Fuel costs see Carmarthenshire taxi drivers seek fare increase after 10 years of minimum fares unchanged

With many increases in costs now very visible to the public after all these years Carmarthenshire taxi drivers unite to put Carmarthenshire back on top of the national table of Hackney Carriage fares in Wales, as they should be today

The Proposal was acknowledged by Carmarthenshire councils email system only moments ago, tells John Spain of the Cab Watchdog service, who is based in Carmarthenshire.

There were some errors picked up by Carmarthenshire licensing, who pointed out Private Hire Monthly Magazine Hackney Carriage Table contained errors.

Subsequently the proposal was updated 27/10/21 and a facebook ad campaign budget authorised by John Spain CEO and Cathrine Zita Executive Partner, which was subsequently launched by the BIT organisation to, inform the Carmarthenshire public of the goings on.

The ad campaign – notice, will run for some time in Carmarthenshire said a spokesman for the BIT organisation

Application to increase:


1.Proposal to increase the initial charge by £0.60p on tariff 1, 2, 3, and doubling up on Tariff 4

2.Proposal to increase tariff extras for more than 4 passengers to £1 per passenger

3.Proposal to increase contamination fee (civil matter) to £60

4.Proposal to increase booking fee to £5 for a distance of 4 miles or more from base

Tariff 1 6am – 10pm Initial Charge £2.80

Additional mileage for each one tenth of a mile or part thereof £0.20

Waiting time (per minute) £0.20

Tariff 2 10pm – 3am Initial Charge £3.00

Additional mileage for each one tenth of a mile or part thereof £0.25

Waiting time (per minute) £0.25

Tariff 3 3am – 6am Initial Charge £3.00

Additional mileage for each one tenth of a mile or part thereof £0.30

Waiting time (per minute) £0.30

Tariff 4 Initial Charge £5.60

Additional mileage for each one tenth of a mile or part thereof £0.40

Waiting time (per minute) £0.40

A Tariff 2 surcharge on the meter shall apply on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays and nightly after 10.00 pm until 3.00 am.

A Tariff 3 surcharge on the meter shall apply from 3.00am until 6.00am Note that Operators wishing to commence the operating period for Tariff 2 fares later than 10.00 pm and Tariff 3 later than 3am will be required to display this information in their table of fares in each vehicle.

Extra charges (Optional) Contamination fee for fouling of vehicle £60.00

Booking Fee £5 (where journey commences 4 miles or more from operators base)

Vehicles carrying 5-8 passengers: For each passenger exceeding FOUR £1.00 each


Last tariff change was in May 2011

Since 2011 there have been many increases in costs for the trade, including the many independent taxi drivers of the county and taxi firms.

Fuel has risen considerably since the last tariff had been introduced when it was some £1.37 if we examine archives – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17269942

If we glance at today’s figure as at 26/10/2021, one gets a guide of local costs – https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/fuel-watch/

UnleadedSuper unleadedDieselLPG
pence per litrepence per litrepence per litrepence per litre
↗ Likely to rise↗ Likely to rise↗ Likely to rise
25 October 2021

Minimum wage has increased – https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

A flow chart over the years – https://www.statista.com/statistics/280483/national-minimum-wage-in-the-uk/

Carmarthenshire is some what unique as taxi firms tend to pay minimum wage to drivers unlike other boroughs like Cardiff etc who do not pay their drivers but instead charge a weekly fee to owner drivers or drivers that rent vehicles, giving but one example in Wales if you look east

With the budget as at 27/10/21 the minimum wage will rise once again in April 2022 to £9.50 adding a further burden on the trade, which, is just around the corner. 

It should be noted this increase is not taken into account in the current proposal but will have some bearing going forward obviously as we approach April 22

I attach a link to support what is now in the public domain as mentioned

How much the UK’s minimum wage will increase in the Budget and what it is now

There is a further noticeable rise in goods and services, especially since the pandemic and Brexit – https://www.statista.com/statistics/285202/rpi-goods-and-services/


The increase is a modest increase at this time taken into account the public demand at this time, and the obvious decline in trade as a result of the pandemic.

We see a sharp rise in car prices new and 2nd hand to date:


The overall situation is clear showing a obvious financial decline for the Carmarthenshire taxi trade now running at a loss since the last increase in 2011.

The Carmarthenshire once lead Wales in Hackney Carriage fare over 2 miles (https://www.phtm.co.uk/newspaper/taxi-fares-league-tables) as a large rural borough with dead mileage/empty mileage as a result.

Over time fares have increased across the UK which is shown using the phtm stats showing the various increases over two miles, although it does not show mileage rate increases which have also occurred in Wales.

City taxis will have far less empty mileage than the Carmarthenshire trade as a matter of course, and therefore a rural county such as Carmarthenshire will see the trade having higher costs as a result of non paying empty mileage. Therefore less profitable with higher running costs, which was reflected in 2011 when the last tariff was introduced.

It is no secret that insurance premiums have also increased over the last decade.

As a brief example of how things stand in neighbouring areas over two miles:

Pembrokeshire £6.30

Carmarthenshire £6.20

Cardiff £6.10

Swansea £5.70

Bridgend £5.80

Neath £5.46

Ceredigion £5.46

Powys £5.40

It should be noted: It would be usual under the circumstances to increase the mileage rate also, but in the publics best interest minimal increases have been applied as a formula to, minimise the impact on the public in these harsh economic times since 2011 However it may well come to pass that a further increase to the running mileage rate will be sought in the future

London minicab operator death dealer defies minicab drivers strike and union calls with big balls

BOLT private hire taxi cab app operator in London-UK, refuses to backdown to minicab drivers in the UK that it constantly blocks, preventing many from working unnecessarily, is the call by many

BOLT tend to block the driver without explanation leaving the driver thinking

As of tomorrow a strike will commence putting the show on the road

Many drivers joining the picket line will be the familiar union supporters

Bolt according to the ADCU union, the cab app operator also launched in Nottingham, failed to cooperate to see off these poor practices for workers/minicab drivers, and as such stuck two fingers up at the union, and in defiance to the scheduled strike by BOLT drivers based in London UK

In complete true fashion of the grim reaper BOLT launched an incentive to draw their victims in, to cross the picket line and face the blocking game again

Question is will the minicab drivers of all unions and denominations really benefit from the ploy by BOLT aka the grim reaper death dealer squad

What you didnt know-Be amazed-The secret society methods-the shocking truth for cab drivers joining in the trade

We ask the public today is there really secret society practices for cabbies, is it a well kept secret too? Have you heard about this one?

Did you know a well kept secret existed in the cab trade? We didn’t till now, its quite a story

Cabbie tells John Spain you need to investigate unions and their complaints policies as, many cabbies are not aware that they need to be a member of another union if they are a Volunteer for any union. Bet you didnt know that folks? Come here there is more you probably did not know about the trade lately

Another Cabbie in the Mercedes class asks a researcher to investigate his union too, hes a member of that particular union, said Cathrine Zita

We will be looking at a numbers of unions on offer to the trade

Cathrine Zita spoke with John Spain, and a researcher, and said only minutes ago – I have launched an investigation as a result of some extraordinary communications that have come to light, and it would be negligent of me not to pay attention to what has been put in front of me. This I believe looks like a public interest case file for sure as it appears to be a human resources case of much interest for those out there joining in the Industry.

