Friday, October 09, 2015

Letter to Editor: Regarding Legal Sean Day.

I have always considered the best approach would be for the Orgs to use a one person, as a catalyst, to file a case against TfL for breaking a trade agreement. It is TfL's responsibility, as regulator and arbiter, to uphold laws that Parliament (for now) deem fit to keep in place. Instead, TfL has overseen, and wilfully facilitated the devastating destabilisation of the licensed taxi industry. 

More than 30,000 Private Hire licenses issued in 2 years is deterministic of their intent to enable an off-shore corporation, to elbow it's way, en- masse, into a well organised, well established, stingently regulated industry. TFL also granted them concessions that fall outside of TFL's own Private Hire Act 1998 in order to do so (something they still won't admit to). By doing so, TfL permits a rogue operation (if it was Dalston cabs they'd have been shut down in a second) to infract upon the instant hire market. This rapid onslaught is severely effecting the sustainability of the licensed taxi trade

The near destruction 24,000 hard working, individual businesses is nothing short of political and business abuse. As we speak Leon Daniels is still granting legitimacy to the heavily invested corporation, which continues to overwhelm an already saturated market. The ensuing result has detrimentally impacted on the ability to meet the running costs of maintaining a compulsory purpose built vehicle. As it is part of TfL's remit to maintain potential earnings to meet said running costs, and because they have failed to do so, TfL are in breach of their role of regulator. 

A regulators position is not so dissimilar to that of an employer. Effectively, TfL have irreparably fractured a long standing trade agreement. Not once did they enter into negotiations with any relevant trade bodies, not once did they communicate with the workforce, and in an organisation that is drowning under the sheer weight of consultation management b******t, not once did they consult about imminent sweeping changes to prevailing standards. 

Like I say, the trade needs to indemnify a catalyst, just one person is all they need to take out litigation against TFL for reneging on a trade agreement. Whether explicitly or implicitly, written, verbal or non- verbal matters not, as TfL dictate the fare we charge and the vehicle we use. A precedent could be set for the tsunami flood gates to be opened......any takers?