| Mailshot is your chance to
tell the subscribers of Dial-a-Cab exactly what you think. Complaints, compliments or just
to write about Call Sign. This is YOUR paper within your magazine....
You can also email your letters to: callsignmag@aol.com
One Number For TaxisI
am absolutely astonished that Brian Rice is in favour of this suicidal
booking charge and I had to write expressing my anger. I have enough
trouble explaining to customers about the £3.80 run-in without having to
now ask them for a further £2. If Transport for London thinks this is a
good initiative to market a single telephone number for all licensed
taxis, then let them fund it themselves. £5.80 before people even step
into the cab is an extortionate charge! In addition, you now want to
increase the merchant credit charge from 10% to an amazing 12.5%.
Considering most merchant services charge between 2% and 5% maximum,
please explain how this new figure is reached. Considering that we
have just had an increase in our subscriptions per month, surely that
should cover any extra expenditure incurred by the Society? Then there is
also the driver’s rollerbond, which is an interest-free loan to the
Society. Isn't Dial-a-Cab earning enough out of its drivers? To add
insult to injury I am now asked to collect monies for a scheme of which I
object to vehemently.
We should be encouraging the next generation of customers to get
into a licensed taxi; with this sort of marketing you are driving them
into the unlicensed cars.
Gary Heath (W42)
Brian Rice replies:
Sorry Gary, but I do not think that this is a suicidal charge. We
are not currently offering the public a cash service, well, certainly
nothing to write home about. As ALL the radio circuits in London will make
the identical charge on both cash and credit cards, I hope the £2
will soon be accepted as the norm when ordering a radio taxi, after all,
the public accept the 'clock drop' when they enter a taxi as every vehicle
in London has the identical charge. Regarding the merchant fee that
is charged by retailers, yes I will agree that it is generally less than
ours, however, they do not have their prices fixed by TfL.
Consequently, they can build the merchant fee into the price that they
charge -we can't do that. In addition, when a customer opens an account
with DaC, our service charges are 15% and £2, so why would they open an
account with us - or indeed any of the radio circuits - if it were so much
cheaper to order a taxi on a credit card? Finally, it is also a first that
all London’s radio circuits are working together and charging identical
prices. Consequently, I feel that you should not be so hasty in your
condemnation of this project; after all, lets just 'suck it and see'…
And More…
I write to ask about the proposal to charge non-credit account customers a
£2 booking fee. Although in theory it has been legal for some time to charge
this on all cash trips offered through the system, I for one have never
charged the fee and am very reluctant to start now. The reason is that I
think it would dry up non-credit work to the detriment of all, but
particularly those drivers who live or prefer to work to the west of London
where there is a marked shortage of credit accounts - possibly because the
sales team rarely get beyond Kensington?
Will there still be cash jobs offered through DaC or will all cash
jobs be under the 'one number for taxis' scheme? And if there are to be two
sorts of cash trips, can they be flagged, so that drivers like me with an
admittedly old fashioned outlook, will be able to reject some cash trips
while accepting others? I hope-that a-two-tier system is possible, otherwise
for reasons of principle, I will be very reluctant to accept any cash work.
Apart from principle, I foresee many problems arising from the type of
passengers that I often encounter at night, refusing to pay the surcharge
thus leaving the driver exposed either to owing DaC £1.50 or having the
customer get out of the cab before the hiring starts. I foresee prolonged
back channel dialogue in such cases…
Jon Tremlett (Y32)
Brian Rice replies:
I know that charging the customer £2 will not be popular with
members; however, I believe that members do not have any problem with
charging –the problem they have is with collecting. If there were some way
for DaC to charge the cash customer and collect the £2, then I don't believe
there would be any problem whatsoever. Regarding work in the west, I’m sure
you know the reasons Jon; most work is situated in the City and on the
Island and when we do get accounts in the west, we then have trouble
covering them and lose them. I’m sure you remember Reckitt and Coleman,
United Distillers, Collins
Publishing to name but a few - they all complained of bad service.
Regarding two types of cash bookings, all circuits will retain
their own bespoke cash booking line, but they will also attract the £2
booking fee. All customers will be played our terms and conditions on ALL
cash lines, so they will then have a choice as to whether they order a Taxi
or not, and who knows Jon we might actually give members
of the public a service, which we do not do now and they might be prepared
to pay for it! Finally, to my knowledge and probably yours also, this is the
first time that I have known every radio circuit in London to work together
and charge the same price; that in itself was a tremendous achievement and
into the bargain, we have beaten Private Hire to the punch by launching our
'One Number' before they launch theirs. I just hope it works for us. Finally
Jon, yes I do accept the fact that there will be 'blow outs' etc that is why
we have decided to collect £1.50 from our members and not £2, as we feel the
50p's will more than compensate for any loss incurred.
