Taxi Leaks

Taxi And Private Hire Safety Debate

2012-03-02T05:03:00.001-08:00

Norman Baker (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Regional and Local Transport), Transport; Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I thank my hon. Friend Richard Fuller for raising this important subject of taxi and private hire vehicle safety, and for securing the time to allow us to debate the issues. This debate comes at a time when there have been a number of very serious alleged assaults on and by taxi drivers, and that is a matter of great concern.

Licensing authorities will do their best, I am sure, but the unfortunate fact remains that taxis and private hire vehicles can never be perfectly safe. They are often hired from isolated places at night; drivers carry cash; and, self-evidently, taking a taxi or private hire vehicle generally involves getting into a car with a stranger. That combination of factors makes drivers and passengers particularly vulnerable to violence, and it is important that we take what steps we can to minimise the risks.

In looking at safety, we normally focus on the passenger’s perspective, but my hon. Friend quite rightly refers to the dangers that exist for drivers as well. A report from the Department in 2007 found that on average three drivers a year are killed unlawfully.

Each crime is of course unacceptable, but it is worth putting into context the fact that journeys in taxis and private hire vehicles account for just over 1% of all journeys per person per year, and that is 700 million journeys or 3.5 billion miles per year. That, of course, is of no comfort to those who are subject to the unwarranted and unprovoked attacks to which my hon. Friend referred.

Let me look at how we might make the experience safer for the passenger and driver, starting with the passenger. First, local authorities, as licensing authorities, are obliged to ensure that only those who are “fit and proper”—the term in law—should be licensed as taxi or private hire vehicle drivers, and it falls to individual councils to ensure that that is the case.

The Criminal Records Bureau check is a central element of that assessment process. A number of organisations have raised with me their concerns that some taxi drivers have only a standard criminal record check because the law does not allow for all of them to have enhanced checks. Enhanced criminal record checks
include any relevant local police information, in addition to a record of previous criminal convictions, cautions and warnings, but those checks have, in law, been restricted to drivers who work regularly with vulnerable adults or with children.

I agree that licensing authorities should be able to see enhanced criminal record checks in respect of all taxi and private hire vehicle driver licence applicants, regardless of the type of work that they intend to undertake once licensed, and I have been working closely with colleagues in the Home Office and, in particular, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities, who announced in January that all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers will be entitled to enhanced criminal record checks. The necessary legislative change has now been made by the Home Office, and today I can confirm that it will come into force on 26 March.

The Minister for Equalities announced also that licensing authorities will be entitled to check whether any applicant is barred from working with children or with vulnerable adults under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. That is a good example of the Government listening to the experts and acting accordingly. Licensing officers have told us that they need to be able to see enhanced criminal record checks in order to make a proper assessment of applicants’ suitability, and we are responding by providing them with the tools that they need to carry out that vital task.

There is also a growing need for information about licensed vehicles, a point that my hon. Friend helpfully made in his lucid comments. That information enables the public to verify immediately whether a given vehicle is licensed, and it helps with the “traceability” trail.

There is a difficulty when it involves personal information relating to individuals, but that is a matter for local authorities to weigh up against their wider obligations and considerations, including, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the protection of personal information.
I am happy to say, however, that I am aware of Transport for London’s vehicle-checker facility, which enables the public to input a vehicle registration plate and discover whether the vehicle is actually licensed as a private hire vehicle.

That is a helpful facility, and I for one cannot see why licensing authorities should hold back on providing such information. As I was aware that my hon. Friend might raise that matter, I spoke to a leading national licensing organisation just yesterday and said that I thought it ought to respond positively to requests for vehicle licensing information, if not proactively put it on its website. It agreed, and said that it would disseminate that message to its member authorities.

I move on to the hugely important issue of drivers’ personal safety. I was very sorry to learn of the incidents in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to those who have been subject to serious assaults there and elsewhere, and perhaps particularly to the family of the 61-year-old grandfather to whom he referred. I was particularly horrified by my hon. Friend’s description of the range of weapons that are sometimes used against drivers who are simply going about their lawful business.

It is intolerable that they should be subject to attacks such as he described. The lack of respect to which he referred is clearly an important factor to be taken into account.

I turn to the questions that my hon. Friend asked. I agree with him that there is a problem of perception. We will examine the parallel position of doormen, to which he referred, to see whether there are lessons that might be sensibly transferred across.

My hon. Friend asked about statistics. Because licensing is largely a local function—it has been since 1847 or before—there is not the depth of national statistics that he or I might like. However, we will talk to the statisticians to see what is available, and I will write to him to let him know. We will also consider whether the statistics that are available in different places might be accumulated to give us a better picture of what is happening. Of course, local authorities may hold information, and I will ask my officials to talk to the national body of licensing officers to see whether it has information that might throw a light on the matter and what else might usefully be done.

If there is information such as he mentioned, I will happily share it with the Prime Minister’s team that is examining the alcohol strategy and with the Home Office more generally in respect of the crime statistics that it collects. I certainly agree that it might be useful to track criminal attacks on private hire vehicle and taxi drivers more formally.

I am familiar with the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, because I was on the Bill Committee when it was taken through Parliament. It was a useful Act. I am not aware that it has been applied directly in cases such as we are discussing, but I am happy to ensure that my colleagues at the Home Office are made aware of my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns on that matter and others affecting them. I will write to the relevant Minister to make him or her aware of the contents of today’s debate and my hon. Friend’s comments, including those relating to the Act.

My hon. Friend mentioned CCTV. Any decision to install it in cabs or elsewhere must of course involve clarity about the purpose of doing so. It is important to consider carefully its potential contribution towards achieving that purpose, the costs and whether the intrusion into individual privacy is appropriate and proportionate. CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles is by its nature intrusive, putting law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements, although it might be argued that individuals accept that by flagging down a taxi or booking a private hire vehicle.

CCTV can be effective in both preventing and detecting crime and antisocial behaviour, and owners and drivers of vehicles understandably often want to install security measures to protect the driver. However, there is a balance to be struck, not least given the Data Protection Act’s provisions on the processing of personal data. Nevertheless, the personal security of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff clearly needs to be considered as well.

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and others to consider crime and disorder
reduction while exercising all their duties. The Department’s best practice guidance suggests that the installation and use of appropriate safety measures is best left to the judgment of the owners and drivers themselves, but we would encourage licensing authorities to look sympathetically on, or actively encourage, measures that protect drivers.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Protection of Freedoms Bill is being considered in another place. The Bill includes provisions further to regulate CCTV and other surveillance camera systems. Those provisions include the introduction of a statutory surveillance camera systems code of practice and the appointment of a surveillance camera commissioner to encourage compliance, provide advice and information, and monitor the code’s effectiveness. I will maintain an interest in the development of the code to ensure that CCTV associated with public transport, including taxis, is addressed appropriately.

Drivers can use a range of other security measures to improve their personal safety, including conflict avoidance training. The Department has issued guidance for taxi and PHV drivers about how best to protect themselves, and that is on the Department’s website.

Clearly, enforcement is a hot topic. I commend Transport for London’s Safer Travel at Night campaign, which aims to reduce the number of cab-related sexual offences by raising awareness of the dangers of using unbooked minicabs, also known as touts, and illegal cabs.

It also involves targeted police and enforcement activity to identify, disrupt and deter illegal cab activity. Transport for London has, through a sustained effort, made great strides in reducing cab-related sexual offences and instances of touting, although I accept that there remains an outstanding concern relating to pedicabs, which are outwith the PHV and taxi licensing system.

More generally, I am pleased that, as my hon. Friend said, the Law Commission has agreed to undertake a comprehensive review of the law governing taxis and PHVs. The fact that taxis outside London are licensed under an Act of 1847, and those inside London under an Act dating from 1869, speaks volumes. The Law Commission is a body dedicated to, and expert in, unravelling complex and archaic legislation and replacing it with modern, simplified legislation, and I hope that it will take on board issues relating to safety as part of its work.

The commission embarked on the review in July 2011, it will be consulting in the spring, and it will provide us with a report and draft Bill in November 2013.

Black cabs and pollution....By Darren Johnson

2012-02-17T06:32:00.001-08:00

Darren Johnson represents the Green Party on the London Assembly:

I will be interested in turn out for cabbies against Boris on Monday. My taxi article on the mayorwatch blog, shows how they were taken 4 ride.

I have spent the last decade raising concerns about the impact of air pollution on Londoner’s health and the failure of politicians at all levels of government to do something about it. I am a Green Party member of the London Assembly.

It is one of things I am elected to do.
I use the figures produced by London Mayor, to highlight the link between black cabs and air pollution, because cabs are responsible for nearly a third of particulate pollution in central London.

It harms the drivers, their customers and many other Londoners.
The result is that I get a lot of grief from cabbies who feel that I am always having a go at them. I’m not complaining about it. I can understand their reaction. Their cabs are their livelihood and for owner drivers it is a huge investment. When I highlight the need for new regulations or pollution tests, then they worry about who is paying the bill for it all.

Just for the record, I want to point out that on the issue of air pollution and how to deal with it, I have a better track record of asking the Mayor questions on behalf of people involved in the cab trade than any other Assembly member. If you don’t believe me, then just follow the links in this article.
When black cab drivers complain about the Public Carriage Office and Transport for London letting you down, I can understand many of their concerns. It has been a two-mayor problem in that neither Ken Livingstone nor Boris Johnson has moved fast enough or far enough. A whole series of mistakes has been made along the way by the PCO and both the current and former Mayor in handling London’s air pollution problem.

The biggest let-down is that innovation has been blocked, partly because of the rigid adoption of conditions of fitness which favour a monopoly provider. More fuel efficient alternatives (with less CO2 emissions) to the TX series have been consistently blocked because of the PCO clinging to the turning circle.

I have pushed both Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson to put the environment first on this issue, but neither responded and cab drivers are now faced with having to sell their old vehicles and buy one of the expensive and still polluting TX series.

The infrastructure for gas fuels, like LPG, has not been supported. TfL have shown little willingness to support those drivers who for several years have wanted to reduce pollution by switching fuels, rather than buying a new vehicle. Instead, cabbies have been required to fit clean up devices of dubious worth.
I have asked over 20 questions of the Mayor, establishing that these filter devices only work properly when the engine is cleaned to high standards, but no checks are made on whether this is done. The devices remained untested on the road where they are faced with working under load.

The lack of such conformity testing and rigorous ‘on the road’ tests, have supported a tick box culture within the PCO, which has failed to deliver on pollution reduction. The result is the 15 year age limit ban, which the mayor has been forced to introduce.

The Mayor’s push for an electric taxi attracts column inches but in the short term (and the timescale set for reducing pollution by the European Commission) sadly they will contribute very little towards real change.

The Mayor’s £1m pot of money for the electric cab got a lot of publicity when it was announced in 2009 and even more publicity when it was re-announced in 2010, but the last time I checked, none of it had been spent. The promise of an electric vehicle in the future has taken the place of a simple-to fit hybrid device in the here and now.

Hybrid devices designed to fit existing engines sounded the most promising innovation of all the solutions to tackle air pollution in the short to medium term, when I discussed it with TfL back in 2007 & was being taken forward when Boris was elected in 2008. This device was cheap to install and designed to keep the engine ticking over when the taxi was idling.

Given that the cabs in inner London spend the majority of their time idling, rather than moving, this could potentially have been a cheap and very cost effective way of cutting down pollution dramatically. Unfortunately, the TfL procurement process was faulty and was challenged. Since then, the Mayor’s office has simply dropped the project, despite the obvious benefits to cab drivers.

This decade of failures by both mayors and by TfL has led to the current mess we are in. Pollution in London has not reduced fast enough and black cabs are still one of the major problems, despite the efforts by people involved in the cab trade to put forward positive solutions.

The failure of the Mayor to help fund a scrappage scheme for drivers forced to sell their old cab is just another let-down. However, if pollution levels do not get reduced quickly then expect the 15 year age limit to turn into a 10 year age limit.

One area where black cabs drivers must take the blame is when they got Boris Johnson to make the abolition of six-monthly inspections a manifesto commitment. It may have saved cabbies a bit of money in the short term, but it has done long-term damage to the credibility of both the Mayor and the cab trade.

Over 2,300 cabs a year were being pulled up and fixed, as they did not even meet the minimal standards that we have. Given the number of cabs pulled off the road and cleaned up, scrapping the test sent out a very negative message that many cabbies really don’t care.

My advice to everyone involved in the cab trade is don’t make the same mistake again. Cabbies should be demanding that their health and that of their passengers, is protected. The solutions are there, we just need the political will to make it all happen.

First published Sept 2011
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/black-cabs-and-pollution/201116767

Law Commission: Statement of intent.

2012-02-16T07:30:00.001-08:00

Taxis and private hire vehicles - regulation

Status: The consultation for this project is due to open in early May 2012

We are reviewing the existing framework of taxi and private hire vehicle regulation with a view to preparing proposals for consultation.

Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) are an important part of local transport. They operate in highly regulated markets where safety and quality control are paramount. Licensing covers key areas such as the quality of services, the fitness of drivers, fare regulation and restrictions on the number of licenses issued.

The current law on taxis and PHVs has been criticised for being complex and outdated.

One problem is the multiplicity of legislation. Taxis, which can “ply for hire” so customers can stop them in the street, have different rules to PHVs which can only be pre-booked. In turn each of the taxi and PHV trades is regulated by multiple statutes. There are also different legal systems along geographical lines distinguishing Plymouth, London and the rest of England and Wales. Whereas some distinctions are clearly justified others are less clearly so.

Some of the legislation, particularly relating to taxis, is archaic. The key statutes date back to Victorian times and refer to “hackney carriages” when taxis were literally horse-drawn vehicles. Case law and guidance are indispensable in interpreting the law. This also makes the legislation less able to reflect more modern technology like the telephone, internet and GPS technology.

The project

The project examines the legal framework relating to taxis and PHVs with a view to making it simpler and more modern. We aim to publish proposals for reform in early May 2012. This will be followed by a three month consultation period where we invite the public to respond to our proposals. We plan to publish a final report with our recommendations and draft bill by late 2013.

Signed, Sealed, Delivered... from Peter Hendy.

2012-02-13T07:17:00.001-08:00

The Order has now been signed by Peter Hendy and become enforceable on 1st March 2012.Please note that in section 4, in the title and in sub section 1a, it stipulates the display of the drivers badge number.This means any attempt to hide the drivers badge number will be considered as a contravention of the order.

Are TFL, LT&PH, STC and CoLP all Guity of Negligence

2011-11-04T13:18:00.000-07:00

Are TFL, LT&PH, STC and CoLP all Guilty of Negligence
Reposted from the LCDC blog.

In 2009–10, there were 143 reported cab-related sexual offences including 24 rapes although we expect the actual number to be higher given the significant under-reporting of sexual offences generally. Cab-related sexual offences account for over 10% of all sexual offences in London committed by offenders not previously known to the victim.
Written evidence from Transport for London (TPH 46)
Given to the House of Commons Transport Committee
Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform Seventh Report of Session 2010–12 Volume II
Now that Transport for London(TFL) have now officially recognised that the figure for sexual assaults by Licensed and unlicensed Private Hire Drivers is much higher,could this lead to mass sackings in TFL, LT&PH, STC ,CoLP, for Negligence for failing in their Duty of Care to Protect the Travelling Public
The Legal Definition of Negligence.
Conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. A person has acted negligently if he or she has departed from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances.
The ramifications to go all the way to the Top.
The Mayor of London Boris Johnson could be Liable of negligence for Failing in his Duty of Care.
Kit Malthouse, the Deputy Mayor for Policing, could be Liable of negligence for Failing in his Duty of Care.
Chief Superintendent Sultan Taylor, Safer Transport Command,could be Liable of negligence for Failing in his Duty of Care and not enforcing the Law
John Mason the director of London Taxi and Private Hire could be Liable of negligence for Failing in his Duty of Care and not enforcing the Law.
Mr Adrian Leppard Commissioner – of The City o London Police could be Liable of negligence for Failing in his Duty of Care and not enforcing the Law.
All of the above would state that they have made great progress in tackling minicab touts across the capital, and have arrested over 3 thousand touts but they aint seeing the bigger picture.
If any Victim of Rape or Sexual assault was attacked as a direct result by a Private Hire Driver that was illegal Ranking up or Plying for Hire outside a late night venue that as been licensed by London Taxi and Private Hire (LT&PH) to Operate a Minicab Booking Centre from inside that venue would leave them open to a Legal challenge of Negligence, for failing in their Duty of Care to protect the travelling Public and not enforcing the law
Also If any victim of rape or sexual assault that was attacked as a direct result by a private hire driver that was illegal ranking up and plying for hire in London could bring a case against Safer Transport Command(STC),and the City of London Police(CoLP) for failing in their Duty of Care to protect the travelling public for not making one single arrest of a Private Hire Driver under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 for Ranking up and Plying for Hire in London in what we belive could stretch back 10 or more years.
The compensation pay outs to theses victim’s that could date back ten or more years if proven could run into Millions of pounds
Head of TFL Peter Hendy even tried to cover up these figure by misleading the public and putting many lives at risk when he stated live on LBC radio when questioned about these figures,he said that he didn’t recognise the above figures and it was just propaganda by the cab trade.
The London Cab Drivers Club attend a meeting with John Mason the Director of London Taxi & Private ,” when asked why they are not arresting (PHD) for Ranking up and Plying for Hire their reply was that our licensing officers don’t have the legal authority to arrest (PHD) for Ranking up and Plying for Hire”,and that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 was not enforceable in London, really John …..??