Clean air fee funny money-Disgraceful Uber-Transport For London Wake Up Call-Practices not fit and proper complaint 2

We ask the public you ever met a scammer? should a licensing authority like TFL ignore the obvious or the public? Should we ignore shocking scams or business practices in the trade? Would you ?

Following a case file handed over to App Driver & couriers union BAME officer for ADCU.

BAME officer Mr Nelson does what he promised his members he said he would recently do, said the BAME officer for ADCU only moments ago when he advised Cathrine Zita and John Spain that he had sent the email he intended for Transport for London licensing complaints, for an explanation on their ignorance to date when it comes to the Uber business model, and practices being not fit and proper today, with the clean air fee in mind. A story covered in Nov 2019 by the BIT organisation, but still unresolved, owing to TFL not following through on the complaint, said Cathrine Zita this afternoon

Uber Policies unacceptable – Complaint unanswered made public

ADCU BAME OFFICER <cabwatchdog@gmail.com>16:34 (9 minutes ago)
to taxiprivatehirecomplaints@tfl.gov.uk
Sent email

Private hire operator ” UBER”  policies and practices not fit and proper 
Good afternoon 
I write in respect to at least two complaints provided TFL which from what I see are practices of a private hire operator that are not fit and proper. 
For the purpose of clarity before I was elected BAME officer in May 2020 for ADCU, prior there were complaints provided by me as researcher at the time for the Cab Watchdog Service. 
What is clear the Supreme Court case regarding Uber; reconfirms the practices of a private hire operator that TFL can no longer dismiss or call fit and proper 
For avoidance of doubt TFL were provided a complaint in the public interests regarding the ” Clean air fee” practice/policy of an operator licensed by TFL 
For avoidance of doubt I attach the link containing the reference provided by TFL more than a year ago, which was made public on said date in the public interests – https://bitnews725.wordpress.com/2019/11/27/uber-gangster-rap-reported-justice-sought-dodgy-clean-air-fee-racket-not-fit-and-proper-for-a-minicab-operator-tfl-asked-for-accountability/A story covering the workings of the clean air fee for avoidance of doubt – https://bitnews725.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/consumer-duped-uber-london-clean-air-initiative-scandle-fake-profits-practices-uber-driver-comes-clean-financial-scamming-for-the-poor/Such is the practice monies are simply being collected on false pretenses. Many drivers have not been able to collect monies due, even after Uber have deactivated them. A further example of policies and practices not fit and proper for an operator, that I believe must be reported again as a reminder to TFL of these policies/practices the private hire operator has in place, which clearly TFL have been ignoring or are ignorant to them 
Then of course I must bring to your attention that private hire drivers are required to take phone calls as part of the operators practices. I must again complain in the public interests as thus far although a further complaint was made on this practice TFL decided to pass the buck to Cardiff, even though the same practices are on going in London, as highlighted by the Supreme court case. Cab watchdog Service highlight Uber’s intent to shut a driver up that catches them in the act and uses the Police to cry ” Threat to kill” 
One only need to research what the Police had to say in 2020 on Uber’s bogus complaint of threats to kill, which was established as bogus by South Wales Police, as a result of a telephone recording passed them and TFL on the subject. 
Given the notice sent to the trade recently by email by TFL; regarding operator practices, under the circumstances these issues are firmly in my grasp to ask what are TFL doing about these practices that are clearly not fit and proper. 
I attach further news stories to jog the memory of licensing enforcement officers: https://bitnews725.wordpress.com/2020/02/10/public-notice-by-cab-watchdog-service-uber-under-new-investigation-over-safety-transport-for-london-step-in/?


I trust now that the business model has been clarified through the Supreme Court case against Uber, where even they fail to hide what they previously did using smoke and mirrors to baffle TFL, will now be addressed as practices/policies not fit and proper for an operator with private hire drivers, also subject to detrimental situations as a result of Uber’s practices/policies that can and do cost a driver’s their license unnecessarily
I have a number of concerns over practices that allow reviews to be used as data detrimental to drivers in their day to day job. Most certainly I cannot understand why such data is being used as if it is integral. I hope TFL will provide me an explanation why they feel review data has a baring on the true situation on how a driver performs at work and how that data can be seen as integral under the circumstances. 
Once again I communicate on the record with TFL on the basis that the email is sent in the public interests. 
I look forward to the complaints being accounted for and a full explanation for the delays and the refusal to see what the Supreme court saw and other courts, not to mention what the learned minicab driver or Uber driver also saw which TFL ignored as if blinded by a fantasy, Uber fantasy
Yours Sincerely 
D Nelson – BAME officer ADCU – App Drivers and couriers union https://www.adcu.org.uk/national-executive-commitee
cc: Cathrine Zita & John Spain – Cab Watchdog Service   

As the public and the trade as well as ADCU members can see below the acknowledgement to the above email sent

Automatic reply: Uber Policies unacceptable – Complaint unanswered made public


Taxi Private Hire Complaints SMBTaxiPrivateHireCo@tfl.gov.uk via cluster-e.mailcontrol.com 17:35 (0 minutes ago)
to me

Thank you for contacting us at Transport for London.We appreciate your feedback as it helps us to improve our services and to meet the standards that you rightly expect.

If you are reporting a safety issue or incident then this will be treated as a priority.

In cases where a crime is suspected, there is a danger to life, or violence has been used then please call 999 to immediately report this to the police.

For any other queries or complaints where you have requested a response, we aim to send you a personalised reply as soon as possible.

You can also find the latest information about Taxis and Minicabs on our website – https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/

Transport for London (TfL), its subsidiaries and service providers will use the personal information you have provided to process your feedback and provide you with a response, or the information or services you have requested. On some occasions, we may need to share your information with associated organisations or their agents for these purposes. Your personal information will be properly safeguarded and processed in accordance with the requirements of privacy and data protections legislation. To find out more about how TfL handles personal data, see our Privacy and cookies pages.


The contents of this e-mail and any attached files are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately at postmaster@tfl.gov.uk and remove it from your system. If received in error, please do not use, disseminate, forward, print or copy this email or its content. Transport for London excludes any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached files.

Transport for London is a statutory corporation whose principal office is at 5 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN. Further information about Transport for London’s subsidiary companies can be found on the following link: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

Although TfL have scanned this email (including attachments) for viruses, recipients are advised to carry out their own virus check before opening any attachments, as TfL accepts no liability for any loss, or damage which may be caused by viruses.


Cathrine Zita said this afternoon we had shared the file with Mr Nelson so he may get to that BIT for thousands of Cabbies in London who, in this day and age should join ADCU as they remain the drivers choice today after two law firms have rejected Uber’s compensation plans as inadequate and not meeting the court findings. A result that will affect drivers working conditions if they were foolish enough to accept Uber’s offer

Speaking to the BAME officer for ADCU, who pointed out drivers must get their data in using the Worker information exchange so they can have all that costly data accounted for to get them the full compensation they deserve and not some small portion Uber have in mind.

For drivers that have worked for Uber since July 2015 and left, they will be pleased to know they can still claim compensation

Stay tuned folks for more news to get to that BIT and follow us on facebook

UBER OFFERS FOOLS GOLD-UBER COULD SURVIVE WITH BULL£HIT £££ for foolish slaves called Uber self employed crew thinking worker

We ask the public – Ever met a fool ?

