I am that David Wilson; and now I am no longer employed by the council I can set the record straight.
Firstly, I did not find the “loophole”. The loophole, if that is what it was, had always been there and had been used by the established trade in our region to obtain licences from Tynedale, Derwentside and Hambledon councils for years.
Berwick didn’t start this, but certainly Berwick did become the most popular council with which to licence.
That was for a variety of reasons; in relation to vehicles that was because Berwick did not prohibit tinted glass (except as prohibited by law to windscreen and front side windows) and did not prohibit certain MPV / minibus type vehilces because of seating configuration or non-unobstructed access to doors.
Can anyone tell me when a passenger was last attacked by a tinted window? Tinted glass does not make vehilces unsafe. An unfit person to be a driver may make a vehilce unsafe for passengers, but tinted glass does not. If a driver is a fit and proper person, the tint of glass shouldn’t affect public safety in anyway whatsoever. If a driver is unfit and they attack a passenger, they don’t do it where they are going to be seen or heard, do they? No, they take the passenger somewhere quiet and out of the way of passers-by, so whether the vehilce has clear or tinted glass makes no difference to the danger the passenger is then in.
There is, of course, the argument regularly advanced by licensing officers that they need to be able to see into vehilces to ensure there are not too many passengers being carried. However, as most vehilces now have head-restraints all round, it can be difficult to see how many passengers there are in a vehilce with clear glass in daylight, let alone at night with the roof of the vehilce placing the interior into shadow, and reflections on the glass or glare of the headlights of other vehilces making it even more difficult or impossible to see into a vehilce.
I confess that when I joined the council in 2004, I agreed with the majority of other licensing officers that tinted glass should be prohibited, but I was persuaded otherwise by the above facts, advanced to me by an officer of another council, who had previously served as a traffic cop.
If anyone can show that tinted glass does adversely affect public safety, I’m prepared to do a further U-turn and go back to my original thoughts on the subject, but the fact is nothing in the past five years has shown tinted glass to be a problem. In fact, as more manufacturers fit tinted glass as standard, its going to become more difficult to find a vehilce capable of being licensed by some councils! Tell me, what is the problem with tinted glass?
Can someone also tell me which council is right between Newcastle and North Tyneside on their respective policies on seating configurations and unobstructed (or obstructed) access to doors? If one is right, surely the other is wrong!
The fact is councils should be promoting public safety (and pasenger comfort) when dealing with taxi licensing. I can understand why some councils initially refused to licence vehilces with three rows of forward facing seats, without unobstructed access to doors, because they were new and no-one could be sure whether this genuinely presented a danger to passengers in the event of an accident. However, these types of vehilces have now been around for years and, so far as I can see, no-one has ever been able to produce any evidence to show that passenger safety is in any way compromised in such vehicles. Some councils, having conducted exensive research, have removed their restrictions, because they now accept that time has shown such seating configurations do not have an adverse affect on public safety. In the circumstances, is there any reason why such vehicles shouldn’t be licensed?
As for drivers, Berwick applied the law correctly in connection with non-UK drivers, which other councils did not. Whilst some of you won’t accept this as a ringing endorsement of the correctness of Berwick’s approach, North Tyneside Council now has a policy that mirrors that applied by Berwick.
The lack of a knowledge or locality test obviously also made Berwick attractive to some, but the fact is the majority of drivers licensed by Berwick were not individuals from outside the UK, but were people who generally (but not always) had licences with other councils and regarded Berwick as fair (or at least fairer than any other council they were licensed with). And that’s despite the fact Berwick required annual Enhanced CRB checks and, more recently, also conducted annual driver licence checks of DVLA records (and could also randomly check them during the period of the driver’s licence).
Let’s also address the High Court judgment – Newcastle did not win, despite what they said at the time. I had always thought there wasn’t a good outcome for Berwick, because if we had won, we risked becoming the licensing authority for every private hire vehicle and driver in the country who wanted hackney licences (and Berwick couldn’t have coped with that), and if we lost, well loosing is never good!
Many have said the judge “bottled it” or “fudged” the judgment, but I actually believe this to have been a very clever and workable decision. It requires every council to consider generally and on a case by case basis over what area it can (and will) reasonably carry out it’s obligations to monitor, control and regulate the vehicles it licences; and gives them the power to refuse a licence if it cannot fulfill its enforcment responsibilities. No-one can genuinely suggest that isn’t a sensible approach.
This is a decsion that was not forseen by either side before the hearing – both Newcastle and Berwick saw this as a win or lose situation. For reasons that I still think should remain confidential, I cannot tell you why, but I can tell you that Newcastle were clearly not confident that they were going to win!
The judgment did not cost the taxpayers of Berwick anything. It cost the taxi licensing budget a little less than what would otherwise have been a surplus on the account. Some might think a very clever decision of the judge’s to balance Berwick’s books and to compensate Newcastle for part of its costs, knowing how much it had lost in revenue.
The fact is, me and my colleagues at Berwick, and the Council as a whole acted throughout in an honest, open and transparent way, interpreting the law as it had been interpreted before by many councils the length and breadth of the country. We had no secret agenda.
Whether you like me or my involvement in the Newcastle v Berwick case or not is a matter entirely up to each of you as individuals, but what you cannot genuinely dispute is my knowledge of the law or my abilities to represent my clients or members of my subscription scheme. If anyone wants to see my professional profile so that they may make thier own mind up, I’ll happily email it to you. My email address is david.wilson@a2zlicensing.co.uk
When you’ve considered that, you might then be able to decide whether the service I’m offering is one that is needed and good value for money. After all, there are very few solicitors about who know much about taxi licensing law and even fewer who know how the laws relating to council administration impacts on that, but I do. If you need a solicitor who knows the law, can you afford them?
Coincidentally, to date, I have been involved in matters concerning the councils for Northumberland, North Tyneside, Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside, Durham, Stockton, Calderdale, Barnsley, Scunthorpe, Cheshire West and Chester, Cheshire East, and Bolton, so far as I can remember.
Whether you love me or loathe me, I don’t really care; and will do my best to assist or represent anyone who seeks may advice, because that’s my job – I assist and represent people, just like solicitors and barristers do. I might personally agree with my client’s point of view, but I might not, but my views really aren’t relevant when it comes down to doing my professional best for my clients.
On a personal note, perhaps others would be good enough to avoid making defamatory remarks, because they really aren’t necessary.
Finally, I welcome everyone’s comments, because even if I disagree with you, I will have learned something by simply knowing of an opposing view. let’s hope we can all learn something by listening to the views of others and not simply condemning people, because they dare to disagree with us!
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
I can’t argue with much of what Mr.Wilson says but he states: “When you’ve considered that, you might then be able to decide whether the service I’m offering is one that is needed and good value for money. After all, there are very few solicitors about who know much about taxi licensing law and even fewer who know how the laws relating to council administration impacts on that, but I do. If you need a solicitor who knows the law, can you afford them?”
Paragraph 26 of the T&C of Taxi Licence Protect states the following: “You are solely responsible for paying: (i)any court fees that may be payable to commence or pursue court proceedings of any kind; (ii)any other fees or expenses,including (but not limited to) solicitors and barristers professional fees,that you may choose to incur; and (iii) any fines or costs orders that may be made against you by a court. For the avoidance of doubt,Taxi Licence Protect is not an insurance product and is not regulated by the Financial Servises Authority.”
So lets not dive in here thinking we have a free legal adviser for a mere Hundred quid subscription. By choosing to fight for some cause because it doesn’t suit us,thinking we are getting a free ride through the courts, when at the end of the day all we get for that subscription is a guy who will guide you through the process. The Citizens advice Beureaux will do that for free.
