CODE 77
Re the letter from T.Goldsmith (R74): I wonder if the reason that he and all other drivers on Code 77, when and if they manage to get a job in their homebound direction (after doing the minimum amount of both hours and credit jobs as laid down by the BoM), are getting these jobs so late is because of the length of time that all jobs are being held on EC5. I have been told that all jobs stay in EC5 for 4 minutes and are then dispatched to the primary zones, if this is the case then why are these drivers receiving their jobs so late? Is it because these jobs are being forcibly held up on EC5 by the control room staff on the instructions of the BoM? If so why? And is this situation arising from the fact that drivers who work EC5 regularly are complaining about the number of cabs that are holding point in the primary zones thus stopping these drivers get a fair chance of getting a good job? If this is the case, perhaps the number of rejects could be cut down to one (i.e. reject the first offer, accept the second offer or get signed off).
   Perhaps someone from the BoM can answer the above question without the need for sarcasm, as this is a genuine query?
John O'Brien (M44)
I believe a complete review of the EC5 situation has now taken place and details were hopefully included in this issue...Ed

AND CODE 77
Several years ago I wrote to Call Sign requesting a 'going home' facility explaining that Com
Cab had one and that Radio Taxis London had one and that as Dial-a-Cab was the number one circuit, why could we not have the facility as well. While I received an answer of sorts, it never really explained why we never had one. Since then there have been several letters appertaining to this request plus, I believe, the vote at the AGM. I live in South London and would be prepared to cover most work between SE26 and SW17 - Sydenham to Tooting and anything in between. Several fellow subscribers that I know who live in the north and north east of London are also prepared to cover work from City Airport to Golders Green and anything in between once they decide to go home. However, one can't but think that the management against their wishes brought in Code 77 by very fact that you are now allowed just one refusal before getting knocked off the system.
   We have Allen Togwell requesting that members do one extra radio job before going home. We have Tom Whitbread saying the same. We now have messages on Data warning that we could lose accounts if we do not cover the evening work. We would love to help if only the system would allow us to do so. It appears that the BoM think we are all hanging up for a 'roader' (what's that?).
   Can it really be that difficult? The management wants work covered; we want to cover work. However, when I wanna go home, I don't want to go east that takes me anywhere but south.
While I take this opportunity to congratulate the management on the current success of this Society, can I remind of a certain person who lives at Number 10 and who was recently slow handclapped by the Women's Institute.
John Herbert (E71)

AND CODE 77
David Marks (R22) asked for the views of other drivers re the new use of Code 3 (May Call Sign). His suggestion was rejected out of hand as it was voted in at the AGM. However on 19/6/2000, the BoM reduced the number of rejects to 1. Is this not a change? Was this the way code 3 was voted for at the AGM? I don't think so. The new code 3 is a waste of time unless you go home at 21:30 and shows signs that customers are suffering delays as work is not being covered. The old code 3 was only slightly better. The system needs to be looked at again. I live in E50N along with many other drivers. I am not necessarily looking for a job to my home zone, but am reluctant to take a City or Canary Wharf job in case it goes to Sutton. Perhaps the BoM could revisit David Marks question as they have revisited and tweaked code 3.
Alan Nash (A95)

AND CODE 77...
I live in the E99 zone, which covers a vast section. Living in Harlow which I class as north/north-east, not east, I still keep being offered jobs to Romford, Hornchurch, etc and although these jobs pay well, I still cannot see how that can be classed as a job home if I live in Harlow. Next to Harlow are places like Broxbourne, Hoddesdon, etc which comes under N99. These jobs are more suited to a person living in Harlow,
   I wondered if by any chance the BoM could split the 99 zones into two so the people living on the borders of two zones like myself could have more of a chance of a job home in the correct direction. All I am asking is for is a job going in the correct direction, but I feel that living further out than most, I am also at a disadvantage. E50S is not home for me, so why do I get offered them? Anything east of the Redbridge roundabout is not worth accepting for me. But I am sure that more jobs will be covered if people like myself could be offered jobs in other back up zones. Why can't I be offered jobs to N50 or N99 instead of E50S and E99. Or why not have another vote at next years AGM as I am sure many people like myself who voted in favour of Code 77 will vote against it knowing that after a year it just does not work?
Steve Brown (D67)
Call Centre Manager Keith Cain replies: Steve and I have already spoken on this. The only solution to help Steve would be to split the 99 zones. However, if we do this, the driver living close to the borders of the new divide will be in the same position as Steve. The more we split the outside zones, the more drivers it affects. Where would we draw the line?