Uber driver’s across the country are headed for or considering ” fool’s gold, after Uber come out the box with a text book move, like the only experts in the world ladies and gentleman, to ever offer fools Gold

Oh yes true experts that have surveys in place, that show they have many self employed cabbies thinking this was the gold they have been expecting. where as other Uber drivers however are, by their screens like homer here



The public report – Bolt deemed dangerous as, if running a death camp for private hire Drivers on the planet. No dignity in death in London town

Cab Watchdog service officially launched their investigation into the ruthless and callous mentality of the management that is BOLT in London and across the world

CEO John Spain of the Cab Watchdog Service said weve been waiting for the signal to get the god that is BOLT

Cathrine Zita speaking for the BIT organisation said,

We must issue a public warning at this stage of our investigation, as owing to a statement made by BOLT on their BOLT DRIVERS UK FB Page on the 19 FEB, relating to the priorities BOLT has towards drivers: what is clear to the BIT organization thanks to ADCU’s BAME officer’s opinion – BOLT’s statement wasn’t worth the screen shot view on fb, as it was merely lip service and insincere, as if we wind the clock forward to today, nothing has changed as they are really still saying …Frankly, my ………….

There is no priority when it comes to safety issues and wellness when a driver in this world is on the BOLT APP, said ADCU BAME officer, concerned for the untidy priority BOLT have in place, after being informed of the same by a BOLT driver who had wellness issues, as well as health and safety issues/concerns. ADCU BAME officer had talked to Mr Spain by phone, showing the various comments made by BOLT Drivers in order to substantiate the findings

We have been aware of BOLT for some time, but had no evidence to support the claims made not only by drivers but union members too, since the 19FEb, said Mr Spain

John Spain speaking for the Cab Watchdog service said in an interview at lunch time, that he was appalled by the callous treatment, of this what he described as a ruthless money grabbing machine with no respect at all for the living, never mind the dead.

We must press on now and communicate with BOLT in the public domain on what we call exhibit A Paragraph 2 made public for all concerned in the public interests, and for legal argument – Please make Bolt aware if you can – re – drivers is our priority

Cabbies into slaves and then just block them to their deaths. One does question how BOLT treat their customers too

Are these the standards drivers are to be lured into without proper protection from potentially modern day rogue App operators who pretend they care about wellbeing. In doing so bleed them to death with rating controls which amounts to detrimental data without proper legal advice factored in by their licensing authority as it stands today, Data that would cost an innocent driver thousands of pounds to defend, just to play the operators game. Like you have to do it the Mobs way

The only priority must be to stop the lies and the controls that put drivers in harms way, even financially, or needlessly, the prospect of losing your license for just doing the basics does seems ridiculous, as with many now it comes as a shock

Such is the sham of these operators exploiting the learned Cabbie in 2021 it has become mind boggling as these firms set up squads to kill you off

Mr Spain went on to say. It was decided that Cathrine Zita posted our most recent story in BOLT’s UK drivers facebook page to see if the deadly BOLT Grim reaper death dealer squad practices the public talk about are active

It should be noted ladies and gentleman true to form BOLT was true blocked Cathrine Zita and one other following the posted comments, which our stats show reached individuals in Romania, also,

It was obviously too much to bare so BOLT stepped in and proved the point their business model is deadly in more ways than one for Cabbies, and so there was absolutely no integrity by BOLT when they made the public statement about wellness and safety for their drivers

Mr Spain invites BOLT to come on the record in the public interests and resolve these serious issues that BOLT refused to address and thought it easier to play the blocking game. BIT organisation has a reputation for getting to that BIT

This file remains open and the BIT organisation will go through the window for the trade, and only have one thing to say to BOLT at this time, whilst we await them to resolve matters……..


Uber Cab passenger insurance looks void-Cab operator BOLT kills off drivers-minicab Insurance policy void-minicab breaches in licensing conditions act now

Following a release of a video by App Drivers & courier union only days ago a number of serious issues have been dropped in the trades lap which put thousands in precarious positions, including underwriters of insurance policies for private hire Industry as thousand of private hire drivers policies may well be void if they join the Uber app, log on without a private hire operators license

A business model explained by Uber in the Supreme Court only a few weeks ago now, said John Spain of the Cab Watchdog service. A model that puts drivers in control of bookings or in charge of bookings/calls, and to do so the driver must be licensed to do the same, which of course they are not. In a previous investigation it was highlighted that Uber expect their drivers to deal with passenger calls and booking amendments directly
The video posted on FB seen here on youtube was clear –

Cathrine Zita Said this morning – we have launched a number of cases after receiving a series of complaints recently, since the Uber supreme court ruling including, the case of a murdered mini cab driver who was using the BOLT app.

We recently made a public statement regarding serious concerns relating to the heath and safety practices at BOLT. BOLT effectively played dumb is our understanding. We have been handed the file by a trade member who challenged BOLT to end the obvious controls in the work place

We are aware some unions are already organising strike actions ongoing or intended

We intend to further our concerns with BOLT, and will ask them to come on the record with the contact information for those we can discuss our concerns with, in an attempt to avoid going to licensing authorities such as Nottingham Council and TFL with a series of complaint issues, some carbon copy relating to ratings and controls in the work place, with the found dangers for health and safety and mental health that Uber agreed they had when we investigated the ratings game.

We Understand BOLT were asked to drop the rating limits that put detrimental controls on app drivers in the work place. We have a number concerns over the data compiled by App firms and how it is used, along with the contractrual terms offered Drivers given the Supreme court ruling, and recent data cases in Amsterdam won by ADCU

Unions have been expressing what we have known for some time

Cathrine Zita assures our team will get to that and report back in the public interests as we go. The technology giants have worked our country’s workers in the trade and the country including licensing authorities, who now need to step up to the plate and see the seriousness of what the Supreme court revelations have on the trade and the basic licensing laws for drivers subject to insurance , and driving license,



Uber toast-Eat this-Free union and legal protection if you join the claim in Wales and England too-Uber-OLA Data is King-Even Local Operators FU£KED

App drivers courier union take the UK cab trade by storm with FREE UNION MEMBERSHIP IF YOU qualify for all those legal calculations whilst you were on the Uber app, including when you were empty waiting for a job, running for one and more

App drivers & couriers union BAME officer based in Wales tells the Cab Watchdog service tell the trade join ADCU compensation claim strategy to have their data and losses determined collectively and correctly after the supreme court ruling, judges Uber as slave traders in so many words said BAME officer

Don’t rely on some untidy free offering from Uber at this time as there is no need, make sure all calculations have been accounted for said BAME officer and ignore the BS regarding the supreme court judgement sent via the uber app says ADCU legal counsel/barrister

Cab drivers in places like Wales now have clear local representation as Mr Nelson BAME officer is on the case regardless which operator gives you the hump, your local operator in Wales will now have to think again if you are a Dragon in Wales

Mr Nelson speaking from his Wales base for ADCU to Cathrine Zita this afternoon, after a conversation with the ADCU national executive committee, tells the Cab Watchdog service the pirates from near the Caribbean with controls and slave trade practices are done in Wales as the union steps up a gear offering free membership for those that join the compensation claim with the proviso Uber data is King going forward

its game on for Hackney Carriage and Private hire drivers using the app in Cardiff and Newport and for those coming into the frame in all parts of Wales said the BAME officer

What hackney carriage and private hire drivers must realise, obtaining their data is key to getting the right compensation amount as part of their claim, a legal argument likely to run into a tidy sum for drivers in Wales and England

Cathrine Zita said the BAME officer was excited to bring this to the guys in Wales that work for local operators that will also be affected by today’s court decision, He urges them to join the union at no charge if they qualify for the claim being an Uber driver at least in the last few months

Cab drivers in Wales will now get free union representation said Cathrine Zita. BAME and all will have a Wales representative to help them with licensing issues, suspensions, and more as an added bonus as part of ADCU’s strategy for Wales too

ADCU national executive vote on legal representation for drivers all the time, only the other day in Scotland a driver received expert representation from ADCU appointed expert solicitors and had his suspension over turned.

