STOP PRESS
National Limousine and Chauffeur Association PRESS RELEASE - 3rd March 2010
I have been informed yesterday that, as a result of a meeting of the Traffic Commissioners earlier this week, that they have decided that “after clarification from the DfT” they will no longer issue PSV licences for the operation of small vehicles.
The result is that many operators, who have spent time, money and effort in attempting to become licensed, are now being left out in the cold, unable to gain either PSV or PHV status. This on its own is disas- trous, but what makes it even more damning is the statement that.
The Traffic Commissioners will be readdressing those already licensed, and quote “with a period of grace, may have their PSV operators status rescinded”. The poorest form of law is retrospective legislation, and this would rank as abysmal. I have not as yet received the courtesy of any formal contact from the Traffic Commissioners regarding their statement of intent, despite their own mission statement that “we are committed to being a good partner”.
As both a stakeholder and the legislation officer for the National Trade Association for limousines, I have not been involved with any of the con- siderations or decision making process.
After years of working with VOSA, the Traffic Commissioners and the DfT operators, and in particular, the NLCA feels that the Traffic Commission- ers have abdicated their responsibilities on the lines that it is easier to refuse than to sort it out. After a joint stance between VOSA and the NLCA to promote the licensing of limousines, and the past support of the Traffic Commissioners, I am extremely disappointed to find that, presumably at the behest of the lead Traffic Commissioner on limousines Mr Nick Jones, that the whole panel of Traffic Commissioners have withdrawn their sup- port.
Only a year ago I listened to Mr Jones congratulate an operator of eight passenger limousines on gaining his license and welcoming him to the fold of legal operators. The NLCA does not accept the Traffic Commis- sioners statements, and intends to challenge the decision at every license application. What was the point in creating “small vehicle rules” “limousine and novelty vehicle rules” and to keep accepting applica- tions and payments just to do a complete about face on policy?
Even now the initial press statement just released on the matter is unclear; it does not say if all small vehicles are included in this ruling, or whether or not it is purely limousines. Questions about the great num- ber of operators who have built businesses based on the previous grant of PSV operators licenses remain, what can they do when their licenses are due for renewal?
I feel that the whole of the limousine and chauffeur industry has been seriously let down by the DfT and the Traffic Commissioners, promises made in the past by the senior Traffic Commissioner Mr Philip Brown to work with the industry turn out to be hollow. Years of striving to achieve a good working relationship with the Traffic Commissioners appears wasted.
The DfT has compounded the problem by lack of clear and definite guid- ance, wishy washy statements to local licensing authorities, coupled with the vagaries of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act (1976) means that we still have over one hundred of the four hundred and four local licensing authorities who do not license limousines, and around another hundred who pay lip service to licensing limousines. For a local authority to state that they will license limousines and then add “but no left hand drive vehicles” “no side facing seats” “no non type approved vehicles” and so on is a smoke screen to state that they com- ply when they never had any intent to do so.
I currently have around thirty pages of restriction from different local licensing authorities, including the most ridiculous one, which emanat- ed from the DfT, stating that “No American stretched limousine shall look like, or purport to be a London style black cab”. With statements of this ilk how can operators view either the DfT or the local licensing authori- ties with any serious form of respect?
The local authority licensing rules are inadequate in its maintenance regime. With a maximum of one MOT test and two further inspections per annum, this means that limousines may go from seventeen to fifty two weeks between inspections, again another case of tick all the boxes even if the wheels fall off the wagon. The NLCA has always maintained that the maximum time interval between inspections should be ten weeks, and under the PSV route this has become the accepted norm. This should be addressed by the DfT as a serious omission when con- sidering licensing.
continued on page 12
Fleet cover from Swinton Taxi Division
We go the extra mile to get you cheaper insurance
Mick, Lyndy and Paul head up our dedicated fleet team, and they can get you a great price on your fleet cover… but they don’t stop there. They’ve got over 50 years experience of working with taxi fleets between them and they know what they’re talking about. Don’t arrange your fleet cover until you’ve spoken to them.
The Swinton Fleet Team can arrange: • Public liability cover
• A great quote by searching a panel of insurers
• Flexible payments • Tailored cover
Yasser Mansha, Albatross Cars, Derby “ Being with Swinton
Taxi Division has allowed us to cut our costs and invest this money back into our business. We’ve saved thousands!
For fleet queries only call today on or go online to
www.swintontaxi.co.uk For single vehicle queries call 0800 409 6498
APRIL 2010 PHTM 0800 531 6125
Swinton Taxi Division is a division of Swinton Group Limited, registered in England number 756681, which is connected for the purposes of the Insurance Companies Regulations 1994 to MMA Insurance plc and Gateway Insurance Company Limited. Registered office: Swinton House, 6 Great Marlborough Street, Manchester M1 5SW. Calls may be recorded. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
PAGE 11
“
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
