Probe into TRUTH neighborhood transportation

Cambridgeshire County Council had the proof years ago – however refused our require an investgatiom. Today our reports on neighborhood transport are vindicated

RELEASED: 15:34 27 July 2018

In our first post back in October 2012, we focused on the issues of the taxi market locally that REALITY might have been running outside the thorough and expensive licensing routines imposed on taxi and personal hire motorists and operators.From 2012 up until 2017 TRUTH always declared they were legally exempt from business licensing requirements due to having a” not for revenue”status. Normally, an organisation operating in Great Britain

that accepts any sort of payment for offering transport to passengers must hold either a public service car (PSV)operator’s licence or a personal hire car licence.However, the Transport Act 1985, through using permit 19’s, reasons certain organisations from the need to hold the expensive public service lorry( PSV )operator’s licence, but insists they run under specific conditions that includes their undertaking must be solely non-commercial and ran without a view to profit.It was therefore challenging for FACT and the Cambridgeshire County Council to justify how REALITY might operate under such authorizations when 80 percent of their work was the fulfilment of business contracts.In 2016 I accompanied previous county councillors Alan Lay and Paul Clapp when they visited the FACT backyard and exposed chauffeurs operating without the required CPC security training.

Months later on, and reacting to a violation notice put on UK authorities by the EU commission, the DfT validated the taxi drivers issues over the legality of neighborhood transportation

operators like FACT utilizing authorization 19’s. The DfT statement has actually created concerns for many neighborhood transport operators throughout the country.In a recent article in a trade publication Howard Russell, CEO of West Norfolk Community Transportation Task stated:”One problem some community transport operators have experienced concerning licensing and operating is local councils asking them to

tender for services that an area 19/22 operator should not be running. This is not the case with Norfolk County Council “According to Howard”Norfolk County Council has a very rigorous legal procedure. It continually guarantees we stay in line, supporting us along the method. It is equally advantageous.” Due this approach he validates”there is no local displeasure versus regional transport. Norfolk County Council is incredibly as much as date and abides by the correct analysis of the guideline. “They’re sharp and doing the best thing. They are smart and hard working.” Howard does acknowledge that

there are some neighborhood transportation organisations that push the boundaries of what is legal. “There are only a very little number of organisations that do this,” he states.”However it just takes a small number of rogue community transport operators for the rest of us to be tarred with the exact same brush.”

FACT/HACT and ESACT have now been forced to request the very same O-licences as industrial operators and previously this year set up 3 minimal business to run its commercial interests. This in itself positions more questions as to how can a fleet of buses moneyed through what appears the misuse of financing offered to support those in need be merely handed over to business companies.Secondly, when investigating another CTO operating under permit 19’s the EU Commission verified that “their profits(including grants and agreement earnings )can be legally used just to cover their expenses. If

CTOs breached the” not-for-profit” requirement, the driving allows under which they run would be revoked’.” Taxi spokesperson Dave Humphrey stated:” Next year FACT will commemorate its 30th anniversary; regardless of running effectively for 25 years in best harmony with other markets, in the 5 years in between 2012 and 2016 they created almost a million pounds in excess”revenues (consisting of grants and contract income “)to fund an industrial fleet of 25 extra automobiles.”And HACT created ₤ 442,501 to produce in just three

a fleet three times larger than the neighborhood transport services needs. Mr Humphrey states he is still waiting on an answer to his concern:” How can the generation of over ₤ 1.3 million in surplus earnings to fund a substantial industrial fleet be considered ‘legally covering the expenses of small neighborhood transportation organisations?”

Source

http://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/has-fact-been-run-properly-1-5627245

source http://taxi.nearme.host/probe-into-truth-neighborhood-transportation/