We do the kowledge because we have to know how to do what someone wants instantly, to get from A to B to c and back.
We have a purpose built vehicle with turning circle to do just that job and are wheelchair accessible plus safety trained to a higher standard. These system has been tried and tested over many years and has made us number one in the world.
Uber has been allowed to enter our market, which their drivers are totally not qualified to be in on all levels. They have no concept of direction or in many cases destination, so how can you be available for instant hire ?
In many cases, their grasp of communication with the customer is zero, frequently going the wrong way, by following instructions from a sat nav, sometimes ending up in one way streets the wrong way, doing u-turns in a car not fit to work in our market.
They where licenced as mini cabs. So they should be banned from working the instant hail market on safety grounds alone. Our licensing authority has a duty of care to the general public and other road users. The way this company and its drivers operate should be deemed not fit for purpose and should be banned when there licence comes up for renewal in 2017, if not sooner.
If TFL won't do it surely there is cause for concern, and perhaps our representative orgs should now be turning their attention towards the department for transport and the police.
This is the avenue that has to be gone down as everyone seems to be forgetting the basics which is the law and safety of the travelling public.
Richard Busby
Editorial Comment:
There has been much talk recently about Plying For Hire not being defined in law, but at present we still have case law. Only recently (10th July) a minicab driver was fined over £405 at Uxbridge Magistrates court for "Plying for Hire".
We must now turn to the question of why TfL show no apatite to enforce the plying for hire law with regards to touting. There needs to be a public inquiry, carried out by Parlimentary transport committee to ascertain if corruption at any level is endemic within TfL.
The Uber and RD2 licensing fiascos also needs investigating by parliamentary committee as it is painfully clear that TfL did not interpret the PH vehicles act 1998 in the manner to which the bill was originally set down. In the case if RD2, TfL lied about the circumstances of the issue of multiple licence variations given to RD2 in disregard to the regulations set out in the act.
The Met's Cab Enforcement Unit is part financed by TfL funds, but under the proceeds of crime act Cab Enforcement teams could be self-financing. In fact, with the amount of touting witnessed nightly in Central London, they may even make a profit.
For many years, the City of London Police have turned a blind eye to cars from RD2, forming an illegal rank and openly plying for hire.
Last night, the Mayfair Mob, aided by the Shorditch Mob flash mobbed the Forge. Backed up by the LTDAs AdVan, they took back the work leaving this popular night venue.
Amazingly, as the AdVan parked outside the bar, traffic wardens, police and a parking enforcement CCTV car turned up. Manpower the CoL police have always claimed unavailable after 10:30pm.
* Why do they only turn up when Taxis park outside this venue?
* Why are RD2 given special treatment in the city?
* Why has this situation been allowed to continue for so long?
Having Plying for Hire set in statuette is fine as insurance for the future. But if the laws are not being enforced, then it's a complete waste of time.
The big question now is:
Do we really need new laws, or do we just need the laws we already have enforced.
Below is an excerpt of just one of many judgements involving private vehicles charged with Plying for hire.
The case Gilbert v McKay 1946 set a precedent in case law. Standing case law can be used to prosecute any driver or operator allowing their cars to be available for immediate hire (Plying for Hire) and there have been many such instances. The MPS Heathrow case shown above, being the most recent.
In summing up, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard stated,
“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 immediate hire. In the case of the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998 it clearly states that all jobs allocated to PH drivers must be pre booked through a third party operator. Driver must not be hired directly by the passenger.
This is exactly what's happening in the case of Uber's ehailing. Uber publicly state they do not accept pre bookings.
8 comments:
Until there is a properly funded designated mini cab enforcement unit we are lost. Such a unit would have to be in the Met. You would need this so that the power of arrest would be available. TFL couldn't enforce mini cabs because the drivers would laugh in their faces and drive off - if they did to mini cabs what they do to us. We have to comply with thier directions because with us they have leverage - we don't want to lose our licences or be suspended because our licences are precious things we worked hard for. A mini cab licence is worth 50p and any idiot can get one. The way forward with the mini cabs would be through parking law - a proper unit would make a fortune. Just turn up with a truck - lift the mini cabs illegally parked - take them to pound and charge £500 to get them back - goodbye mini cabs. No need for costly court cases about plying for hire. Lift em and charge em. Bet there are some security firms out there who would make a really good living out it.
Yes we have case Law but that alone this is insufficient if plying for hire were to be challenged in court and a Judge interpreted plying for hire
not in our favour. A precident in Law then would be set against us for all time and could be revisited time and time again. Not to mention the Law Commission if their recommendations came to pass via the draft bill all Hackney Carriage case law would be repealed what would we have then?
From 1965 to date The Law Commission has published 202 law reform reports. 135 ( 68.8% ) of these reports have been implemented whole or in part.