A motion brought by Vice Chair for Scotland Alfie Wellcoat aka Well smooth

With solicitors costing £200 + an hour in the UK, it simply makes sense to have some sort of insurance as a cabbie on the road

Costs in these matters can be up to a thousand pounds said BAME officer during the call.

If it goes to appeal in court then more thousands are thrown into the pot. BAME officer stated when a case comes before committee, Chair for Nottingham aka Robin Hood has a saying , we dont do easy

In other words we will look at cases easy and hard as we did recently and all though it looked hard the committee gave it’s go ahead

Membership fees go into the legal pot to bring down poor operator and licensing practices said BAME officer for ADCU’s national collective

The case cost the union a tidy some in legal fees but the solicitor again pulled it off for our member.

A member comes under the full legal umbrella after his free membership has been in place for 60 days,

An absolute bargain if you are not paying membership Cathrine Zita told John Spain Ceo for the Cab watchdog service following the call from ADCU BAME

With that said taxi drivers in Wales will have a ” Duty litigation friend ” to call if they have licensing officers on their back for any reason.

Basically you have protection against being pressured into effectively making a mistake at the very beginning when you are challenged by a licensing officer looking to terminate your license. Many cabbie stitch themselves up with either the wrong answer or feel they have the experience to get out of the sshhgseeet

Its like having a solicitor for free from day one said BAME officer offering this service to cabbies in Wales, including Swansea and Llanelli of course not forgetting to mention London BAME members also

A protection that is afforded taxi drivers and private hire drivers or you is simple- you refer the licensing officer or Police officer to your ADCU ” Duty litigation friend ” as you are busy and he will answer all their concerns on your behalf all tidy like.

Many Cabbie out there go into shock and despair with the thought of losing their license because of some mickey mouse review or bogus complaint or deactivation. BAME officer told Cathrine Zita we are ready for them

That leaves you free to get on and us to consult with solicitors where appropriate to do so. It most cases we will attend a Police station or licensing interview to protect and shield you. No need to worry if your English is not perfect or your just plain scared

For information for those in Newport, Cardiff, Wales, BAME officer has set up an email email addresss – cabwatchdog@gmail.com

Cathrine Zita would like to congratulate the two gentleman on their 6 year fight for justice, we cannot thank you enough for brining the pirates down.

A worthy action I am sure the queen and her majesty’s treasury will be eternally grateful for , especially if one considers the VAT claim

two gentleman that have effectively made history today not only for drivers but all self employed taxi and private hire drivers in Wales and England at the very least

The clear point not to be missed ladies and gentleman her majesty’s laws dictate that once you put control on self employed cabbies and the self employed they, become workers with rights to compensation if they have not been paid minimum wage whilst the app is on or the job is on, they also have rights to holiday pay as part of UK law

Nothing else matters for the self employed, if they take the view the don’t want to claim for the compensation available to them or are happy to be paid below the minimum wage whilst they plot waiting for a job, of course that is their choice, but the law states they would be an ass and so would be the organisation they are working with that is going against employment judgements made by the supreme court

Check out BIT NEWS on facebook for the latest updated news and videos

In Wales or England you can contact ADCU BAME officer and let him be your watchdog today – cabwatchdog@gmail,com

The verdict-Uber ready mix concrete out of control-Supreme court v the Queen’s Realm and Cabbie App Sparrow-UK Cab trade make Parliamentary history in court

Like Hamlet, the scene is set before the audience and the world – Its a murderess case,


As we join the supreme court ladies and gentleman -The advocate picks up the argument for Uber Slaves by, addressing the court, in response to Uber’s Player Queen for legal argument in this appeal case, now in the highest court of appeal on English soil, ma ladies and ma lords

The Uber murderess Queen Gertrude’s business is at hand, as justice comes calling, opposition lawyers working for free, to rid this slavery and this queen from the realm, as we know it. in the year of 2020, in the month of July, near 4 years or so since judged as slavery in 2016 on sovereign soil


Despite Gertrude’s gift for making shrewd observations she appears content not to act upon them, and instead submits to the schemes of her husband and his councellors
In Act -III, Scene-II of the play, The murderess Queen Gertrude says, when speaking to her son,
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
She a the lady queen character of the play, she is insincere, as she repeats dramatically that she would never marry again because of her undying love 
Like a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean, we take you to the supreme courts virtual court chambers for your imagination to explore,  disruptive technology, come to the end of their play on sovereign soil, as would be pirates from the Caribbean

Arrrr the verdict – We set the scene, as if a gang called the Uber Pirates traveled from the America’s, and plundered the Queen’s sovereign land for supremacy, and gold bullion,

Arrrr me buccaneers, they finally came to court,

Be seated ladies and gentleman and call yourself a member of the Jury, as you continue on

courtinsessionUber pirates v British slaves before the crown’s only justice system


Case background – Charged with

  1. Trading unlawfully using concrete contracts, with ready mix cement
  2. Came to our shores to trade with unique control over slaves,  and rides
  3. Avoided the crown taxes with contractual ingenuity, is one of the submissions before the court today
  4. Parties in the matter have been sworn in, please take your seats



Ist mate Cock n Bull off the pirate ship Supreme Uber is accused with his outfit, of being masters at avoiding customs eventualities, if you look at previous cases in the law books, with the Queens taxation system factored in, including statute law, including sham contract inventions amounting to slavery, using clauses of “Control” Ma lords and Ma Lady, that is but a few submissions today before the supreme court, including members of the public jury that come before you in this session


Cabbie app sparrow off the Leigh-day flag ship. and others who were Uber slaves, were now anxious to see these pirates schemes buried with 1st mate Cock n Bull, once and for all, me cockers, Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, arrrrrr me ship mates, let them walk the plank



The Uber pirates of San Fransisco with their ready mix concrete contractual terms, ladies and gentleman, were much to be desired under the scrutiny of statute law , in a controlled employment environment when you looked at other cases that had come before her Majesty’s courts


The slave’s advocate’s submissions had, good foundation, like a solid concrete building of law and case law spanning centuries, when he directed the court to the facts in law, rendering the Uber pirates that had sailed the Caribbean seas to become slave masters on British sovereign soil, slave masters in law in their trading of rides

The advocates for the Uber slaves were actually damning with their submissions to Ma Lord’s and Lady of the Supreme court that Wednesday, that you can rely on, ladies and gentleman of the Jury when you look close


