|
TfL vs Addison Lee
Tfl has issued this statment:
"TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its drivers to use bus lanes Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing drivers to do so.[...]" [1] But this is what Addison Lee says: "TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2] Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other? ----- [1] http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/medi...tre/23547.aspx [2] http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/561 -- jhk |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Paul Corfield wrote:
Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012\04\26 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
Paul wrote: Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Taxis are selectively allowed in those bus lanes where they do not inhibit the buses. There are numerous bus lanes in Kings Cross, Islington, Heathrow, The City, Acton, Harrow etc. from which taxis are forbidden. Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 26/04/2012 19:51, Neil Williams wrote:
Paul wrote: Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. I fail to see why that applies any differently to Hackney carriages. My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Neil I don't find the taxis to be a problem so much as cyclists, who can really slow things down. I have also seen some cyclists get very nasty towards bus drivers without any provocation. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
" wrote:
I don't find the taxis to be a problem so much as cyclists, who can really slow things down. I have also seen some cyclists get very nasty towards bus drivers without any provocation. Cycles are a poor companion to buses in bus lanes. They are only really there for safety reasons, IMO. They could be removed by looking to build more Dutch style segregated cycle facilities, or by moving bus lanes to the centre of the road with stops at traffic lights, as isn't at all unknown in Germany and the Netherlands. There isn't always space for this, sadly, but often there is. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Basil Jet wrote:
Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no? Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But not taxis. I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO. Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote:
Basil wrote: Do you also believe that taxis should be permitted to charge whatever they like, the way most self-employed businessmen do and the way minicabs do? Minicabs are usually cheaper than black cabs, no? No, it depends on the extent to which they feel they have any competition. They are staggeringly cheaper than taxis for runs to and from the airport or Zone 1 terminus when booked by telephone. They are quite a bit more expensive than a taxi to the airport when booked through a hotel concierge, because the concierge gives the job to whichever minicab company offers him the biggest bung. They tend to be slightly cheaper than taxis when booked by phone for long journeys suburb to suburb but more expensive than taxis for short journeys. The minicabs booked through clipboard johnnies outside nightclubs are likely to be dearer than taxis. Five Star Car Hire in Kensal Green seem to be nearly twice taxi fares for any distance if you walk in to the office late at night, e.g. 35 quid to Ealing Broadway versus 20 in a taxi. The sign next to the freephone offering minicabs in Charing Cross Hospital brags about how the price is the same day or night, and warns that taxis charge more in the night than in the day ... but when you compare the actual fares, they are more expensive than taxi night fares, and probably more expensive than taxi day fares (although obviously taxi fares in the daytime can be a bit unpredictable). When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi, only in the case of telephone booking to the airport does the vehicle/fuel saving get passed on to the passenger - in all the other cases listed above, the profit made is higher than in a taxi, and the minicab boss pockets that profit (not the driver). This is why John Griffin chose to be a minicab boss instead of a taxi boss, and he has been whining about his unfair lot ever since he chose it. Competition in the minicab industry largely doesn't work - if you walk into a minicab office late at night with a good looking girl on your arm and a bulge in your trousers, they know that you have to get the girl home before she can change her mind, so there is no way you will walk around and compare competitors prices, and they exploit this to the hilt. Why is a bus charging five people GBP11.50 to travel four miles public transport, but a taxi which is legally compelled to take the same five people and legally limited to charging them about a tenner for the same journey in the daytime not public transport? Most taxis are not transporting 5 people. Perhaps there is an argument for allowing any car with more than 3 passengers in the bus lane, then? But not taxis. What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport? I'd like to hear your definition of public transport... I suspect it goes along the lines of "I'm a transport enthusiast with a travelcard, and I spit the dummy whenever I find public transport that won't take my travelcard". In London? Buses, trains, tubes and scheduled (not tourist) boats, IMO. I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares). Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place. Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message
. net, at 18:51:47 on Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Neil Williams remarked: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message , at 22:18:47 on
Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Paul Corfield remarked: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Well that is my view too. I have little time for taxis or minicabs. Horses for courses. Those of us who have memorised the tube map (and possibly also the bus map) and are familiar with London are generally capable of coping without taxis. But if you aren't familiar with the territory, it's after dark and raining, and your destination is quite some trek from a tube station, Taxis can be quite useful. What we need is one of those races like they have on TopGear. How about going to a black tie dinner at the Horticultural Halls, starting from Broadcasting House. -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Basil Jet wrote:
