Taxi Driver protests against legislation.

[SheffTF]

It's clearly a system that's working for some

 

SheffTF - this is a video for you considering how much you love Uber

 

Even you can see how old the video is and that it's a polished advert for Uber by Uber, so what did you expect, the truth of what we have been discussing? how naive? It is clearly working for a small minority like the students or those with plenty of money to throw around paying up to five times the normal fare surge, but even more clearly still not for majority who have been happy enough using a more reliable City Taxis helping them grow by another 600 since Uber launched. The proof of the pudding and all dat lol

[taxman]

No worms need opening.

 

I'll put this challenge up.

 

If taxman is still dating the person he was when I met him and she confirms it via PM, then I'll email him my last years accounts, and he can scrutinise every bit of it and post his findings in here (but not my info of course).

 

I've nearly finished this years too. I'll send him that too and I'll pay him the £150 I paid the last accountant to send it for me, if he'll put his name on it.

 

Hay, I've no reason whatsoever to suggest you are on the fiddle.

 

But.....and it is a huge BUT...........I have never seen a taxi drivers SA return that ends up paying any tax.

 

It may just be because I work in Compliance, so we don't target law abiding taxi drivers and the vast majority are completing their returns in full and declaring everything.

 

But. In my 15 year experience ...why would anyone do 80 hours a week work as a self employed taxi driver but only make £9500. It is beyond reason, but we are supposed to believe it and process their lying tax returns.

 

Honestly Ash...I'm not allowed to tell you what other people put on their tax returns but you may, possibly, be the only taxi driver paying tax in the whole country.

[Puggie]

So for all of this talk about local knowledge a sat nav will nearly always do a better job.

 

You might be interested to know that the Law Commission who are responsible for reforming UK law made the following remarks on the subject when making their recommendations to Parliament in 2014 following consulation:

 

'Local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers struck us as an unnecessary regulatory requirement, and we saw no need for licensing authorities to require them.'

 

They go on to say

 

'We suggest that topographical knowledge tests are not the most suitable way of addressing unsafe practices by private hire drivers' [...] no sufficient justification for requiring local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers.

 

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314106/9781474104531_web.pdf

[SheffTF]

You might be interested to know that the Law Commission who are responsible for reforming UK law made the following remarks on the subject when making their recommendations to Parliament in 2014 following consulation:

 

'Local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers struck us as an unnecessary regulatory requirement, and we saw no need for licensing authorities to require them.'

 

They go on to say

 

'We suggest that topographical knowledge tests are not the most suitable way of addressing unsafe practices by private hire drivers' [...] no sufficient justification for requiring local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers.

 

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314106/9781474104531_web.pdf

Seems like you have been either in complete slumber over past two years or deliberately ignoring the reality of what this thread is all about. The Law commission who seemed to have taken on recommendation word for word from a sponsored entity and helped it make into law in October 2015 is precisely the problem and the protest and disquiet across the country in the taxi trade is all about since. So please don't quote the Law Commisssion garbage that has lead to such turmoil as some sort or righteous justification for this nonsense situation.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 01:16 ----------

 

You might be interested to know that the Law Commission who are responsible for reforming UK law made the following remarks on the subject when making their recommendations to Parliament in 2014 following consulation:

 

'Local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers struck us as an unnecessary regulatory requirement, and we saw no need for licensing authorities to require them.'

 

They go on to say

 

'We suggest that topographical knowledge tests are not the most suitable way of addressing unsafe practices by private hire drivers' [...] no sufficient justification for requiring local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers.

 

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314106/9781474104531_web.pdf

Seems like you have been either in complete slumber over past two years or deliberately ignoring the reality of what this thread is all about. The Law commission who seemed to have taken on recommendation word for word from a sponsored entity and helped it make into law in October 2015 is precisely the problem and the protest and disquiet across the country in the taxi trade is all about since. So please don't quote the Law Commisssion garbage that has lead to such turmoil as some sort or righteous justification for this nonsense situation.

For a student of the subject I would have expected you to already know that though and that is why I question your authenticity as an honest broker in this and not a sponsored by Uber operative to spread misinformation? Your membership of this forum just in order to present and parrot the uber line is just too convenient.

Edited March 31, 2017 by SheffTF

[sgtkate]

1. Do you know that our insurance is different depending on which town or city we are licensed with?

 

So if all centralised, all the same, then do you think it's fair a 1 man taxi company in Forumville Village (pop. 162) pays the same insurance as me? I spend 7 days a week driving in a busy city, and one where people often make mistakes!

 

So should all insurances rise to Sheffield rates (which are high) or village rates? What is the fair balance?