Ironic as it maybe if you look at the ready mix cement case, where controls were in place, and therefore the workers were not contractors, as the Uber Pirates would have you believe, as the submission is that these Uber pirate contracts are a sham, ladies and gentleman of the public Jury, and therefore much is owed or to be calculated


If we apply statute law when we look at that case, the contract was not concrete and did not fit statute law, as the contract must fit statute law to be legally compliant if you want to mix concrete contracts and law, when taking on workers of any kind, subject to statute law on her Majesty’s soil if there are work related controls in place by the trader


Leigh day solicitors currently are reviewing the situation on a no win no fee basis if you are an Uber slave with a ready mix concrete contract which, you an Uber driver agreed to, with talk of much gold when you join the app, just like other ship mates recorded as slaves on the app that also agreed the terms of business as an Uber so called partner



Whilst we await the Supreme court’s verdict,  it could be said –  if you work for Uber at this moment they are paying your time in money,


should you fall below the minimum wage on your current shift, at any time in the near future, if not at this moment, with your app turned on, built by pirates for slaves who, have ready mix concrete contracts agreed by way of using the Uber appmixit+ready+mix+concrete

These slave traders take many a mindful soul with their ready mix concrete contractual practices, on British land today effecting, even the self employed cabbie on the street today in the industry working for Uber who, has effectively signed up for wages if he or she stands still or meets untidy payments that, do not meet the minimum wage level set in statute law or employment law today


Long live the Queen and her Majesty’s customs officers always on the job



These Uber slaves appear to be fine upstanding tax paying subjects, like all Cabbies throughout the Queen’s land, respecting her majesty’s sovereignty and customs, and the Prince of Wales, and of course statute law, especially if they should wish to employ someone and call them self employed


with her Majesty’s control protections put in place in statue law, should anyone write up a contract that does not fit her Majesty’s concrete laws or EU laws when they are in tandem with the realm, it would be a costly exercise over time for even a Uber agency should they try and beat sovereign enactment   

Morgan, John, 1823-1886; The Jury

one must ask the public, and you the jury to, consider the seriousness of the charges before the courts and employment tribunal in waiting, on the supreme court’s final decision on these San Francisco would be slaver traders, if the Uber slaves bro bono advocate’s submissions are deemed accurate again, in this final court of appeal process


The advocate for the slaves had shown many concrete case law cases for, many examples to follow, all of which was brought to her majesty’s supreme court’s attention for ma Lord and Lady to be sure, and in doing so worthy of the best parlay on sovereign soil that historic Wednesday, 22 July, of the year 2020, an event worthy for any horn blower or Ma Lord Admiral Nelson in attendance or the treasury 


Arrrr,  a great day for any slave traders to be hung by their own controls they put in place,  Ma lady, arrrr, shiver me timbers, a landing in sight for these pirate buggers, as history was in the making ma lords and Lady and people of the public jury


A shipping disaster for the Queens Lords to consider ladies and gentleman as the slaves rebel and seek knowledge from the queens customs officers,  Statute law, and case law, employment statute law, including cases and laws in Spain and France,and all the goings on, back hundreds of years Ma Lords and Ladies, oooowwww arrrrrr, it was quite a sight for even me ship mates


A Pirate crew that had already plundered France and Spain with their slave ready mix concrete control formula, which has allowed the Uber pirate gang to, disrupt the workers rights set out by enactment, and turn the nations people and me ship mates, into slaves for gold, ladies and gentleman people of the public jury here today


Arrrr a practice many fellow buccaneers feel they should hang for, if you pardon me ship mates, arrrrrrrr,  they is pirate beasts that came across the dark seas in the Black pearl, looking with their dead souls from Davy’s locker for a treasure on our Island in the name of slavery and rides


Ist mate Cock an Bull had a steady hand and a tint of rose coloured head of hair, as the Uber Queen explained Uber’s practices in slavery, that are no different to other cab firms across her Majesty Queen Elizabeth’s British Island,

The Uber slave trader’s had 3 pieces to their business plan triangle, for gold, using their disruptive crew,  contracts for slavery with built in control clauses, a contract that the advocate for the Uber slaves said, resembled a Landlord of the 18 hundreds that thought his contract was concrete too, until he met her majesty’s statute laws head on, always improved or upgraded over the years and centuries

Contracts that in many cases fooled you, if you are self employed or looking to rent from a Landlord using but two examples used in the Supreme court this Wednesday hearing




Originating out of San Francisco dock, an unusual gang that were forever over looking customs and the Queens law and sovereignty, and always shooting off when you read witness statements from the slaves, including the pirates own ship log, and written replies back to customers, drivers, or licensing authorities such as TFL 



Supreme flagship Uber docked, courting the Queen and got caught by an employment act ma Lord, with a pirate from a dodgy agency set up, now running from customs officers also, said the advocate on behalf of the British cabbie’s turned contractual slaves, if Cabbie App Sparrow was anything to go by with his report on what went on, and in court that day


The witness statements reports many facts, ma Lords and ladies of the public jury here today,  as the advocate for the slaves, looked at what is normal in the cab industry, which is not what these Uber pirates do, if you look at Statute law in place, and what the law says when ready mix concrete slavery contracts are drawn up to fool the nation or Islanders of this sovereign soil


The Lords were told the Queen of England, and her parliament have, been putting in laws to stop controls written into app contracts, that workers are not being paid for, when they should be under statute law, especially if they are ever labelled self employed contractors at the same time


The Advocate for Uber slaves submission was, there is evidence of controls being used by the Pirates of San Francisco, especasilly when one examines their business communications to workers and customers


Something that 1st mate Cock an Bull off the Uber ship, seemed to over look in various cases, in her law book submissions, where contracts were found to be a sham as, they did not meet the legal standard passed by parliament, with many case law examples to show 1st mate Cock an Bull hasn’t checked enough case law, or got themselves out the stench wafting down her Majesty s streets and highways into the Supreme court of appeal

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”


The case broadcasting the fact that her majesty’s vat tax collectors could well be taking note of this partner of Uber called the London agency,  set up in the name of Uber, in London Town, as the Uber advocate tells Ma Lord’s and Lady. that they are a private hire minicab operator just like the others in town or in your village, and therefore they are not slave masters, but an Agency with no control of the customer, as they merely provide a means for drivers to earn


The agency is just that, and not a collector of funds for themselves directly, it is the driver that is in control, just like other private hire operators, including ratings to ensure drivers are justifiably working for Uber, as every other cab firm would have – you know ratings for workers, with controls and does and don’ts etc, as every Uber has total control as a self employed contractor, even over fares carried out awaiting the correct fare to be paid directly from the passenger, and not from Uber or it’s agency.