Plus....

TFL admit Sexual Assults by Touts could be higher.

Reposted from LCDC blog.

House of Commons
Transport Committee
Taxis and private hire
vehicles: the road to
reform
Seventh Report of Session 2010–12
Volume II
Additional written evidence
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be published 11 and 25 January, 1 and 8 February, 8, 15 and
22 March and 26 April
Written evidence from Transport for London (TPH 46)
1. Introduction
1.1 Transport for London (TfL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs).
1.2 TfL is the licensing authority for Taxi and Private Hire operators, vehicles and drivers in the Greater London area. TfL’s responsibilities include setting standards that operators must meet. London has about 22,000 licensed taxis and 50,000 licensed private hire vehicles, approximately 25,000 taxi drivers and 60,000 private hire drivers, and 3,000 private hire operators. London taxi services have been licensed in the current form for over 150 years, and licensing of the private hire trade was introduced following legislation in 1998.
1.3 The Committee is seeking evidence relating to cross-border hirings and other aspects of taxi and private hire licensing, particularly concerning passenger safety.
TfL wishes to consider two particular areas concerning passenger safety: the character checks conducted on licensed drivers through the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB); and the role of taxi and private hire services in late night travel, including enforcement against illegal cab activities.
2. Cross-border Hire Problems
2.1 Cross-border hire, in which a taxi or private hire operator takes bookings for trips in an area in which they are not based, is not currently a particular issue in London. However, this could change, particularly as measures are introduced to address issues particular to London, such as those contained in the Mayor of London’s Air Quality Strategy.
2.2 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, which was recently published after a wide consultation including with the taxi and private hire trades, contains a number of proposals designed to improve air quality. These include the introduction of mandatory maximum age limits for taxis and private hire vehicles in London. This requirement would apply to taxi and private hire operators based in London only, as TfL has no jurisdiction to the area beyond the Greater London Authority (GLA) boundary.
2.3 Each authority around the country must consider appropriate licensing conditions for taxis and private hire services, bearing in mind local circumstances such as environmental issues. It is reasonable that licensing conditions may differ from area to area, as the issues which authorities face also differ. However, this may lead to circumstances in which it is economically attractive for operators to be based in one area but offer bookings in another area which sets higher standards.
2.4 The relevant private hire licensing regime is determined by the authority where the booking centre is
based regardless of the journey origin and destination. This raises the possibility of a “call centre” private hire operation, with the operating centre based in an area with low licensing standards; bookings taken by telephone, internet or email; vehicles and drivers physically based in London but licensed in the same area as the operating centre; marketing in London and providing London journeys, with a competitive advantage over operators that comply with London licensing requirements.
2.5 Within London, modelling undertaken for the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy shows that action is necessary to reduce harmful emissions from road vehicles and taxis in particular. However, if the cost of providing London taxi and private hire services is increased as a result of these measures, it may be economical for private hire operators based outside London to compete for London hirings. This would present unfair competition to London’s taxi and private hire operators, and would weaken the impact of the measures taken.
2.6 Some scope for cross-border hirings is necessary; particularly to serve areas close to local authority boundaries. However, TfL considers that some measures would be appropriate to restrict the scope of operators in one location to undertake bookings in another.
2.7 TfL considers it would be appropriate for legislation to clarify the circumstances when cross-border hirings are allowed and restrict the opportunities for operators and taxis to choose to be based in one area but serving the market in another.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w61
3. Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Checks
3.1 TfL welcomes the opportunity to raise other areas of concern relating to taxi and private hire licensing.
3.2 TfL is responsible for licensing of all London’s taxi and private hire drivers and must ensure applicants are fit and proper persons that do not pose a threat to the travelling public. TfL currently has around 80,000 driver licensees and the licensing authority must be satisfied that the applicant meets the fit and proper person criteria in order to obtain a licence. As such, all applicants must undergo a CRB check. The disclosures assist TfL in determining whether or not public safety would be compromised by granting an individual a licence.
3.3 The CRB Disclosure process has two levels: Standard and Enhanced. Prior to using the CRB Disclosure service, TfL and other licensing authorities considered which level of CRB Disclosure would be appropriate for taxi and private hire licence applicants. TfL concluded that it would request Enhanced Disclosures for all applicants because taxi and private hire drivers can, at any time and without prior knowledge, be in sole charge of passengers who are less than 18 years old or are vulnerable adults. In addition, they often come into contact with other individuals, who legally may not be classed as vulnerable but may be so due to medical or social reasons, such as being under the influence of medication, alcohol or drugs. These individuals (at those times) need to be protected from predators who could take advantage of them whilst they are in a vulnerable state.
3.4 Enhanced Disclosures can include “soft intelligence” from the local Police services in certain circumstances. Soft intelligence reports can contribute towards decisions TfL take in regard to a taxi or private hire licence application. It is worth noting that intelligence obtained by this method includes information on alleged sexual assaults (including rapes), terrorist activities, organised crime and drug dealing.
3.5 In its position as the licensing authority TfL reviews information that is brought to its attention and takes a balanced view on whether or not to issue the licence. TfL assesses information provided by Enhanced Disclosures to not only consider applicants’ criminal histories but to also give consideration to `patterns of behaviour’, which may be illustrated by the “soft intelligence” provided. Taxi and private hire drivers can, by the very nature of their roles, be called upon to carry children or vulnerable adults at any time and often come into contact with other individuals who are under the influence of medication, alcohol or drugs, particularly at night.
3.6 TfL recently sought further clarification from the CRB following the introduction of the Vetting and Barring Scheme. The CRB Policy Department responded that that the CRB do not consider that taxi and private hire drivers meet the criteria for Enhanced checks and TfL should be requesting Standard disclosures.
3.7 Between 2002 and 2008, some 2,400 applicants for both taxi and private hire licences have been refused on character grounds. Of these, some 10% have been refused based on “soft intelligence” revealed by an Enhanced Disclosure. Not allowing TfL to access this information therefore poses a significant risk.
3.8 Under an Enhanced Disclosure, checks may be requested against Protection of Children (POCA) and
Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) lists in some circumstances. After seeking clarification from the Director of Operations at the CRB, TfL requested additional checks against both lists for all licence applicants. In 2008, TfL was informed by the CRB that it was not entitled to request checks for taxi and private hire drivers against the POVA list as this can only be obtained for those within the Domiciliary Care Agencies,Care Homes and Adult Placement Schemes. Accordingly TfL ceased requesting POVA checks, but continued to request checks against the POCA list as part of an Enhanced Disclosure.
3.9 TfL recommends that it should be permitted to request Enhanced Disclosures for every taxi and private hire licence applicant. In addition, TfL and other relevant agencies should be permitted to request checks of taxi and private hire driver applicants against the POVA list.
3.10 Similar issues arise in respect of taxi and private hire licence applicants services outside London and so TfL suggests that all licensing authorities should be permitted to request the requirement for Enhanced CRB Disclosures should be applied nationally.
3.11 There is also the issue of antecedent checks for applicants who immediately before their application for a licence lived and worked outside the UK. Although the Enhanced Disclosure gives good information on the character history of UK residents, information on those who have lived and worked overseas is less comprehensive. Applicants who have spent more than three months living outside the UK within the previous three years are required to provide additional information about their history and a Certificate of Good Conduct is sought from the authorities in the countries concerned. This is necessary for up to 10 per cent of new applications.
3.12 Not all countries provide a Certificate of Good Conduct, and where provided the information is generally of less detail than that contained in the Enhanced Disclosure. There is also concern that Certificates of Good Conduct from some countries may not be based on as thorough and rigorous checks as those checks conducted by the CRB. This leaves a risk that TfL may not be aware of convictions or misconduct by people who have lived overseas. In at least two cases, offences committed overseas have come to light in investigation of serious offences by licensed drivers, which would have been reason to refuse the licence applications had they been known.
Ev w62 Transport Committee: Evidence
3.13 Public safety could be improved by better arrangements for collaboration and information exchange between UK and international police agencies, and TfL would like to see the Government give priority to
this area.
4. Late Night Travel
4.1 Taxis and private hire vehicles provide important options for travel late at night, when rail and Tube services are closed and bus services are more limited than in daytime. A late night travel survey commissioned by TfL in early 2010 showed that 13% of journeys home after a night out were made by taxi or private hire vehicle (7% in taxis and 6% in booked minicabs) with an additional 5% in illegal hires (this includes unlicensed minicabs and licensed private hire vehicles touting illegally).
4.2 While London is safe for most people travelling at night there are major concerns over the dangers of travelling in unbooked minicabs picked up off the street. Despite significant progress over recent years, illegal cabs remain a serious problem in London and are an under-rated danger of the Capital’s night life. These cars are unregulated and uninsured for the purposes of carrying passengers and in some cases are linked to more serious crimes such as sexual assault, robbery and arms and drugs offences. There is also evidence of increasing issues with aggressive and violent touts who are intimidating to members of the public and law abiding taxi and PHV drivers.
4.3 In 2009–10, there were 143 reported cab-related sexual offences including 24 rapes although we expect the actual number to be higher given the significant under-reporting of sexual offences generally. Cab-related sexual offences account for over 10% of all sexual offences in London committed by offenders not previously known to the victim.
4.4 Touting and associated issues are being addressed through a partnership approach involving enforcement,education and improvement of legitimate travel options including licensing and regulation of the taxi and
private hire industry. TfL and the police use a broad menu of tactics to deter, disrupt and detect illegal cab activity.
4.5 TfL is also working with the police and other partners to educate the public about the law relating to taxis and private hire vehicles, raise awareness of the dangers of illegal cabs and provide the public with better access to safe travel options. While this multi-media campaign has been extremely effective in reducing female usage of illegal cabs (from 19% in 2003 to 5% in 2010) perpetrators continue to adapt their methods to avoid
police detection and deceive the public into believing that they are providing legitimate services, putting the public at risk.
5. Enforcement Against Illegal Cab Activity
5.1 Enforcement against illegal cab activity is a priority for TfL and the Mayor of London, highlighted in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. In 2008, the Mayor introduced tougher regulatory penalties for any licensed private hire vehicle driver convicted of touting, and to date, over 400 licensed private hire vehicle drivers convicted of, or cautioned for, touting have had their private hire vehicle licences revoked for a minimum of one year. Despite this, in many instances, these drivers merely return to the streets unlicensed.
5.2 The MPS Safer Transport Command’s cab enforcement unit has made over 6,000 arrests for touting and dealt with another 2,000 offences by way of summons since its inception in 2003.
5.3 There remain concerns, however, that the penalties for drivers found to be touting are still too lenient and inconsistent in many cases. The current maximum fine that can be imposed for touting is £2,500 and £5,000 for driving without insurance (which applies to any driver touting, as any hire and reward insurance is invalidated).
5.4 Sentences in individual cases are a matter for the courts, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, including all mitigating and aggravating factors in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. In 2004, TfL and the Mayor of London raised concerns with the Home Office about the inconsistency and leniency of penalties being imposed for taxi touting. The average fine after sentence is around £135, which is not considered high enough to be seen as a deterrent. In addition, the level of fine varies from case to case. The inconsistency of penalties continues to be an issue and we ask for the Government’s support in helping to address this.
5.5 The Mayor of London, TfL and its policing partners urge the Government to introduce tougher penalties for touting which will help to deliver more effective enforcement against perpetrators and will create a safer environment for the travelling public. Suggested measures include:— Increasing the penalties for touting and unlawful plying for hire offences including higher fines and immediate driver licence disqualification following conviction or acceptance of a cautionfor touting.
Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w63
— Powers to seize and dispose of vehicles used in touting and unlawful plying for hire offences (powers under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to seize motor vehicles being driven without insurance or a valid driving licence do not extend to seizing vehicles being driven without valid hire and reward insurance, although this insurance is compulsory for hire and reward activity).— Clearer legal definitions for touting and unlawful plying for hire offences to improve regulation and enforcement.
December 2010

Proposed Tariff Increase for 2012.

2011-11-02T06:54:00.000-07:00

Is this financial suicide?

Proposals
3
Annual revision – general change in tariffs

3.1
We propose that the tariff review for 2011 will adhere to the three basic principles used in previous years to guide fare revisions. These are:
•
Using the taxi cost index to guide the increase in average fares;
•
Maintaining reasonable differentials between the day, evening/weekend and late night tariffs;
•
Maintaining a reasonable progression of fare with journey length.

3.2
A list of the current status of the cost index elements is attached as Annex B. The final cost index figures will be published in early December, allowing time to consider the final index value in responding to this consultation.

3.3
We propose to increase overall average fares by the cost index percentage, subject to the adjustment discussed below. This increase will take effect on 14 April 2012. (this would normally fall on the first Saturday in April, but in 2012 this coincides with the Easter weekend)

3.4
The increase would normally be implemented by keeping the flagfall fixed and changing the distances and times covered for each 20p unit however, it has been suggested that the flagfall should be increased this year from £2.20 to £2.40. No other changes to the tariff structure or to the extras that can be charged are proposed for 2012, apart from any changes discussed below for the London Olympic/Paralympic Games.

3.5
The increased tariffs in the evenings, at weekends and at night encourage drivers to work at these times, when supply of taxis has been poor. Although supply is good in many areas at night at the moment, this is largely the consequence of the current depressed economic climate and it is appropriate to maintain the present differentials.

The proposed tariff increase for next year is 5.2%. This will give an increase per mile on:
Tariff 1 £0.16
Tariff 2 £0.18
Tariff 3 £0.22
Tariff 4 £0.22

5.5 TfL seeks your views on the scale of the increases and suggestions for additional schemes.

6 Taxis during Games time

6.1 General

6.2 During the summer of 2012, London will host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. These major events will mean significant changes in travel behaviour throughout London, with changes to the road network, large numbers of visitors and a campaign to reduce levels of travel by Londoners.

6.3 The Olympic Games begin with the opening ceremony on the night of Friday 27th July 2012 and continue until the closing ceremony on the night of Sunday 12th August. The opening ceremony for the Paralympic Games takes place on Wednesday 29th August and the Games close on Sunday 9th September.

6.4 Separate discussions are taking place with trade associations and other interested parties about the impact of the Games and the facilities for taxis at venues and elsewhere. A significant communications campaign is planned to give all London taxi drivers full information about taxi service during the Games in the run-up to the events.

6.5 There is some uncertainty about the impact of the Games on the taxi trade, but it is important that a good taxi service should be available to serve London’s businesses, residents and visitors, particularly those with mobility needs.

6.6 Suggested premium on all fares during Games time.

6.7 In order to encourage taxi drivers to work at Games time, one of the taxi driver associations has suggested that there should be a premium on fares during the relevant periods. The proposal is that tariff 2 should apply at the normal times for tariff 1 (Monday-Friday 6 am – 8 pm) and tariff 3 at other times. This would give fares approximately 22 per cent higher at all times except late at night.

6.8 Current fixed fare schemes operate almost entirely within the times covered by Tariff 1, but there could be high levels of demand at Games time at weekends or late night. It is proposed that additional provision should be made for Tariff 2 fares approximately 20% higher than Tariff 1, and Tariff 3 about 40% higher than Tariff 1. These are shown in the table below.

6.9 Fares for different tariffs

6.10
Tariff 1 fare £5.00
Tariff 2 fare £6.00
Tariff 3 fare £7.00

6.11
An alternative proposal would be to allow a 40p or 80p extra to be added to fares during Games time, adding about 4 or 8 per cent to fares.

