In message
,
Mizter T writes

Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.

Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.

--
Paul Terry

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:46:41 +0100, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.


The turning circle requirement does not alone double the cost of the
vehicle. An objective comparison could be made between the costs of
the EcoCity Vehicles London Cab based on a Mercedes Vito, and a
similarly specified vehicle that lacks only the modification to the
standard steering system to give a smaller turning circle.

Obviously, these figures are not readily available, but I find it
difficult to believe that a single, albeit fairly complex modification
would actually double the cost of the EcoCity vehicle.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:52 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:
In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six months
rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical certificate
supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have the
appropriate and current insurance for public hire.


There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.
The reason for the move was the exceptionally high cost of complying
with Aylesbury's requirements.

Apparently, the annual cost of complying with the requirements in
Middlesex (I cannot recall which Borough) is much less than half that
in Aylesbury.

Whether the enhanced requirements of one local authority over another
are intended serve the interest of the public rather than enhance the
accounts of the council's finance department is moot.

On Jul 17, 7:22*pm, Paul Terry wrote:

In message
,
Mizter T writes

Sorry, I misinterpreted Paul's comments as referring to black cabs aka
Hackney Carriages - they are what my comment about the now scrapped
six-monthly check referred to.

Are private hire vehicles now on a 12-monthly check? It was 6-monthly
when a friend had his Merc relicensed in April.

I've no idea, sorry! I may try and find out though, now you've piqued
my interest in such matters.

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC,
as I presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine
Holt's new outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Doesn't TUPE only cover the staff transfer?

Paul

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11
on Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a
management contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a
while? Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready
to go.

Apparently Elaine Holt, recent FCC MD, is lined up to head up the DfT
InterCity East Coast company.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:46:52 +0100, Paul Terry
wrote:
In message , Basil Jet
writes

The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to
serve the interest of the public rather than the interest of the
minicab drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to
have been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.

There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they have
the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.
The reason for the move was the exceptionally high cost of complying
with Aylesbury's requirements.

Apparently, the annual cost of complying with the requirements in
Middlesex (I cannot recall which Borough) is much less than half that
in Aylesbury.

Middlesex? They never licensed anything and were subsumed in Greater
London in 1965. But Aylesbury will vary rather less with everywhere else
but London than it does with London.

Whether the enhanced requirements of one local authority over another
are intended serve the interest of the public rather than enhance the
accounts of the council's finance department is moot.

The latter is ******** because councils are only allowed to cover their
licensing costs by charging. They are not allowed to make a profit on the
process

London has been the centre of the dodgy minicab industry for over 30
years. Everywhere else in England hire cars have been licensed in similar
manner to taxis since 1976.

When the Government finally decided that London should catch up with the
rest of the country they did a typically half-hearted job.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

MIG wrote:
On 17 July, 12:46, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 16, 4:54 pm, "Charles Lindsey" wrote:
In Roland Perry
writes:
Is a "private hire" car (aka minicab) public transport?
Not unless you can walk up to one in the street and request immediate
transport to some destination (i.e. unless it is a "Hackney
Carriage").
Erm, back in the day in the London of pre-minicab regulation that was
nonetheless a very common occurrence (much to the ire of black cab aka
Hackney Carriage drivers), and it's hardly unknown today either.
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have been
convicted of no rapes since coming to this country. By contrast, London
taxis have numerous features which serve no interest to the driver but serve
the interest of the city as a whole - the tight turning circle which
approximately doubles the cost of the vehicle but prevents London from being
permanently gridlocked being the most obvious one.

Certain minicab companies march short distance passengers to the nearest
taxi rank in the knowledge that the taxis are legally compelled to take
these money-losing rides. By increasing the proportion of money-losing rides
picked up at that rank, they deter taxis from using that rank in future,
ultimately bankrupting and emptying the taxi rank. This allows the minicab
company to then take back those short rides but charge much more than the
taxis used to charge, GBP20 now being the minimum fare for some minicab
companies at night - if the passenger can fit in a car, that is, those
wheelchair users can all go to hell once the taxis are gone. The minicab
ethos is about as far from the public transport ethos as you can get.

Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

Megali esti i Artemis ton Ephesion. Yes, I know you were joking: I
couldn't resist parading my learning.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen,

Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........