So the Laws that you speak of are on very shaky ground so that is why the RMT and others are calling for a strong definition to protect our working practices and protect our future.
MichaelB
Case law has stood us in good stead for nearly a century. A great portion of UK law is not prima legislation and is only on the statute as case law. That's how it all works.
Your constant tunnel vision is no more than a scare tactic.
After being left behind by other groups, the RMT are now bigging up there EDM to make it look like they've been doing something. But in truth, EDMs are a waste of time. We've seen how parliament feels about our situation, with just 4 MPs sitting through the debate the other evening.
If this issue is so important, why has it taken the RMT so long to start the ball rolling?
Surely they've known about this situation for many years and surely this came up in their response to the LawCom submission over 3 years ago
Why have you the RMT said and done nothing till now?
We need enforcement now, not in a couple of years time, we are being slaughter on the street and enforcement and compliance are turning a blind eye.
Ands it's getting worse as the week's clock on
If we have to wait much longer
We won't be here.
Remember the poem by MARTIN NIEMÖLLER,
"FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE SOCIALIST
Then they came for me
There was no one left to speak for me!
As the late Bob Crow once said:
If we fight, we may win
If we don't fight
we will definitely lose.
Just to se the record straight the RMT have been attempting to get the trade behind this for at least two years but this trade preferred infighting and backstabbing to worrying about saving itself taking back a few cab ranks is ok but when you balance that with the amount of phv drivers coming in to the job week after week it's a drop in the ocean. The problem being drivers are constantly mislead with poor information and constantly disagreeing the drivers are confused.
It is more important to bring this trade fully together to protect our jobs
Better to stand together fight together in real unity instead of what we have at the moment which is more destructive than anything
It should not be about which group has the most members we the RMT have been trying to get the message out there for a long time
Many drivers have come on board and now and realise that plying for hire is needed to protect and future proof this trade
You also seem to have complete ignored my comments re the Law Commission these are all facts and not opinion this draft bill that can be re introduced at any time at fear of repeating myself if all our case Law is repealed what do we have apart from a few ranks that have been taken back we need primary legislation to change and the protection of parliament to give us a future.
Fine words but unfortunately hypocritical after the RMT refused to support brother cabbies in the recent demonstrations at Oxford Street and Windsor House.
Recent attacks by RMT committee members towards UCG members past and present on Twitter have been shameful. With one RMT committee member resorting to using extreme profanities. This same committee member attacked UCG members on the steps of Palestra, in full view of TfL staff, Unity? you don't know the meaning of the word.
Now you deride the actions of rank and file drivers who with no trade affiliation, have formed gorilla style groups to expel touts from taxi ranks, insomuch protecting their jobs. However minor but still a success story, where trade unions and orgs have seriously let the drivers down.
Battles are fought on many fronts, but the RMT have put all their efforts into one rearguard action, a one trick pony. Leading RMT figures such as one of the authors of the LC response have resigned over the serious bad leadership of this once proud branch. Other more militant members have left en masse for other groups.
So what happens when the EDM fails, as they normally do?
What then?
I told you this would happen Jim, it's why I left months ago
They set up big Mike to bring in a butter boy who in under a year has devastated the branch
You reap what you sow
In the beginning when the Law Commission was first brought into play and it was made clear that the Government had askedthem to reform the Law. We at the RMT called all the trade groups to an all trade meeting to develope a common strategy to deal with the issues some attended most did not as the process developed it was clear that they intended not to define plying for hire a complete U turn from our early meetings with them when they informed us that P4H would be defined and further commented that in line with many of the trade groups the two tier system would be maintained. We have no idea why they made the U turn in spite many calls from us for an explanation we can only surmise the reason. We have always been concerned about of all the case law that is in our favour this would undoubtedly place us in a worrying position and undoubtedly bring us closer to a singl teir system we are already seeing a 20% downturn in candidates taking up the KoL a slow decline has already started it won't take much longer for the KoL to become the second choice when compared with the twelve weeks or so it takes to become a PhV driver. So the importance of protecting our way of working cannot be underestimated.
We also have to understand that we have a party in power that supports De-regulation using it as a method of cutting pay and jobs may explain their bias towards the U company what ever I am saying here is not scaremongering but a view about the status quo if the Law Commission Bill comes back to the table the Government have stated they are still considering the LC draft bill and recommendations.
We must make sure our working practices are protected the sad thing about our stance on this matter is the bulk of the criticism about this issue seem to come from people that have never bothered to read any of the information from the LC.
Ive enjoyed reading the arguments on this particular post. Sound, constructive and rational ideas, albeit from different perceptions. Such a difference from the usual ludicrous and typical slagging matches.
Semtex.
Post a Comment