If the reader is confused then most definitely you should have been there to hear the fantasy being projected as their arguments as clear submissions for the Lord’s and lady to deliberate over, were ridiculous and shameful under the circumstances


The game looks like its up for the pirates of San Francisco, as, as usual they keep moving the goal posts to dodge the taxing eventualities for pirates landing in the Queen’s realm, where Uber state effectively that Uber drivers (slaves) are effectively their workers on the record in writing for all to see, should you wish to use it as evidence in court, which it was


Previous correspondence shows Uber referring to drivers as workers. The evidence is before the courts now members of the public jury


Ist Mate Cock and Bull sticks to his ready mix concrete argument as a minicab private hire operator who only takes a commission, and its all the same as any private hire firm. Just an agency with a principle called Uber too, plus the worker contract with “Controls” drawn up like a ready mix concrete outfit who, put controls on staff which did not meet workers rights in workers rights law or statute law that passed through the parliamentary processes to make statute





In short ladies and gentleman of the jury, there is not one Uber driver out there today that is not a worker for uber, if you look at Statute law, and Uber’s business practices financial and controlling, mixed in ready mix concrete app contracts, to agree, or, no slave work will be provided to them from the pirates app. Slaves are lured by clever contracts that do not meet the statute requirements even if they call you self employed in their contract terms


It is no wonder that these pirates from the America’s have been appealing every judgement they get on employment law that, shows them to be outside statute law or more importantly employment law for workers, who have gained protections for minimal wages and financial rights to pay and holiday on the job before Uber were even born



UK Uber drivers are taking the algorithm to court



A group of U.K. Uber  drivers has launched a legal challenge against the company’s subsidiary in the Netherlands. The complaints relate to access to personal data and algorithmic accountability.

Uber drivers and Uber Eats couriers are being invited to join the challenge, which targets Uber’s use of profiling and data-fueled algorithms to manage gig workers in Europe. Platform workers involved in the case are also seeking to exercise a broader suite of data access rights baked into EU data protection law.

It looks like a fascinating test of how far existing legal protections wrap around automated decisions at a time when regional lawmakers are busy drawing up a risk-based framework for regulating applications of artificial intelligence.

Many uses of AI technology look set to remain subject only to protections baked into the existing General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). So determining how far existing protections extend in the context of modern data-driven platforms is important.

The European Commission is also working on rebooting liability rules for platforms, with a proposal for a Digital Services Act due by year’s end. As part of that work it’s actively consulting on related issues such as data portability and platform worker rights — so the case looks very timely.

Via the lawsuit, which has been filed in Amsterdam’s district court today, the group of Uber drivers from London, Birmingham, Nottingham and Glasgow will argue the tech giant is failing to comply with the GDPR and will ask the court to order immediate compliance — urging it be fined €10,000 for each day it fails to comply.

They will also ask the court to order Uber to comply with a request to enable them to port personal data held in the platform to a data trust they want to establish, administered by a union.

For its part, Uber U.K. said it works hard to comply with data access requests, further claiming it provides explanations when it’s unable to provide data.

Data rights to crack open an AI blackbox?

The GDPR gives EU citizens data access rights over personal information held on them, including a right to obtain a copy of data they have provided so that it can be reused elsewhere.

The regulation also provides some additional access rights for individuals who are subject to wholly automated decision making processes where there is a substantial legal or similar impact — which looks relevant here because Uber’s algorithms essentially determine the earning potential of a driver or courier based on how the platforms assigns (or withholds) jobs from the available pool.

As we wrote two years ago, Article 22 of the GDPR offers a potential route to put a check on the power of AI blackboxes to determine the trajectory of humankind — because it requires that data controllers provide some information about the logic of the processing to affected individuals. Although it’s unclear how much detail they have to give, hence the suit looks set to test the boundaries of Article 22, as well as making reference to more general transparency and data access rights baked into the regulation.

James Farrar,  an Uber driver who is supporting the action — and who was also one of the lead claimants in a landmark U.K. tribunal action over Uber driver employment rights (which is, in related news, due to reach the U.K. Supreme Court tomorrow, as Uber has continued appealing the 2016 ruling) — confirmed the latest challenge is “full spectrum” in the GDPR rights regard.

The drivers made subject access requests to Uber last year, asking the company for detailed data about how its algorithm profiles and performance manages them. “Multiple drivers have been provided access to little or no data despite making a comprehensive request and providing clear detail on the data requested,” they write in a press release today.

Farrar confirmed that Uber provided him with some data last year, after what he called “multiple and continuous requests,” but he flagged multiple gaps in the information — such as GPS data only being provided for a month out of two years of work; no information on the trip rating assigned to him by passengers; and no information on his profile nor the tags assigned to it.

“I know Uber maintain a profile on me but they have never revealed it,” he told TechCrunch, adding that the same is true of performance tags.

“Under GDPR Uber must explain the logic of processing, it never really has explained management algorithms and how they work to drivers. Uber has never explained to me how they process the electronic performance tags attached to my profile for instance.

“Many drivers have been deactivated with bogus claims of ‘fraudulent use’ being detected by Uber systems. This is another area of transparency required by law but which Uber does not uphold.”

The legal challenge is being supported by the App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU), which says it will argue Uber drivers are subject to performance monitoring at work.

It also says it will present evidence of how Uber has attached performance-related electronic tags to driver profiles with categories including: Late arrival/missed ETAs; Cancelled on rider; Attitude; Inappropriate behaviour.

“This runs contrary to Uber’s insistence in many employment misclassification legal challenges across multiple jurisdictions worldwide that drivers are self-employed and not subject to management control,” the drivers further note in their press release.

Commenting in a statement, their attorney, Anton Ekker of Ekker Advocatuur, added: “With Uber BV based in the Netherlands as operator of the Uber platform, the Dutch courts now have an important role to play in ensuring Uber’s compliance with the GDPR. This is a landmark case in the gig economy with workers asserting their digital rights for the purposes of advancing their worker rights.”

The legal action is being further supported by the International Alliance of App-based Transport (IAATW) workers in what the ADCU dubs an “unprecedented international collaboration.”

Reached for comment on the challenge, Uber emailed us the following statement:

Our privacy team works hard to provide any requested personal data that individuals are entitled to. We will give explanations when we cannot provide certain data, such as when it doesn’t exist or disclosing it would infringe on the rights of another person under GDPR. Under the law, individuals have the right to escalate their concerns by contacting Uber’s Data Protection Officer or their national data protection authority for additional review.

The company also told us it responded to the drivers’ subject access requests last year, saying it had not received any further correspondence since.

It added that it’s waiting to see the substance of the claims in court.

The unions backing the case are pushing for Uber to hand over driver data to a trust they want to administer.

Farrar’s not-for-profit, Worker Info Exchange (WIE), wants to establish a data trust for drivers for the purposes of collective bargaining.

“Our union wants to establish a data trust but we are blocked in doing so long as Uber do not disclose in a consistent way and not obstruct the process. API would be best,” he said on that, adding: “But the big issue here is that 99.99% of drivers are fobbed off with little or no proper access to data or explanation of algorithm.”

In a note about WIE on the drivers’ attorney’s website the law firm says other Uber drivers can participate by providing their permission for the not-for-profit to put in a data request on their behalf, writing:

Worker Info Exchange aims to tilt the balance away from big platforms in favour of the people who make these companies so successful every day – the workers.

Uber drivers can participate by giving Worker Info Exchange their mandate to send a GDPR-request on their behalf.

The drivers have also launched a Crowdjustice campaign to help raise £30,000 to fund the case.