10.4
Consultation responses must be sent in writing by 28 November 2011. Responses by email should be addressed to: PCO.consultation@tfl.gov.uk They can alternatively be sent by post or fax to:
Taxi Fares Regulations Consultation, London Taxi & Private Hire, TfL 4th Floor Yellow Zone Palestra, 197 Blackfriars Bridge Road London, SE1 8NJ Fax number: 020 3054 3160

If you are responding by post, please submit two copies in total of your response.

Comment Taken from the LTDF:
The effects of any change will depend on the charging structure that the Private Hire decide to implement. The Olympic lanes will create traffic gridlock, but for us at least the meter will keep running (if pob of course) but for the minicab sitting in traffic, this time is un-paid.

This will be highly detrimental to both the drivers and the proprietors (good news for us) and so I suspect they will implement some kind of Olympic charge to off-set any losses caused by the reduction in Londons average traffic speeds.

Add/Lee has a fleet of cars that will be stuck in traffic caused by the Olympic lanes sadly for them the drivers they employ have neither the intelligence nor the skills to navigate around the problems (any one of you who use a sat nav will know the issues these machines have with road closures.....they keep trying to send you back on the same route you just left). The big question is will Griffin tell his drivers to use the Olympic lanes.........margolis

Legal Requirements, Following correct procedure

2011-10-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Please see document below which defines the legalrequirements for a Public Body. It clearly shows that the decisions have to

1/Follow correct procedure

2/ Be Rational and Evidence based

3/Have proper purpose

4/to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights

5/To be Proportionate

6/To be properly Reasoned

TFL fail on most of these points on most of their decisions.

It may be good to make this available to drivers along with atemplate letter of complaint for them to send to their local MPs or MEPs.

Legal Requirements

Following correct procedure

A decision maker willfrequently be required to follow a set procedure for making its decisions. Thismay take the form of procedural requirements set out in statute, statutoryinstrument, guidance (whether statutory or non-statutory) or a procedure whichthe decision maker has set for itself. Any such procedure will usually havebeen drafted with the purpose not only of guaranteeing that the decision makertakes into account all relevant considerations but also to ensure proceduralfairness for those affected by the decision it is required to make.

Departure from an establishedprescribed procedure in itself can give rise to a successful legal challenge,by way of judicial review for example, even if no unfairness results:

“… susceptibility to judicial reviewunder this head [procedural impropriety] covers also failure by anadministrative tribunal to observe procedural rules that are expressly laiddown in the legislative instrument by which its jurisdiction is conferred, evenwhere such failure does not involve any denial of natural justice” (per LordDiplock, Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for theCivil Service [1985] AC 374 at411A-B).

Examples of prescribedprocedures for decision makers include:

· express duty to consult

· express duty to serve notice

· express duty to publish agenda

· express duty to seek writtenrepresentations

· express duty to hold oral hearing ifrequested

· express duty to give reasons fordecision

· express duty to be informed of right ofappeal

Rational and evidence based

Whether a public body has aduty or discretion to exercise in making its decision, that decision must berational.

An irrational orunreasonable decision is one that was not reasonably open to it, as expoundedby Lord Green MR in theAssociatedProvincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

Meaning of irrationality

“Unreasonableness can include anythingwhich can objectively be adjudged to be unreasonable. It is not confinedto culpability or callous indifference. It can include, where carried toexcess, sentimentality, romanticism, bigotry, wild prejudice, caprice,fatuousness or excessive lack of common sense” In Re W (An Infant) [1971] AC 682, per Lord Hailsham at 699H
“a decision which does not add up” (R v Parliamentary Commissionerfor Administration, ex parte Balchin [1998]1 PLR 1)

“a decision which no sensible authorityacting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided toadopt” (Secretary of State forEducation and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977]AC 1014, per Lord Diplock at 1064 E-F)

Decisions makers are given adegree of latitude by the courts when challenged by way of judicial review ongrounds of unreasonableness. The Courts recognise that the decision was for All relevant considerations

An aspect of reaching arational and evidence-based decision is taking all relevant factors orconsiderations into account. This was made clear by the House of Lords in Anisminic v Foreign CompensationCommission [1969] AC 147, but theprinciple is more simply enunciated by Lightman J in R vDirector General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd [1999] COD 105:

“The Court may interfere if the Directorhas taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take intoaccount a relevant consideration”.

This does not mean that adecision maker must consider all extraneous material, but it should have beforeit as much information as possible that is relevant to the decision that it isabout to make. Deciding what is relevant and what is not depends on the subjectmatter of the decision, but examples include:

· the proposal

· responses to consultation or writtenrepresentations received

· guidance on parameters for decision

· cost of decision

· effects of decision on others

· advice from officers

Examples of irrelevantconsiderations include:

· the need to get business finishedquickly

· assumptions not based on evidence

· personal experience of a differentsituation

· dislike for the person affected by thedecision or what they represent

ProperPurpose

A public body must not actin bad faith, which is akin to dishonesty (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v WednesburyCorporation [1948] 1 KB 223, at 229).

It must act for a properpurpose. Those making public decisions must not have ulterior motives andmust apply their minds when making decisions for the correct statutoryobjective (Padfield v Minister ofAgriculture, Fisheries & Food [1968] AC 997).

Examples of Improper Motive

· exercising local authority powers forthe electoral advantage of a particular political party (Magill v Porter [2001]UKHL 67)

· land acquisition for re-sale at a profit

· to protect an unborn child from themother’s right to refuse medical intervention

· delaying a process so that a challengeto it became time-barred

ECHR-Compliant

It is unlawful for anypublic body to act contrary to one of the rights contained in the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) that has been incorporated into domestic lawby the Human Rights Act 1998 (“HRA”)(section 6(1) HRA).

“Public bodies” for thispurpose are defined in section 6(3) of the HRA as follows:

“6(3) In this section “public authority”includes:
(a) a court or tribunal, and
(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House ofParliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings inParliament.”

Schedule 1 to the Freedom ofInformation Act contains a list of public bodies for the purposes of that Act.This provides a useful starting point for checking whether a particulardecision maker is likely to fall within the definition contained in section6(3) HRA. However, it is only a starting point; what matters in decidingwhether a decision maker falls within the definition is whether the body inquestion is exercising public functions.

A variety of cases haveconsidered the question of what amounts to a functional public authority forthe purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the HRA: see here.

A review of this case lawprovides a private body is likely to be held to be performing public functionsunder section 6(3)(b) if:

· its structures and work are closelylinked with the delegating of power or contracting out from a State body; or

· it is exercising powers of a publicnature directly assigned to it by statute; or

· it is exercising coercive powersdevolved from the State.

Other factors such as thefollowing may all be taken into consideration, perhaps cumulatively, indetermining whether a function has sufficiently public “flavour”:

· the fact of delegation from a Statebody,

· the fact of supervision by a Stateregulatory body,

· public funding,

· the public interest in the functionsbeing performed, or

· motivation of serving the publicinterest, rather than profit

The ECHR contains thefollowing articles that have been incorporated into domestic law that may berelevant to public bodies making decisions.

Article 6 is likely to be ofparticular relevance to decision makers sitting in a quasi judicial capacityand holding hearings. It provides as follows:

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

1. In thedetermination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal chargeagainst him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within areasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excludedfrom all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order ornational security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles orthe protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extentstrictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances wherepublicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyonecharged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guiltyaccording to law.

3. Everyonecharged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in alanguage which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of theaccusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilitiesfor the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person orthrough legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient meansto pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justiceso require;

(d) to examine or have examinedwitnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesseson his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of aninterpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Breach of an ECHR right by adecision maker may render its decision not only unlawful but subject to anaction for damages: see section 8(3) HRA (and R (Bernard) v Enfield Borough Council [2003] HRLR 111 for an example).

Proportionate

Public decision makersshould act in a way that is proportionate. While the common law does notnecessarily accept proportionality as a freestanding ground for judicialreview, it is a principle embedded in both EU and ECHR law and consequentlytouches upon most of the decisions taken by public bodies:

“[Proportionality] is one of thefundamental principles of Community law, standing alongside such otherprinciples as those of equal treatment and legitimate expectation. it has notso far (perhaps unfortunately) found any very promising seedbed in Englishdomestic law. It is not anywhere vouchsafed in the EC Treaty; rather it is partof what may perhaps be called the common law, or the internal law, of theCommunity, having been developed by the Court of Justice as an integral part ofthe legal discipline applied by that court to the Community institutions inrelation to their implementation of the Community legal order. When memberstates also act to implement Community law, or to take measures necessarily relyingon exemptions from Treaty obligations provided by Community law, they too willbe subject to this internal law” (R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Oldham MetropolitanBorough Council [1998] ICR 367, per Laws J at 384H to 385A)

“Reference to the Human Rights Act 1998… makes it necessary that the court should ask whether what is done iscompatible with Convention rights. That will often require that the questionshould be asked whether the principle of proportionality has been satisfied” (R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary ofState for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, perLord Slynn at [51]).

A decision that isproportionate, is also likely to be rational, evidence-based and reasonable(see R v Secretary of State for the HomeDepartment, ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC696, per Lord Lowry at 766D-E): “reliance on proportionality is simply a way ofapproaching the Wednesbury formula: was the administrative act or decision so much out ofproportion to the needs of the situation as to be “unreasonable” in theWednesbury sense”.

ProperlyReasoned

Procedural requirements mayspecify that a public body must give reasons for its decisions. It should do soin any event, not only because the common law may require it to do so, butbecause a well reasoned decision will inform those affected fully about thedecision the body has taken. Reasoned decisions also enable those affected toconsider whether to subject it to legal challenge, and on what grounds and wellreasoned decisions help public bodies withstand legal challenge by explainingtheir thought processes.

The process of setting outwritten reasons for a decision also improves the decision making process bymaking the decision maker focus on the logic lying behind his decision (R v Brent LBC, ex parte Baruwa (1996)28 HLR 361).

Reasons do not need to beexcessively detailed, but do need to be adequate. Adequate reasons are reasonsthat:

· deal with all the substantial pointsthat have been raised

· are sufficient for the parties to knowwhether the decision maker has made an error of law

· set out and explain key aspects of thedecision maker’s reasoning in coming to its conclusion

· include all aspects of reasoning thatwere material to the decision made

· but do not need to set out in detail allthe evidence and arguments referred to the decision maker

Decision makers shouldrecord the reasons for their decisions at the time they are made. In theevent of a subsequent appeal or other legal challenge, it will not usually lieopen to them to elucidate, correct or add to their reasons at a later stage(see e.g. R v Secretary ofState for the Home Department, ex parte Lillycrop (unrep 27.11.96)).

he public body to make, notthe court, and so they are reluctant to interfere where they might disagreewith a decision but it is objectively rationally made.

At The Going Down Of The Sun And In The Morning, We Will Remember Them...

2011-10-23T03:39:00.000-07:00

Charing Cross Road Marshalled Taxi Rank

2011-10-21T03:38:00.001-07:00

A new taxi rank has been appointed in Charing Cross Road.

The taxi rank operates between 20:00 and 03:00, 7 days a week, and is split into two portions. The first portion is located on the west side of Charing Cross Road, near Bear Street. The second portion acts as a feeder rank and is on the east side of Charing Cross Road.

The new taxi rank will be marshalled on Friday and Saturday evenings, between 22:00 and 03:00 and will operate as a normal taxi rank, i.e. the first taxi takes the first passenger and the fares are on the meter. TfL has worked together with the taxi trade and local authority to appoint this new taxi rank and drivers are encouraged to use the rank and support the marshalled taxi rank scheme.

The fixed-fare marshalled taxi rank scheme in Coventry Street has now stopped as this was only being marshalled temporarily by TfL marshals whilst Westminster City Council seek long term funding for the scheme.

Transport for London – London Taxi and Private Hire
For enquiries email PCO.enquiries@tfl.gov.uk
For licensing information visit the TfL website or try TfL’s Taxi Common Questions Section

Improving Air Quality in London

2011-10-18T19:31:00.000-07:00

Dear Stakeholder,

Improving Air Quality in London

The Mayor wants London to be one of the cleanest, greenest cities in the world and meet challenging European Union air quality targets. As part of wider work to improve air quality outlined in the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, Transport for London (TfL) is implementing a range of measures to tackle PM10 levels at some of the busiest roads in central London.These initiatives, being delivered by the London Clean Air Fund (CAF), which is financed by the Department for Transport at the Mayor's request, could reduce local pollution levels of PM10 - a pollutant arising mostly from traffic emissions - by between 10 and 20 per cent where applied. To date, the Clean Air Fund has achieved the following progress:

· Cleaning and Application of Air Dust Suppressants (CADS) – Expansion of CADS with Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) at priority locations with two additional converted vehicles enabling further testing and monitoring of CADS to optimise its application, and wider use at both industrial and construction sites across London.

· No Engine Idling campaign – Eco marshals have been deployed at taxi ranks outside 10 mainline stations in Central London and other on street ranks where air quality is particularly poor. The purpose of the Eco marshals is to provide guidance to taxi drivers and encourage eco driving and discourage engine idling at taxi ranks. Industry (Bus, Coach and Freight) support has been pledged and targeted engagement has been undertaken. We are currently also developing a campaign to raise awareness and educate all drivers about turning off their engines.

· Green infrastructure programme – The start of a greening programme to trap PM10 pollution – a row of 50 green towers (six foot tall planters) have been installed along Lower Thames Street, one of London’s most polluted roads. The green towers are also an attractive addition to the local area.

· Working with businesses – TfL has called upon businesses to cut their emissions following the launch of best practice guides – these will encourage walking and cycling, especially for organisations within central London, and includes a CAF financed trial of electric pool bikes designed to give staff extra pedal power and cut down on unnecessary car journeys; and working in partnership with Central YMCA to deliver free workplace activator training. Further action on the horizon includes:

· Green Wall to be installed at Edgware Road (Bakerloo Line) Tube station in November 2011 and plans for around 500 new street trees and new shrubs to planted in the next few months, subject to suitable planting conditions.

· CADS trial will be expanded in October at Marylebone Road, Victoria Embankment and Park Lane.

· No Engine Idling awareness raising campaign will be launched in November.

· Retrofitting diesel particulate filters to buses travelling through priority locations. These buses are already compliant with the forthcoming LEZ (Low Emission Zone) standards from January 2012, and the DPFs will significantly reduce emissions of PM10.

Delivering these short term local measures and providing a lasting legacy from the work requires the continuous support of organisations and individuals who operate, work or live in London. TfL will be collaborating with a wide range of stakeholders to deliver this work over the coming months.

We would be grateful for pledges of support and advocacy for this work. Please do get in touch if you are happy to support all or any of the specific work programmes outlined in this email, or if you simply want to be kept informed of progress.

Please contact the team by emailing STEngagement@tfl.gov.uk. Yours sincerely

Keith Gardner Director of Strategy (interim)

Surface Transport – Transport for London

Return to Anderson Shelter article here

Hepworth-V-Westminster City Council, PATAS Rulling

2011-10-18T06:10:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr Large

I write to you to draw your attention to the recent ruling at PATAS, case ref: 2110348237(please see link below).

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/case.aspx?caseref=2110348237

I and the NoToMob request that in light of this ruling by the adjudicator, your council should write to every individual who has been issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) via fixed CCTV for parking since February 2010, inviting them to apply for a refund. This would appear to be the fair and proportionate thing to do.

If Westminster City Council does not undertake this course of action, the District Auditor will be asked to apply to the court under section 17 of the Audit commission Act 1998 for a declaration that the income from these PCNs is illegally derived. I would also like to know how many PCNs for parking have been issued via fixed CCTV since February 2010.

We also ask that your council suspend the use of your fixed CCTV cameras for parking enforcement until such time as Westminster City Council has obtained an approved device certificate for your fixed CCTV cameras.

Yours sincerely

Steve Baker

Sent from my iPhone

www.theandersonshelter.blogspot.com

Law Commission CV's...by Semtex

2011-10-13T07:12:00.000-07:00

Here's the first one and the man in charge.

The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sir James Munby QC.

It sounds more like a fairy tale than the kind of behaviour expected in high society.

But the story of Earl Spencer, two judges and seven little piggies is unlikely to have a happy ending.
One of the country’s leading lawyers told the Earl that he had named his sow’s piglets after the character traits of a High Court judge – including ‘self-regarding’, ‘pompous’ and ‘pillock’.