LIMOUSINES AND CARS
In a previous issue of Call Sign, an article on Limousines/cars by Tom Whitbread was, in a later issue, stated by the Chairman as being Tom's personal view. In the May edition of Call Sign, Mike Son in his Special Projects report also refers to Limousines/cars and gives as an example, a Mercedes S Class and Volvos. Once again, I presume, his own views. Therefore, could the Chairman give his views on the following:-
1. As all limousines are cars and not all cars are limousines, which type of car would be considered to be a limousine?
2. Cars on the circuit driven by Licensed Hackney Carriage Drivers....
   Advantage: Secure all transport needs of one account i.e. Morgan Stanley.
  Disadvantage: Drain on the Society's finance, less jobs going in cabs.
3. Cars on the circuit driven by other than Licensed Hackney Drivers.
   Advantage: Profit for DaC.
   Disadvantage: Loss of members.
   From a sometimes confused Black 95...
M Calvey (B95)
Brian Rice replies: Dear Mr Calvey, nothing like putting me on the spot! I believe a Limousine is a car that has a glass partition between driver and passenger. However, for our purpose, I believe an 'E' class Mercedes is a car and an 'S' class Mercedes is a Limousine. I believe that there should not be a vehicle on DaC that is driven by anyone
other than a member of the Society, which also probably answers your third point as well. Mr Calvey, although you have asked me three questions, I get the feeling that you would like my views on the subject. In a truly commercial organisation, it would make sense to add upmarket cars to the fleet, but DaC is not a truly commercial organisation. It is here to supply radio taxi work to members only - people must not forget that. Certainly there is a call from some of our account clients to supply cars and if we did, it would help to secure our account base. But in my view, even if we did contemplate supplying cars, they should only be driven by licensed drivers.
   I do not envisage supplying cars in the near future, I believe it will go along these lines; one of our competitors will start to supply cars, DaC will have no alternative but to do the same, probably sub contracting the work out to a car company (is that worse, giving it to unlicensed drivers)? Our members will then decide whether they wish to retain this car work for the Society or continue to sub contract. I believe it makes good commercial sense for DaC to supply cars, but political suicide.

PARKING TICKETS APPEALS - THE LAMBETH COUNCIL METHOD
I have not yet received another reply from the Fraud Squad, but suspect that this will be an ongoing investigation and do not expect to hear from them again for some time, but of course Call Sign will be the first to know as soon they contact me.
   You may recall that my appeal to the Parking Appeals Service was successful in respect of a PCN from Lambeth Council. This PCN was supposedly issued on 15.03.99 and although the adjudicator directed Lambeth to cancel the order, I never did receive confirmation of this. They obviously never give up because this morning I received a demand from Lambeth Council stating that I now owe them £90 because I did not pay the fixed penalty! Naturally I have kept copies of the outcome of the appeal and have sent copies to them, but it would appear that the council are just as dubious as their wardens when it comes to pulling in the cash...
Roy Martin (R42)
All correspondence passed by drivers to Call Sign in respect of incorrectly issued parking tickets have been passed on to Roy...Ed

ANOTHER PARKING TICKET "SCAM" SUCCESS
Last winter during road works on the Hanover Square shelter rank, drivers were granted a temporary mealtime rank on the east side of Harewood Place. This was done legally and above board with notices posted on lampposts, yet this did not prevent a traffic warden for issuing NON-tickets on another cab and mine ie taking our numbers and issuing tickets but not placing them on our cabs! In fact we saw nothing until hit with the 'big one' - to which we replied that our vehicles were left on an authorised temporary mealtime rank. I have enclosed a photocopy of a letter received from Westminster Council almost five months after the alleged offence.
   I feel that it highlights their cavalier attitude with no hint of an apology. They did not admit that the issue of these tickets was their mistake, due to the gross negligence of the traffic warden because he/she failed to check that the cabs were standing on an authorised temporary mealtime rank. I wonder if the NON-issue of parking tickets is official Westminster City policy designed to boost their income. If this is not the case, are traffic wardens who habitually indulge in this practise, disciplined in any way? I feel that an official statement should be forthcoming from Westminster Council.
Bill French (E41)
The response from Westminster Council's Planning and Transportation Dept claimed that the PCN 