And More…
I think having a one number system for all London radio taxis is a great
idea. I have a few questions I would like to know the answers to;-
a) How long is a job kept on our circuit (or any
other) before it is scrubbed or passed on to
another circuit?
b) If a driver arrives with |
£3.60 on the meter but does not make contact with
the passenger, would he be expected to pay DaC £1.50?
c) How could you stop a driver who arrives at the pick-up, tells the
office that he can't make contact, but has in fact got the passenger on
board thus keeping the £2 booking fee? Naturally, I don't think drivers on
our circuit would think of such a cunning plan...!
Dennis Heavin (A01)
Brian Rice replies: One point I would like to make before answering your
question Dennis, is that nothing is written in stone and all things,
providing we all agree, can change. But as I am sure you will agree, there
must be a starting point. We anticipate holding a trip for 4 minutes or
five rejects before it becomes a problem trip, it will then be left to the
System Supervisor to decide what will happen to that trip - either scrub
or pass it on.
Regarding your second point, if a driver cannot make contact then
DaC will not charge him. Finally, I understand your last point and yes, a
driver could say that he cannot make contact and keep the £2, at least for
that period of time until he/she is discovered. One of the reasons that we
thought it might be a good idea to collect £1.50 from the driver instead
of £2 is that it might compensate for the occasions where he 'blew out'
and we thought it better to do that than pay a scrub for the very reason
that you have outlined. Unfortunately Dennis, when we bring in
something new we have to cater for the lowest denominator - which is quite
sad as the overwhelming proportion of our members are fine.
And More…!
I was expecting the worst when told that I would have to collect an
extra £2 on each cash ride. Well, I’ve done quite a few since Feb 1 and
have yet to receive a complaint. In addition, the rides were all good
ones, so no complaints from me!
David Heath (W27)
Ted Andrews
I think something has gone wrong with your mailing list as this morning I
received a February 2004 copy of Call Sign sent to my Husband Edward (Ted)
Andrews. I don’t know if you remember, but he in fact died in March 2002
and you wrote an article about him in Call Sign. I am sure this has been
an oversight with your system and although it was nice to hear about you
all again, I think you should remove his name from your list.
Wishing you all at Dial-a-Cab a Happy New Year.
Mavis Andrews.
Hornchurch, Essex
Our apologies Mavis, but no one here can quite understand how it
happened as Ted Andrews (Y87) name was taken off our mailing list in 2002.
Ted’s son-in-law Bob Dillon – who used to share a cab with Ted - is the
current Y87. If it occurs again, please let me know …Ed
Mailing List
Did you have a problem with your mailing list for the February issue of
Call Sign as I received four copies! An interesting magazine, but one copy
will suffice thanks!
David Ammar (L75)
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry! …Ed
And More Sovereign…
I for one am quite relieved that the Sovereign issue has now passed. I
appreciate the views of drivers who think it was a good idea, but I was
always against it for two reasons:
Firstly, I have come across to DaC from Woodfield Road and I found
that Computer Cab changed a lot when it was sold. It seemed that most of
the decisions were made without the drivers in mind.
Secondly, what right did we have to sell DaC? Surely there were
times when the idea was raised previously? I am sure that the gentlemen
who started the business 50 years ago would not have thought much of us
lining our pockets after many years of hard work by previous contributors.
Also, I hope that most drivers would agree that it would not have entered
into the spirit of why the company was created in the first place…
Richard Potter (T51)
Call Sign gives you the freedom to express either satisfaction or the
opposite and I assume from your letter that you enjoy being on DaC as
against any previous radio organisations. However, you haven’t been here
for that long so can I give you a few answers that have been given to
others who made similar points?
First, there is a huge difference between ComCab having little
alternative but to agree to be taken over and an outside company being so
impressed that they wanted to buy us. Whether
things would have changed, we’ll never really know, but the chances are
that they probably wouldn’t have in any noticeable form, as Brian Rice
would still have been the Chairman – possibly under a different title –
and several Board members would also have stayed the same. Sovereign also
agreed that the Company would have been run pretty much as before.
What right did we have to sell? Well, in January 1998, our
Founder-Chairman Bonnie Martyn told this magazine: "I
always considered that we had made a mistake running ODRTS as a Friendly
Society. Looking around at the time, I strongly believed that we should
have become a Limited Company and while I am immensely proud of what we
achieved, I will always believe that we missed out by not converting. We
were always so busy doing other things that the opportunity to investigate
the situation just never materialised."
He also said on several occasions how honoured he and his original
Committee would have felt to know that someone thought that much of the
company they founded that they’d want to buy it. Everything else was
down to the individual choice of DaC subscribers.
Thanks for the letter Richard. Hope to hear from you again …Ed
DaC AGM
Another sad day at the AGM. How disheartening to see that only a handful
of members can be bothered to sacrifice a few hours a year in order to
contribute to the democratic processes of London’s premier circuit.