Costly divorce: Earl Spencer, with his former wife Caroline, claims that settling with her out of court cost him an extra £1 million
The insults were revealed by Princess Diana’s brother as he prepared to sue the lawyer over the handling of his divorce.

After the Earl handed £5.65million to his ex-wife last year, Sir Nicholas Mostyn emailed him about Lord Justice Munby, who heard the case.
The keen farmer, now a High Court judge himself, said his sow had given birth, adding: ‘The piglets will be named: James, Munby, self-regarding, pompous, publicity, seeking, and pillock...’

The insults were included in a writ Earl Spencer issued last month in the High Court.

He is seeking £1million damages from Sir Nicholas, solicitors Fladgate and barrister Elizabeth Clarke because, he says, they failed to warn him that changes to the law meant his divorce hearing would not be in private.

He had expected to pay £4million-£4.5million to Caroline Hutton, his second wife and mother of two of his children. But to avoid the public gaze, he settled out of court and paid her an extra £1million.
Insult: Sir Nicholas told how he had given his new litter of piglets names including Pompous, Pillock and Self-Regarding as a private slight to the Lord Justice Munby
He says that if he had been told about the law change earlier, he would have changed his negotiating strategy.
The Earl’s new solicitor said Sir Nicholas’s ‘clear dissatisfaction’ with the judge meant the legal team should have recommended an appeal, which they allegedly did not.

But Sir Nicholas’s solicitor John Bennett dismissed the claim as having ‘no merit’ and the email as ‘irrelevant’.

A source close to Sir Nicholas said: ‘James is one of Sir Nicholas’s closest friends. It’s the sort of thing a barrister might say, if you lost a case, to make your client feel better.’

But the Earl’s solicitor Patrick Pennal said last night: ‘It is not a “private” email communication because the relationship between Earl Spencer and Sir Nicholas Mostyn was entirely professional i.e. he was acting for remuneration.’
Target: Lord Justice Munby and right, keen farmer Sir Nicholas Mostyn

Next up.

Ex City Banker John Saunders.

John Saunders OBE, Chief Executive

John Saunders is an experienced Chief Executive with a considerable record of success in complex and substantial public and private sector organisations. He was awarded an OBE in 1998 for services to British Business.

After a 20 year career in Corporate Banking, John moved to the public sector in various Chief Executive, Chair and Board Member roles. Most recently John has held Chief Executive roles during the start-up phase at the Security Industry Authority and at CIPFA. John brings strong leadership, business acumen and a thorough understanding of working in challenging and politically sensitive arenas under close public scrutiny.

Another Peter Hendy in disguise ! Looking great isnt it ?

Heres another one.

Elizabeth Cooke. Solicitor and specialising in pre nuptials and Divorce.

Professor Elizabeth Cooke (Law Commissioner)

Professor Cooke began her legal career as a trainee solicitor at Withers, from 1986 to 1989 and went on to work as an assistant solicitor at Barrett and Thompson from 1989 to 1991. After completing her Masters in Property Law at the University of Reading she joined the university's School of Law as a Lecturer and then went on to become a Reader in 2001 and a professor in 2003.

Elizabeth was a member of the sub-law panel for the UK Universities'2008 Research Assessment Exercise; from 2006 to 2008 she was Chair of the University of Reading Research Ethics Committee. She has also chaired a research team funded by the Nuffield Foundation which published in 2007 a study of community of property regimes: Community of property: a regime for England and Wales.

Professor Cooke has written extensively on family law and property law.

She is currently a Law Commissioner and oversees property, family and trust law projects. The Law Commission's consultation paper, Marital Property Agreements, was published in January 2011.

As you can see folks, my CV search is once again unveilling a wealth of knowledge and expertise in our profession.

I have got more CV's to check, but is anybody else worried about Oliver Cromwells army of the best Cab Service in the globe being discussed and killed off by a bunch of academics with ABSOLUTEY NO KNOWLEDGE of our industry ?

This folks is a professionally aimed killer blow targetting our Great London Taxi Trade.

What knowledgable input or tangible expertise can come from a City Banker and a Divorce Specialist Lawyer ?

Exactly ! Diddly squat mate !

My radar is going nuts here !

Perhaps Miss Cooke wants to Divorce us from our badges eh ?

It's a bloody ruse folks, you watch.

Another one of the team sent to kill us.

Frances Patterson QC. Expert in Social Care and Human Rights.

Frances was appointed the Law Commissioner for a period of five years in December 2009. She is head of Kings Chambers in Manchester and Leeds also head of the Public Law department within those chambers. Amongst many other things, Frances is also a leading practitioner in Community Care law.

The talk outlined the project and areas of law reform before looking towards the future and the publication of the Law Commission's final report on adult social care in May 2011.

It was explained that the overarching aim of the reforms is to promote or contribute to the wellbeing of individuals and the duty to access will be at the heart of the new system.

"We are suggesting that assessments are portable and that there is a clear divide between health and social care but also that there is an integration between the two" said Patterson.

Consultation for the reform showed overwhelming support for retaining a number of key legal rights and strong backing for maintaining duties to co-operate between social services and other agencies and for the proposal to introduce a duty to investigate in adult protection cases.

Frances explained that the scheme will be reviewed as a whole to make sure it can accommodate policies such as personalisation, self-directed support, prevention and the universal services, while also maintaining the strong legal rights that have been overwhelmingly supported by consultees.

What do you mean, should we crap ourselves ? Of course we should !

This guy is no mug, and if anyone on the panel may be the one to have some empathy with our trade, I predict it will be this guy.

He is well taught, well practised, genuine and extremely capable.

Prof David Ormerod

David Ormerod

Professor of Criminal Justice, Queen Mary University, London

David Ormerod joined Queen Mary in April 2007. He is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters, and several hundred case commentaries.

David holds a number of Editorial positions. He is the Cases Editor of the Criminal Law Review and serves on the Editorial Boards of the International Journal of Evidence & Proof, Covert Policing Review and the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

In addition, he lectures regularly for the Judicial Studies Board on Criminal Law, Serious Sexual Offences and the Law of Evidence. He recently assisted the JSB in updating the Judicial Studies Board Specimen Directions. He has acted as a consultant to the Law Commission, Home Office and the Commonwealth Secretariat. David is also a member of the national Criminal Justice Council.
He is a Barrister in the Chambers of David Etherington QC, 18 Red Lion Court.

David is a guest speaker for these webinars

And of course, every panel needs an accountant !

David Hertzell. A posh and high ranking one, but an accountant at the end of it all !

David Hertzell is one of the five Law Commissioners of England and Wales, and is responsible for commercial and common law projects including those to reform the law of insurance and sale of goods. He started his legal career with solicitors Davies Arnold Cooper in 1981 and became a partner in 1989 specialising in insurance, reinsurance and regulatory law. He was Managing Partner from 1992 – 1996 and from 2000 – 2006. He was appointed a Law Commissioner in 2007. He is an acknowledged expert on captive insurance and chaired the AIRMIC Captive Focus Group until he joined the Law Commission. David is a member of the CII, and was a member of the BSI drafting committee on risk management.

Operation Crush... by Biggles

2011-09-13T04:58:00.000-07:00

A bombshell is about to explode on the Manchester Cab Trade,in the form of Operation Crush. The operation is being run nationally and isless than halfway through. So far approx 700 cases of perverting the course ofjustice have come to light.

The offence occurs when a fleet owner or garage ownerreceives a section 172 notice that a camera offence has been committed in oneof their cabs. The fleet owner returns the notice identifying who the driveris, as is required by law. The driver then receives a second 172 noticeinforming him of a penalty and asking him to confirm he was driving. The driverinforms his owner, fleet or garage that he is about to be endorsed. This iswhen the offence occurs.

A couple of fleet owners in Manchester have told the driversthey cannot accept the endorsement, because it would cost the fleet owner toomuch in insurance premiums to continue to employ that particular driver. Infear of losing his track and/or his livelihood the driver falls for the nextscam. The fleet owner offers to “get rid” of the offence for around £150. Hetells the driver he has someone in the Central Ticket Office who will wipe theoffence from the computer.

This is a scam, nosuch person exists. The fleet owner passes the 172 notice to a couple ofscallies off a local Manchesteroverspill estate. They then redirect the section 172 to a false address.

The scallies used in the Manchester incident were not the sharpest pencilsin the box. Because hey used the same address several times, the ticketsflagged up on the police computer and set an investigation in motion. One fleetowner is implicated in 8 of these offences. 8 Manchester Hackney drivers areabout to go “down the steps” for perverting the course of justice. This is justto save a fleet owner a couple of quid a week in insurance premiums. The 172notices in question have been forensically examined and everybody who hastouched one will have his “dabs” recorded.

We received this news because one of the drivers in questionbroke down in interview in the last few weeks. He was entitled to, he had anunblemished record and now he knows he will soon wake up in prison, to find hehas become some tattooed Neanderthals bitch. All to save someone else a few quid!

He rightly is about to bring everyone down with him.

The sad thing about all this is that camera offences areonly minor infringements. Any offender is offered a driver awareness course for£80. You legally avoid the penalty points this way. You also learn something soyour cash is not wasted. You can do this again, as long as it’s not less thantwo years since your last course.

This news is about Manchester,but you can bet it goes on all around the country, especially in large Citieswhere multi owners thrive. I beg all Licensed Hackney drivers, do not fall fora scam such as this, not to save some tight barsteward a few quid.

Local Authorities should examine their part in this affairas well. Some authorities are suspending drivers who accrue six points in anyyear. They say this is evidence of dangerous driving. Hackney drivers do approxfour times the mileage of any ordinary driver (48k against 12k). It wouldhardly be called dangerous driving if an ordinary motorist got six points infour years, would it.

It is exacerbated by the fact that a Magistrate has notsought to remove anybodies licence for two minor offences. A Magistrate is theappellant authority for decisions of a local council, yet the local council canand DO add an additional penalty to drivers who offend. This is surely contraryto natural justice. The decisions of some Local councils are therefore in myopinion adding to this problem and coercing some drivers to commit a moreserious offence.

We will of course update you when able.

Outcome of Private Hire Consultation...

2011-09-11T13:31:00.001-07:00

Outcome of PrivateHire Consultation

Following a consultation on private hire matters which ranfrom October 2010

to January 2011, a number of changes will be implementedfrom late 2011 onwards.

London Taxi & Private Hire has analysed the results ofthe consultation and spent aconsiderable amount of time undertaking further consultation and engagement with the private hire and taxitrade and the police to understand the impact of introducing some of thechanges.

Most of the changes relate to the introduction of additionalrequirements for private hire operators, particularly those operating fromshared premises and will seek to address a number of key issues raised with TfLover the past few years. Some items for private hire drivers are still underreview and will be announced separately.

Throughout the consultation process, the overriding aim hasbeen to ensure that any changes strike the right balance between improvingsafety for the travelling public whilst meeting the Governments desiredobjective of adopting a pragmatic approach to licensing without overregulating.

A summary of the changes due to take place is as follows:

Private HireOperators

New measures will be introduced for shared operatorpremises. Applications will only be accepted if certain conditions are met.

All applications for a private hire operating centre willrequire proof that planning permission has been granted, applied for, or is notrequired.

Private hire operating centres within a shared premises willbe required to have a designated booking area within the premises. This areawill be named on the licence.

Operators within shared premises will be required to providea booking ‘receipt’ to passengers

Private hire operators will be required to have a fixedlandline telephone number for bookings.

Additional checks will be done on all personnel named on anoperator’s licence application to ensure they are ‘fit and proper’

Further restrictions will apply for operator applications inshared premises within central London.

TfL will work with private hire operators and applicants toencourage adherence to local parking regulations.

Private Hire Drivers

TfL is considering further requirements that applicants mustmeet to help improve standards and ensure detailed background informationchecks can

be undertaken for all drivers.

TfL is considering additional measures for drivers includinga review of training requirements and driver identification.

A new licence condition will be introduced to clarify thatany driver who admits to having sexual contact in a licensed vehicle with apassenger will have their licence revoked.

Private Hire Vehicles

New, consolidated external vehicle signage will beintroduced to replace all forms of existing vehicle signage, including redroute stickers.

TfL will work with the private hire trade on all of theseareas to finalise these measures and to identify a suitable timeline forintroducing them.

...........................................................

Editorial Comment:

We have covered our concerns with this badly thought out and bias consultation in previous posts, but the Anderson Shelter is not alone on this issue. Some very good questions have been asked by the United Cabby's Group who now wait for LTPH to give comprehensive answers. See Article Here

Manchester taxi trade to fight Council’s “unfair restriction” of trade at airport

2011-08-26T13:28:00.000-07:00

Howards Solicitors

Taxi – press release

25^th August 2011

Manchester taxi trade to fightCouncil’s “unfair restriction” of trade at airport

LEGAL taxi trade specialistsHowards Solicitors will be representing the Manchester Cab Committee in its bidto lift alleged restrictions of trade at Manchester Airport.

Peter Eatherall, taxi law partnerat Howards, will be representing the Committee’s fight to fully open upbusiness to the trade at the airport.

The Manchester taxi trade has taken issue withthe Council for giving Arrow Cars preferential treatment in its dealing withthe airport and its passengers. This haseffectively shut out competition, according to the Committee.

The Manchester Cab Committee brings wide support and is made up of theGMB Union, Taxi Owners and Drivers Association, Airport Taxi Association,Mantax and Taxifone.

The complaints focus on Manchester Airport’s website booking facility fortaxis, as well as its booking kiosks in the three main terminals, which aredevoted to Arrow Cars at the expense of rivals. There are also objections from the trade regarding Arrow Cars’ unlawfulranking activities.

The Committee now has barrister’sadvice and representation through Howards Solicitors, with a possible judicialreview to follow to determine the law on this matter.

Sean Kenny, chairman of theManchester Cab Committee, comments: “We have no problem with competition. We do take issue though when a private hire officeopens next to the taxi rank and misleads customers by calling themselves “TaxiPrivate Hire.” In addition it hasvehicles illegally ranking and what can be consider unbalanced promotion by Manchester Airport. Then, it’s not fair or acceptable.”

Kenny also points out:“Manchester City Council compels all Hackney Carriages to meet a rigorous setof standards concerning issues such as driver knowledge and wheelchairaccessibility at some considerable cost. Private hire do not have to meet the same high standards, includinglicence fees, yet are being given the opportunity of immediate hirings. This opens up another issue of fairness inthe eyes of many in the trade.”

Eatherall, who has directexperience of running his own taxi firm before migrating his knowledge to law,comments: “The Council do not feel there are any issues that need to beradically addressed, but many, many voices within the trade in Manchester strongly believe that thereare.”

“We have tried to resolve what wethink are sound grievances through dialogue with the licensing and legaldepartments of the Council. We have notreceived a constructive response. TheManchester Cab Committee has been left with no other choice to resolve thematter other than through legal recourse.”

Contact details

Rob Baker

Artisan Marketing Communications

07957611834

rob@artisanmc.co.uk

Corporate Manslaughter...by David Davis

2011-08-24T08:02:00.000-07:00

Not a cab in sight Boris

Borisshould be charged with Corporate Manslaughter. A recent report submitted to theMayor of London showed that there are 4267 deaths every year caused bypollution related illness. That means that there are more people dying inLondon than if there were a terrorist attack like 7/7 every single week. Iapologise for using that comparison but it is a fact that these numbers ofpeople are dying and no one is taking any notice because it is an unseen killer.Every time a family looses someone to a pollution related illness it is notimmediately obvious to them that this has been caused because the Mayor hasfailed to manage emissions strategies. In addition there are tens of thousandsof people who have a diminished quality of life because of pollution i.e.people who have breathing difficulties and asthma. It is also the case that theEU are about to impose fines of £300 million because London has failed tocomply with emissions standards.(this at a time when spending budgets are beingcut everywhere) The Olympic Committee may impose a fine which would equate to athird of the revenue from the Olympics (£175 million), for London’s failure tomeet emissions standards.

At arecent seminar to discuss health effects of pollution in Londonheld by Darren Johnson (Green Party) and Mike Tuffrey (Lib Dems) at City Hallit was revealed by Professor Frank Kelly of the Environmental Research Group (Kings College)that there has been no emissions reduction in London for the last 10 years. The Mayor ofLondon has been asked questions about flawed emissions reduction strategies byAssembly members on a monthly basis for the last couple of years and also bymany MPs who have written to him expressing concerns, and he has continuallyavoided or sidestepped the questions. He has a legal duty of care to ensurethat the best strategies are implemented and to not do so is a breach of hislegal requirements as Mayor. The reason that there has been no reduction inemissions is simple ; the emissions strategies that have been implemented haveeither been flawed in concept or have been mismanaged in their implementation.