AND ONE THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT
I have just paid a penalty of £80 to Southwark Parking Services for allegedly failing to pay a previous PCN of £40. Needless to say I never had a ticket attached to my cab. After seven months of wrangling, the adjudicator's decision was in favour of the traffic warden. This is the second time that it has happened to me although the first time was in a different borough (Lambeth). I feel that we, as cab drivers, are a very easy touch to any warden who wishes to boost his bonus. Both these incidents happened while I had stopped for a few minutes on a clearway (Lower Road SE16 and Kennington Road SE1). On neither occasion did anybody come near to my vehicle and yet, several weeks later, I received notices in the post to pay the full penalty of £80. What is going to happen if we cannot stop this? We are very vulnerable as taxi drivers and I think these wardens know that. We are obviously going to have to pay up in the end. My advice is this: If you see a warden near your cab and it is illegally parked, you should politely ask him if he has issued a ticket. He must surely then say yes or no? If you just drive off, the next thing you may hear is that you have a £40 PCN doubled into £80 because you never paid it! Are the wardens paid a bonus on the number of tickets issued or on the amount of money they can generate? If it is the latter then I can well understand why they don't mind if you drive off without your ticket!
   My adjudicator was unmoved when I asked what sense it made to ignore a £40 ticket when it was 100% certain that an £89 ticket would follow on it's heels. It is really your word against the wardens. I hope that Roy Martin (R42) and others can crack this cheap little scam or we will all be a lot poorer.
Chris Hanrahan (B47)

OUT OF THE CUPBOARD
Congratulations on knocking out another couple of great reads since we last spoke. It was terrific to see my work in print, it made my old mum proud and it left me grinning from ear to ear for a good few days, thanks. I would also like to know who gave you permission to take a month off and what were we supposed to read in the meantime - Whips & Rubber monthly? You really are quite thoughtless. I notice from reading the June Call Sign, that your job will be a little harder in the future with the loss of Nuala's column - a column I have always enjoyed. Please wish her good luck with the knowledge for me, we will all miss her...
   Finally, I think that I may have a solution to David Brett's (P93) logo problem. I wondered if it would be possible to glue a magnetic logo to the inside of the doorskin? If the magnetic logos are strong enough, the outer logo would hold against the inner fixed logo with the doorskin sandwiched between the two. I don't know how strong the magnetic logo's are, or how thick the doorskin is but it's an idea. Another idea would be to use Blu-tak around the outer edge of the logo and simply stick the logo to the door; it's surprising just how strong that stuff is. My last solution is a little more drastic, but I guarantee that this will work. All you have to do is buy a proper metal taxi like the rest of us and with what you will save in subscriptions, you will pay the cab off in approx one hundred and twenty years and get a FREE CAB! It's as easy as that.
Bill Kibble (K86)
Bill has decided to leave the safety of the cupboard and own up to being Ivor Screwloose (Loony 1). You can read his poem in the May Call Sign under Taxi Rage - The Day I gave up Smoking...Ed

INFORMATION PLEASE
Since you took over as Editor of Call Sign, there has been a great improvement in the quality and quantity of information in the magazine. Can you continue this trend and devote two or three lines in each issue to let members know how many new style terminals have been fitted each month and how many remain to be fitted. This is the topic that is of most interest to many drivers and should be given some regular space.
Laurence Kelvin (W88)
Brian Rice replies: Dear Laurence, we have started fitting the new terminals and we anticipate fitting 100 per month. I do not envisage doing a monthly 'list'. If a member is interested then all he/she has to do is call in at the office or telephone and we will gladly inform them. Why would I want to print a monthly list for the competition?

AND MORE...
Any idea when the new terminals will be available? I was at the office last week but could not get hold of anyone to ask. I heard that they would take up to 2 years to fit the fleet, which seems quite stupid. I would like to know if we have the money to pay for them outright, how much they cost and who gets fitted first.
   Back to the mag. I always look forward to it and wonder why we have to miss one month out. Is it your holiday time or is it still money restraints? Anyway all the best....
Terry Wright (P39)
Brian Rice responds: Dear Terry, I'm sorry that you think that we are stupid because we are trying to ease the burden of re equipping the fleet by spreading it over an eighteen-month period. I will not bore everyone by explaining why this is best business practice, because I have explained it many times before in this magazine. Do we have the money to pay for them outright? No we don't, and neither will I be asking members for an equipment bond or indeed be increasing their subs to pay for the new equipment. However, if you would like the fleet re-equipped overnight, then I could introduce both the foregoing. How much do they cost? Approx £2,200 per mobile (terminal, printer, GPS, and all touch screen fitted). How will we fit? Any new driver to the circuit will
receive old equipment, any existing driver that changes his cab providing that he is 

Call Sign Home Page

Page 32

Powered by NetXPosure