Are the PCO just getting their own
back?
Call Sign had long been an unashamed supporter
of the Public Carriage Office. We believed that it was a combination of the
Knowledge, together with the PCO making sure the high standards for the taxi
industry were maintained, that has made the London Taxi trade the envy of
the world.
Through the years, London Taxi drivers have gone through different
levels of how they felt about the PCO. For many, the 60s and 70s were years
of fear! A trip to Lambeth or Penton Street would cause the driver brave
enough to take his cab up for an overhaul on his own to suffer major sweaty
palms. It was often described as a journey to hell and rarely disappointed!
Drivers were spoken to as though they had just crawled out of the
gutter and often given stop notes for the most insignificant of failings –
one driver recently reminded Call Sign of how his taxi failed
through having a screw missing in the boot. Yet rather than allow him to
have another put in at the garage, he was made to return to Penton Street
and waste yet another morning. Incidents like that were not unusual.
The 1979 ITV movie, The Knowledge, was a big hit on TV
screens, with most viewers believing that the plot was entirely the work of
Jack Rosenthal’s imagination. However, Licensed taxi drivers of the time
knew that it was far closer to the truth than many realised.
When Roy Ellis came along, the situation undoubtedly changed
for the better. Taking your cab to the PCO still wasn’t how you’d want to
spend your day, but there was a feeling of respect in the air. Roy himself
was always available to the trade press, turned up to most trade events and
indeed was very helpful in providing information during Call Sign’s
successful 1999 campaign to allow Type 2 diabetics (on tablets) to drive
their cabs and eventually regain their licenses.
Change…
Then in 2006, Roy Ellis took retirement and Mary Dowdye – whose
brother is a licensed taxi driver - came in. Around that time, a PCO
proposal also arrived for taxis to undergo two inspections a year rather
than just an overhaul. This, according to the PCO, would help to keep
standards high. No one wanted it, but according to this magazine at the
time, SGS felt that just one visit per year from each taxi wasn’t enough for
a long-term contract. We now know that Boris Johnson promised to get rid of
it if elected. He was and he did!
But that wasn’t our biggest problem. Gradually the PCO under Mary
Dowdye have tried to equalise both sides of this trade by inferring that as
Taxi and PH Director Ed Thompson recently said in an advert for the
Transport Museum, London has not 25,000 taxi drivers and 50,000 private hire
drivers – but 75,000 licensed drivers!
In addition, PCO press releases have been sent out as though
everything applied equally to both the minicab side and us. It probably
began with the PCO sending out reports that gave details of those losing
their |
licenses through misdemeanours. One
particular release told of around 90 drivers having their licenses revoked,
yet when Call Sign enquired with both TOCU and TfL as to how
many of those were actually taxis, the number given was in single figures!
We complained and were told that our complaint would be taken into account
in future press releases. This was followed by yet another PCO release in
July 2007. It read:
"In the last 12 months seven licensed drivers have been prosecuted
for DDA offences. Penalties have included fines of up to £300 and
disqualification from driving. A further two drivers and one operator are
awaiting court hearings."
So Call Sign asked yet again – how many of the 7
were licensed taxi drivers? A few days later, we received this short and to
the point response from the Senior Driver and Operator Policy Manager at the
PCO, Simon Buggey. His answer: "All 7 were PHV drivers."
Call Sign responded with: "Can you understand why taxi
drivers in London become annoyed at being lumped together with PH drivers
when figures are given? The last time involved hundreds of drivers pulled up
for licensing offences, yet only a handful were taxi drivers.
I believe that the PCO should revert to itemising numbers."
Mr Buggey responded: "I appreciate your concerns and we'll
bear them in mind." Rather than separate the two, the PCO just didn’t
send out any more revocation notices.Do you have
a UK licence?
But that was just the start. More and more releases addressed both sides,
even though they obviously did not apply to taxis. A recent one (which
Call Sign has not published as we consider it to be a damn cheek)
informed us that in order to be licensed as a taxi or PHV driver, an
applicant must hold a full driving licence issued in the UK, the European
Community or one of the other countries in the European Economic Area. Is
there anyone who has passed the KoL without a UK driving licence? I bet
there are plenty of minicab drivers out there it applies to, but taxi
drivers? But we’re all the same to this PCO.
Strangely, another followed that; this one aimed only at taxi
drivers and proved that we didn’t have to be lumped together with private
hire. This one referred to taxis being broken into and advising us to remove
our satnavs and cradles when we left our cars! Cars? Does anyone feel any
sense of respect to our business? Thought not! Call Sign has
published the press release and reworded it out of embarrassment.
There is a feeling out there that claims the PCO think we are too
big headed compared to minicabs, who now cower as we used to and that this
"bonding" together of both sides is a form of revenge against us. One good
example was a recent criticism of their offices in TAXI newspaper. |
The PCO answer was to bin all the
copies sent to them of that issue. One strike and
you’re NOT out?
Ed Thompson has now sent out a letter to licensed taxidrivers apologising
for lumping taxis together with private hire in the one strike and you’re
out fiasco. However, is it me or does the fact that the trade press
received the notice 10 months ago make any apology rather irrelevant, with
the PCO obviously being told by the Mayor to send it rather than doing it as
a genuine apology? And why wasn’t it sent as a press release rather than a
letter that the press wouldn’t see? I have no truck whatsoever with licensed
taxi drivers who hang up outside hotels and they deserve all they get when
caught (none have apparently), but to pretend that we are anywhere near as
bad as minicabs, is and was ludicrous and any apology doesn’t ring as being
genuine. Everyone makes mistakes, but admit them at the time and not when
forced.
An answer? I do not have one. There are some nice helpful people at
the PCO, but most of those have been there many years. The new breed either
don’t care about this 350 year old trade or feel that they can extract some
revenge on us because we stick up for ourselves. Few have ever driven a
taxi. Either way, the future doesn’t look bright for a successful
partnership. Call Sign is publishing the PCO apology in this
issue, so the world can read it online…
Marshalled taxi ranks
Is it just me? I don’t really care if George Bush comes out of retirement to
marshal our taxi ranks – ok, perhaps not him! However, there has been a
whispering campaign against one entry to the TfL tender document, because
the person behind it is apparently involved in a business known as the
clamping club. I have personal reasons why I don’t like clamping
organisations that work independently. My daughter-in-law was recently
clamped at her place of work by one of these and I had to shell out my
credit card over the phone to a complete stranger for the sum of £531 or
leave Jo in floods of tears with this "person." So I had no choice and my
view of those types of organisations is pretty much unprintable. But the
question is whether they can run taxi ranks?
Certainly, Tony Ellis - the person involved (but not the clamping
business owner) – has been in the taxi business for many years and so far as
I know, is still a member of the LTDA Council of Management. He rents his
taxi from a former DaC driver and according to that driver, Tony has already
been involved with marshalling at the O2 in addition to other places. If
successful, they intend using drivers as marshals who have perhaps lost
their Bill through sickness. So far it sounds ok.
I couldn’t care less who gets the contract provided they do a good
job; after all, no one else seems to want it. But that person needs to be
able to install trust from within the trade and association with a private
clamping company could be pushing things too far…
Alan Fisher
callsignmag@aol.com |
