We have been compiling for so long that Will lane would have to show everything if he was to take his complaint to stage one. His miserable attempt to force the complaint is unethical and we simply will not be bullied with incomplete information so if it was to go to the ombudsman it would not be detailed.
I asked Yvonne Witchell of the vale of Glamorgan how it all worked. However in her Bridgend office she is suffering from blindness and speech communication problems on the record, as she now can no longer determine what’s going on, and appears to have lost the plot, and potentially is hiding behind a cabinet some where in the Vale of Glamorgan offices, or Bridgend also. As one needs to think double when dealing with these Officers moves or lack of moves todate.
In order for me to be at stage one:
Firstly your organisation would have had to be compliant with your communication charter and your reference numbers would need to correspond and so would your letter heads.
2ndly your department in complaint would need to make up their minds when communicating with BIT Senior Partner as to what information they would need to be able to deal with the complaint at stage 1. I regret fabricating fairy tales is not listed in your complaints procedure, or is it? Nor is taking a complaint on the basis the person complaining has supplied lots of documents when they have not, especially when those documents are not shown in entirety to Mr Nelson. But that’s the trouble when you have no Will and take the narrow lane, Mr Will Lane.
We have emails from all officers and we have signatures from some including a recieved for the cheif exec in Bridgend a document detailed for proposal implimentation after Daniel Cook or Yvonne Witchell have prepaired those various costings to work out the Bridgend calculation. Training is what is needed for these individuals including Mr Holland. We BIT Partner’s get good training in our job, Why does not Mr Holland in his? Do they teach call back?
He would be a stage 2 disaster in business as at the 2nd stage he would be arrested for paying below the minimum wage or better still he would go bust. Or he would have to work endless hours a day by the week to pay back his stupidity or desporation to earn money in the taxi business as a result
There were 5 calculations divided by X to reach the amount needed for a rural taxi. I don’t need to complain at stage 2 if the writting is on the wall or easy for all to see. As Daniel Cook took it out and therefore never ever made those calculations based on how to work it out. It’s a no brainer. Maybe Will Lane has no brain. I don’t know, Why would you be so stupid? Why would licensing? Thats naughty practices
Why else would they pretend they did not recieve the workings and how to formulate the workings to arrive at the numbers used in the trade as per the guidance provided in the public domain for taxis to apply, and as such the same formula was discovered by Daniel Cook and he understood there were workings and insurance quotes to undertake, as well as calculations of the Bridgend fleet, as well as licensing costs to be added, not to mention empty milage per annum and average wages.
Mr Holland’s public report does not show those calculations but instead shows a novice in action or an unprofessional or two or three or four unprofessionals commiting fraudulant accounts as a result, and using Mr Nelson’s name in the process.
I say again “HOW DARE YOU ” How dare you Mr Finger in Dyke
Resolve the obvious and go back to the drawing board, and while you are at it get some manners or training in the same, Mr Dave Holland and the rest of you involved in this mess.
Are you not aware taxis are all businesses or individuals entitled to correct practices and calculations from those in public office who didctate their current losses?.
Because, you are costing this Welsh borough of taxi drivers a fortune with your unprofessional practices that in my opinion is clear negligence for the taxi trade of this borough to now see in black and white. The game is up, Who needs you Mr Holland. Unless you are a spare tyre, what good are you in the current unprofessional format Mr Holland?
For that reson I/we have asked for a meeting with BCBC Cabinet,
Again I refer you to the news – https://bitnews725.wordpress.com/
I/we will only deal with those that have integrity and intelligence to look at the obvious, some are are in denial over. Officer shortly we still seek or Leader Long etc.
Resolution and settlement is the way forward for Drive and all drives caught up in bad taxi policies, and the guessing of fare setting, which can no longer be justified Mr Holland, nor can it be tolerated.
Get your finger out and sort it out this mess out Mr Holland for local business, would be another message for the man with his head in the sand, and all the rest responsible for taxi driver demise in the borough, not forgetting to mention those taxi drivers who are still currently in the waiting of policies old to be changed. Why because Dave Holland and Yvonne Witchell are working on the fly, and far too late as it turns out, delays and more delays, whilst Parity for Hackney Carriage Vehicle proprietors in the borough goes unanswered, whilst they catch up with the mess any way they can? But still try to carry on with the same old communication shut down. What are we playing here? catch up by sand dune?,
The taxi trade is no longer sleeping or ignorant, however when organistations that control them break rules, and their own rules, it is them that are the problem and not the taxi trade. As certainly they never signed up for that when they completed the application to renew their taxi badge
Please, Taxi drivers called BIT Partner’s are no idiots and nor are those that read the NEWS exposure, of every communication with licensing and shared regulatory services. That is our BIT as part of the BIT remit.
It’s obvious your shared regulatory services plans don’t fit in with taxi drivers ability to stop the nonsense that has been going on for far too long.
Time is up, The game is up, I am afraid.
Our stage one strategy is complete as we have been watching shared regulatory services and licensing like a hawk to prove what we have been told is going on and that’s why Bridgend Taxi drivers have been manipulated over time for years.