As a side note we charge for advertising commercial companies on this site. Reasonable rates. sales@toomanytaxis.co.uk
@David Wilson, Thankyou for your lengthy comment in reply to mine but the whole comment amounts to a long description of your qualifications and services,so I have disallowed it.I am aware that sales are drafting an email to you about any advertising you may wish to take out. Personally I don’t believe in the services you offer but it is not my decision to make. I may be wrong but by letting you advertise here could be bad for the site,on the other hand who am I to stop visitors from having the opportunity to learn about the service that you offer.
Greetings from the Newcastle Hackney Carriage Trade David,
We all have tremendous admiration for your decision to jump before you were pushed and managed to keep what dignity you have left intact. Did you know that you are known in the trade as Mr. Loophole because you have more of them than a string vest?
This is just a short introductory chat before we go head to head later but you should be reminded that while we do not dispute your knowledge of the law or your abilities we most certainly can and will challenge your interpretation of it at every juncture.
We’re not at all interested in your professional profile as once again our only purpose is to beat you although this is entirely without prejudice. I am sure you can understand that the wealthy individuals you represent must be stopped in order for us to protect our livelihoods.
P.S. Don’t forget that tinted windows are disallowed to safeguard the driver as well as the passengers (we will give you are fuller explanation of all the reasons for this at a later date).
Also, keep a straight face and answer this question: at what point did Berwick ever fulfil its enforcement responsibilities?
We look forward to encouraging you into a more worthy use of your abilities.
Admin, I’m disappointed. You allow me to set the record straight about Berwick, but when you cast dispersions about my services you disallow me the opportunity to set the record straight about that.
Perhaps having disallowed my right of reply you would be good enough to remove the middle two paragraphs of your reply timed 10.10pm on 13 August 2009, because as you now know, I don’t accept your ‘take’ on the service I’m offering.
As it happens, having heard from sales, I would like to advertise on the site, rather than simply having to defend myself on it.
I’m sure that with the things we agree and disagree on, we’ll have much to debate in the future.
@David Wilson, Good Morning Dave,
Not a bad shift last night, of course this was due to the vigilance of our enforcement officer (s) who was instrumental in the dispersion of all those grubby little Berwick plated pirates. No offence intended to the one or two who just do their proper bookings.
I’m only joking David, the officers were actually tucked up in bed and the actual dispersion of your pirates was due to the fact that pickings were very slim for a Friday night. The other reason for this was due to the advert we placed in the Evening Chronicle stating that by way of repentance you would be out in your unmarked Reliant Robin driving around to catch all the perpetrators.
It might be a good idea to remove the tinted windows first to aid you in the detection process.
In all fairness we know that you probably never met most of the pirates due to the fact that you were employed to put stamps on all their postal applications (you must have a really sticky tongue David). If you are struggling to tell them apart tonight we can offer you a piece of advice, free of charge of course, they are the ones usually parked in front of and behind nearly every Newcastle Hackney Carriage rank and on every available street corner this side of Berwick.
If you need any further advice please don’t hesitate to contact us via this site and remember the first half an hour is provided free of charge.
@David Wilson, Sorry we have posted this blog prematurely there aren’t any members yet.
@David Wilson, I think you mean ‘aspersions’ and I have to point out that you spell ‘Vehicle’ like this and not like this: ‘vehilces’ in the past I have told people to “behave themselves” when picking up on a commenter’s command of the English language but here we have a man with letters after his name…’Cert HELL, MIoL, MBII.tp’ who I would have thought would use a spellchecker. I don’t know you and won’t make a judgement on your personality But, I feel as strongly as the next man about your role in the Berwick scenario, about your role as an enforcement officer, when drivers of Berwick plated cars were openly sitting on ranks and openly flimping where were you and your team? If you know so much about Taxi laws why couldn’t you put them to good use as an enforcement officer? Why did Berwick only start mass production of Berwick plates when you took the post? Berwick has been around for a long time, the so called ‘Loophole’ was known about for a long time. You, the loophole and Berwick all came together and ‘Bang’ a lot of very unhappy Taxi drivers. I don’t doubt your qualifications and good for you for getting them but you have to realise you are dealing with a naturally opposed two tier system in the Taxi trade. So, by choosing to do something for one half of the trade will obviously put you in a bad light with the other side.I can honestly say that a lot of Private Hire drivers were just as unhappy about Berwick cars. The Taxi trade is a ruthless place. Exploit it and one day it will bite you in the backside, it’s the way we are. You just have to read the comments on this site to see how ruthless we are to each other let alone some smart alec with letters after his name. You said in your post: ‘Whether you love me or loathe me, I don’t really care…….even if I disagree with you, I will have learned something by simply knowing of an opposing view. Let’s hope we can all learn something by listening to the views of others and not simply condemning people, because they dare to disagree with us!’
I don’t Love or Loathe you I don’t condemn you and I don’t necessarily disagree with you but I cannot get away from the fact that in all my years as a Taxi driver nothing has damaged the trade, in Newcastle and North Tyneside, as much as that which most will feel you are responsible. What will you learn from that?
About your disallowed post, I will approve it because I don’t care whether you advertise here or not but I do have the sole right to allow or disallow any comment sent to this site.
@Admin, We still haven’t managed to attract any members to the David Wilson Fanclub yet so we are going to list here all the benefits you can expect for your annual subscription.
We accept payment by international money order, rupees, leu, dinars, euro’s, pesos, drams, zlotych, krooni , rubles, etc. And not to be discriminatory we also accept pounds sterling.
Price for standard membership: £99.99
What you can expect to receive from your STANDARD membership package:
1) Specialist advice on how to adopt the correct body language to give the impression you are waiting for a booking.
2) Free eye tests for all non-UK drivers.
3) Free driving lessons (gold standard members only).
4) How to tell the difference between a real police officer and the pretend community version.
5) Tell tale signs to spot an enforcement officer (optional).
6) A self winding GPS system already set for Newcastle city centre.
Price for the gold star membership: £100.00
For the GOLD STAR membership package you also receive these additional benefits:
7) 3d Glasses to help you see out of your tinted windows.
9) A musical badge holder/ash tray*
10) A signed copy of my autobiography with a forward by my Dutch advisor Mr. I. S. Hannkes.
*We found a loophole that allows us to reintroduce smoking.
JOIN TODAY – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE!
@The David Wilson Fanclub, Buyer beware!
I briefly joined the David Wilson Fanclub and had a most unfortunate experience. As a new private hire driver I could not afford the Gold Star package so I joined as a standard member. It was many weeks before something arrived. Then there was a knock at my door from the postman. He told me that there was insufficient postage on my parcel and that I would have to pay the difference since there was no return address.
I reluctantly did this and opened my parcel to find two pink fluffy dice with a finger mark on one where somebody had removed the country of origin. I could just faintly make out the letters ‘Berw…?
Anyway I was partly through my shift when the spots on my pink fluffy dice fell off one by one so I promptly complained to the fanclub who sent me a gold plated watch by way of compensation. When I inspected the back of this I noticed that it was inscribed with the words: “To David for all your help at Berwick Council from the Finance Department. Something told me this was a second hand watch as it only told the correct time twice a day.
After making numerous telephone calls to the fanclub I finally got through and complained bitterly about the shoddy treatment I was getting. After consultation with David and as a gesture of goodwill, they offered to upgrade my membership to Gold Star. I was sent a signed copy of David’s autobiography in a plain brown envelope. It proved very frustrating due to the fact that for some unknown reason most of the pages were stuck together. I managed to read the foreword but discovered that someone had drawn a little black moustache on the picture of Mr. Hannkes.
Then a problem developed with my musical badge holder/ashtray; I noticed that my cigarette ends would spill out when cornering at speed to the tune of ‘Colonel Bogey’.
This was the straw that broke the camel’s back as far as I was concerned and I am now involved in litigation with the fanclub to recover my subscription costs. I am now looking for representation to help me win my case.
Has anyone else had a similar experience to me?