What about when buses only have one passenger, should they be kicked out of the bus lane? Do they cease to be public transport? Their punctuality with one on board will affect more passengers later. So no. I presume you've omitted trams by accident. But you have refused or failed to give a definition, and supplied a list which arbitrarily excludes taxis, and your failure to provide a definition is an attempt to cover that up. Why are aeroplanes not public transport? I don't see a conceptual difference between a metal box full of people rolling from Euston to Glasgow Central and a metal box full of people flying from Heathrow to Paisley... except that AFAIK the train fares are controlled by government (like taxi fares) and the aeroplane fares are not (like minicab fares). Aeroplanes are public transport, so are ro-ro ferries. Private jets, however, are more like taxis and are not. But as this discussion is about London, I omitted them. Indeed, trams were omitted in error. Coaches were also omitted as they aren't really relevant to transport within London. If you want a definition I would suggest that it is something like "transport modes operating to a timetable or at high frequency on which any member of the public may travel on payment of an individual fare". Because a taxi fare is payable for a hire of the whole car, to the exclusion of any other passenger, that doesn't fit. Share taxis or jitneys (the former existing in London on a very limited basis, and the latter not at all) also fit. Black taxis work as an addition to public transport and may encourage its use on longer journeys, but are not in themselves efficient use of road space nor of pollution, though if Boris's talk about moving to electric vehicles happens they will gain on the latter point. Public transport existed before the invention of the internal combustion engine. You're moving goalposts all over the place. Not at all. Bus lanes increase the punctuality and reliability of public transport. As public transport nowadays in London (the topic under discussion) is environmentally beneficial as a whole, and reduces overall journey times versus everyone travelling by car due to better use of road space, bus lanes can be encouraged on that basis, Buses are slower than the tube, but they're still public transport. More moving goalposts. Nope. The Tube was used as an example because it is usually the fastest way to travel around central London (motorbikes possibly aside). It renders the use of taxis for anything other than those of limited mobility, and those who desire higher comfort or don't feel like doing any walking, fairly pointless. It is the backbone of central London travel, and can be used in conjunction with buses where it doesn't directly serve your journey. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012-04-27 06:28:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:
In message . net, at 18:51:47 on Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Neil Williams remarked: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. Taxis and minicabs are not simply public transport, they are a lifeline to lots of Londers like me, with limited mobility. I can't use stairs, and escalators are anywhere between challenging and impossible at peak times. Hence for some journeys, the only realistic option is a taxi or minicab - for example my regular runs between Woolwich and King's College Hospital. I have abandoned the "hospital transport" after my last experience: for a 10am appointment I was told to be ready at 8am, and the car finally arrived at 9.45. In a few months time we will see the redevelopment at Denmark Hill station complete - at which point I will be able to use it - but until then the choice is either a very long bus ride [during which standing at stops does me no good at all] or pick up the phone and have a licensed vehicle collect me from the gate. IMO, licensed minicabs should be allowed to use those bus lines which allow taxis. But as part of the deal, minicabs should be much more visibly labelled. I'm not suggesting the absurd 'must be yellow and white" Bournemouth rules, but something much more visible on front back and sides than the current disc. [How about decals on front, back and sides – safer for customers, as well.] Ken |
TfL vs Addison Lee
|
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message 201204270836042167-ken@nothereuk, at 08:36:04 on Fri, 27
Apr 2012, Bearded remarked: But as part of the deal, minicabs should be much more visibly labelled. I'm not suggesting the absurd 'must be yellow and white" Bournemouth rules, but something much more visible on front back and sides than the current disc. [How about decals on front, back and sides – safer for customers, as well.] Most of the minicab jurisdictions I'm familiar with have special additional plates, here's an example: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/p...-plate-265.jpg Sometimes it's front and rear, but possibly sometimes rear only. Cambridge's rules also include: "[the vehicle] must bear a company door signs showing ‘private hire - pre booked only’." -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
|
TfL vs Addison Lee
Roland Perry wrote:
But if you aren't familiar with the territory, it's after dark and raining, and your destination is quite some trek from a tube station, Taxis can be quite useful. So can cars ;). And no-one will take advantage of your lack of knowledge to rip you off (more of an issue in other cities than London, admittedly). Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Roland Perry wrote:
They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. They do not have a congestion or environmental benefit in the city itself, though. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message