 

 

No I didn't know that, but it makes sense the same as someone living in a car crime area pays higher insurance than someone who lives in the middle of the countryside. However, the insurers should perhaps move to a more 'black box' type system where your insurance is directly linked to how you drive and where you drive. All of this tech is available now and used by non-taxis so there's no technical reason I can think of why it couldn't be done.

 

2. Vehicles have 'shelf lives' that is currently different in different places. In Sheffield I can use mine for 9 years, In chesterfield it is longer (not sure) but I saw an 02 plate picking up the other day. This is fair, a vehicle in a big city gets more hammer perhaps, busier and more mileage, what about smaller towns, how long should they have the vehicle for sgt?

 

What is a fair figure that would be fair to everyone in the country?

Again, the shelf-lives should be removed and as long as your car passes the regs then it passes. I really can't understand why an older but less used car would be deemed less suitable than a newer one with more miles? You guys have far harsher MOTs than non-taxis do so if your car passes, it blooming passes. So remove age and mileage restrictions completely as surely things like is the car safe are a fairly key part of the MOT?

 

3. Here is a list. Pick out which ones you agree should included in a taxi test:

 

Local knowledge / being able to speak English pretty well / being able to do fairly basic Maths tests / A council officer meeting you several times before getting your license / MoT + a similarly long list of other compliances / driving test / <one I've added> full identity checks both on application and within the taxi to stop the daft arguments about the driver not being the one on the ID

Do you want the vehicles that are used to be of MoT standard, or SCC standard (which is strict) - rightly imo

 

If the standard is as high as Sheffield then drivers in small towns will not only be paying more insurance, but have potentially ridiculously over the top rules

MOT standards for a taxi should be higher, similar to that of a bus (albeit with different criteria clearly!) and this should be applied UK wide not just down to council discretion.

 

4. Again vehicles: what would members consider to be standard for ALL taxis, whether London or Hathersage:...

4.1 should windows be allowed to be tinted or blacked out? No.

4.2 should there be a boot space minimum? No, but must be made clear to passengers on booking that if they require boot space that must be added to booking and a car will be sent with no extra charge that meets that requirement. Anything above a standard saloon boot space like an estate can be charged extra. On most occasions I'd rather a Smart car arrived quickly and cost me less than enforcing something that few passengers are actually going to need, and if they do they can ask for it anyway.

4.3 as before, should there be an age limit? No. Already discussed

4.4 can other posters not ruin this thread please? Sure

4.5 if picking up in the street, what are the minimum standards of vehicle? Same as private hire. Never understood the difference anyway!

4.6 What signage should be shown on ALL vehicle PHVs? Company name, phone number, company number, licensed council plate with contact number on the outside. Inside, driver ID in both front and back with passport standard photo, name, driver number etc. Perhaps also a link to a website with full details of the driver and his company and licensing info. This would need to be run UK wide so hence why I think taxi licensing has to become centralised.

4.7 What percentage of a population should have enough vehicles (either PHV or Hack) that have wheelchair access? Oh heavens knows! I can't even give a figure, but I suppose fairness would be double the percentage of people who are wheelchair bound as I guess they would need taxis more than people who aren't in wheelchairs therefore having the same percentage wouldn't be enough but as I say that's a complete guess! What it is at present?

Personally I don't think it's possible to have a fair system for all.

I disagree!

[Puggie]

I question your authenticity as an honest broker in this and not a sponsored by Uber.

 

SheffTF - My dear friend you are flogging a dead horse.

 

The days of your council shielding you from competition and protecting your local patch are now gone. The bouncer at the door has had their powers curtailed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

 

The yo-yoing of regulatory standards based on postcode are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century.

 

The new regulatory standards introduced by SCC had the economic effect of stifling competition because it protected the existing trade against new entrants. It achieved this by creating an unjustifiable set of regulatory standards which applied exclusively to new entrants whilst simultaneously exempting the existing trade from these standards.

 

Local councils (SCC included) tried to market their regimes as being necessary to "protect the public" however on review of the facts both the Law Commission and CMA were unconvinced by this.

 

You can't turn back the clock. Deregulation is happening and there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the trade as a whole will benefit.

 

As for me being sponsored by Uber - maybe one of the mods can verify my student status and put your mind at ease

[SheffTF]

SheffTF - My dear friend you are flogging a dead horse.

 

The days of your council shielding you from competition and protecting your local patch are now gone. The bouncer at the door has had their powers curtailed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

 

The yo-yoing of regulatory standards based on postcode are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century.

 

The new regulatory standards introduced by SCC had the economic effect of stifling competition because it protected the existing trade against new entrants. It achieved this by creating an unjustifiable set of regulatory standards which applied exclusively to new entrants whilst simultaneously exempting the existing trade from these standards.