Theban on night time deliveries in Londonhas meant that there is increased commercial traffic during the day. A vehiclecreates emissions when the engine is under load i.e. accelerating. If a truckis travelling at night its emissions are reduced by a huge margin (probably80%) because it is moving constantly. The increase in traffic during the dayalso increases the emissions of other vehicles, so there is a significant knockon effect. The FTA has been campaigning for off peak deliveries to no avail. Itis a ridiculous situation that the Mayor/ TFL continues to implement a truckban at night, when there is good reason to remove or modify it. It may just bea case of encouraging ‘off peak deliveries’ but in fact TFL seem to haveactively obstructed this from happening.
TheLEZ is a failure. The acid test is that emissions levels have not reduced atall in 10 years and the EU are about to impose fines for this. The reason thatit is a failure is because the approval of systems and the implementation hasbeen completely mismanaged by TFL. The approval and test process was notconducted in a rigorous way which meant that systems that are not fit forpurpose have been approved. The Dutch Government has conducted research andfiled a report to the EU which shows that Selective Catalytic Reduction doesnot work in urban environments.(these systems have been used for the LEZ). Inaddition these systems can create harmful dioxins which have not been measured.There has been no regulation with regards to the implementation of the LEZ;systems have been fitted which have filters that block within a couple of weeks,the system is then removed but the vehicle is still certified as compliant forthe LEZ. Operators were known to have fitted a single system on a vehicle, gotit certified and then used the same system for its entire fleet. A VOSAinspector reported issues to TFL and was ignored.
TheLondon Taxi project has been completely mismanaged by TFL/PCO. Systems that didnot work were approved and Eco-Powers system which did work was improperlywithdrawn. TFL have not complied with their legal requirements as a Public bodyand this will be proven. In a further ridiculous strategy TFL are about toimpose an age limit on taxis. TFL have conducted absolutely no emissionstesting to confirm that older taxis create more pollution, and in fact a LondonTaxi organisation has conducted tests which show that older taxis are no worsethan newer taxis. This is probably being done to cover up their flawed andmismanaged previous project (i.e. if the vehicles which have emissions systemswhich do not work are scrapped they are no longer a problem)

There isevidence that older taxis create no more emissions than newer taxis. The carbonfootprint to replace a taxi would take 5 years to offset if it was replacedwith a zero emissions vehicle, (and no such thing as a zero emissions vehicleexists.) A common sense approach of cleaning up all 20000 taxis has beenproposed to TFL and completely ignored. TFL have acted improperly with regardsto the approval of systems. Eco-powers approval was withdrawn following arigged test, yet systems which were failing dramatically remained approved. Twocompanies systems were failing so badly they went out of business, yet thereapprovals still remain in place. It is widely thought that this has happenedbecause of improper conduct of the Public Carriage Office and their involvementwith the taxi cartels who were profiteering out of the emissions reductionsystems. 4/The congestion zone does exactly what it says; causes congestion.Again it has not worked as there has been no reduction in emissions whatsoever.The only thing it achieves is causes more congestion around its perimeter whichprobably results in an increase in emissions. The Mayor has received researchwhich shows 4267 people a year dying from pollution in London every year. He has a duty of care toimplement effective strategies and has not done so. It could be the case thathe is guilty of Corporate Manslaughter.

Hisimproper conduct should be exposed. He should not remain in office for anotheryear doing nothing while another 4267 people die.

Join On-Line Today

2011-08-23T07:42:00.000-07:00

Join On Line Today

Click Here

Bob Oddy, a Disgrace to his Members.

2011-07-30T12:23:00.000-07:00

What the paper should have said.

It has been known for some time now, the ageing general secretary of the LTDA has completely run out of stamina and ideas.
Silent Bob, as he is known, has no longer got the heart or the passion to fight for a trade that has paid him handsomely to do nothing for too many years now.

It hasn't gone unnoticed either, that his silent "let's not rock the boat" attitude coincided with his appointment to the board of TfL.

Now he has libeled the general secretary of a trade union on the front page of his paper Taxi.
At a time when the trade is crying out for unity, this is unacceptable and he should be asked by his members to finally call it a day.

The article on page 3 that accompanies the front page splash is also misleading, out of date and down right untruthful, a desperate attempt to disguise his incompetence.

It is true that the LTDA did launch high court action, but they lost. The judge then made a ruling that rickshaws could operate under the Stage Coach act, which the LTDA failed to appeal, saying they had already spent too much money on the case.

When other org's in the trade asked for support to oppose the current bill going through parliament, the LTDA turns its back and ignored. Only the RMT and the LCDC put in objections on the trades behalf.
Now that it looks like the bill may be blocked, Bob has tried desperately to jump on the band wagon.

When a select Transport committee met in parliament the LTDA failed to show up to give evidence on the trades behalf. Only the RMT Taxis London branch was in attendance to represent London's taxi trade.

Under his leadership, the infamous United Trade Group, failed to oppose or represent the suburban drivers of Kingston at the implementation of marshaled private hire ranks, under the STaN agenda. And now every weekend Licensed Taxis are refused use of the Taxi rank at Kingston Station which becomes a marshaled private hire rank.

Bob has also refused to criticize the non-enforcement of late night touting which has led to many private hire ranks being established all over West-end and City.

Time to call it a day old chap.

Lib Dems Support Taxis to use Olympic Lanes

2011-07-20T08:46:00.001-07:00

Olympic Games Lanes – Black taxis

Question No: 2030 / 2011

Dee Doocey

What have you done as a member of the Olympic Board to persuade the Department for Transport to overturn the ban on London’s black cabs using the Games Lanes during the Games in 2012?

Written response from the Mayor

I have not requested an exemption to allow taxis access to Games Lanes because doing so would mean that we could not guarantee journey times for the Games Family. The Games Lanes will be heavily used for most of the day, and there is simply not room to permit other vehicles access. For example, on some of the busiest days at busy locations, there will be up to 1,100 vehicles an hour in the lanes; this is the equivalent of a full road of traffic.

The Olympic Route Network (ORN) and Games Lanes will be essential to enable London 2012 to meet the Games Family journey time commitments in the Host City Contract. Because of the journey times between venues required by the International Olympic Committee, London would not have won the Games without putting the Games Lanes in place. The approach was tried and tested at Games in Sydney, Athens, Beijing and Vancouver. The ORN will operate on around one per cent of the Capital’s roads, and Games Lanes on around a third of the ORN; every effort has been made to keep the number of roads affected to an absolute minimum.

The Games Lanes will be clearly signposted to avoid confusion about which vehicles can use them.

HOUSE OF COMMONS ORAL EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE

2011-07-15T03:37:00.000-07:00

They are spraying the streets of the Capital with adhesive to try and trap polluting particles...at a cost of £5m. (see Q10-Q11)
I kid you not...

Professor Kelly stated in Q15:
In 2008, 4,000 people died in London from air pollution

The next question from committee should have been

"can we see documented proof these 4,00 deaths were attributed solely to air pollution"

The Chair replied What about the rest of the country:

so no evidence asked for or offered.

In this lengthy report of oral evidence given to a parliamentary committee, fears grow as councilors become frustrated with the inability to do anything about TAXI pollution.

Click Here for full report

Exemptions to age-based limits - Consultation

2011-07-09T06:12:00.000-07:00

This is a massive document, take yourtime. Note the end date for consultation, marked bold and in red 18 July. Oneday before release of Commons select committee report.

Click Here to see Document

Yellow Box Junctions, Part Two...Yellow 'money box' junctions earn TfL £20million in driver fines

2011-07-04T17:08:00.000-07:00

Hi,
I thought this written answer from the Mayor might also be useful from a question asked by Caroline Pidgeon (Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group and Chair of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group).

She has actually asked thee questions to the Mayor, but the Mayor's answers to the two other questions are now two weeks overdue. The Mayor and TfL have an increasingly poor record in actually answering questions on time.

I assume you aware of this story based on former questions and answers that Caroline Pidgeon has received from the Mayor:

Evening Standard

Mayor answers to London
Yellow Box Junctions (2)
Question number 1900/2011
Meeting date 15/06/2011 Question by Caroline Pidgeon
Please list by location, the TfL managed yellow box junctions that have been non-compliant, or continue to deviate from the standards set out in Part II of Schedule 19 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, from the 1 January 2008 to 31st March 2011.
Answer by Boris Johnson
Officers are drafting a response which will be sent shortly.
Written answer received on 24 June 2011:
TfL currently uses CCTV enforcement at 168 Yellow Box Junctions (YBJs). The road markings comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) and are surveyed to ensure continuous compliance with those regulations.
Seventy-one of the yellow box junctions being enforced on the TLRN deviate from the specific standards set out in the regulations but have been reviewed by DfT and granted specific DfT approval. Two of those approvals have been granted since January 2008.
One was to renew the previous authorisation at Battersea Rise/Northcote Rd which had expired; the other was the first authorisation of the site at Hedge Lane/Taplow Road.

Yellow Box Junctions... By Barry Segal

2011-07-03T02:03:00.001-07:00

If you have ever received a penalty charge notice in the
post claiming that you have stopped in a box junction you
may have wondered what the law actually is. The position is
complicated because yellow box junctions are covered in
both the Highway Code and Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002 and the penalty charge notices are
issued under and the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London Act 2003

Rule 174 of The Highway Code states the following:

"Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted
on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the
box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may
enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are
only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other
vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts
you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it
completely without stopping." - [My Emphasis in capitals]

The Highway Code offers sensible advice about not entering
the box junction if your exit is not clear but it is not
mandatory and there is no penalty if you fail to follow
this recommendation (but that failure could well be used
against you if there was an accident). The actual
contravention is set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 2002 Regulation 29(2) and Part 2 of
Schedule 19 .

Regulation 29(2) states "The road markings shown in
diagrams 1043 and 1004 ( Note i.e. box junctions) shall
convey the prohibition specified in Part II of Schedule
19."

This is what Part II of Schedule 19 of The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002 says about box
junctions:

Interpretation of Part II of Schedule
    6. In this Part of this Schedule -

     (a) "box junction" means the area of carriageway
marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two
or more roads on which there has been placed the road
marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044; and

     (b) a reference (however expressed) to a vehicle
which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes
a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within
the box junction. [Note the reference to "part" of the
vehicle - it does not say "wheels" so applies if just a
small part of your vehicle overhangs into the box junction]

Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044
    7. - (1) Except when placed in the circumstances
described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in
diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition
that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box
junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box
junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

   (2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply
to any person -

     (a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction
(other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose
of turning right;[Note exemption for turning right] and

     (b) stops it within the box junction for so long as
it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming
vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst
waiting to complete a right turn. - [Note exemption where
prevented from turning right]

Prohibition conveyed when markings are placed in
conjunction with signs in diagrams 615 and 811
    8. When the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044
is placed in conjunction with the signs shown in diagrams
615 and 811 on an area of carriageway which is less than
4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point, the road marking
shall convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a
vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has
to stop within the box junction due to the presence of
oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the
box junction. [Note - This applies where sign 811
indicates traffic from one direction has priority over
traffic coming from the opposite direction - normally in a
narrow street. It also applies where sign 615 states"Give
Way to Oncoming Vehicles]

Let's examinie the prohibitions - You can see that the test
for a contravention is did your vehicle have to stop in the
box junction " ...due to the presence of stationary
vehicles."? I believe that this test means

a) Did you have to stop because you were following vehicles
which themselves stopped in the box junctioon and forced
you to stop in the box junction or

b) had they stopped just outside the box and forced you to
stop in the box

On my interpretation if you were forced to stop in the box
because a vehicle cut you up and impeded your path then you
did not stop because of "stationary vehicles" but because
of a MOVING vehicle!

As I have indicated above the Highway Code offers sensible
advice but is not mandatory on the subject of the box
junctions. The critical issue for the issuing of a ticket
is if you entered the box junction and stopped in it due to
the presence of stationary vehicles. That is the test.

Bexley Council Alert Police About CCTV Warning.

2011-06-26T08:51:00.000-07:00

A MAN claims he has been visited at his home by police and been warned off any attempts to alert motorists to the presence of council CCTV camera cars in the area.

The officer, from the local safer neighbourhood policing team handed Martin Peaple copies of photographs taken of him by a CCTV camera car 20 days earlier.

Mr Peaple, 22, had stood outside the shops in Hollytree Parade in Sidcup Hill, Foots Cray, where he helps out at the glass shop, on April 7, holding a notice to warn potential customers a camera car was in the area.

The shopkeepers claim their small parade has been targeted by the council’s CCTV camera cars, and say the fear of getting a parking ticket is driving away customers.

Mr People had grabbed the notice when the camera car showed up.

He said: “At first I stood behind the car, but the driver asked me to move, so I stood on the pavement.”

Last week Mr Peaple says there was a knock on the door of his home in nearby Mallard Walk.

He opened it to find a police officer on the doorstep.

Mr Peaple said: “He said to me ‘You know why I am here. You have been interfering with a camera car ‘.

“I told him I had only been standing on the pavement.”

Mr Peaple claims told the officer told him some people wanted "his head on a plate" and said his activities were costing revenue.

He said: “The officer told me it wasn’t a police matter, but that the council could prosecute me.

“He told me if I said I was sorry and promised I would not do it again, he would email the council and ask them not to take it any further.”

Bexley Council was unable to say how the officer had obtained the photographs of Mr Peaple taken by the CCTV car.

A council spokeman said: “The council is unable to comment on matters dealt with by the police.

“The safer neighbourhood teams have been made aware of recent incidents affecting the council’s mobile cctv civil parking enforcement operations, which have raised safety issues and in some cases resulted in civil enforcement officers being prevented from carrying out their statutory duties by non-authorised third parties.”

Bexley police said: “There are various obstruction offences that may have been committed as well as a potential for a breach of the peace and any police response would be confined to these issues.”

A spokeswoman added: “The fact an officer visited the person in question to point this out, without resorting to any formal action is a good example of safer neighbourhoods teams working within local communities to sort out local issues as quickly and as effectively as possible.

“Local officers do have a role within partnership working to assist in the identification of persons who may have committed offences against byelaws but of course only if this is proportional.”

The move follows the issuing of Warning of Harassment letters by Bexley police at the council’s request, to people posting vitriolic anti-Bexley Council blogs on websites and the council’s proposal to ban people who have had a “warning” about their behaviour, from asking questions at council meetings.

Teextwo's letter from the PCO...Dizzy

2011-06-22T03:21:00.001-07:00

'The identifiers are being brought in but it is important that everyone understands that they are primarily as a self enforcing scheme'

And that is exactly why these will be a disaster for the Taxi trade!

'and secondly to help our compliance teams'

What compliance teams?

Where the hell are they?

The only way you will ever effectively keep control of this trade is by more enforcement.

Can you hear that John and Helen...

MORE ENFORCEMENT

'and we will be including messages when we start issuing these'

You have proved over nearly 2 years in office that your PCO notices aren't worth the paper they are written on, so what makes you think anyone is going to pay the slightest bit of notice to your 'messages'?

'that it does not result in drivers having arguments on street'

Arguments?

You think these 'might' lead to arguments?

You are so deluded!

When cab drivers start targetting other cab drivers with violence and vandalism, arguments will be the least of your worrys.

'We won’t tolerate any instances of a GB driver taking on the task of enforcing this scheme'

I suppose you don't tolerate women being raped in minicabs either!

But this week 2 more will be sexually assaulted by drivers that you issued a license to!

'The scheme is coming in as a result of responses to a consultation but it is not to turn the trade against each other and we will be very firm in our messages about that.'

Bullshit!

This scheme is designed to make us take our eye off of the real issue, and that is your incompetence with the licensing of Private Hire.

You have made a complete mess of that, and you will make a complete mess of this.

I am not suggesting that there may not be a problem with YBs working outside their sectors, or that something needs to be done about it, but this scheme is not the answer.

MORE ENFORCEMENT IS!

'and also that this isn’t an opportunity for drivers to turn on each other on street. That would be extremely damaging for the trade and is not something we will tolerate.'

Do you know anything about the Taxi trade or Taxi drivers?