Admin, You’re right, I did mean ‘aspersions’ and I will use spell-check to avoid the typographical error of ‘vehilces’.
Thank you for agreeing to approve my previous response to your aspersions.
I joined Berwick in June 2004. The first out-of-town hackneys were not licensed until October 2006, so hardly closely linked in time to my arrival. It was, however, very closely linked in time to another council refusing to licence Polish applicants, which was discriminatory and contrary to EU law. It was that fact that resulted in a number of private hire operators visiting every council for miles around, with the result that they then licensed drivers and vehicles with Berwick and Eden Valley councils.
No-one would ever have come to Berwick if they hadn’t been pushed away by other councils – although once pushed away, they were drawn to Berwick, because of the conditions that had largely existed since adoption of the ’76 Act in 1979. In the two and a half years I’d been at Berwick, I’d tightened some of the previous conditions so as to raise the standards, because before I got there vehicle testing didn’t even need to be done at an MOT testing station, let alone by an authorised MOT tester.
Whilst I was certainly the officer with responsibility for taxi licensing, I don’t really think its fair to hold me responsible for conditions that had existed since 1979 or for the discriminatory actions of other councils.
I don’t propose to enter into the debate over one or two-tier licensing, but acknowledge that those who fail to comply with the law do exacerbate the tensions that tend to exist in a two-tier system of any kind.
In every case in which Newcastle or North Tyneside prosecuted a Berwick driver, assistance was given by Berwick. Berwick would have been ‘happy’ to prosecute, but the offences were generally ones that could only be prosecuted by the police or the council in the area in which the offence was committed. We did take enforcement action against drivers, and such action was swift, because I had the delegated authority to suspend and revoke licences; and did so, even before conviction. If I was satisfied of the position, I did not have to wait for a conviction.
I agree that things could have been better managed by the councils, which is why Berwick offered to pay other councils for any enforcement they did on Berwick’s behalf. This would have meant that the local trade in any area wasn’t subsidising Berwick. Newcastle refused, because they didn’t want to weaken their arguments in the High Court case, which wasn’t an unreasonable decision, but didn’t help to resolve the problems that arose. Discussions with North Tyneside were more positive, but ultimately the government’s decision to unify Northumberland resulted in a lot of time being devoted to that, and not to implementing enforcement arrangements with North Tyneside.
As I’ve said in a previous post, so far as I was concerned, the High Court case was never going to produce a decision that I would like, so there was never a good reason to get into the position into which Berwick got in the first place, except for doing as we believed the law required.
Until the out-of-town situation arose, I had a job that was manageable and reasonably well paid for what was involved. As a result of the out-of-town situation, I had a massive job, which necessitated the recruitment of additional temporary staff and made me “public enemy number one” with a large proportion of the trade and many councils and council officers (albeit not all, to be fair to those who agreed or disagreed with me, but who respected my judgment and the unenviable position the council and I was in). And no, I didn’t get a pay rise, so I had all that grief for the same money as I got before.
It’s always easy to blame the person in charge of anything at the time that something happens that we don’t like, but I think the facts here demonstrate that the same situation would have existed no matter who was in charge, because of the actions of other councils and the conditions that had largely existed in Berwick since 1979.
With hindsight, I could have refused to licence all of these drivers and vehicles, and probably wouldn’t have been challenged by the operators. However, I had no way of knowing that when I was first asked the question, so I did what the law appeared to require, having consulted with the Council’s Borough Solicitor, Jim Button and others, including the Department for Transport (DfT).
To be honest about the DfT, they expressed the view initially that it was unlawful, but their reasons for saying so was based on DPP v Computer Cabs, which concerned the legislation that applies in London, which has different terms to that which applies in the rest of England and Wales. Until the judgment in Newcastle v Berwick, there was nothing in the legislation or case law to establish that our interpretation was incomplete. I’m probably in the minority, because I accept the judgment and the logic of the decision, but the fact that most regard the judge as having “bottled it” or having “fudged the judgment” seems to demonstrate that his decision is one that was not held by anyone beforehand. The truth is that everyone’s view of the law and how it should be interpreted and applied was wrong – Berwick was wrong, Newcastle was wrong, Berwick Borough Taxi Association was wrong, Blue Line Taxis was wrong, and so was everyone else who ever expressed an opinion about it –no-one anywhere ever predicted this outcome!
Response to posting by “A2Z Snake Oil Potions”.
Your purpose is to beat me over what? Personally, I have no fight to fight with anyone on any subject.
My job at Berwick was to do as the law required, which is all I tried to do – see my last post timed at 1.15pm on 15 August 2009.
My job now is to advise, assist and represent anyone who wants my help, so you might beat me representing the interests of one of my clients, but simply because I act for someone doesn’t actually mean I agree with them!
firstly admin, why are you letting this man ‘advertise’ himself on here?
mr. wilson, it should be down to each individual council to decide its OWN licencing policy, on what is safe or acceptable and what is not. NOT YOU!
also, what would berwick have done had it been the other way around, and one morning there was 200 newcastle plated vehicles parked up all around berwick town centre?
and you TRY to convince that the vast majority were ex other council badge holders! RUBBISH! i know one off that had over 20 berwick/derwentside drivers and out of them all THREE were ex newcastle!
Yoour posts are nothing short of trying to convince us otrherwise for your your own personal gain! Please dont insult our intellegence! Any correctly licenced driver in the north east, would be an abosoulte fool to turn to someone who was a catalyst in bringing the trade to its knees, for any kind of help.
also, you preach that you know licencing law back to front, yet part of berwicks case was that YOU legally had to licence anyone who you deemed fit and proper, yet the judge told you that No you didnt, you could refuse any licence that wasnt going to be used in the licenced area!
@Andy Warhol,
“I agree that things could have been better managed by the councils, which is why Berwick offered to pay other councils for any enforcement they did on Berwick’s behalf”
but judge symonds said that newcastle enforcement had no power over berwick whilst they were in newcastle!
Firstly, my first post here was in response to comments posted by you and others, to someone else’s decision to reproduce the article from the Journal. If it had not been for that, I wouldn’t have been posting anything, anywhere!
I agree every council can decide their own policy on a whole range of issues, including glass, but any conditions should be for the purpose of promoting public safety or passenger comfort. In the circumstances, common sense would tend to suggest that what is safe or unsafe in one council area is probably safe or unsafe in every other council area, but that doesn’t seem to follow when applied to taxi licensing.
One council decrees something is unsafe and another says its safe. Are they both right? Probably not, but I accept possibly “yes”, because local circumstances might make a difference. By way of example, when Durham City wanted to require all hackneys to be white, because that was the condition of the neighbouring authorities, the court said “no”, because whilst colour policies are lawful and serve a purpose, part of the purpose is to enable the police, public and council enforcement officers to be able to distinguish hackneys from different areas from each other and from private hire vehicles.
I’m not in the habit of forming an opinion until I have considered the pros and cons of a proposal. With regards to tinted glass, I was merely seeking to explain why Berwick didn’t prohibit it, despite my initial inclination to propose a prohibition shortly after I joined the council. However, I made enquiries of others, including the resident Berwick trade (which is all that existed at the time) and concluded that, whilst a prohibition on tinted glass had the appearance of a legitimate purpose, in reality, there wasn’t any benefit of justification for prohibiting it. As I have said before, its a personal view and I’m more than happy to reconsider the arguments in favour of a prohibition, and even to do a further U-turn on the subject.
My view and those of others at Berwick was that the position was lawful, wherever the vehicles were licensed or working. Our view was not influenced by anything other than our interpretation of the law.
I assure you the majority of drivers held licences elsewhere, but I accept there were offices where the majority (and in some cases, all) drivers were new to the trade.
You refer to Derwentside drivers. As I genuinely don’t know, is anyone prepared to admit how long out-of-town hackneys had been working outside their controlled districts of Derwentside, Tynedale, Hambledon and anywhere else? We all know, although most like to forget or ignore the fact, that Berwick was the last council to experience this phenomenon.
