search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
PROTEST PLIGHT


SHEFFIELD TAXI DRIVERS THREATEN STRIKE OVER RAILWAY STATION CHAOS


Sheffield taxi drivers have announced plans not to renew their £700 annual permits in protest against the chaotic traffic conditions at the city’s station. The strike, which could cost East Midlands Railway up to £200,000, is set to commence unless the operator addresses longstanding issues at the pick-up point. The Sheffield Taxi Trade Asso- ciation (STTA) claims that members are subjected to hours of gridlock at busy times and PH drivers blocking access to the taxi rank. This, they say, leads to delays for passengers, missed trains and increased air pollution. Nouman Khan, of STTA, said access


to the rank was regularly blocked by PH drivers and motorists, leading to con-frontations and verbal abuse. And years of complaints had been met with “empty promises” of action from EMR.


He added: “It’s time for EMR to step up and take responsibility for the situation at the station. We will continue to serve our passengers while advocating for changes.” EMR has defended its position, stating that as long as private hire drivers do not encroach on the protected taxi rank, they are not breaking the law. The company also highlighted its ongoing efforts to improve dis-


abled access and reduce emissions. A spokesperson said: “We are in regular dialogue with the drivers who use the taxi rank, and we are aware of the congestion issues. “Our goal is to alleviate the existing congestion and enhance access for all station users, we continue to work with our local partners for solutions to these issues.” However, the taxi drivers remain dissatisfied with the current situation, accusing EMR of ignoring their complaints and failing to take adequate action. Nouman Khan emphasised the need for immediate improve- ments to ensure fair treatment for all drivers operating in the area.


CHESTERFIELD TAXI DRIVERS PROTEST AGAINST WOLVERHAMPTON COMPETITION


Chesterfield drivers staged a protest outside the town hall on October 8, over concerns about the impact of Wolverhampton licensed PHVs on their livelihoods. Many drivers expressed frustration with regulations which allow drivers licensed outside the area to operate within Chesterfield. They argue that this unfair competition is losing them money putting and their jobs at risk. Asim Javed, from Chesterfield, who has been a hackney driver in the town for over four years, said: “It’s a very big issue, especially at weekends. Wolverhampton drivers park on our ranks, blocking spaces so we can’t pick up customers. “There is much more waiting time between the jobs and my income


PHTM NOVEMBER 2024


has been much lower. Local trade reps met with Chester- field BC to discuss the issue. A council spokesperson said: “We welcomed local taxi driver representatives to discuss their concerns around national rules which mean drivers who are licensed outside of the area can operate within the borough. “We understand their frustrations and are committed to continuing to work together – however, the powers of councils in this area are limited as the current legislation and policy is set at a national level by the Government.” A City of Wolverhampton Council spokesperson said: “The council currently licenses eight drivers who are resident in Chesterfield.


The council has never encouraged applications from drivers outside Wolverhampton, but legislation says that if an application is sub- mitted and requirements are met, the application must be granted. Applicants have always been able to apply to any licensing authority for taxi licences and the council cannot refuse an applicant simply because they live in a different area.


“It is illegal for licensing authorities to impose a limit on the number of private hire licences it issues. They are also prohibited from inter- fering in the market and cannot legally take competitive pressure between local businesses into consideration when granting applications.”


45


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