 

Local councils (SCC included) tried to market their regimes as being necessary to "protect the public" however on review of the facts both the Law Commission and CMA were unconvinced by this.

 

You can't turn back the clock. Deregulation is happening and there is strong empirical evidence to suggest the trade as a whole will benefit.

 

As for me being sponsored by Uber - maybe one of the mods can verify my student status and put your mind at ease

hahaha oh dear what Uber spin will you put on this next? The safeguarding issues are very real and all regulation developed was and is restrictive to those who are working in the trade as they have to abide by those rules in line of their work. Council officials can walk into any office and check the data log, they can stop any car or walk up to any waiting Sheffield licensed car and check it's credentials, which they do regularly, particularly at week ends. That is not something outdated in your version of twenty first century but an essential need of the day. The checking and venting and the pressure on the drivers to confirm is hardly a

Bouncer at the door, but a security guard to protect the public. What Uber want and encourage is to circumvent those rules so that the local council cannot check the drives or the vehicles and those cowboys in turn do pretty much as they please with blessing of people like yourself. Ask any senior mmeber of the community here whether they'd be happy sending a vulnerable unaccompanied child with a Sheffield licensed driver who has gone through all the checks or one who has tried to avoid the local licensing system and gone and got his Bubly machine licence from TFL? If Uber is the future, can you explain why after almost two years they are still struggling and City Taxis who obidw by the local rules are expanding into Chesterfield Rotherham, Barnsley with plans to expand further? You can deny all you like but the Uber advertising language and the same rhetorical arguments used are too familiar to me to let pass as a mere coincidence. Plus it is a documented fact that Uber do use their drivers and passengers as advertising vessels on social media, your earlier link to video being a case in point lol

[Puggie]

You can deny all you like but the Uber advertising language and the same rhetorical arguments used are too familiar to me to let pass as a mere coincidence

 

So I'm an agent of Uber?

 

The Law Commission are agents of Uber?

 

The Competition and Markets Authority are agents of Uber?

 

Our Parliamentary system of Bills being ping-ponged between two houses are agents of Uber?

 

The Department for Transport and all their civil servents are agents of Uber?

[SheffTF]

So I'm an agent of Uber?

 

The Law Commission are agents of Uber?

 

The Competition and Markets Authority are agents of Uber?

 

Our Parliamentary system of Bills being ping-ponged between two houses are agents of Uber?

 

The Department for Transport and all their civil servents are agents of Uber?

Really? Is this a claim or a confirmation and do you have any evidence for that?

[*_ash_*]

Thanks for you comprehensive response sgt, I'm not ignoring it, but not online for long, so will answer later in full

 

-

 

The days of your council shielding you from competition and protecting your local patch are now gone. The bouncer at the door has had their powers curtailed by the Deregulation Act 2015.

 

I read this and disregarded the rest of the post because it was based on this.

 

It's nonsense.

 

Anyone, any of these drivers who go to Rossendale, or Tfl or wherever, can walk into SCC and apply (most already have done!). And so can you if you fail your degree

 

They go to those places because: a) they can't pass the Sheffield tests, or b) because they've realised that they can get it cheaper somewhere else, pay cheaper insurance, can buy old cars (in some cases), and they can pick up in town without looking for or worrying about SCC sat waiting for them on West St or wherever they chose on weekend nights.

 

There has always been competition in Sheffield with lots of small firms starting out, employing Sheffielders. What choice is there now? Uber or City basically. Uber employs no one really, and City employs probably 1/4 of what were there before it.

 

No firms employing people and all the money going to Mr Algorithm. I doubt anyone who was born post-internet has a clue about things like this, so it's waste of time trying to explain.

 

-

 

Look on the job centre site, they advertise there and say don't worry about taxi licence they will advise you. They advise you to go to the easiest place to get one. (which at the moment seems to be tfl) though it was rossendale when it started.

 

They ARE trying to get it easier to get people on SCC drivers though - if you look at the recent proposals which are available online, they pushed for relaxing the knowledge test, and removing the english test - because it reduces numbers of passes.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 19:28 ----------

 

But. In my 15 year experience ...why would anyone do 80 hours a week work as a self employed taxi driver but only make £9500. It is beyond reason, but we are supposed to believe it and process their lying tax returns.

 

I don't recall putting how many hours I work on the tax return

 

Honestly Ash...I'm not allowed to tell you what other people put on their tax returns but you may, possibly, be the only taxi driver paying tax in the whole country.

 

Nope, not this year. I'm way off. Last year I did, but that was because I did other work too.