Perhaps you would read, what Admin has titled, “Part II” of my “setting the record straight” response. When you’ve read it, you may still not like what it says or believe it, but that’s a matter for you. What is important is that I know it’s the truth and for the first time, you and everybody else has the opportunity to make an informed judgement on what happened, why it happened, and whether it would have made any difference if someone other than me happened to be responsible for taxi licensing at Berwick at the time.
If anyone casts aspersions (got it right this time, Admin) about my knowledge and abilities on this site or elsewhere, I shall exercise my right to reply. If you think that’s advertising, so be it – I think of it as self-defence!
I’ve already accepted that Berwick (which includes me) got some of the law wrong, which is more than anyone else has ever done, despite the fact that everyone involved in the case and everyone who ever expressed an opinion about it, got the same thing wrong too! In over 160 years since the 1847 Act was enacted, this was the first time this issue had been considered by the courts. Berwick took the view that the Act should be interpreted literally, i.e. it says what it means. Newcastle’s view was that the purpose (albeit not stated anywhere in the Act) was to solely licence vehicles for use in the controlled district. The judge ruled that the words of the Act had to be read in the context of the Act’s purpose of promoting public safety; and therefore he ruled that councils could refuse to licence a vehicle if the council was not going to be able to fulfil its obligations to monitor, control and regulate the use of that vehicle, if it was to be predominantly or exclusively used remotely from the area of the council for private hire purposes.
For the sake of being right, I would have preferred for the judge to have found entirely in Berwick’s favour, because, of course, he confirmed that Berwick (and not Newcastle) were right that a hackney carriage could undertake pre-booked work anywhere in England and Wales.
However, from a practical point of view, I was also quite happy that Berwick wasn’t entirely successful, because we couldn’t have coped with a large volume of applications from all over the country!
Until my recent postings on this site, no-one outside of the council and its legal team has had any insight into our true position; and the difficulties that would have faced the council if we’d been entirely successful.
When this all started, we had two options:
(i) do as we did, because we did what the Act said (as opposed to doing what the judge ultimately ruled it had really meant in relation to an enactment of almost 130 years later), which exposed the council to the risk of judicial review by anyone who was “aggrieved” by our decision (which turned out to be Newcastle City Council); or
(ii) refuse the licences, which we believed to be unlawful; and risk a judicial review by the trade and having to defend a position we didn’t believe in (a position in which a council is not permitted by law to get itself into!).
So, whatever we did, we risked being on the wrong end of a judicial review! It wasn’t so much a case of having to choose a prize from a number of options, but choosing one’s preferred method of execution!
And I do mean “execution”, because even winning outright would have brought with it a whole host of unmanageable problems!
Not exclusively on this site, but in various places over the past two (and now nearly three) years, I’ve been accused of creating the “Berwick problem” for various improper motives, when the truth is, I only did what we believed to be required by law.
The truth is; if it had not been Berwick, it would have been Eden Valley or somewhere else. Berwick and I just drew the short straw!
I don’t ask anyone to like what happened, just to accept that it happened for a variety of reasons (as detailed in another of my posts); and to accept that throughout I acted honestly and without any improper motive.
@David Wilson,Apologies for changing the subject a little here but one thing i still cannot get my head around is the situation at Newcastle Airport and i was not sure where to stick this post.
Surely if a hackney has to predominately work his own area which to me means fifty one per cent of the time,does this not render all the hackneys who work at the airport (apart from the newcastle ones)as not operating properly as they never ever work their own areas.
They also come out of the airport to pick up prebooked fares and it could be anyone of several different licenced areas that is sent out.
Apologies for sounding like a simpleton but this confusies me and i would be happy to hear your reply.
@David Wilson,
“I’ve already accepted that Berwick (which includes me) got some of the law wrong”
then how can you claim to be an ‘expert’ and why would anyone wish to fund a case themself with you representing them when you have so clearly cocked up after 4 years in the job?
“However, from a practical point of view, I was also quite happy that Berwick wasn’t entirely successful, because we couldn’t have coped with a large volume of applications from all over the country!”
hahaha! come on! you wernt making those noises before or durning the run up to the case! Infact you couldnt get these things out fast enough!
as others have said, you only have to walk through the streets of newcastle at night and see your ‘legacy’ parked up on every street corner with there taxi signs on, and berwick plates stuck in the rear of a blacked out window, ask them if there booked and sit back and enjoy your ‘uninsured’ ride home! perahps then you can smile that you are promoting ‘passenger saftey’!
Newcastle’s abilities to enforce were limited to the abilities they have in relation to any vehicle unlawfully plying for hire in the City.
Newcastle’s enforcement officers could have been fully authorised by Berwick, so they could have had exactly the same powers.
I never said they had the same powers, just that Berwick had offered to authorise officers of any other council who wanted their officers to be authorised; and that Berwick was prepared to pay for any enforcement they did.
@David Wilson,
well i read that judgement, and this was pointed out to judge symonds and he said that Newcastle enforcement had no power over another licencing authorities vehicles whatsoever!
did you pop out to post some licences during that part?
if admin were to hoy up the case again for me to download, i would be more than happy to read through again and get his EXACT quote! I KNOW WHAT I READ MR WILSON!
@Andy Warhol, It’s an open Forum, i.e. it cannot be one sided. Everyone has a right to say their piece.That’s why the site was set up originally,to stimulate debate.The fact that more often than not it’s just a playground for some, does not take away it’s usefulness for serious conversation.
Spike, it’s a simple question, but there’s not a simple answer!
If we ignore the fact that the airport was originally operated by four councils; and I believe as a consequence vehicles licensed by the four councils were permitted to work from it, because whether that’s entirely true or not, I don’t know for sure, but in any event, matters have certainly moved on since then.
The rank at the airport is a private rank, so could be used by unlicensed vehicles, so long as they had the permission of the airport.
It’s a private rank for a number of reasons, but most significantly because it’s not visible from the public highway and because you have to pass through barriers to get to it. To take Newcastle Central Station as an example, the rank is on land belonging to Network Rail (if that’s still their name), but the rank is regarded as being public, because its adjacent to the public footpath and the public have no obvious way to distinguish public highway from private land.
If, for the time being only, we forget that Airport Taxis are now undertaking private hire work to bring passengers to the airport, rather than just taking them away from it, these vehicles and drivers could be unlicensed. As I understand the position (and I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows better than I do), the airport contractually requires the company to use licensed hackney carriages. It certainly makes sense, because then vehicles and drivers are subject to some licensing regime, although I accept different councils apply different rules. The fact is, vehicles and drivers have been licensed by a council.
That was fine up to the Berwick judgment and, some would say, even after it, because the judge expressly remarked that the airport might provide an exceptional circumstance in which it would be reasonable for a council to grant a licence, despite the fact the vehicle was going to work from the airport and not within the area of the council licensing it.
However, as you point out, these vehicles are now undertaking private hire work, albeit on a limited basis, specifically relating to journeys to the airport.
In the Berwick case, the judge confirmed that a hackney carriage could undertake private hire work anywhere in the country, so what they are doing is lawful.
The question is whether the councils should be licensing the vehicles in these circumstances, which is really what you asked me in the first place!
Let’s now move on to the “operator”. As the law doesn’t recognise the activity of accepting bookings for a hackney carriage as being something that is licensable, no licence is required. This was the decision in the 2004 Brentwood v Gladen case.
Obviously, if the company were using private hire vehicles they would need an operator’s licence, but would only be able to use Newcastle licensed private hire vehicles, driven by Newcastle licensed private hire vehicle drivers.
And I haven’t forgotten about the element of the question that arises from Newcastle v Berwick! Whilst I haven’t forgotten the question, I did say it wasn’t simple; and dare I suggest it, but it has the potential to result in further litigation!