Stop listeneing to people who don't drive a Taxi for a living and start listening to those who do.

Grant Davis is clueless!

Bob Oddy is clueless!

Both of these are far more interested in themselves than they are in the Taxi trade.

But you haven't got the balls have you!

Real drivers who live in the real world!

You simply prefer to take the easy option and only consult with those who won't give you a tough time.

It's a cop out!

PCO Notice 07/09 Parking on Taxi Ranks.

2011-05-30T04:59:00.000-07:00

PCO Notice 07/09
Further guidance for the drivers of private hire vehicles

PCO Notice 42/08 provided guidance to PHV drivers about accepting bookings and associated practices. This Notice provides some further information to help PHV drivers comply with the law.
Heathrow Airport and London City Airport
Item 2 of the Notice 42/08 stated if a driver is approached by a potential passenger, whether they are sat in your vehicle or otherwise, they must direct the passenger towards their licensed operator’s office to make the booking there in person or they may hand out business cards bearing the telephone number of their operators to allow passengers to contact the operator to make a booking. Drivers must never approach members of the public to offer services.
Drivers must be aware that whilst handing out a business card is allowed on the streets of London, under Heathrow Airport Byelaw 4(12) ‘Offer of Service’, it is an offence on any part of Heathrow Airport. The byelaw states ‘No person shall sell or distribute anything, offer anything for sale or hire or make any offer of services for reward’.
Any driver contravening this particular byelaw shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £2,500.
It is also an offence at London City Airport, which is governed by separate byelaws. Byelaw 5(14) states that ‘No person shall carry on a business, sell or distribute anything, offer anything for sale or hire or make any offer of service for reward’. Furthermore, Byelaw 5(15) states ‘No person shall post, distribute or display signs, advertisements, circulars or other printed or written material’.
Any driver contravening a byelaw shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine, which in respect of contravention of Byelaw 5(14) shall be up to £400, and up to £1,000 in respect of Byelaw 5(15).
Taxi Ranks

Drivers of PHVs are reminded that they must not park or wait on taxi ranks.
The driver and owner of any vehicle except for a licensed hackney carriage found standing on a rank may be liable to a fine of up to £2,500.
Mary Dowdye
25 March 2009 Head of Standards & Regulations

TfL Press Release on Sexual Assault Figures.

2011-05-23T16:10:00.000-07:00

Safer Travel at Night: Over 1,300 drivers arrested last year as part of crackdown on unbooked 'minicabs'

Over 1,300 arrests last year alone, but in John Mason reply to the chairman of the RMT he says 590 convictions since 2008. Convictions are what count not arrests.

23 May 2011

Latest weekend operation brings in 39 arrests

Although this is welcome news, we are not complacent, and we will continue our efforts to further reduce these crimes.

Steve Burton, Director of Community Safety, Enforcement and Policing at TfL

Cab related related sexual offences fall by 20 per cent year on year.
No, that’s not accurate, they have fallen only once in the last three years!

The Mayor of London's war against unlicensed minicabs
(a secret war we presume)
has resulted in 1,300 arrests over the last 12 months in a crackdown on touting and other cab-related offences during 2010/11. More important, How many conviction?

The latest figures show the success of the ongoing Safer Travel at Night (STaN) initiative, a partnership between the Mayor, Transport for London (TfL), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and the City of London Police (CoLP), who are working together to make travelling in London safer at night. Wrong! As STaN suggested Satellite offices which have been acknowledged as the main cause of Sexual attacks, it is Stan that is responsible for these appalling statistics.

STaN aims to reduce the number of cab-related sexual offences by raising awareness of the dangers of using unbooked minicabs, also known as touts and illegal cabs, and by using targeted police and enforcement activity to identify, disrupt and deter illegal cab activity. Not such a brilliant idea: Simply by removing satellite offices and the lines of unlawfully plying for hire touts would do a much better job! Also consider reducing the ever increasing number of PH licenses currently standing at over 75,000 and could reach 86,000 by Christmas.

*So far 5 Cab’s, 1 minicab!

Undercover tactics

Both the MPS Safer Transport Command, CoLP and TfL officers (Both? What all three both?) carry out regular enforcement activity across London including high-visibility patrols, stop/checks on vehicles, intelligence-led operations and engaging with the public.

Yes 38,000 vehicle inspections in 2010/11, targeted on Licensed Taxis, in high visibility stops mainly carried out on Bayswater and Chelsea Bridge Roads. Intelligence-led operations think you need more up to date intelligents

During the latest three-night-operation, that took place last weekend in central London, the West End and parts of Camden, there were 39 people arrested for touting and other cab-related offences.
Surely you mean, minicab related?

Officers used undercover tactics and also conducted roadside vehicle and licence compliance checks on all minicabs within the operation area. Impossible for them to have checked all minicabs within the targeted area, just more mis-information!

Despite significant progress over recent year’s unbooked minicabs remain a high priority for the Mayor, TfL and the police as they are a danger to the public, especially as they operate around the Capital's night life.
Nice of the Mayor to finally notice as the West End grinds to a halt every week end.

Russian roulette

These cabs are unregulated and uninsured to carry passengers, and in some cases the drivers are linked to more serious crimes including rape and sexual assault, robbery and drugs.

Last year saw the number of cab-related sexual offences fall by 20 per cent to 111 but there is more work to be done.
Not Last year I’m afraid, TfL have manipulated the way they calculated the assault figures by using the financial year. Plus the attacks that were removed by the 3 suspended Met officers have not been re added to the total, so figures are in fact misleading, again!

These cabs also present a threat to licensed and law-abiding taxi and private hire drivers as they intercept customers and represent unfair - and unsustainable - competition.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson said: 'The people who live in and visit this great city need to know that it is safe to get around.

'It is in this context that we must confront the Russian roulette that is presented by illegal minicabs.
See if Boris can get it right, why can’t TfL?

'Taxi touts are a menace to Londoners and tourists and the number of arrests made clearly indicates our decision to double the size of TfL's excellent cab enforcement team.'
Sorry, haven't I just read that TfL issued redundancy notices cutting back the full time compliance officers to just 31?

We are not complacent

Steve Burton, Director of Community Safety, Enforcement and Policing at TfL, said: 'These results reflect the hard work by officers from both the police and TfL to tackle touting, cab-related sexual offences and other illegal cab activity in the Capital.

'Although this is welcome news, we are not complacent, and we will continue our efforts to further reduce these crimes and ensure that the public can travel safely at night in the Capital.' Easy done Steve, just scrap Satellite offices and enforce the law for a change!

Chief Superintendent Joe Royle, Safer Transport Command, said: 'These arrests show our commitment to ensuring Londoners travel safely at night.

'We will continue to carry out operations as part of our ongoing drive to tackle illegal cabs and taxi touts operating in the Capital.'

Is it any wonder we have to battle the media every week to keep our reputation in tack when our own licensing authority misuses the words Cab(s) and Taxi(s) contra to its own guild lines (TfL Press Release 25/10)

Section 31 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

This section clearly states that use the words ‘taxi’, ‘taxis’, ‘cab’ or ‘cabs’, or words closely resembling any of those word’s, must not be applied to any vehicle, other than a licensed Hackney Taxi. Contravention of section 31, is an offence.

WESTMINSTER CCTV PARKING CAMERAS JUDGED TO BE ILLEGAL

2011-05-10T06:59:00.000-07:00

WESTMINSTER CCTV PARKING CAMERAS JUDGED TO BE ILLEGAL

COUNCIL FACES CANCELLING THOUSANDS OF PARKING TICKETS AND REPAYING MILLIONS OF POUNDS OF ILLEGALLY COLLECTED FINES

From Barrie Segal - founder of AppealNow.com™

Councils face repaying millions of pounds of illegally collected fines.

Parking ticket expert, Barrie Segal, the founder of the parking ticket websitewww.appealnow.com says, “Westminster Council will have to cancel tens of thousands of CCTV issued parking tickets after my landmark ruling by the Parking Adjudicator and in my view must stop using these cameras immediately. Furthermore the council also faces the prospect of repaying millions of pounds which they collected using these illegal cameras.”

In two far reaching decision for motorists the parking adjudicator has decided that Westminster Council’s CCTV parking cameras do not comply with the law.

The challenge was mounted by the UK’s leading parking ticket expert, Barrie Segal, who claimed that Westminster Council’s CCTV footage did not comply with the law as individual frames were not numbered sequentially as required by law.

After considering further evidence from Westminster Council and Barrie the parking adjudicator, Carl Teper decided in PATAS cases 211000697A and 2110013024 “ ... that the failure to sequentially number the captured images, by means of a visual counter, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined. .....The appeal is allowed”.

Barrie goes on to say, “The camera problems in these two cases apply to all the video footage that I have seen since Westminster started using their new cameras. These decisions and the evidence I have seen in several other cases I am conducting show that the CCTV cameras used by Westminster Council do not comply with the law and therefore paring tickets issued using them cannot be enforced. Westminster Council should stop using those cameras immediately and cancel all parking tickets issued as a result of their use. They should also refund all parking tickets paid by motorists who were caught by these cameras and believed the cameras were legal”

Notes

The legislation relating to CCTV cameras for parking enforcement is contained in The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007. Are
The two cases PATAS cases 211000697A (James Field – v – Westminster City Council) and 2110013024 (William Sumner – v – Westminster City Council
Under paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007 it states “each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter”
Extract from Decisions “I am not satisfied that the authority has complied with the requirement in paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007, that the recording device must include a recording system in which "each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter".

Whilst each frame of the captured images are timed and dated, I find that they are not sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter.

In coming to this conclusion I have accepted the argument advanced by Mr Segal, in his written submissions, that the numbering of the visual counter is not sequentially numbered.

Regulation 4(4) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides the grounds on which representations may be made against a Notice to Owner.

Regulation 4(4)(f) states:

'that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority'

"Procedural impropriety" in this context means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the General Regulations or Representations and Appeals Regulations. This includes, pursuant to Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required to be taken.

I find that the failure to sequentially number the captured images, by means of a visual counter, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in Regulation 4(4) above applies, "he shall allow the appeal". There is no discretion about this.

The appeal is allowed.

FULL DECISION:

Case Reference: 211000697A

Appellant: Mr James John Field Authority:Westminster VRM:XXXX PCN:XXXXXXContravention Date: 24 Nov 2010 Contravention Time:14:41Contravention Location: Brewer Street Penalty Amount:£120.00

Contravention: Parked or loading or unloading when prohibited

Decision Date:18 Apr 2011

Adjudicator: Carl Teper

Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:

On 2 April 2011 when I first considered this appeal I caused the following notification to be sent to the enforcement authority:
"The enforcement authority is directed to prove by statement that the camera operator is duly authorised to provide photographic evidence of the contravention. Further, paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007, requires that the recording device must include a recording system in which "each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter". The DVD does not appear to bear this information. The date and times can be seen on the footage but there is no indication of sequential numbering. The authority is directed to comment on this apparent failure to meet the scheduled requirements and the conditions of use."

The authority has responded and I am satisfied that the camera operator is duly authorised to provide photographic evidence of the contravention.

However, I am not satisfied that the authority has complied with the requirement in paragraph 2(c) of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (Approved Devices) (England) Order 2007, that the recording device must include a recording system in which "each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter".

Whilst each frame of the captured images are timed and dated, I find that they are not sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter.

In coming to this conclusion I have accepted the argument advanced by Mr Segal, in his written submissions, that the numbering of the visual counter is not sequentially numbered.

Regulation 4(4) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides the grounds on which representations may be made against a Notice to Owner.

Regulation 4(4)(f) states:

'that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority'

"Procedural impropriety" in this context means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the General Regulations or Representations and Appeals Regulations. This includes, pursuant to Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required to be taken.

I find that the failure to sequentially number the captured images, by means of a visual counter, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.

Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in Regulation 4(4) above applies, "he shall allow the appeal". There is no discretion about this.

The appeal is allowed.

John Mason Replies to New RMT Chairman.

2011-05-05T06:35:00.001-07:00

Dear Mr Mason,

The RMT Union will do everything in its power to protect the interests and safety of its members and the travelling public.

Pickets and demonstrations will be used as a last resort when other methods may have failed.

The RMT TAXI branch have requested meetings with both TPH and your bosses at TFL, both you and your superiors have refused to meet with us on these matters.

The branch has also written to you to suggest ways that could help to alleviate the problems faced by the licensed taxi trade and the travelling public. The RMT taxi branch has suggested an approach which you could use at venues such as Abacus, where you claim to have no authority, even though you license both the venue and the drivers.

The Licensed Taxi Trade has yet to see any improvement at venues including the Grosvenor House Hotel where private hire vehicles deliberately block the taxi rank with impunity and it often seems if not with your permission, with your blessing, is this true?

There appears to be no evidence of your "one strike and you are out" policy. If your policy is so successful why are there still hundreds of TPH licensed private hire drivers still ranking outside and touting for work at venues all over London?

If your own figures are to be believed, how can you justify almost total inaction on over 150 sexual assaults and an average of 2 rapes per month by private hire drivers (licensed or unlicensed) over the last year?

Furthermore in case you are unsure, the protest outside Windsor House was to highlight the number of sexual assaults and to publicise the inability of your department to come up with a strategy to protect both the licensed taxi trade and members of the travelling public from violent attacks and sexual assaults both day and night.

The RMT taxi branch would be more than happy to meet with you to discuss a way forward and help form a strategy to protect both our members and the travelling public.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Walsh

Chair

RMT London taxi branch

REPLY:

Dear

Thank you for your email of 23 April.

Without wishing to get involved in unnecessary or protracted correspondence I do believe it is important you and your members have a clear understanding of TfL’s position on the points raised and made.

In the first instance I would respectfully remind you that I have repeatedly stated my willingness to meet with the RMT London Taxi branch on a formal basis should they meet and agree to the driver association engagement policy. To date the RMT London Taxi Branch has rejected any suggestion that they can or are willing to meet the policy and as such I can only continue to politely decline your requests for a meeting.

I have never claimed TfL has no authority for Abacus and would welcome an understanding as to how you have reached this conclusion given my previous emails to the RMT on this matter and actions taken by us in light of the taxi trade concerns regarding this venue.

Similarly, with regards to the Grosvenor House Hotel, we have taken considerable action to deal with concerns raised by taxi trade relating to this location, including increased enforcement of the parking restrictions utilising CCTV and we will continue to monitor the situation closely.

As I am sure you are aware, the “one strike and your out“ policy was introduced in August 2008 and since this date the policy has been revised so that any driver who receives a caution for touting in addition to any driver convicted for touting, will have their licensed revoked. Since August 2008 590 TfL licensed drivers have had their license revoked under the “one strike and your out” policy. Whilst I accept there are still drivers there are still drivers willing to risk touting I feel it is far better to have the policy than be with out it although am obviously interested if the RMT London Taxi branch are advocating its removal.

However, whether you agree or not the “one strike and your out” policy is one part of a range of activities undertaken by TfL to tackle illegal cabs reducing touting and stop cab-related sexual assaults. In addition to the ongoing compliance and enforcement activities carried out by our own Taxi &PHV Compliance Team,

which included over 38,000 vehicle inspections in 2010/11, there are regular

covert and high-visibility operations by the Metropolitan and City of London police forces, often with the support of TfL employees. An expanded full time TfL night-time Compliance Team is being established and they will focus on compliance and enforcement activities at night. We also continue to run an extensive pan-London advertising campaign aimed at raising awareness of the dangers of using illegal cabs, educating people that minicabs must be booked and informing people that they can find licensed private hire or Taxi services by using Cabwise Findaride, the late night marshalled taxi tanks or by calling TfL’s 24 hour Travel information Contact Centre.

Although we have seen reductions in the market share of illegal minicabs and cab-related sexual assaults since this work started in 2002 we know that there is still more to do to continue to improve public safety and reduce the number of cab-related sexual offences. The suggestion that TfL is doing nothing to address this problem is misinformed and misjudged and ensuring the safety of the travelling public and licensed taxi and private hire drivers is fundamental to what we are doing.

The figures quoted in your email are incorrect. The figures for sexual cab related offences for 2008/09 and 2009/10 were:

Sexual Assaults 2008/09 2009/10

Cab-related 93. 143.

The figures for 2009/10 show that since 2002, cab-related sexual offences have fallen to an average of 15 to 12 each month and while was is an increase since 2008/09 to 2009/10 since the start of the STaN campaign the overall figure has dropped.