Discussing the legal challenge and its implications for Uber, Newcastle University law professor Lilian Edwards suggested the tech giant will have to show it has “suitable safeguards” in place around its algorithm, assuming the challenge focuses on Article 22







Public Warning Bridgend council admit data breaches-Daniel Cook Policy officer leaves-Council Corruption to be ousted by no win no fee lawyers for compensation-Taxi Drivers and the public should claim

Local council caught with their trousers down after falsifying council minutes for their unscrupulousness in public office as elected members with heads of operations


Mr John Spain speaking for the BIT organisation and the Cab Watchdog service, said this morning there will be a number of legal actions taken against Bridgend County Borough Council after what Mr Spain called falsifying the facts, and statements in the council minutes, with the council going against the grain in the process, in their attempt to bully the taxi trade as usual, and members of the public


I am satisfied after reviewing the document published online,


that sub committee chair (Councillor DRW Lewis – Chairperson)


and Will Lane (left of picture with Dave Dave Holland) of Shared regulatory service, including Yvonne Witchell are not fit and proper in my opinion to,  conduct disciplinary hearings relating to taxi drivers in the borough, especially as Councillor David Lewis appears to condone the poor treatment of borough taxi drivers as chair


Councillor David Lewis

Title: Chairperson Licensing Committee

Party: Labour

Political grouping: Labour

Ward: Sarn

Town and Community Council: St Brides Minor Community Council


With taxi drivers reporting they have be banned for 7 years, I must question the integrity of this council, who have failed to account their actions when freedom of information requests are put in in writing to them, including what appears to be a sub committee hell bent on getting their own way even, if it is not in the public interests or the Bridgend taxi trade’s


Following notification from United Private Hire Drivers union representing drivers in Bridgend and across the country 


and other third parties, an email was sent to Daniel Cook licensing policy officer for Bridgend County Borough Council with, a complaint message regarding the data breaches, and the false information compiled in the council’s minutes which Councillor David Lewis is chairperson on the councils sub committee


CEO for the Cab Watchdog Service was of the opinion it was deliberate and extraordinary act by this, corrupt council sub committee process with shared regulatory services heads who, have been known for bullying taxi drivers and making


unreasonable demands and irrelevant and unjustifiable determinations against the trade in their policy settings behind closed doors, not forgetting their policy of forcing cabbies tobuy new hackney carriage taxis, unlike Cardiff council, and many other councils across the UK


The inbound email from Daniel cook confirms he has finally been able to detach himself from the corrupt team leader head Yvonne Witchell that disrupted his attempt to change policies and speak on the record about the delays to the policy changes needed by the trade, or any matters regarding the unusual practices deemed corrupt by shared regulatory services heads, said Mr Spain, when he read Mr Cook’s reply to the councils data breach, shown below-

Cook, Daniel <daniel.cook2@cardiff.gov.uk>
Thu, 16 Apr at 13:28

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in reference to your email of 16 April 2020. Please note that I no longer work for Bridgend CBC; however, I have forwarded your email to them.



Daniel Cook | Team Manager, Licensing (Cardiff)

Rheolwr Tîm, Trwyddedu (Caerdydd)

Licensing Section / Adran Drwyddedu

Shared Regulatory Services / Gwasanaethau Rheoliadol a Rennir

Bridgend, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan

Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr, Caerdydd ar Bro Morgannwg

Phone | Ffôn: 029 2087 1852

Mobile | Symudol: 07855273752

Email: dan.cook@cardiff.gov.uk

Follow us on Twitter / Dilynwch ni ar Twitter

The Council welcomes correspondence in English and Welsh and we will ensure that we communicate with you in the language of your choice, whether that’s English, Welsh or bilingual as long as you let us know which you prefer. Corresponding in Welsh will not lead to any delay.

Mae’r Cyngor yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg a Saesneg a byddwn yn sicrhau ein bod yn cyfathrebu â chi yn eich dewis iaith boed yn Gymraeg, yn Saesneg neu’n ddwyieithog dim ond i chi roi gwybod i ni pa un sydd well gennych. Ni fydd gohebu yn Gymraeg yn creu unrhyw oedi.

Following the email an email was received from BCBC’s freedom of Information department, the same department that still has ignored at least two freedom of information requests since,  the council were questioned on their handling of the Bridgend taxi fare consultation where, shared regulatory services ignored Cabinet’s orders to consult with the taxi trade, and tried to force a taxi driver to ignore Cabinet’s request to consult all, a subject covered in the news prior to the last fare increase for the Bridgend taxi trade


It was also recorded during the consultation process that shared regulatory services head Yvonne Witchell who sits on sub committee meetings, left out proposal information once again, supplied by trade parties mentioned in the tariff proposals x 4, a further example of corrupt practices Mr Spain CEO for the Cab Watchdog service said


We show an email where Cabinet Leaders Pa handles the freedom of information request, which remains unanswered in almost a year says Mr Spain after he contacted the taxi driver for confirmation of the same


  • Karen Williams (Leader’s PA) <karen.williams2@bridgend.gov.uk>
    Thu, 9 May 2019 at 11:56

    Good Morning Mr Nelson,

    Thank you for your e-mail below, which I have forwarded to Cabinet and the Chief Executive, as requested.

    I understand that your e-mail is being processed as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request and, as such, will be managed and responded to accordingly through the FOI system.

    Kindest regards,



    Karen Williams

    Leader’s PA & Cabinet Support / Cymorth PA a Chadeirydd yr Arweinydd

    Ffôn/Phone: (01656) 643225                                                                                                                            

    Swyddog Gwasanaethau Democrataidd – Arweinyddiaeth | Democratic Services Officer – Leadership

    Chief Executive’s Directorate / Cyfarwyddiaeth y Prif Weithredwr

    Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | Bridgend County Borough Council                         

    E bost / Email: Karen.williams2@bridgend.gov.uk

    web email signature


    Dilynwch ni ar

    Follow us on

    FB-f-Logo__blue_72   Twitter_logo_blue   Insta croppedpng   YouTube-logo-full_color


    Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Rhowch wybod i ni os mai Cymraeg yw eich dewis iaith.
    We welcome correspondence in Welsh. Please let us know if your language choice is Welsh.



    From: Mr MoneyPenny <mrmoney.penny@ymail.com>
    Sent: 09 May 2019 10:15
    To: Karen Williams (Leader’s PA) <Karen.Williams2@bridgend.gov.uk>
    Subject: Fw: Freedom of information request – legendary games

    For the chief executive and Cabinet

    What is discrimination and delays

    —– Forwarded message —–

    From: “Mr MoneyPenny” <mrmoney.penny@ymail.com>


    Sent: Thu, 9 May 2019 at 10:11

    Subject: RE: Freedom of information request – legendary games

    Renewed foi

    Noting that proposals were delayed because Yvonne Witchell was waiting to tell members for several years, as she stated in an email to Mr Nelson in 2017.

    How long should the trade expect fare proposals to go in front of Cabinet in the future once submitted to licensing?

    1, a few months

    2.more than 6 months

    3.more than one year

    4. In excess of 18 months but no more than 2 years

    5. More than 2 years

    In the last fare proposal Cabinet asked for the trade to be consulted in September 2017. What was the reason for not going back to all trade members at the time?

    And why did it take in excess of a year to finally send out some 600 letters to the trade asking them to choose one of the tariffs?

    Why did operations – licensing initially only ask Mr Nelson to alter his proposal, but did not consult the rest of the trade as Cabinet requested.

    Why did operations not send out letters immediately to the trade asking them to choose one of the fare proposals on the table at the time, as Cabinet stated in the minutes.