On the one hand, the judge said it might be an exceptional reason justifying the grant of a licence; and on the other, you’re right, it potentially conflicts with the core principles of the judge’s own rulings in the case!
To further blur the picture, there’s a legal principle known as “legitimate expectation”, which basically means circumstances can give rise to someone being entitled to something, because they’ve always had the right to it, etc. This concept wasn’t addressed by the judge in the Berwick case (and to be fair to the judge, wasn’t raised by any party to the proceedings either), which is why there were (and still are) issues about how the council (now Northumberland, rather than Berwick) should deal with applications for renewal.
In relation to Berwick, people may have held licences since October 2006, but in relation to the airport, I imagine there are people working from there who have done so for more than any three years, so their “legitimate expectations” may be even more difficult to overturn.
All in all, it will, as ever, come down to each council having to formulate its own policy and then having to decide each case on its own merits, either in accordance with its policy or accepting that, because of some exceptional circumstance, it ought to be determined contrary to its own policy.
In November last year, Berwick said every council in the country would have to look to formulating a policy; and everyone dismissed that assertion, because they thought Berwick was trying to deflect attention from itself. We now have councils all over the region adopting policies and / or seeking to apply the principles of the judgment without a policy.
In my opinion, a policy isn’t the answer to everything, but at least it sets out the starting position. I should make clear that a policy is not a rule or a condition – it’s probably best described as guidance; and as guidance, a council can always depart from its own guidance, although if it chooses to do so, it should give its reasons for doing so.
I’m sure this doesn’t actually answer your question, but I hope you feel better informed; and assured that you are not a simpleton for asking the question Spike.
@David Wilson, Many thanks for your reply David and your guidance of the issue has helped me relise that what a mixed up trade we are in.
The sooner we all read from the same book the better.
@spike,
its only a ‘mixed up trade’ if you want it to be! to the vast majority its simple. licence your self correctly and then work from your correct borough!
as was said before the case its not new rules we need, just clarification of the old ones.
however, there will always be those that wish to change or ruin, the trades for either there own personal gain, the ego and now its seems to forge an occupation from it!
@David Wilson,
David,
Please read the following words over and over again until they sink in.
Can you remember when you were told face to face that the vehicles you were licensing as hackney carriages were NOT adhering to the letter of the law and that the vast majority of them were never operating outside of their area as private hire vehicles only and that they never intended to legitimately work just from an office?
Can you not understand that Newcastle and North Tyneside private hire offices have barely enough work for their own drivers who are licensed in these areas? The ‘out of town’ plated cars do not have nearly enough bookings from these offices and as a result are continually working as pirates on our streets and that in order for them to make a living they are preventing the legitimate Newcastle Hackney Carriage drivers from making theirs.
We told you that day after day and night after night they were picking up illegally from Newcastle city centre and systematically decimating our trade. At what point are you going to understand that we will not tolerate this. We will not allow you to continue to advise these people on how to circumvent licensing laws in order for them to attack our livelihoods.
I don’t ask you to like what we represent, just to accept that we will fight you at every step of the way and we will continue to aid our Council in enforcing all the breaches of the law by the people you encourage.
@David Wilson, My dearest David,
This is just a reminder to let you know that you are now surplus to requirements, in much the same way as Mr. Alan Fidler.
Although Mr. Fidler serves the function of filling an empty seat at council meetings and this allows the delegates to take a small cat nap when he speaks.
We are grateful to Mr. Fidler for this function and we hope he takes a well deserved early retirement.
Mr. Wilson,
you admittedly already have BLT as a subscribed customer.
So what would happen in a scenario whereby all 780 of the Newcastle Hackney trade took up subscription aswell. then say we had an issue arrise whereby BLT’s wished to chase legistlation that they thought would benefit them, but it was a grey area legistlation, and would from the hackney point of view be harmfull and possibly damage there trade.
what would you do, and is this not a conflict of interests to expect one man with both as ‘valued’ subscribers to sort it out!
i dont know if i speak for the trade here, but i would find it VERY hard to trust a man who has already shown us how much he ‘cares’ for the hackney trade!
as the judge said, you could have at anytime refused a licence to any applicant who had absolutely no intention of ever working ion berwick… you choose to ignore that part of the licencing and chase…. the dream.
and you never answered IF the shoe was on the other foot, and you woke up to 200 newcastle hackney carriages parked all over berwick high street working from offices what would you have done? as my understanding (could be wrong) but berwick were capped to 50 plates. If so why did you then take it upon yourself to ‘deregulate’ other cities! surely by capping your own plates you relised that restrictions were there for a REASON!
@Andy Warhol, Here it is: http://www.toomanytaxis.com/2008/11/05/the-judgement/
It seems this could go on forever; and it is difficult to answer every point of everyone’s comments, but I will try!
To deal with things in reverse – with regards to Andy Warhol’s post, I did answer your question. I said, and I repeat: “My view and those of others at Berwick was that the position was lawful, wherever the vehicles were licensed or working. Our view was not influenced by anything other than our interpretation of the law.” The point I badly made was that our view would have been the same if the position had been reversed.
For clarification, Berwick was not capped; and had not been for many years before I ever joined the Council. Berwick had followed the advice of the DfT and OFT.
The terms and conditions have a “conflict of interest” clause, which entitles me not to provide advice, assistance or representation, if I consider there is a conflict of interest.
If you refer to the judgment, you will see the judge uses the word “desirable” when suggesting applications could be refused. The judgment addresses what could be done in the future; and ultimately the judge held that councils had a discretion, and stated he was not going to direct how that discretion should be exercised. Not the condemning assessment you seem to believe it to have been. He also acknowledged that questions of intended use had not been asked by councils in the past, but said there was no reason why they should not be asked in the future – a point Berwick had not disagreed with.
Another, largely unknown fact, is that initially there was only two or three applications; and that was all we expected, because they seemed to be the only people to be affected by the allegedly unlawful discrimination of another council. However, once we had formed a view on the law; and many more applications were made, we again had the two options:
1) Get judicially reviewed by another council (which turned out to be Newcastle); or
2) Get judicially reviewed by the trade, because having been forced to publicly declare our interpretation of the law, we had no legitimate legal reason to go back on it!
Two brilliant options . . . . once again!
I have, and have never had anything against the hackney trade in any area. Circumstances are what they were.
The fact is that it shouldn’t matter whether these are Berwick or out-of-town hackney plated vehicles from elsewhere or local private hire vehicles, because they should only be undertaking pre-booked work. That, I think, we all agree on!
If they are not (and I accept some do not abide by the law) they should be dealt with appropriately. I insist that Berwick did what it was empowered to do – I revoked licences. Newcastle and North Tyneside have prosecuted.
It is in paragraph 6 of the judgment that the judge states Newcastle has no enforcement powers over “these vehicles”. It’s what he said, but it’s not entirely correct! They had, and have the same powers over Berwick plated hackneys as they have over any other vehicle that unlawfully plies for hire, which is why they have prosecuted some drivers for flimping! If they had no power, they wouldn’t have been able to do that, would they?
I have always agreed that other councils did not have the full range of enforcement powers that are held by the licensing authority, but then again, I said that Berwick did offer those powers to other councils. Berwick was not responsible for Newcastle’s decision to decline the offer.
Insurance. Whilst it was a widely held belief by the police, licensing officers and the trade that flimping immediately invalidated a certificate of insurance, the Divisional Court (the division of the High Court that determines points of law in criminal cases) has held that is not the case; and that the wording of the insurance certificate and policy are definitive on the question of the existence of insurance.