There certainly are not 150 reported offences each month and all quoted figures include reported offences in London Licensed Taxis.

In conclusion I totally reject your allegation that there has been “total inaction” by TfL and that unnecessary, misinformed and misguided protests either on street or outside TfL buildings do absolutely nothing to help improve the safety of passengers and drivers.

Yours sincerely

John Mason.

Director Taxi &private hire

Email: johnmason@tfl.gov.uk

Freedom of Information request - Gross cost to TfL STaN/Operation Sapphire

2011-05-03T03:59:00.000-07:00

-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 25 March 2011 07:39
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Gross cost to TfL STaN/Operation
Sapphire

Dear Transport for London,

Could you please supply me under the FOI Act, the gross cost of The

Safer Travel at Night initiative (STaN)to TfL since its inception

in 2002. And the same gross cost to TfL of operation Sapphire since

its inception in 2002.

As these two policies were designed to run in tandem with each

other under the heading of The Safer Travel at Night initiative

(STaN)I have included both in my request.

Yours faithfully,

xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

------REPLY------

Date: 26.04.2011

Dear XXX XXXX

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 25
March 2011 asking for the gross cost to date of both the

Safer Travel at Night Initiative (STaN) and operation Sapphire.

Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and I can confirm that TfL does hold some of the
information you require.

TfL takes cab-related sexual offences extremely seriously and is committed
to improving the safety of the travelling public. It is for this reason
that TfL spends a significant amount on the marketing campaign warning
Londoners of the potential dangers of unbooked minicabs. The budget for
the 2010/11 campaign was around £650k.

Safer Travel at Night (STaN) is one of TfL's key safety and security
campaigns. Independent research shows that STaN is effective in reaching
its target audience, young women, and persuading them not to use unbooked
minicabs. Female usage of unbooked minicabs has fallen from 19 per cent in
2003 to 3 per cent in 2011 - its lowest level.

TfL has made savings on the campaign over the years, reducing its costs
from over £1m a few years ago. We will continue to look for ways to
reduce these costs whilst ensuring the effectiveness of the campaign. The
annual costs to TfL for the STaN campaign since 2002/3 are shown in the
table below.

Year STaN Campaign spend
2002/03 *
2003/04 £85.7k*
2004/05 £782.8k
2005/06 £1,098.8k
2006/07 £1,030.8k
2007/08 £793k
2008/09 £862k
2009/10 £660k
2010/11 £650k

*The campaign was predominantly funded by the Greater London Authority.

Sapphire is not part of the STaN initiative and TfL does not hold any
information on its costs. The Sapphire Command is part of the Metropolitan
Police Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD). The primary role of the
Sapphire Command is the investigation of rapes and other serious sexual
violence with an emphasis on not only bringing offenders to justice, but
victim care and support. Sapphire officers work closely with the Cab
Enforcement Unit and TfL to investigate cab-related sexual offences. SCD
also has responsibility for investigating other serious crimes including
murder and armed robbery.

If this is not the information you are looking for, please do not hesitate
to contact me. If you are not satisfied with this response please see the
attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Graham Hurt

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

Corporate Governance Directorate

General Counsel

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

Transcript of the Nick Ferrari Show.

2011-04-22T04:33:00.000-07:00

An exact transcript from the Ferrari show yesterday. As you can see the Mayor made no reference to AL. This came from the caller and NF. This confirms with our understanding and no taxis and PH will be allowed in the ORN.

Caller: Morning Nick. During the Olympics there are some fast track lanes running from Central London out to the Olympic Stadium. As a London taxi driver I would like to ask Boris why London’s taxis are being banned from it?

BJ: Ray that’s because there are about 30000 London taxis from memory, maybe slightly more, 33000 London taxis, and we need to be able to move people fast down those Olympic lanes, and ....

NF: Wouldn’t taxis help with that Mr Mayor, getting spectators to and from?

BJ: Well what we want to do is encourage people as far as possible to take public transport. As everybody knows, there has been mass improvements to public transport.

NF: Probably not appropriate to speak about that today with the Jubilee Line and the state it’s in. How about those with mobility problems who could call a London cab, people with serious mobility issues and wheelchairs. Surely it will be helpful to get him or her there wouldn’t it? Ray would you agree, that’s particularly when you are useful isn’t it?

Caller: I mean, you’ve hit the nail on the head Nick because Boris has allowed mini cabs to use it.

NF: Mr Mayor is that true?

BJ: Not as far as I know Ray, I will get back to you on that. I’m not aware we are allowing mini cabs to use the Olympic Route Network.

Caller: Nick, there’s a certain minicab company in London, who have got a contract.

NF: Now this is for the delegates, and I think for some of the competitors as well isn’t it? But well lets name it, it’s Addison Lee. I think it’s the biggest company probably in the country and they have got the contract to take judges and competitors. But I can’t use them to get me there, that’s the difference Ray of course isn’t it?

Caller: But supposing I was to pick up a competitor, lets say from Paddington Station.

NF: Yes.

Caller: I can’t use the fast track lane.

NF: Mr Mayor?

BJ: Ray I think that’s fairly unlikely to happen. The competitors basically are going to be moved from the Olympic village where they will be staying, to their events or their places of training, and with the team and with their coaches, and we want to be able to have the Olympic Route Network, which will be much much smaller, let me repeat this, will be much much smaller than the Olympic Route Network was in Beijing. It will not operate except when it absolutely has to during the times of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. So I’m sorry we can’t put black cabs in the Olympic Route Network Ray, but it’s just the hard necessity of trying to run an efficient Games.

Transcript courtesy of TfL.

Air Quality in London

2011-04-14T08:26:00.001-07:00

Organisation: Sarah Ludford MEP
11.04.11
Government and mayor need to get to grips with air pollution
Originally published by London Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford, a campaigner for clean air in London, has quizzed European environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik on what action the Mayor and the government need to take to clean up London's dangerously polluted air.
The European Commission recently held off from taking the UK to court for failure to meet EU limits on health-damaging particles (PM10) in London's air which come particularly from diesel and cause a host of health problems and premature deaths. But this reprieve is only on condition that the Mayor and the government put together an action plan by June to tackle the problem.
Sarah Ludford said:
"London's air is the dirtiest in the UK, which is a disgrace. And it seems that Brussels just does not believe that on current plans London has any chance of complying with the European clean air standards that the UK government signed up to."
"It's time to stop trying to fob off the EU with meaningless 'air quality plans'. We must really put our backs into making London a city where people can - literally - breathe freely and not die young."
Liberal Democrats propose concrete and realistic measures such as retrofitting the most polluting vehicles with filters; speeding up the modernising of London's bus and taxi fleet; extension of the boiler scrappage scheme for replacement of old polluting boilers; and making central London a Clean Air Zone in which old diesel engines would be banned.
Sarah added:
"This is not about Europe's demands, it's about whether we Londoners want to live in a city which keeps people healthy or kills them off. Mayor Boris Johnson and Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman must deliver urgent action, not platitudes."
Notes:
EU clean air law states that EU countries need to make sure that dangerous PM10 pollution does not go over a certain level more than 35 days per calendar year; already in April London has had 29 such days. To monitor the number of days that the main London air pollution monitoring station on Marylebone Road goes over the upper limit for PM10 of 50 ug/cubic metre, see link below.
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=MY7&Maptype=Google&mapview=all&statyear=2011&zoom=9&lat=51.431751825946115&lon=-0.17578125
Sarah Ludford MEP's Parliamentary Question and the Commission's answer:
Question for Question Time H-000153/2011
to the Commission
Part-session: April 2011
Rule 116
Baroness Sarah Ludford (ALDE)
Subject: Enforcement of EU air quality standards in Greater London
In March the Commission granted the UK additional time, until June 2011, to comply with EU air quality standards for airborne particles (PM10) in Greater London. It did so on condition that the UK quickly produce an action plan to reduce such pollution.
Could the Commission clarify what action it would regard as satisfactory and how long-term its perspective will be? Is it looking only for 'emergency' action that could consist of one-off controls or abatement in order to meet EU norms by June (maximum 35 exceedances a year of the PM10 daily limit value), or is it demanding longer-term changes that would put London on a path to a significantly lower emissions rate, that would substantially improve public health?
Tabled: 22.3.2011
H-000153/2011
Answer by the Commission
5.4.2011
On 11 March 2011 the Commission adopted a Commission Decision[1] on the United Kingdom (UK) request to be exempted from the obligation to apply the PM10 limit values in London and Gibraltar. As regards London, this was the second time the UK requested an exemption after the first request was rejected by the Commission in December 2009.
According to this Decision, the UK authorities have to adjust the air quality plan for London by 11 June 2011. This is the date by which the exemption ends and the PM10 daily limit value will have to be met.
As stated in the Commission Decision, the UK has produced an air quality plan outlining how it plans to reach compliance by 11 June 2011. However, in view of the very narrow margin by which compliance is projected and the risk of further exceedances, the Commission has asked the UK authorities to adopt further measures effective for controlling or, where necessary, suspending activities which contribute to the risk of the limit value being exceeded. This is meant to ensure the full toolbox for addressing exceedances is readily available when/if required, irrespective of whether such exceedances would appear.
The competence to decide on the measures lies entirely with the Member States. Under the "subsidiarity" principle it is acknowledged that Member States - and their local authorities - are best placed to identify the most efficient and tailor made measures to address high concentration levels in their air quality zones.
As the long term measures are provided for in the already existing air quality plan, the short-term measures are meant to address any risk of exceedances during, for example, specific pollution episodes. Those measures are therefore not supposed to address a sustained exceedance problem over the long-term but rather meant to be seen as complementing instead of 'emergency' actions.
Measures that could fall under this category could be measures in relation to motor-vehicle traffic, construction works, the use of industrial plants or products and domestic heating. They could consist of controlling and, where necessary, suspending those activities contributing to the risk of the limit value being exceeded. Specific actions aimed at the protection of sensitive population groups, including children, may also be considered.

Request For Cab Related Sexual Assaults/Rapes .

2011-04-10T09:19:00.000-07:00

Cab Related Sexual Assaults/Rapes

Question No: 617 / 2011
Caroline Pidgeon

For the last 3 years, per month, please provide figures for how many reported

cases there were for sexual assaults in:

a) Black cabs

b) Licensed private hire vehicles.

c) Unlicensed private hire vehicles.

Written answer from the Mayor

Written response received on 7 March 2011:

Metropolitan Police cab-related sexual offence figures include all sexual offences related to cabs and include offences committed by licensed taxi and minicab drivers, licensed drivers touting illegally and unlicensed cab drivers.

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is unable to provide statistics that provide a definitive breakdown by type of cab for reporting purposes. The latest figures show the number of MPS cab-related offences for the previous 3 years as:

Month 2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

Apr 10 10 15 7

May 11 3 13 14

Jun 9 8 9 8

Aug 8 8 11 6

Sep 9 2 7 6

Oct 8 6 10 12

Nov 8 12 17 11

Dec 11 7 15 11

Jan 9 8 15 11

Feb 16 9 8 N/A

Mar 13 16 14 N/A

Total 120 93 140* 95**

*Please note that the 2009/10 is different to the previously published figure of 143 offences. The new total reflects the latest information on the MPS crime reporting information system (CRIS)

MPS monthly figures are subject to change for up to 2 years to reflect any updates from ongoing investigations.

**2010/11 (Apr > -> Jan) > -> 95 (compared with 118 in the same period in

2009/10)

It is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown of cab-related offences by type of driver. It is only if and when a suspect is identified that the MPS in conjunction with TfL are able to verify if the suspect is a licensed taxi or PHV driver.

While it is not always possible to definitively determine whether offences were committed by unlicensed or licensed taxi and minicab drivers any details of the how the victim approached the offender or vice versa are used for investigative and analytical purposes where reliable information is available.

This is used to help inform the Safer Travel at Night campaign, TfL and police deployments and crime reduction activities.

TfL and the MPS are undertaking detailed analysis of the most serious cab-related sexual offences in 2009/10 to provide a definitive breakdown, as far as possible, by type of cab driver. Any definitive information from this work will be made available.

Interesting Email to Kevin Goad.... Taken from Baliff Hunter Blog!

2011-04-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

Cast you mind back a few short months ago to when The NoToMob and The RMT challenged Westminster over the illegal signs at Golden Sq (The "Goose"). When we all obtained a small victory with WCC admitting the error of their ways and changing the signs to the legal ones as directed by the Traffic Management Order we thought WCC would do the right thing and refund the poor motorists that had been robbed of £120 for a perfectly legal maneuver. How wrong we were! It appears that WCC think that if the motorist paid up, he/she admitted to the contravention (Even though none took place)!!! Confused....? Read on.....................

From: Goad, Kevin
To: Fitsall, Kieran; Large, Peter
Sent: Tue Jan 25 12:03:53 2011
Subject: Re: Lower James Street: Refunds?
That's what we agreed but only for the ahead only offence. Not aware that anything’s changed - did press release get issued?

Peter is doing a note for us on future grounds for refunds. Important that any script that we give vtx reflects the press release - words like exceptional circumstances.

Peter - you ok with this?

K
________________________________________
From: Fitsall, Kieran
To: Goad, Kevin
Sent: Tue Jan 25 11:58:39 2011
Subject: Lower James Street: Refunds?
Kevin - I need a definitive instruction regarding refunds either from yourself or Peter L.
My understanding is that we will refund PCNs paid on application only. If you can confirm I'll then have Vertex instructed.
Thanks
Kieran Fitsall
Group Supplier Relationship Manager (Parking Operations)
Procurement & Supplier Relationship Management

Mason not a Happy Bunny.

2011-03-27T11:06:00.000-07:00

Usual negative anti TfL / Mason stuff today.

Keep up the good work.

Again, as per my previous emails in the highly unlikely event you ever want to know the facts about this type of stuff and share the facts with your readers then please do feel free to ask.

Regards

John

From: Mason John (TPH)
To: 'DE BOIS, Nick' <nick.debois.mp@parliament.uk>

Dear Mr De Bois

Thank you very much for your email regarding your constituent Mr XXXX and the enforcement of the taxi rank at the Grosvenor House Hotel in Park Lane.

This matter was recently raised with us by taxi driver associations and since then TfL has been actively looking at the problem and how it can be addressed. The email from Mr Burnett is part of a wider email campaign by a group of taxi drivers which has been sent to the Mayor, Peter Hendy, TfL officers and many Assembly Members and MPs.

Given that many of the problems that occur in the area coincide with events at the Hotel we have been in contact with them to arrange a meeting with them to discuss the situation and on going issues in the area in terms of transportation issues relating to taxis and private hire vehicles. This meeting has now been arrange for Friday 25^th March. At a minimum we hope to be able to secure a forward plan of all events in order that we can focus enforcement activities in the area if required.

We have flagged this location as a high priority for both our in house Compliance Officers and the Metropolitan Police’s Cab Enforcement team and are due to undertake compliance operations in the vicinity later this week. Like any enforcement of parking restrictions whilst we are unable to provide a permanent presence at the location we hope to visit as often as possible and especially during times when events which could lead to increased demands for road space are taking place.

We have recently undertaken a review of current CCTV enforcement activity taking place at the location and are investigating how compliance with parking regulations, including the taxi rank can be improved through targeted enforcement using the CCTV cameras at the location to issue Penalty Charge Notices. We expect to increase enforcement through CCTV from the evening of Saturday 26^th March.

I would like to assure you and Mr Burnett that TfL does monitor the situation on taxi ranks on it’s roads very carefully and works very closely with Local Authorities with regards to the enforcement of ranks within their boroughs. Whilst I am sure you will understand that it is simply not possible to guarantee every taxi rank will be free of illegal parking during hours of restriction we will always take action where necessary and are in constant dialogue with taxi driver associations with regards to particular hot spots and areas of focus that require our attention. This dialogue includes attendance by Senior TfL Officers at the London Cab Ranks Committee, arranged by the three main taxi driver associations as well as holding a Taxi Touting Problem Solving meeting with the Metropolitan and City Police, Local Authorities and taxi driver associations.

Thank you again for writing.

John Mason
Director - Taxi & Private Hire
4th Floor Yellow
Palestra
197 Blackfriars Road. London. SE1 8NJ

From: DE BOIS, Nick [mailto:nick.debois.mp@parliament.uk]
Sent: 23 March 2011 16:27
To: Mason John (TPH)

Dear Mr Mason,

Enforcement of licensed Taxi ranks

I am writing on behalf of one of my constituents, Mr XXXX, who is most concerned about the lack of enforcement and control over the minicab industry.