    As we have seem – Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan are able to process taxi fare proposals far faster than BCBC. In the case of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan taxi fare proposals were processed and implemented within 8 months. What was the reason for delaying the Bridgend taxi fare proposals for several years. At least 2 years +

    What is the expected time frame for a single email reply currently:

    Is it up to 3 months

    Is it more than 3 months

    Is it in excess of 5 months


    When the council write you should leave a message on their answering machine;  is that to be ignored by taxi drivers in the borough or  is the council singling out Mr Nelson and BIT organisation, and therefore it only applies to Mr Nelson and Cab watchdog service.

    Does this singling out include omitting any  proposals with particulars submitted by Mr Nelson or BIT organisation.

    Given that the Premier fare proposal information and particulars were not sent out to the trade in the BCBC letter requesting taxi drivers choose a tariff, are we to take it the process lacks integrity as it did not include the full proposal particulars. Is it therefore to be understood by the public and the trade that particulars are taken out as part of the norm?

    Are these reply policies also available to the rest of the trade or is it just Mr Nelson, as well as the BIT Organisation?

    Does the council when asked, provide their discrimination policy, and why has it been more than 6 months that a taxi driver named Mr Nelson has not been provided the same?

    Will the council provide their policies that explain why the taxi trade suffers long delays, in many cases for years on simple matters such as, fare consultations, mot testing consultations, taxi age policy consultation as well as the time frame for actioning such matters.

    Are consultations and changes that Yvonne Witchell wrote about since 2017, being delayed because of the same policy used to stifle Mr Nelson and the BIT organisation, and as a result the taxi trade too? As no action has been taken to effect change, only delay change if we look at the age policy consultation which included Taxi vehicle testing/MOT

    If Mr Nelson sends an email and it is not responded to by licensing I’m more than 5 months on a regular basis, is this policy applied to other members of the trade, including those that put in fare proposals?

    I look forward to much understanding with a comprehensive reply

    Many thanks

    D Nelson

    Taxi driver subject to discrimination for flushing out the truth of the matter as we the trade know it in Bridgend

Bridgend’s Freedom of information department have come on the record below and confirmed their data breach, opening the door for the public and taxi drivers to sue the council by lawyers offering a data breach no win no fee legal service in England and Wales

  • foi <foi@bridgend.gov.uk>
    Fri, 17 Apr at 09:20


Thank you for your email of 15 April 2020 reporting a data breach involving XXXX personal data and the personal data of XXXXX.

You are correct that the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee held on XXXXX contained information which is exempt under the Local Government Act 1972 and should not have been made public.

Once I received your email yesterday morning I asked the Democratic Services Manager to remove the exempt information from the Authority’s website.

I received confirmation yesterday that this action was taken.

On behalf of the Authority I offer an apology to you and your xxxx for this data breach.

I can advise you that I reported the data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office yesterday and can assure you that the Authority will co-operate fully with any investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner.

I have asked the Democratic Services Manager to reinforce with staff the correct procedure for publishing minutes on the website in order to ensure that exempt information is not made public.

I have asked the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Again, I offer an apology to you xxxxxxxxxx for this breach of your personal data.

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Branford | Information and Data Protection Officer
Chief Executive’s Directorate | Bridgend County Borough Council | Civic Offices | Angel Street | Bridgend | CF31 4WB
Tel :    (01656) 643565|  Email: Charlotte.Branford@bridgend.gov.uk| Websitewww.bridgend.gov.uk

Swyddog Gwybodaeth a Diogelu Data

Cyfarwyddiaeth y Prif Weithredwr| Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | Swyddfeydd Dinesig | Stryd yr Angel | Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | CF31 4WB
Ffon :  (01656) 643565  |  Ebost: Charlotte.Branford@bridgend.gov.uk |  Gwefanwww.bridgend.gov.uk

Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Rhowch wybod i ni os mai Cymraeg yw eich dewis iaith.

We welcome correspondence in Welsh. Please let us know if your language choice is Welsh.

Show original message

Ewch i'n gwefan newydd a chofrestrwch a gyfer Fy Nghyfrif heddiw.  Visit our new website and sign up to My Account today.

Dilynwch ni ar
Follow us on
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube

I gael gwybodaeth ynghylch yr hyn a wnawn â data personol, gweler ein althysbysiad preifatrwydd.
For information about what we do with personal data see our privacy notice.


E-bost yn cael ei logio, ei monitro a/neu ei chofnodi yn awtomatig am resymau cyfreithiol
Peidiwch ag argraffu’r neges e-bost hon oni bai fod hynny’n gwbl angenrheidiol.
Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Rhowch wybod i ni os mai Cymraeg yw eich dewis iaith.
E-mail may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
Please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
We welcome correspondence in Welsh. Please let us know if your language choice is Welsh.

This e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it represents the
views of the individual(s) who sent them and should not be regarded
as the official view of Bridgend County Borough Council. The contents
are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If
you have received it in error, please inform the system administrator
on (+44) 01656 642111.

This e-mail and any attachments have been scanned

foi <foi@bridgend.gov.uk>
Mon, 20 Apr at 10:11

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that the document containing exempt information was removed from our website.

I will look further into the issue of why the link is still showing up on google and come back to you.

Yours sincerely,

Charlotte Branford | Information and Data Protection Officer
Chief Executive’s Directorate | Bridgend County Borough Council | Civic Offices | Angel Street | Bridgend | CF31 4WB
Tel :    (01656) 643565|  Email: Charlotte.Branford@bridgend.gov.uk| Websitewww.bridgend.gov.uk

Swyddog Gwybodaeth a Diogelu Data

download (25)
  • foi <foi@bridgend.gov.uk>
    Mon, 20 Apr at 10:34

    Dear XXX

    Thank you for your email of 18 April 2020 reporting a data breach involving your personal data.

    You are correct that the minutes of the Licensing Sub-Committee xxxxxxxxxxxxx contained information which is exempt under the Local Government Act 1972 and should not have been made public.

    The exempt information has now been removed from the Authority’s website. I will look further into the issue of why the link is still appearing when you perform a google search and come back to you further on that point.

    On behalf of the Authority I offer an apology to you for this data breach.

    I can advise you that I have reported the data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office and can assure you that the Authority will co-operate fully with any investigation carried out by the Information Commissioner.

    I have asked the Democratic Services Manager to reinforce with staff the correct procedure for publishing minutes on the website in order to ensure that exempt information is not made public.

    I cannot comment on the content of the minutes but will look further into this with the Licensing Team and respond to you further on this point.

    Again, I offer an apology to you for this breach of your personal data.

    Yours sincerely,

    Charlotte Branford | Information and Data Protection Officer
    Chief Executive’s Directorate | Bridgend County Borough Council | Civic Offices | Angel Street | Bridgend | CF31 4WB
    Tel :    (01656) 643565|  Email: Charlotte.Branford@bridgend.gov.uk| Websitewww.bridgend.gov.uk

    Swyddog Gwybodaeth a Diogelu Data

    Cyfarwyddiaeth y Prif Weithredwr| Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | Swyddfeydd Dinesig | Stryd yr Angel | Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr | CF31 4WB
    Ffon :  (01656) 643565  |  Ebost: Charlotte.Branford@bridgend.gov.uk |  Gwefanwww.bridgend.gov.uk

    Rydym yn croesawu gohebiaeth yn Gymraeg. Rhowch wybod i ni os mai Cymraeg yw eich dewis iaith.

    We welcome correspondence in Welsh. Please let us know if your language choice is Welsh.