And finally, because I’m not sure whether I’ve responded to everything or not, but if not, I’m sure someone will point out my oversight. I am not a trade association, a union, or any form of political group and never have been. I don’t have an agenda, and have never done so (except that of applying the law as we believed it to be), so you’re going to find it extremely difficult to fight against what I stand for, although if it keeps you amused, you can fight against what you think I might stand for, or might have stood for in the past! Have fun . . . I am not, and have never been a member of either the hackney carriage or private hire trade, so I don’t have this “them and us” attitude, which seems to extend throughout much of the trade. As I’m avoiding getting drawn into anything that might be regarded as advertising, I’ll have to stop!
@David Wilson,
No no mr. wilson your twisting things a tad here,
You said…
“It is in paragraph 6 of the judgment that the judge states Newcastle has no enforcement powers over “these vehicles”. It’s what he said, but it’s not entirely correct! They had, and have the same powers over Berwick plated hackneys as they have over any other vehicle that unlawfully plies for hire, which is why they have prosecuted some drivers for flimping! If they had no power, they wouldn’t have been able to do that, would they?”
However the judge stated that they have no power as newcastle enforcement have no idea of the by laws that are applicable to that vehicle, as each LA has different by laws that they see fit to impose. However, the ‘flimping’ law is the same for each accross the board… thats why gateshead enforcement can catch newcastle drivers newcastle enbforcement catch NT etc etc …
You also said that you have a conflict of interest clause, so any case that would involve this you wouldnt act for wither side? even though BOTH have paid there subs!?
You said…
“I have always agreed that other councils did not have the full range of enforcement powers that are held by the licensing authority, but then again, I said that Berwick did offer those powers to other councils. Berwick was not responsible for Newcastle’s decision to decline the offer.”
Yes, but now you have to admit to the public that YOU licenced vehicles to work in another area knowing that there was NO ENFORCEMENT to check what these vehicles were up to! You cannot pass the buck to newcastle on this one, once they refused to enforce your licenced vehicles you should have put a stop to the system in the interests of the public! something you CLAIM to have acted on all along.
And I did overlook something, the comment that Berwick and I weren’t making noises before the hearing that we didn’t relish the practical difficulties that a complete win would have brought.
Of course we didn’t, because we were dealing with a serious, complex and important point of law.
If you want legislation changing, go to parliament.
Berwick wasn’t seeking any change to legislation, just clarification as to the interpretation of a 160+ years old piece of legislation. We concentrated on the legal issues; and not on what the practical difficulties might have been.
@David Wilson, If only life were as simple and straightforward as that judgement – (LOL)
Mr. David Wilson (et al) doesn’t have to sit on a taxi rank night after night until three or four in the morning trying to earn a crust. While you are poring over various documents looking for loopholes, the majority of taxi drivers are abiding by the law and worrying about paying their mortgage, the rent and the never-ending flow of bills. It is not a job for the feint hearted and I personally know drivers who have had to leave the trade because of the effects the stress of the job has had on their health. Not like you Mr. Wilson who had a monthly wage safely in the bank for your cushy little nine to five number.
It makes my blood boil when little toss pots like you come along and show no respect for the men and women whose livelihood your meddling has had such an impact on. I only have to read the manic rambling of your posts on this site to know that what my Grandmother told me holds true bull**** can baffle brains!
What you and your cohorts did might have been lawful in your view – but it was not within the spirit of the law and this showed your true CONTEMPT for the drivers whose lives were effected by you.
Applying just a modicum of common sense to the Berwick issue, where did you think all the Berwick plated Hackney carriages were going to ply for trade – did you really think they could make a living in Berwick? While you were raking in the revenue for Berwick council your Berwick bandits were taking the wages out of the hands of the Newcastle Hackney drivers.
Now you dare to try and say you can help these very drivers whose livelihood your scheming threatened by offering your services as an advisor at £100 a go. Even Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask! Do you seriously think the drivers are going to come to you for advice when they can get advice for free from a local C.A.B .or better still from the very councils they are licensed by?
Mr. Wilson, can you please confirm whether you had a vehicle plated as far afield as north wales as the local press reported. If not wales please confirm where the furtherst from berwick plated vehicle was operating.
and IF it was as far afield as North Wales, could you please tell me, and the public, how you were planning on keeping a check on that hackney vehicle, what it was doing and in what condition it was being kept?
As I know to be FACT, and others will confirm, that there was guys driving round in berwick, derwentside plated vehicles in newcastle at weekends who did not, and had no intention of working from an office!
Now when you plate mr. dough and give him berwick plate xxx, off he drives into the sunset, how do you know where he was going or what his plans were?
and the ‘flimping’ issue grew massively when the berwick scenario came around because the educated members of the public who were used to seeing private hire with small top signs and taxis were the ones with TAXI accross the top were now faced with out of town vehicles, mainly berwick, parking up with TAXI and FOR HIRE light up!
Now forget all your knowledge of the trade, and from the publics point of view do you see how easy theye were fooled into thinking that these walter mittys were ligit newcastle taxis! causing an almost overnight rise in flimping and massive loss in revenue to the hackney trade! Aswell as the dangers imposed to the public!
BERWICK!!!!!
Did anyone see that halfwit foreign Berwick Driver plough straight into a parked Car on Saturday night?, he had four passengers in the Car, all were admitted to Hospital, one really hurt.
The incident happened next to the Gunner Pub (North Shields), at the Traffic lights.
He had plenty of space to get passed!
WELL DONE MR WILSON, I AM SURE THOSE FOUR CUSTOMERS CAN’T WAIT FOR THIER NEXT TAXI RIDE!!!!!!
@Upset NT Driver, was talking to a mate who friends were in that very same car and apparently he was trying to swat a fly in the car and went into the bk of a 4×4 ?
I’m really struggling to keep up with all the issues here!
Going back to Andy Warhol’s post of 8.35pm today: The legal problem with byelaws is that they are only enforceable in the district! A breach of byelaws may be an offence for which there could be a prosecution, which is a benefit of byelaws over licence conditions, for which a prosecution cannot usually be brought, but they are not geographically restricted to an area.
Ironically, almost all councils have the same byelaws, because they are all based on the model byelaws produced by the Department for Transport, who very clearly indicated the Secretary of State wouldn’t approve any that differed greatly from the model, without very good reason.
You accuse me of twisting things, but then go on to assert precisely what I was saying, about which you were disagreeing! However we’ve got to this point, you now seem to accept that “the flimping” laws applies across the whole country – that’s what I said! We agree (and have always agreed) that other councils did not have other powers, such as those to inspect vehicles.
Berwick did do enforcement across Tyneside, Darlington and Teesside, as well as specifically visiting the airport to inspect vehicles.
We aimed to do four full days a month, but probably only managed an average of about three days a month. Enforcement was undertaken in a high visibility vehicle and an officer was accompanied by an authorised MOT tester. Other enforcement operations were undertaken with the police, VOSA and HM Revenue & Customs.
I know and accept that the levels enforcement has reduced dramatically since the merger with Northumberland County Council, but that’s a matter you’d have to take up with them.
The most distant Berwick hackney was in mid-Wales. It was a wheelchair accessible minibus used on school contracts. The Welsh County Borough Council needed such a vehicle for a school transport contract, but the licensing section wouldn’t licence it, because of its age. I don’t remember the precise age limits that applied in the area, but it too old to be first licensed, but if it had been licensed when it was new enough to be first licensed, it was still new enough to be licensed! The proprietor consulted the various departments and obtained the approval and consent of their legal department. A little ironic! Personally, I would have thought there might have been a good argument for them to depart from their policy and to licence it themselves!
Otherwise, there were eight vehicles in East Riding, but now that council has admitted they got the law wrong on EU driving licences, I am sure all the drivers and vehicles will now be licensed there, which was what the proprietor had wanted in the first place.
After that, we get to Darlington / Teesside / Sedgefield. I don’t know what the position is in Darlington, but there were only two small firms licensing vehicles and drivers in Berwick. There are still some in Teesside. And the Sedgefield one’s have licensed with Durham, now they’ve adopted different policies to those that existed previously. As I’ve said before, people came to Berwick because of a problem of one sort or another they had with their local council. If there hadn’t been problems, they would never have been looking elsewhere!
