TaxiForums.co.uk, The Taxi Drivers Forum - The forum for taxi drivers in the UK!

Who Runs London - Social Security and Child Support Commissioners

Transport for London . HOUSING, PLANNING & COMMUNITY REGENERATION ... Chief Commissioner for England: His Honour Judge G. Hickinbottom ...
whorunslondon.turtle.net/index.php?option=com_content... - Cached

The Public Carriage Office is corrupt. They have forced thousands of London Cabs to have emissions systems fitted that don’t work and persecuted Eco-power because we did not pay the right people backhanders

The concept of a project to reduce emissions in London taxis is a worthwhile and valid idea. However the way that this project has been managed and implemented has resulted in many London Taxis creating no less emissons and some creating even more than before they had systems fitted. (I am extremely surprised that the press has not made a huge issue out of this)

My company, Eco-Power designed, developed, manufactured and distributed an emissions reduction system for London Taxis which was approved by the PCO. My company has no affiliations with the large taxi fleets, the EST or the PCO. Prior to the Eco-Power system being sold the other approved systems were sold through the main taxi fleets and garages at a price which enabled profiteering to take place and which would force the smaller garages and operators to buy them.

Eco-Power sold its system at £1100 +vat when the other systems were previously sold at £2000 or more. We also sold to the smaller garages and operators (over 70 were approved installers) which meant that the bigger players were no longer selling any where near the amount of systems that they had previously.

The general feeling is that the bigger garages and operators have close associations with the PCO.

In February 2008, only 6 months after the approval of the Eco-power system, the PCO contacted Eco-Power and claimed that there were problems with the system. They independently tested the system on a taxi which would have not passed a test with any system installed and when it failed they withdrew the approval.(the taxi they tested on had not been serviced properly which meant it was creating far more smoke than

a properly serviced taxi would)

I protested that this was completely unfair- the Eco-power system was working very well at reducing the emissions with no complaints from anyone and they targeted this system alone. This completely contradicts their policy just a year before when the London Taxi Drivers Club complained about the failure of the other systems which were actually causing more smoke than they stopped and actually took the PCO to the High Court for a judicial review (which I know Mr Roger Evans supported). The PCO argued that the taxis which had been independently tested had other faults which caused the taxis to fail an emission test. They then tested the Eco-Power system under the same conditions and declared the tests were valid.

During the High Court case which resulted from the PCO withdrawing the approval, Eco-Power requested that comparative scientific testing should be done for all the systems which had been approved to give a true picture of the effectiveness at reducing emissions to the required level. This was refused so Eco-power did some further independent testing to compare with another system. A taxi was fitted with the Eco-power system and tested and then with a Taxicat system and tested. Both systems got very close to the required emissions levels but did not achieve a pass. However the Eco-power system performed better than the Taxicat system which was still approved by the PCO. This controlled test gave a clear indicator that the PCO had withdrawn the approval for the Eco-power system which was performing better than a system that they had not withdrawn and they still did nothing.

I need too make the point that in order for any emissions system to pass a test it takes months of preparation to get the engine in the correct condition.

An approval for an emissions standard does not necessarily mean that if you take that vehicle off the street and test it will pass the emissions standard for which it is approved. An example of this would be a test that was carried out on a brand new TX4 (which is supposed to have a Euro 4 approval) failed a Euro 3 test (which is half of a Euro 4 standard)

As a public body the PCO has a legal requirement to have fair and consistent decisions. This has certainly not been the case.

The reason I would question the motives of the PCO is the way in which the PCO targeted the Eco-power system which in practice was working well and at the same time they had previously defended the other systems which were failing dramatically. These other systems were failing so badly that the filters were blocking and then being bypassed by a hole being made through them (they were doing absolutely nothing to stop tailpipe emissions) Garages installing other systems said that they were having to disable them as soon as they had gone through an inspection to stop them causing problems with the engine. It is worth mentioning that during the approval procedure the systems were required to conduct a 10k mile durability test. In order to maintain the integrity of the test Eco-Power installed a very comprehensive tracking system on the taxi being tested which had online access 24/7 for the PCO/EST to monitor the taxi. It gave the exact position and speed of the taxi to show that it was completing the 10K miles in the normal drive cycle and that it was definitely doing 10k miles and not having the Speedo adjusted to look as if it had. None of the other systems were tested in this way, only Eco-power. One of the other systems had so many filters blocking and parts breaking that they went out of business yet the PCO still kept their approval in place


During the High court case the Judge found that the PCO had acted in a high handed way and that the PCO had unlawfully withdrawn 2 of the Eco-power approvals. He also said that Eco-power had fulfilled the requirements of the approval procedure for the 3rd approval legitimately but the PCO had the right to withdraw it following their subsequent testing (even though this testing was not conducted properly)

The entire project has been completely mismanaged from the start by the PCO and EST. What is worse is that they have not been held to account for their mistakes.

The result is that London taxis are creating more pollution now than they were previously.

Eco-power has had a London Taxi fitted with the system for which the approval was withdrawn and it has been tested at a VCA approved laboratory. It has passed the required Euro 3 test and the PCO have been informed. They are refusing to re-instate the approval saying that the entire approval procedure will have to be carried out again, which includes a 6 month 10,000 mile durability test. This is despite the fact that a high court judge has ruled that the original approval procedure was legitimate; they are obviously changing the rules to suit their position.

At the same time they have conducted absolutely no conformity tests on the many systems which are failing dramatically.



The Mayor of London says he wants a cleaner, greener and fairer London. None of these things will be achieved if nothing is done about this situation.

As an individual I am 100% committed to reducing emissions and providing fuel efficiency technologies. Eco-Power is currently developing a Hydrogen generator technology and a Flash Vortex injection technology, both of which will improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. We are also planning to distribute a fuel economy gauge which will enable drivers to improve their driving habits and therefore save fuel and reduce emissions.

I am working on a project for LED street lighting which uses an intelligent management system and gives up to 90 % power savings. Added to this is technology which uses a Photo Voltaic film and a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine mounted to streetlights which means that they would actually generate power. If this technology was implemented nationwide it would generate the equivalent electricity of several power stations but by using a renewable source in an unobtrusive way.

I know that the PCO and EST do not have the same attitude towards emissions reduction otherwise they would not have allowed this farce to take place.

I would be very grateful for you help in making sure that this injustice is corrected.

Regards Dave Davies