

As Michael Corleone said to the shopkeeper when he went to visit The Godfather in hospital after an attempt on his life, " Put your hand inside your coat my friend and pretend you have a gun. Men are coming here to kill us "

Don't trust this unnecessary interference folks, mark my words, this is part of TFL's Agenda, and they have been sent in to kill us.

London Taxis are not profitable enough for the greedy short sighted financial coffers of the TFL gravy train.

As soon as they have got us out the way, the better.

That is of course, if they beat us !

Unfortunately for them, the zest and resolve of the UCG and RMT are lacing up their gloves for a challenge !

The Agenda may well be credited for their bullying stance against the Trafalgar Square Pigeons, but when it comes to the legacy left by Oliver Cromwell to ply our trade in London, TFL are going to need more than a bird catcher to chase us away !

Put your hands inside your coat and pretend you have guns folks, men are coming to kill us !

8829