Doesn’t this suggest that the trades and councils ought to be getting back to basics and evaluating what the purpose of the legislation is; and then only doing what is necessary, reasonable and proportionate to achieve those objectives? All too often there is competition between councils to have the newest fleet or the highest driver or vehicle standards, just because that’s what they want. I’m certainly not opposed to high standards, but there is a difference between necessary high standards and high standards for the sake of high standards. I’m not going to get into a “name and shame”, but I’m sure everyone will be able to level such an accusation against one council, although I hope for you sakes it not the council you’re licensed with. Licensing standards between councils should not be a competition, because when it is, it’s not the councils that loose!
As for my terms and conditions, a conflict is reasonably unlikely. If one arises, that will be a matter for me and those subscribing to my services to resolve.
In relation to Hackney Carriage Driver’s post of 10.08pm, I’ll keep it brief, because I don’t want to baffle your brains.
I didn’t expect these vehicles to be plying anywhere – there certainly wasn’t the work for them in Berwick; and they could legally ply anywhere else! However, as a hackney carriage has been licensable since 1847 (if not earlier) and private hire vehicles, drivers and operators only became licensable upon the adoption of the 1976 Act, who do you think did pre-booked hirings before then? Latterly, it certainly was the unlicensable private hire trade, but before then, it was almost exclusively hackney carriages! Hackney carriages have always done and been entitled to do pre-booked work, even though it wasn’t expressly stated in the licence, because originally anyone could do it.
I refuse to be drawn into advertising – there’s a time and a place for that, as you will see in due course!
Moving onto Andy Warhol’s 8.48pm post, I accept the Berwick top signs displayed the word “TAXI” and often “For Hire”, but that’s hardly surprising for a taxi, is it? It was the only distinguishing feature of a Berwick hackney; and I admit to being responsible for introducing it, because before I did so, there was no means, except for the rear plate, to identify a Berwick hackney. It’s probably the only place in the country where visitors to the town would approach a vehicle on the taxi rank and ask the driver if it was a taxi – or at least so I was told by a driver.
If the public of Newcastle and North Tyneside can distinguish hackneys from those two areas, despite them both being black and having taxi top signs, surely they could appreciate that a vehicle that didn’t have the Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney door decals wasn’t a Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney. Surely you’re not implying that it’s possible for a hackney from one of these two areas to flimp in the other without detection, because they look so similar?
Flimping shouldn’t happen, and we all agree about that.
It was my intention to introduce “test purchasing” late last year, but it didn’t happen, because of the time that was needed to deal with the hearing, the judgment and trying to produce, consult and adopt a policy. Unfortunately, the plans only got as far as discussing proposals with private investigators, but it’s something that I would have wanted to progress if I’d chosen to stay with the County Council.
As for Upset NT driver’s post of 9.25pm, I sense that what upsets you the most is the allegation you make that the driver was foreign! Not that you’re a racist at heart! You may think the driver a halfwit, because of the nature of the accident you allege he had, but what on earth does whether he was foreign or not have to do with it? Surely, you are simply making an assertion based upon someone’s appearance!
As we all know, accidents happen; and usually because of someone’s error of judgement, a distraction, or momentary loss of concentration. It’s because we’re are human; and nationality and ethnicity having nothing to do with it! I have absolutely no idea what was going on in that vehicle prior to the accident, but then again, I’m not presuming to know. Were you there? Do you know? Could the same thing have happened to you in the same circumstances?
If your racist implications are right, I presume no white, UK born North Tyneside hackney carriage driver has ever been involved in a road traffic accident of any kind; and has certainly never caused one!
Thank goodness you’re not a gardener – the greenhouses wouldn’t stand a chance!
Mr Wilson!
I am not a Racist, sometimes on this Site people call you a Liar, I was only describing the Driver, because there was two accidents involving a Taxi on Saturday evening in North Shields.
For your information, I was once licensed by Berwick myself, but I had the sense not to participate in that cr#p anymore!!!.
The worst Bandits are mostly English, several Ethnic minority (is this the correct term for you Mr PC Lefty) Berwick Drivers I know now have a NT or Newcastle Badge because they no longer want to be associated with the mess your “Hill Billy” Council caused!!!!!
@David Wilson,
“If the public of Newcastle and North Tyneside can distinguish hackneys from those two areas, despite them both being black and having taxi top signs, surely they could appreciate that a vehicle that didn’t have the Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney door decals wasn’t a Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney. Surely you’re not implying that it’s possible for a hackney from one of these two areas to flimp in the other without detection, because they look so similar?”
here we go again mr. wilson, twist and shake! We dont have a major problem with NT hacks ‘flimping’ in Newcastle City Centre as we have had with Berwick plated vehicles!
@David Wilson, David,my only concern with your comment is where you say “If the public of Newcastle and North Tyneside can distinguish hackneys from those two areas, despite them both being black and having taxi top signs, surely they could appreciate that a vehicle that didn’t have the Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney door decals wasn’t a Newcastle or North Tyneside hackney. Surely you’re not implying that it’s possible for a hackney from one of these two areas to flimp in the other without detection, because they look so similar?”
I have driven a Taxi on North Tyneside for 27 years and in that time I have seen punters Flag Police cars,Hotdog vans,once a plumbers van and anything with a roof sign! So it is naive of anybody to think that, if you put a car with a Taxi sign on the roof in any area, it is not going to be flagged or approached for a hiring. Licensing officers over the years have wittered on about door decals and topsign sizes & colours and vehicle colours so as to demonstrate to the public what a Taxi is,but when Saturday night comes around and joe public has got god knows what pumping through their veins they will attempt to hire anything with wheels to take them home! And this is what licensing officers don’t seem to believe or understand. You cannot just tell the public at large that this is a Taxi and it is the only thing you can hire off the street and hope they will comply.This is why enforcement is needed.Enforcement in my own area is limited to checking badges between 7pm & 9pm on a weekend night about 4 times a year,though recently there have been ‘Test Purchases’ or ‘Mystery Shoppers’ with some success but for this to be entirely successful it would have to carried out on much more regular basis which would prove costly.
We in the trade know and understand this peculiar habit of the public to jump into anything. Why do you think Private Hire cars are covering every bit of space available on a vehicle with stickers,logos,etc. Because they understand the thinking of the public. “it’s covered in writing and logos and phone numbers,it must be a Taxi” They don’t see the phone number they just see that it is a phone number,they don’t see what the writing says they just see it and think Taxi. I’m a Hack and people flag me down and say “I know you’re not supposed to stop but I won’t say anything” They’re still confused. My point here is for years we,the trade & Council, have been fighting a losing battle trying to educate the public and the out of town scenario has served only to confuse the issue. When we have been telling punters over and over that they can only flag a car with a Taxi sign on the roof and suddenly we are flooded with Berwick cars with a ‘Taxi’ roofsign.
No body listens! Licensing think they know everything because they read it in a book but if you want to know about the Taxi trade ask a Taxi driver. Across the Country there are people who would educate us with NVQ’s & Btec’s but no one wants to be educated by a Taxi Driver. How did Alan Fidler put it? …..Aided and abetted by panels of councillors and legal officers who see us as some form of ‘untermenschen’ not entitled to the norms of legal and natural justice……..
@Admin, All the staff here at the David Wilson Fanclub are very concerned at the astounding level of attacks directed at our David.
It’s not his fault that he turned out the way he did as he was picked on at school for being a prefect and this was never resolved because the headmaster hated him as well and also took part in the bullying.
Things got worse by the time he reached secondary school when it was discovered that he liked to wear girl’s knickers under his short trousers. This disclosure traumatised him and as a result he never did P.E. again.
He became very insular for his one remaining school year then he was expelled when it was discovered that he exploited a loophole in the registration process to allow pupils outside of the catchment area to get into his school.