Dave Holland come out and play and sort your unprofessional practices out, as we are watching you hide in the sand. That would be the message to Mr Holland.
Resolution maybe, but you are all exposed Mr Dave Holland and the rest of them. Question now is, What are you lot or they going to do about it? asks BITNEWS725
Let the record show that we have been working on this case since 2016
and therefore please do not try and pull the wool over my eyes, as I/we were not born yesterday, and have been dealing with legal matters and councils so to speak for decades.
Thus far I would say to Mr Dave Holland to pull his socks up and that should reform the process some what if he can actually admit to his department’s failings when misrepresenting a recognised formula’s wording for his department’s own gain, thus leaving out the key calculations needed as it tells licensing what calculations to do. New balls it’s still my serve.
Therefore which ever way you cut it the evidence shows an apology is due.
I’ve been asking licensing questions for a year and I am satisified Dave Holland didnt know what hit him when he got BITNEWS725 Hard copy.
May I suggest he reads ABOUT US and The Pledge for Change –
We have email showing Daniel Cook acknowledged the request for the proposal to be named/labeled as from BIT Partner, but that too was ignored by Yvonne Witchell as we have experienced before, and so she did not responded. It has all been exposed in the news. No getting away from that for a Dave Holland or Yvonne Witchell.
My apologies Dave and Yvonne and Daniel. I knew you lot were cooking from the word go. It just needed time for you to serve up the rubbish across the board Mr Holland tell him. It’s finally game over and we need reform or a New GAME please.
Shared regulatory services and licensing need reforming there is no question of that.
Like Yvonne Witchell, I am not impressed with Dave Holland’s ability to be professional in public office and therefore given the circumstance he must be an unprofessional based on our BIT investigation and I say again now almost a year.
Cabinet in their wisdom probably knew something was up, that’s my feeling given Bit News and the outcome of the meeting and minutes. Especially if Oggy Blogger –https://oggybloggyogwr.com/ is any thing to go by.
Well there is no law against phoning Mr Nelson when he is asked to do so twice, is there? or coming on the record in good time to sort out the obvious exposure of the problem.
Dave Holland and Daniel Cook were sent hard copy news copy addressed to them using a written label to cover the ANGEL ST address so he and Daniel Cook Policy officer could see what was sent to Karen Williams at Cabinet in Bridgend, so Dave Holland and Daniel Cook get fair disclosure !! That’s the way to do it drive in order to ensure intgrity in the process.
Dave holland is an unprofessional who is not to be trusted to have integrity or be polite, says Senior BIT Partner conducting a investigation now 11 months and 3 weeks, as a result of his ongoing investigation into how these bodies perform when they are targeted for answers that Taxi drivers need under the circumstances, as time is money
Shared regulatory send out a complaint acknowledgement Letter date: 12/10/17 – ref:6889142 Stage 1 Complaint Licencing
NOTE WELL – (Shared regulatory services headed paper)
“You should recieve a response within 10 working days”.
Mr Lane writes he needs more to work with a few days later and is advised will do in due course but thank you for reading the News and he is covering or speaking out for Yvonne Witchell’s butt in so many words, as she is failing the BCBC charter like a fraudster.
Then a couple of days ago (now some 5 weeks since 12/10/17) he gets all fired up out the blue and opens a new complaint for BIT Partner for himself I beleive and does not uphold his tinkering and moves to stage 2
Is is me drive or have I been working too long?
Now here is the interesting BIT.
03/10/17 – Hard copy sent and distributed –
Dave Holland shared regulatory head was invited to come out to play, BIT Partner phoned Cardiff Licensing and they agreed to pass on the message he should phone the next time he is in that office in order to discuss the fraudulant removal of the taxi formula to determine taxi costs, and not the normal motorist costs which was used by him at the Cabinet Meeting, which caused the proposals x 3 to be rejected without proper use of economic reasoning or business calculations needed to calculate taxi running costings .
NOTE WELL NOT SRS but – Vale of Glamorgan headed paper
Do you ever get cross eyed drive? or see double
However a letter came in yesterday from the Vale of Glamorgan to confirm Dave Holland would be the man to deal with the complaint at stage 2.
But drive that would mean he would have to come on the record and apologies for not contacting that BIT, before the game could commence or went any where. Is he a professional my good man or lady?
Are they all in on it, Drive?, Yes, is the Senior BIT Partner’s opinion, especially as Yvonne Witchell has been silenced now 5 weeks, again we see the same shared practices whilst they play games with BIT Partner’s to avoid the obvious on the record.
BIT we remain free and on the ball, that’s what BIT NEWS and BITNEWS725 is here to do. We are a forensic account of the goings on online and on time, coming live for your mental thoughts
Are we at Stage 2 or Stage 1 ?
Frankly my dear I dont give a danmm said Mr Butler in gone with the wind.
Maybe BIT Partner will need to investigate these irregularities further. BIT – getting to the bottom of things for taxi you, and free
BIT NEWS HARD COPY 2 could well be in the making at this time, BIT Partner tells BCBC complaints this week