That’s democracy, I suppose. Or is it? I can’t
help feeling that this sorry situation is the direct result of
the shameful way that the Board instigated the
postal ballot. The |
Chairman said at the time that a
significant number of members had expressed a wish for the introduction of a
postal ballot, which begs the question as to why just two of that
significant number could not put forward a proposition at an AGM? It is my
sincerely held belief that the democracy of this Society was dealt a severe
blow over the manner in which the postal ballot was introduced. Only time
will tell whether it was a fatal blow. The nuts and bolts of this Society is
its democracy and the Editor and Chairman are always quick to point out the
undemocratic failings of our competitors. How can we claim to be democratic
when we now have a system where we assist Private Hire competitors in
keeping their clients happy? It is ridiculous that we are caught between
having a complaint to answer if we refuse to do a job, or giving tacit
approval to something that genuinely troubles a lot of members. At least by
giving this work an attribute, some semblance of democracy will be served.
The Chairman has already hinted that if there were to be an attribute, a ‘J’
would be applied. This would be seen to be, as it surely would be, churlish
and vindictive. I would like to finish with a quote. "It is to be remarked
that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all the
injuries which it is necessary to inflict and to do them all at one stroke
so as not to repeat them daily." I sincerely believe that injuries have been
inflicted on the democracy. Macchiavelli would have been proud. Indeed, he
might have even learnt something!
John Rubini (F55)
Brian Rice replies:
You are perfectly entitled to your view John, however I know you
will agree with me when I say that your view is in the minority. It must be
that way as at the AGM only 83 were entitled to vote out of the 105 members
that were present from a total membership of 1850 fully paid up
shareholders. To state that the way the postal ballot was instigated by the
Board was "shameful" is totally incorrect. The members voted to bring in
postal voting and for you to suggest that the view of the minority should be
inflicted on the majority is a very, very dangerous situation. I happen to
believe that this is an extremely democratic organisation and to suggest
anything else would be wrong. Every member is entitled to vote and with
postal voting they can, what you want is to remove the democratic right to
vote from everyone and award it to the minority - extremely dangerous. It
also appears to me John, that some people are all for democracy provided
everyone agrees with their point of view. Regarding your quote from The
Prince, the next line states "…and thus by not unsettling men he will be
able to reassure them." It's the way you tell ‘em, John…
Expensive Wee!
I was in the latter stages of recovery after contributing £50 to the coffers
of Westminster Council for my 2-minute stop on a yellow line, so this time
in order to avoid any chance of going into remission, I attempted to pay 60p
into a Westminster ‘pay and display’ machine. The machine swallowed the
money, but would not issue a ticket. I rang the council using the number
given on the machine, hoping they would tell me that it would be ok to leave
the cab where it was with a note on the windscreen explaining the
circumstances. But this is Westminster Council and I was told that if I left
it there, I would probably get a ticket. Having toured around to find
another stop – and paying another 60p – I decided to ring the number again
and claim my money back from this zero-tolerant council.
After spending some time button-pushing, listening to irrelevant
messages followed by 5-minutes of music, I was then cut off. I finally got
through to an operator on the second attempt and explained the
circumstances; he then offered to refund my 60p. I told him that this was
not good enough as the cost of just my phone call was in excess of 60p.
His response to this was that "…no one forced you to make the call." So I
asked to speak to his manager, but he said that he didn’t have one. I then
asked for an address and he again said they didn’t have one! I was now
showing signs of serious remission, so I asked to speak to the complaints
department, but guess what… he said there wasn’t one! So I asked for his
name, which – surprise, surprise - he refused to give and then hung up!
After ringing yet again, I finally got the customer relations number but no
address, only to find that it was ‘temporarily out of service’. That is the
situation now, but my fight will go on…
Just who are these people without names or a work address and how
do they know which station or bus stop to get off in the morning. A bit
difficult without an address…
Michael Lyons (Y52)
You surprise me Michael. The last time I rang Westminster Council
on a similar matter, someone with a pleasant voice told me that if I hung on
they would deal with my problem and that "…my call was very important to
them." I was, as you’d expect, quite chuffed! I’m sure that when I was
finally cut-off that it was probably something I did wrong! It’s common
knowledge that Westminster Council is losing a substantial amount of income
following on from Congestion Charging and fewer people driving into town and
using meters etc. It seems that we have provided them with another option!
…Ed
Metrocab Situation
Do you know what's going on? I wanted to buy a new cab, but a well-known
proprietor I have just spoken to told me to hold on and that if Metrocab
were not bought by Wednesday (Feb 4), then LTI could lose out to one of the
other now licensed cabs making the price of the TXII drop. Any truth in
that…?
Michael Lester (L74)
Michael’s letter was received on January 30 and I have hung on until
February 20 to see whether the "well known proprietor" was correct. I have
just spoken to Metrocab’s administrators and they have a short list of 4
possible serious purchasers, so they have not yet been bought. But contrary
to rumour, neither have they gone into liquidation nor does there seem to be
any immediate threat of them doing so. As for the alternative cabs being
licensed, well we will know shortly. I personally, have just ordered a new
TXII …Ed |