Mr XXXX would particularly like to see enforcement action taken against the mini cabs who are ‘ranking’ at The Grosvenor House Hotel taxi rank, Park Lane. In my view he is quite rightly annoyed that the taxi drivers are paying a license fee and are unable to ply their trade from what are dedicated taxi ranks due to the illegal actions of mini cabs.

I should be pleased if you would investigate this matter and let me know what action TfL is taking to address this problem.

Thank you for giving this matter your attention and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Nick

Minicab Driver arrested after exposing himself to passengers

2011-03-23T19:43:00.000-07:00

Minicab driver arrested after indecent exposure in Barnet

A MINICAB driver is set to appear in court next week accused of exposing himself to two teenage female passengers.

One of the passengers in the cab noticed the 30-year-old had exposed himself as he drove them from a party in East Barnet to their home in Hampstead Garden Suburb on Saturday.

She texted her friend in the back to tell her about it, without alerting the driver, and the pair asked him to pull over at a petrol station so they could get money out.

However, both girls decided to get back in the cab to get more details about the driver before they arrived home.

A man was later arrested by police and charged with indecent exposure and is due to appear at Hendon Magistrates Court next Monday, March 28.

Ken Livingston interveiw,

2011-03-17T03:58:00.000-07:00

Ken Livingstone today gave his first in-depth television interview as Labour’s mayoral candidate. It was hugely revealing. It told Londoners what he has learnt from the 2008 campaign, whether he has changed, his record in office, his new policies and his motivation for running again.
Speaking to Tim Donovan on the Politics Show Mr Livingstone:
- refused to accept any responsibility for losing the last election, instead blaming the Labour government.
- refused to learn any lessons from the 2008 election result, apparently telling one million Londoners who voted against him that they punished him for Gordon Brown’s failings and not his own,
- accepted that he played around with fares while in office by freezing them only in an election year,
- gave no new policy ideas,
- revealed he was a deficit denier by saying the cuts had to stop,
- revealed his primary motivation to win the 2012 election was to fight the Tory government.

Or, if you would prefer, in Mr Livingstone’s own words:

On why he lost in 2008:
“I did have the misfortune to be facing an election just as the British economy went into recession – that didn’t help. And internal polling the party did showed that Labour’s figures and mine went off a precipice after the budget when the 10p tax band was wiped out.”

On whether it was just Labour that lost him the 2008 election
“Let’s be honest [the general election] was Labour’s worst election result for 60 years up and down the country.”

On what he has learnt from the 2008 mayoral election:
“I don’t spend my time agonising about the past.”

On whether he has changed
“Is this going to be like the conflict between Ken and Thatcher? It isn’t because I’m not facing Thatcher.”

Again on whether he has changed
“It’s a different world.”

And again on whether he has changed
“Everyone changes all the time.”

On why he would make a good Mayor for London:
“One really good thing, is that I don’t hit the ground and have to spend two years working out how to do the job.”

On his vision for the next four years
“I’m not going to go into a whole load of promises.”

On what he delivered for outer London when he was Mayor
“Everyday of my life I have lived in zone 3 you know, or zone 4.”

On why he played around with fares while in office, freezing them only in an election year
“Because we had reserves.”

On raising council tax by 153% while in office
“If it was wrong why hasn’t the current Mayor cut it.”

On how he will make savings if he gets back in
“Any savings you can find, back office functions, amalgamation of services, senior level, all that stuff you do.”
For the record: When the current Mayor came into office he slashed City Hall’s wage bill by £8million a year compared to the previous administration.
For the record: The wages of Ken Livingstone’s closest advisors almost doubled from £66,000 to £111,000 in his second term. Just before they were voted out of office they changed the rules so they could collect pay-offs totalling £1.6million.

On becoming Mayor again
“If I win it will be a body blow to this government. It is the first chance people will have to say you are cutting too far, cutting too deep. Enough is enough.”

Badge Identifiers....

2011-02-20T05:31:00.000-08:00

Well the question’s had to be asked.

The Suburban drivers are told that there are so many Suburban drivers being caught plying for hire outside of their sector and working in central London, and that this is why the Yellow Badge Identifiers is being brought in .

Can I therefore ask for a breakdown of all PCO/TPH Suburban drivers who have been caught working out of there sectors from December 2008 to December 2010:
1). where caught
2). what Suburban sector were they licensed for?
3). what action has been taken against the said driver’s and what courts did they have to attend?
4). what fines did they receive?
5). are there any driver’s still waiting to appear in court?
6). has any driver become suspended from working via the TPH.

Please see below answers (from TfL) to the questions you recently asked:

A proposal for identifiers for All London(Green Badge) taxi drivers to display in their taxi when working was included in the 2010 taxi fares consultation which was sent to taxi trade representatives for them to consider and comment on. The intention of the identifier is to make it clear which drivers are licensed to ply for hire anywhere in London and which are licensed to ply for hire in the Suburban sectors. The original proposal has been extended so that all licensed taxi drivers, Suburban and All London, will display some form of identifier, which is visible from outside of the taxi, showing the type of licence they hold. This will make it easier to identify and take action against taxi drivers plying for hire in areas they are not licensed for – this includes Suburban taxi drivers plying for hire in other suburban sectors they have not completed the Knowledge for.

At present all licensed taxi drivers must wear their taxi drivers badge when working with Suburban drivers wearing a yellow badge and All London drivers wearing a green badge. However, these badges are not clearly visible from outside of the taxi. All taxi drivers will continue to be able to work in the area they are licensed for and we do not see that there will be any infringement of the human rights of taxi drivers or restrictions on where they can legally work. In fact, the identifier will help law-abiding taxi drivers as it will stop Suburban drivers working in sectors they are not licensed for and have not completed the Knowledge for.

Unfortunately there are problems with taxi drivers working in areas they are not licensed for and in 2009/10 our Compliance Team reported 25 Suburban drivers for plying for hire outside of their area and a further 14 cases where reported to us by the Metropolitan and City of London police forces. So far in 2010/11 there have been 88 cases of Suburban drivers plying for hire outside of their area. Every case where a licensed taxi driver has committed an offence is considered on a case by case basis but in general where a driver is reported for a first offence of plying for hire outside of the area they are licensed for we will issue warning letter to the driver, with consideration given to suspending the driver’s licence if there are further offences.

Specific information regarding PCO/TPH drivers and we are currently retrieving this information - TfL will be able to advise on this shortly.

Tracy Jermy
PA/Caseworker to Tony Arbour JP Assemblyman for
Hounslow, Kingston & Richmond
(S W London)

What Happened to the Grants?

2011-02-09T11:07:00.000-08:00

PCO Notice 21/2003

Emissions strategy for taxis – Vehicle age limit

The Mayor of London is committed to improving air quality in the capital and taxis will be required to contribute to this. During consultation on the draft emissions strategy for taxis, trade representatives have recognised that taxi drivers will be among those who will benefit from an improvement in emissions and accept that taxis should play their part. The PCO is committed to delivering a strategy which achieves the Mayor’s objective whilst minimising any burden on the trade
In developing an exhaust emissions strategy for taxis as part of the Mayor’s wider Air Quality Strategy, the PCO has engaged in consultation with interested parties. In May a draft strategy was circulated for discussion which included a proposal that originated from the trade during consultation, that there should be an age limit on London taxis. At that time the PCO proposed that this should be 12 years, combined with technical measures to clean up older engines.
Consultation with the trade, particularly drivers and owners, has revealed a widespread dislike of this proposal but support for technical solutions for older engines. In the light of this, and because of the acknowledged durability of London taxis, it has been decided that no age limit will be imposed and that taxis of any age will be licensed if they continue to comply with the Conditions of Fitness and pass the PCO licensing inspection. Older vehicles may, however, be required to attend more frequent inspections to ensure that high standards are maintained.
Work continues on developing an emissions strategy for taxis and this will be published as soon as possible. It is likely to consist of a phased programme to achieve a progressive reduction in harmful emissions from the London taxi fleet. It is expected to start with the older, more polluting, pre-Euro vehicles and to then, over time, address Euro 1 and possibly Euro 2 vehicles. (All Metrocabs manufactured after 29 March 2000 and all LTI cabs manufactured after 1 February 2002 meet Euro 3 standards.) Cabs will be required to meet higher emissions standards if they are to continue to be licensed.
Options for meeting the specified emission levels would include fitting emissions reduction equipment, converting to LPG, being re-engined or replacement of the cab with a new, or more recent, vehicle. The Energy Saving Trust is currently identifying suitable technologies, their costs and effectiveness. Individual owners will wish to consider at the time the most appropriate option in their particular circumstances. The PCO is aware that new emission requirements are likely to impose some cost on vehicle owners and discussions are taking place with the Energy Saving Trust and Department for Transport to identify grants that might be available to offset the cost of such work.
The PCO is anxious to remove the present uncertainty surrounding this issue and, as soon as the details are finalised, will issue a notice indicating:

• the overall strategy;

• the specific vehicles affected by the strategy;

• the options available to comply with the strategy;

• the costs involved and grant(s) available; and,

• the timetable for implementation.

7 October 2003
Roy Ellis
Head of the Public Carriage Office

TFL's Consultation Discussed At Industry Meeting.

2011-01-28T19:10:00.000-08:00

More than three hundred operators gathered at Heathrow recently to discuss issues which could potentially change the shape of the Private Hire and Chauffeur industry.

The Licensed Private Hire Car Association held its AGM which heard from officials from Transport for London, Metropolitan Police and the Olympic Delivery Authority, attracted companies from all over the city who made their opinions heard on Transport for London’s review of the industry.

Operators heard from head of the association, Steve Wright who highlighted the main areas of concern within the document which was published in a recent issue of the LPHCA’s magazine.

More than 300 attendees heard the presentations

The purpose of TFL’s consultation was to review various aspects of the existing licensing policy and regulations covering private hire operators, drivers and vehicles. John Mason, TfL’s Director of Taxis & Private Hire answered questions from operators during the meeting and assured members of the LPHCA the re-branded Public Carriage Office was willing to work with the industry to find the best working practices.

Highlighted issues within the consultation included an idea of ensuring every Private Hire Vehicle were the same colour, banning tinted windows in cars, additional ID badges and the introduction of a single vehicle identification plate. The most controversial issue was to introduce a rule which says drivers must not initiate any sexual dialogue or have any sexual
contact in a licensed vehicle.

The meeting, which was sponsored by Mercedes-Benz and Proximo, also heard from Metropolitan Police Chief Superintendent Joe Royle, of the Territorial Policing Safer Transport Command. He spoke about the fight against illegal activity by touts and some operators and the plans of how they will be tackled in the future.

A number of videos are soon to be revealed through the LPHCA’s website which highlight the discussions held at the event.

Background.

In 1998, legislation was passed covering the licensing of private hire operators, drivers and vehicles in London with regulations introduced in 2001 – 2004 following a comprehensive consultation process. All operators were licensed in 2001 when drivers and vehicles were initially covered by temporary permits. Full driver licensing was introduced from 2003 and vehicle licensing from 2004.

Under the 1998 legislation, the responsibility for implementing and carrying out private hire licensing fell to the Public Carriage Office (PCO), the arm of the Metropolitan Police responsible for regulation and licensing of London’s taxis. On the creation of the Greater London Authority and Transport for London (TfL) in 2000 as the Mayor’s integrated transport authority, the PCO transferred into the new body, subsequently becoming part of TfL’s Surface Transport as London Taxi and Private Hire.

There are approximately 1,000 small operators and 2,000 standard operators currently licensed in London by TfL.

Editorial comment:

A level playing field? I think not.

Where is our mass meeting with LT&PH Bosses?

How Green are Boris Bikes FOI request.... By Laura Cox

2011-01-25T07:14:00.000-08:00

INFORMATION ABOUT VEHICLE FLEET:

14 electrically powered Alke vehicles. These are used for the redistribution of bikes and pull the trailers which hold 20 bicycles. These vehicles are exempt from Congestion Charging and produce zero emissions.
Six Ford Mondeo and four Ford Focus diesel cars. These are used for the redistribution of bikes and pull the trailers which hold 20 bicycles. The vehicles are subject to the Congestion Charge and produce the following levels of CO2 emissions: Ford Mondeo - 139 g/km, Ford Focus 1.6 - 114 g/km and Ford Focus 1.8 - 137 g/km.
10 Nissan diesel vans. These are used for engineers and technicians undertaking regular and reactive on-street maintenance work. They are subject to the Congestion Charge. These do not carry bikes except when picked up for repairs. The level of CO2 emissions produced is 137 g/km.

In addition to the permanent element of the fleet, Serco are temporarily using some additional vehicles. These vehicles do not form part of our normal operational fleet, but they have been used recently as we test alternative redistribution arrangements.

Seven Sprinter vans which carry 16 bicycles. These vans are subject to the Congestion Charge and emit CO2 levels of 222 g/km.
Three 7.5 tonne Iveco and DAF trucks which carry up to 50 bikes each and are subject to the Congestion Charge and emit approximately 263g/km CO2, subject to load.

The number of vehicles used varies in accordance with the usage of the scheme.

Eight to ten vehicles are despatched in the morning through to late evening in the centre of London.

Three to four Ford Focuses and/or Mondeos are despatched to the outer areas of Zone 1 in the morning and overnight.

Five to six Sprinter vans are primarily used to cover any shortfalls in the Alke vehicles or Ford vehicles.

The trucks are used primarily for the mass distribution of bikes at hub sites. They are also used in the event of tube strikes when demand is high.

Lets not forget that the cost to the tax payer of each bike equates to approx£16,400 each, after Barclay's subsidy is removed.

Value for Money or just blinded by green issues?

Age Limits, Come in Your Time is Up...By mike Robinson

2011-01-15T09:34:00.000-08:00

This extract is part of a letter from John Mason Re; License Taxis in London.

There are currently 22,493 licensed Taxis (Black Cabs) at 31 December 2010.
This list shows taxis who will be over the 15 year age limit in 2012 and date of manufacture,

Age.....YEAR...No taxis;
22........1988.....5
21........1989.....19
20........1990.....43
19........1991.....40
18........1992.....179
17........1993.....208
16........1994.....379
15........1995.....669
14........1996.....951
13........1997.....1099
.......................3592 this is the number of taxis that will be off the road by the end of 2012.
12........1998....1674 off by 2913
11........1999....1724 off by 2014
10........2000....1636 off by 2015
09........2001....1155 off by 2016
08........2002....1323 off by 2017
07........2003....1212 off by 2018
06........2004....1200 off by 2019
05........2005....1492 off by 2020
04........2006....1602 off by 2021
03........2007....2129 off by 2022
02........2008....1327 off by 2023
01........2009....1431 off by 2024
00........2010......996 off by 2025
........................Another 18,901 taxis removed from service by 2025.

If the trade does not take action now then they will deserve everything that the authorities throw at them.
3,592 cabs off the road by the end of 2012, think about it, small proprietors, say ten cabs or less out of business over night

Older drivers, say over 65, who only work a few days a week to supplement their income, will either have to rent or not work. We all saw what happened with the TX4 fires, there was a shortage of cabs on the road, proprietors upped the rents.

Then you have new younger drivers who can not afford to buy will be at the mercy of the proprietors.
I am not in the business of supporting LTI or Mercedes but you have been warned. To hell with the EU and its unelected commissaries. By putting an age limit on cabs and stopping drivers working must be against their human rights.

PS, We have to start demonstrating now the clock is ticking.
Action needs to start now, there is only 250 days left to 32012.
Livingstone (anagram, Live Stoning) sold us done the river when he reclassified taxis as commercial vehicles. it was him that suggested that the life of a taxi should be 10 years. Suddenly Boris says that it should be 15 and everyone, the other two organisations, breath a sigh of relief.
But of course they haven't worked out how it will affect the cab trade.
Remember 15 years to day, 10 years tomorrow. A well know Taxi proprietor has stated that this will take us back to the 60's working practise of drivers paying a percentage of the meter. I remember paying 62%of the meter. The proprietor had us by the short and curlies in those days when the life of a Taxi was 10 years.
Just remember Livingston might get back in as Mayor, then the Cab trade will be finished.
We will then be faced with Private Hire (Minicabs) plying for hire because there will not be enough taxis to meet the demand.

Don't say that you haven't been warned.
M Robinson Badge no xxx.