They only discovered that it was David because of his dyslexia which became apparent when on his C.V. he described himself as ‘perfect’ instead of ‘prefect’.
To console himself he bought a dog but the RSPCA were forced to re-house this due to reports of inappropriate behaviour. He became clinically depressed after this and spent his days playing the word game ‘Soduko’. He wanted to order the soduko quiz book from the local newsagent but then he noticed a vacancy in the window for a licensing officer at Berwick Council and as you know the rest is history.
We hope this short outline will help to encourage a more sympathetic attitude towards our patron.
Admin,
To use someone else’s very wise words, “I can’t argue with much of what Admin says”.
I’m sure the irony of my remarks were not really missed when I said what I said – or should that be writ what I wrote?
I know and accept that there are members of the public who will try to stop anything with wheels and a roof in the hope of it being a taxi, by which I mean a hackney carriage, although it’s a distinction the public generally struggle with.
If they can’t tell the difference between a police car and a taxi; or between a Newcastle hackney and a North Tyneside hackney, the appearance of a Berwick hackney doesn’t really make a lot of difference, because however it looked, some members of the public would still try to stop them.
Should more be done to distinguish hackney from private hire vehicles? Probably, but would either faction of the trade be happy about it, because it would be bound to result in one or both factions incurring additional livery costs of one sort or another!
Arrangements couldn’t be restricted to one council area, because you need to distinguish vehicles from neighbouring areas; and they all need to be different to each other; and, of course, they all need to be different to each other and all their neighbouring authorities; and so it would go on until the whole country had a system in place.
It is possible to do; would cost less than £100 per vehicle; and each council’s designs could be registered as trademarks, which would enable them to prosecute anyone who unlawfully used the design, which is more effective than a vehicle colour policy, because anyone can own a black car and anyone can buy a top sign, which as we all know, wouldn’t even have to say “TAXI” to induce some members of the public to try to hire it as a hackney carriage.
Effective and meaningful enforcement is, of course, a crucial element to any regulatory scheme – just look at the banks to see what happens when it doesn’t work properly!
The problem is, as you infer, that enforcement costs money; and its the honest that pay the price for the dishonest! It’s not fare; actually I think I mean fair!
There are potentially way of addressing this, but they’d be controversial, especially when created from the powers within existing legislation. It just needs someone else to think outside the box!
@David Wilson
Sorry if you have already covered this point, (I have been on holiday and may have not read all of your posts).
Why do taxi/ph drivers have to pay to regulate themselves ?
Imagine if a gardener a bricklayer a painter etc etc had to pay the local council money just to go to work. Bear with me, we will take the example of a painter and decorator, such a tradesman has far greater personal access to members of the public and could easily abuse the situation. This could be a long argument so i will stop now and leave you with an imaginary “job advertisment”
PAINTER AND DECORATOR required, must be experienced (although training will be given to suitable applicants). Mostly local work, (knowledge test will be required for distance work – fee payable.) All candidates MUST have an enhanced CRB check (at your own expense) AND a medical (at your own expense) AND MUST pay a fee to the local council so that some employee can shuffle/file endless useless bits of paper around.
p.s. Your paintbrushes will have to be calibrated every 3 years to comply with EU directive PD/BS/2010/rockinghorseturd (section 25b)
Please note, foam rollers will need calibrating every 12 months. A fee will of course be payable, cheques are accepted but cash in hand is far cheaper and much preferred.
Sam, I haven’t been asked this before on this site or elsewhere; and it is a very good question.
I fully take on your point and don’t have a personal view to express, but will attempt to set out how the situation seems to arise.
Increasingly, many occupations are becoming more regulated and / or regulated by newly created organisations, which are to be financed by the trade or occupation it regulates. For example, some councils used to regulate door supervisors, but hey do not do so now, because legislation created the Security Industry Authority to regulate them and others in the “security industry”.
Whether we like it or not, increasingly it is politically desirable for those who are in regulated occupations to pay for their own regulation. Pubs and off-licences, etc used to pay a fee of £30 for a three year licence issued by the magistrates’ court. Since 2005, the sale of alcohol has been licensed by councils with annual fees now being £70 or more (most are probably paying £180) which is 7 (or 18) times more than they used to pay.
If the regulated occupations don’t pay to regulate themselves, the tax payer has to pick up the bill.
Should other occupations be more regulated than they are? I suspect the answer is “yes”. Is it necessary to regulate some that are already regulated? I suspect probably not or, at least, not the way they are currently regulated.
I’m sure everyone will agree that some occupations ought to be regulated, although I suspect we won’t all agree which ones or how. I’m also sure our views on how they should be financed will depend upon whether we work in a regulated occupation and whether we are a tax payer. If we work in a regulated occupation, we probably think the tax payer should pay, because other occupations aren’t regulated and don’t have to pay for the costs of regulation. If we don’t work in a regulated occupation and are a tax payer, I’m sure most would suggest those working in the occupation should pay for the costs of their own regulation.
Isn’t it, as usual, a case of everyone looking after their own self-interest?
Politically, I suspect every government will continue to make regulated occupations pay for their own regulation, because that saves increasing taxes, which would affect everyone, whereas this only affects those in the occupations.
I do, however, note that MPs don’t seem to be particularly well regulated and that we, the tax payer, pay to regulate them. I suspect this might be the exception to the rule I’ve just predicted above!
Occupations tend to become regulated when there is a disaster or public outcry about something that has happened in a particular industry – think of cockle pickers in Morecambe Bay. That resulted in new legislation and a new regulatory body to regulate “gang masters”.
Hackney carriages became licensed because of a public health outcry about horse excrement in the streets, although it also introduced controls for drivers. Then we regulate private hire as a means of protecting the public who we’ve come to protect when using a hackney carriage. This, I guess now raises the question of what regulation is required now and for the future; and what the trade of the future should look like – one or two tier – but I’m not going to get drawn further into that debate! All I will say is that I’m sure everyone agrees that the public need to be protected from some people who should not be permitted to drive the public, so I guess we all agree some regulation is required. I suspect what, how and who should regulate the trade are the big questions for the future. Until there is a public outcry over something or a political desire for reform, I doubt whether there will be any changes to taxi licensing.
Don’t suppose this answers your question really, but hopefully you have a better idea of the politics at play.
@David Wilson, All of that sounds like a subtle nudge toward to an Irish type of Regulation. i.e. one tier,no limits,privately regulated and very expensive. I know who’s hymn sheet you are singing from David.Maybe I’m misreading between the lines but let me assure the trade,all of you Hackney & Private Hire….None of you want to go this route!
Read The following article: http://www.toomanytaxis.com/2009/05/12/admin-reply-to-ian-shanks/
Mr.Wilson
The regulation of Hackney Carriages came about not because of horses manure but because of the involvement of the Criminal actions of those involved in operating the service all those years ago.
Mr Snedden,
I agree that the dual purpose of the legislation was to regulate the conduct of owners and drivers, as well as to deal with “public health” issues.
However, the fact that the 1847 Act was incorporated by the Public Health Act 1875 as a function of an urban authority seems to suggest that the public health objectives of the 1847 Act were the most important in 1875; and were certainly one of the objectives in 1847, as demonstrated by the ability to limit numbers and create “stands”, now better known to us all as “ranks”.
Whatever the intentions and objectives were in 1847, I doubt whether they would be appropriate today.
As for reform, I do not deny that I am firmly of the opinion that the legislation needs to be updated, but there are many ways in which that could be done, with various intentional and unintentional consequences. Which is the best or most appropriate way forward, I do not know, but I am listening carefully to what everyone has to say.
Whatever the model should be for taxis of the 21st century, I think the biggest obstacle is to move to that model without disadvantaging anyone currently in the trade(and I mean from either side of it) as there is a move from the current model to a new one.