..net, at 09:27:47 on Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Neil Williams remarked: But if you aren't familiar with the territory, it's after dark and raining, and your destination is quite some trek from a tube station, Taxis can be quite useful. So can cars ;). And no-one will take advantage of your lack of knowledge to rip you off (more of an issue in other cities than London, admittedly). If you are from out-of-town, using your own car in Central London isn't very practical. All a taxi is, at the end of the day, borrowing someone else's car (and driver) for ten minutes, after which you don't have to worry about finding a parking space. -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message
. net, at 09:27:48 on Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Neil Williams remarked: They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. They do not have a congestion or environmental benefit in the city itself, though. Yes they do. Taxis will typically be used only once you've arrived in the City Centre, thus relieving the suburbs of your presence. They also don't need parking spaces while you are inside having your meeting/dinner. And I don't think anyone's mentioned the drink/driving aspects yet. -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Neil Williams wrote:
My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Hackney cabs are *most certainly public transport*. Everyone is entitled to use them on payment of a regulated fare. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Basil Jet wrote:
When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all? So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write? |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Paul Corfield wrote on Thu, 26 Apr 2012
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:50:51 +0200, Jarle H Knudsen wrote: Tfl has issued this statment: "TfL's High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its drivers to use bus lanes Following a ruling from the High Court today (Thursday 26 April) Addison Lee is prevented from instructing or encouraging its drivers to drive in bus lanes and must remove the statement on its website instructing drivers to do so.[...]" [1] But this is what Addison Lee says: "TfL fails in its bid to silence Addison Lee over bus lanes Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to drive in London bus lanes[...]" [2] Clever use of language, or are they contradicting each other? I think it is clever use of language. The AL release uses some very careful wording in order to present as positive a picture of the decision. Words like "noted by the judge" suggesting agreement whereas I doubt the judge offered any such endorsement. The term "mandatory injunction" also looks rather technical and is without context as we do not know exactly what TfL did ask the Court for. Clearly TfL have come away with a decision that broadly supports its position. However Addison Lee seem intent on pursuing their argument that they are being "discriminated" against. The timing of all of this is extremely dubious in my view and is only about AL making shedloads of money while not giving a damn about what happens to London's bus service. The judgement can be read at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1105.html. It's only a sub-issue in a campaign by AL that is continuing and will be going to judicial review. The judge said of AL in paragraph 80: " a. Despite protestations to the contrary (including an assertion in Ms Demetriou QC's skeleton argument that, and I quote, "Mr Griffin has not instructed his drivers to use the bus lanes"), it seems to me plain that Mr Griffin and AL have, in effect, been characterising the Notice sent to AL's PHV drivers on 14 April as an "instruction". b. The video clip showing Mr Griffin instructing one of his drivers to go into the bus lane and offering to pay any money the driver may be charged is the clearest possible evidence of Mr Griffin's willingness to risk flouting the law." The judgement concluded: "For all these reasons, it is my conclusion that it is both necessary and just and convenient to grant the injunction sought by TfL in the form sought ie until determination by the Administrative Court of the judicial review proceedings in claim CO10424/2011 or further order, an injunction restraining the defendants from causing, encouraging or assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for use by taxis during the hours when restrictions apply, save to pick up or set down passengers subject to the cross-undertaking by TfL as set out above. I will also grant the interim declaration as set out above, accept the undertakings proffered by the defendants and make an order that the judicial review proceedings be expedited." -- Iain Archer |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012\04\27 10:27, Neil Williams wrote:
Roland wrote: They are both "public transport" which helps dissuade people from driving their own cars into cities, have to find somewhere to park etc. They do not have a congestion or environmental benefit in the city itself, though. London taxis do, because of the tight turning circle. If every taxi was replaced by cars that had to do three-point turns instead of U-turns, congestion would be worse. Witness the congestion caused by minicabs doing three-point turns in Old Street at 2am on the weekend. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012\04\27 12:04, Bruce wrote:
Basil wrote: When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all? So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write? Weight. If a London taxi has a head-on collision with a minicab, the taxi passengers will go ballistic metaphorically, the minicab passengers will go ballistic literally. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2012\04\27 12:04, Bruce wrote: Basil wrote: When you consider the cost of the vehicle and the fuel consumption (and consequent safety) are so much lower than a taxi Eh? Are hackney cabs fitted with air bags? Do hackney cabs have to pass compulsory crash tests? Have any hackney cabs achieved a 5-star rating in the NCAP tests, or indeed any NCAP rating at all? So where is this "consequent safety" of which you write? Weight. If a London taxi has a head-on collision with a minicab, the taxi passengers will go ballistic metaphorically, the minicab passengers will go ballistic literally. That's a fallacy. The London taxi lacks most of the active and passive safety features that are either mandatory or are usually fitted to private cars including those use for minicabs. The idea that weight is in itself of some benefit to safety is nonsense. The structural strength of the passenger cabin and the efficiency at absorbing kinetic energy in the crumple zones that surround it are key. There is no evidence that the horribly outdated design of the London taxi has either the strong cabin or the efficient crumple zones that are now common in private cars, and hence minicabs. A vehicle with a ladder chassis and bolt-on body panels has never achieved top safety ratings in collision testing. There is of course an exception here, in that the Mercedes Taxi (which is approved as a hackney cab in London) has much higher safety standards. However that model represents only a small subset of the London hackney cab fleet. Of course if the London Taxi Company voluntarily put its models through Euro NCAP tests we would know just how safe it is, or isn't, in a collision. The fact that it has never been tested suggests that they know their ladder chassis and bolt-on body panels offers very little in the way of protection to occupants in a collision. |
Quote:
begins the journey and then changes his or her mind about where they are going? The negotiated price is no longer valid. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In article ,
(Robin9) wrote: ;130197 Wrote: In article , (Roland Perry) wrote: - In message , at 03:29:09 on Fri, 27 Apr 2012, remarked:- The distinction between taxis and hire cars is a tricky judgement for local authorities. We had the same debate in Cambridge over 30 years ago. But here the hire cars have taximeters and generally charge the same fares as taxis,- The Cambridge council website says: "The [private hire] fares are set by the company's meter or quoted in advance." It's quite common in that scenario for trips to airports etc to be done at a fixed fee.- Indeed. I was contrasting Cambridge with other cities, e.g. Birmingham, where meters are banned and all fares must be agreed before starting the hire. So what happens when a customer agrees a price, begins the journey and then changes his or her mind about where they are going? The negotiated price is no longer valid. At that point they negotiate the fare again. They do have a meter to guide them. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
TfL vs Addison Lee
"Bruce" wrote in message ... Neil Williams wrote: My view is that taxis of any kind, private hire or Hackney carriage, are private transport and should not be permitted in bus lanes at all. Hackney cabs are *most certainly public transport*. Everyone is entitled to use them on payment of a regulated fare. I don't see how having a regulated fare has anything to do with it. Buses can charge what they like for any given journey. So on that basis you are left with "anyone can use them on paynet of a fare" so that makes minicabs PT as well tim |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 08:13:10PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London Nor is a bus or a train. You can walk all the way across Central London in about an hour and a half. People use buses and trains because they're more convenient than walking. Well, people use taxis because they're more convenient than buses and tubes. -- David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol. -- W C Fields |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:12:41AM +0100, tim.... wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message ... Hackney cabs are *most certainly public transport*. Everyone is entitled to use them on payment of a regulated fare. I don't see how having a regulated fare has anything to do with it. Buses can charge what they like for any given journey. Not in London they can't. Even the most died-in-the-wool Oyster hater wouldn't say that the unpredictable fares and frequent errors are quite *that* bad. -- David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire All principles of gravity are negated by fear -- Cartoon Law V |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message , at 13:15:42
on Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Cantrell remarked: Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London Nor is a bus or a train. You can walk all the way across Central London in about an hour and a half. People use buses and trains because they're more convenient than walking. Well, people use taxis because they're more convenient than buses and tubes. And it depends on the definition of "necessity". If walking (or taking bus/tube) means you'll miss the last train home, how necessary is that? OK, going to the theatre isn't "necessary", but ultimately that argument would bring a great deal of civilisation to a halt. -- Roland Perry |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote:
Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. You don't wear high heels, I take it. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:09:01 +0100
Basil Jet wrote: On 2012\04\26 21:13, Neil Williams wrote: Except for those of limited mobility, a taxi is rarely a public transport necessity in Central London where this sort of thing is an issue. The Tube is almost always faster, IMX. You don't wear high heels, I take it. You do? What do the cabbies say? B2003 |
TfL vs Addison Lee
Basil Jet wrote:
You don't wear high heels, I take it. I think my name might give you a clue as to the answer to that question, really... ;) Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
TfL vs Addison Lee
In message , Paul Corfield
wrote: The term "mandatory injunction" also looks rather technical and is without context as we do not know exactly what TfL did ask the Court for. A "mandatory injunction" is an injunction explicitly ordering someone to do something, rather than (as is more common) ordering them not to do something. It used to be called a "writ of mandamus" before all the terminology got updated. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
TfL vs Addison Lee
I can see the disconnection, then.
TfL says it has successfully ordered Addison Lee to do something. Addison Lee says it has not been told to stop doing anything. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk