Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun
2014, JNugent remarked: Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do. be in two districts simultaneously? It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY. Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Of course not, it's only in South Cambs. -- Roland Perry |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, JNugent remarked: Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do. be in two districts simultaneously? It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY. Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Of course not, it's only in South Cambs. Roland, Are you really proposing that local authorities should have the power to change the law as they see fit? Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are changeable? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
In article ,
Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 00:04:18 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, JNugent remarked: Because I'm not talking about the status of the land, it could be owned by Father Xmas for all I care. What matters is whether it's "inside South Cambs" or "inside the City" for hackney-hailing purposes. All that's needed is a derogation which says that for taxi-hailing purposes it's deemed to be in both. Is that legally possible? Can one spot It only needs to be a small spot. Just the taxi rank would do. be in two districts simultaneously? It doesn't have to *be* in two districts at once. Just DEEMED to be FOR THE PURPOSES OF HACKNEY HAILING ONLY. Would occupants be liable to pay council tax to both district councils? And maybe a double-dose to the county? Of course not, it's only in South Cambs. Are you really proposing that local authorities should have the power to change the law as they see fit? Any law? What criteria would you apply for choosing which ones are changeable? No, he isn't. This sort of thing is done all the time. Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire would grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that location alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed). The councils ALREADY have the powers to issue licences, and there is nothing forbidding reasonable collaborations between councils. As I said, God alone knows what The Supremes would make of it, but who on earth would challenge it? Inter alia, English law has the concept of "locus standi", and anyone doing so would have to demonstrate sufficient interest in the result to get the courts to accept a challenge. Yes, the landowner, Highways Authority and Whitehall all could, so it would be necessary to get at least a letter of acceptance from the first two. And, in the current political climate, any attempt by Whitehall to block collaboration could easily be opposed (politically). See, for example: http://www.1cor.com/1158/?form_1155.replyids=145 Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17
Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked: Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire would grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that location alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed). I don't think the South Cambs hackneys need a wayleave, they are already permitted to drive in the City if they have picked up a fare in South Cambs. The situation at the new station is exceptional because that small patch of South Cambs [in effect just the railway sidings themselves] is entirely land-locked by the railway and the only road access is via the City. An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City. -- Roland Perry |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 2014\06\17 09:23, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:10:31 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Nick Maclaren remarked: Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that South Cambridgeshire would grant an implicit licence to all Cambridge taxis for that location alone, and Cambridge would grant a 'wayleave' for South Cambridgeshire taxis doing the same (if needed). I don't think the South Cambs hackneys need a wayleave, they are already permitted to drive in the City if they have picked up a fare in South Cambs. The situation at the new station is exceptional because that small patch of South Cambs [in effect just the railway sidings themselves] is entirely land-locked by the railway and the only road access is via the City. An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City. Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to match the M25 in the 1990s. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
On 2014\06\17 11:31, Basil Jet wrote:
Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to match the M25 in the 1990s. That didn't affect many residences, but the College Park area (Ponsard Road / Waldo Road etc) was transferred from Brent to Hammersmith in the 2000s, transferring a significant number of houses for no good reason that I can see. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
In message , at 11:31:48 on
Tue, 17 Jun 2014, Basil Jet remarked: An alternative would be to locate a section of taxi rank a couple of hundred yards away from the station buildings, which is inside the City. Borough boundaries can be moved. The boundary of Enfield was moved to match the M25 in the 1990s. Not just boroughs, but whole counties. Back in the day the boundary between Hertfordshire and Cambridgshire went down the main street in Royston. It was later moved to co-incide with the northern bypass. ObRail/Hackney: Which means the railway station moved from Cambs to Herts, and would affect which licensees were able to ply for hire there. -- Roland Perry |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
What's it(!) with Uber?
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Uber app is not a taximeter | London Transport | |||
TfL Taxi Consultation to "kill" Uber | London Transport | |||
Uber driver nearly kills woman twice | London Transport | |||
Worst Uber ride ever | London Transport | |||
What's it(!) with Uber? | London Transport |