Taxi Driver Online

Old thread on this was getting a bit messy.


New Hackney Carriage cab fares agreed for Babergh

https://www.sudburymercury.co.uk/news/b ... ed-7307396

New fares for Hackney Carriage cabs in Babergh will be introduced from April, despite warnings from the taxi trade that they will not be transparent for passengers.

Babergh District Council's cabinet on Thursday afternoon agreed the new tariff structure, which will be introduced from April 5.

It will see a vehicle that can carry up to four passengers charge a £3.20 starting rate, with 20p increases every 176 yards for the day rate.

There will be a £4.80 starting rate, with 30p increases per 176 yards, for night journeys between 11pm and 7am - and a £6.40 base rate, with 40p increases every 176 yards, for Christmas and New Year.

But for larger vehicles which carry more than four passengers those tariffs will be £4.80 with 30p increases for 176 yards on the day rate, £7.20 with a 45p increase every 176 yards for the night rate and a £9.60 base rate with 60p increases for Christmas and New Year.

The council said it was designed to recognise that cab firms hadn't had a fare rise since August 2016, and costs in that time had increased - as well as to remove the percentage uplift currently in place, claiming it had not been used consistently.

But while cab firms have welcomed a small increase, they have raised concerns that the rate for larger vehicles is too high and may actually put customers off - particularly disabled or single passengers, who would be penalised for paying a higher rate if a larger cab was at the front of the taxi rank.

The council said cab drivers had the discretion to charge less than what was on the meter, but drivers said it meant the meter wouldn't be clear.

Steve Hale, from Hale-A-Cab in Sudbury, said that he "couldn't see the point of having a meter in the car anymore" if drivers had to routinely charge less.

"We didn't ask for a price rise, but it is welcome, but we have got to make sure it is right for everybody - it needs to be right for the drivers, the owners and the public," he said.

"If you start charging too much people are not going to use them."

Mr Hale said four out of every five Hackney Carriage cabs in the district are the larger vehicles, meaning that people could be "scared off" using them if they see higher prices on the meter.

It followed problems a year ago when revised fares were first assessed and presented to cabinet which would have left cab drivers making less than they do now.

"We have lost all confidence in the licensing department given the fact they haven't listened to us," he said.

Stuart Armstrong, from AAA Cabs Ltd, said the industry had asked for the fares to be based on passenger numbers rather than vehicle size to make it more equitable and transparent.

He said a normal weekday fare from Sudbury to Lavenham could rise from £13 to more than £23 under the new fares.

"Yes these fares are the maximum that can be charged and the driver could possibly charge you less than the metered fare, purely down to their discretion, but these rates have to be displayed by law," he said.

The cabinet voted seven to one in favour of the new fares, which only apply to Hackney Carriage cabs - those which can be hailed from the roadside and use the cab ranks. Private hire cabs run their own fares.

The cabinet recognised there were still issues with transparency but leader John Ward said "there is flexibility in this proposal" and vowed to continue liaising with the cab trade to monitor the new fares.

Cabinet member for the environment, Elisabeth Malvisi, said: "Fares for Hackney carriages in Babergh have not increased since August 2016, and our cabbies have faced increasing costs.

“We’ve addressed this in the new tariffs, by increasing the maximum fares.

"We’ve also brought our structure in line with UK best practice and made it unambiguous.

"We will, however, continue to regularly monitor the tariffs with the trade to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose."

Does any other council specify a higher rate for larger vehicles if one of that passenger capacity isn't actually required?

Council saying that drivers can charge lower, but that's missing the point a bit.

If they are fixing the higher rate for larger taxis, not allowing a normal 1-4 rate and a higher 5-8 rate, then surely that will be a breach of the Equalities Act.

Most WAVs are 5-8 seaters, fixing the rate higher for a WAV punter over the price for an able bodied punter is as clear a breach of the act as there can be.

Very strange.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think it is intended to be only for 5+ passengers

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

If that is the case then what's the problem?

The meter will be set to adjust to a different rate if the driver wants to charge the higher rate, if he doesn't then he needn't change the tariff.

_________________
IDFIMH

Council forced to scrap new cab fares which 'inadvertently enable discrimination'

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/local-counc ... fs-7904118

A Suffolk council which agreed new Hackney Carriage cab fares despite warnings from taxi drivers that they could penalise single and disabled passengers has been forced to scrap the changes and admit they could "inadvertently enable discrimination".

Babergh District Council's cabinet in February agreed to a new table of fares after more than a year of wrangling, and were due to be introduced on April 5.

But an urgent decision notice on the council's website said that it has had to suspend the new fare structure in order to prevent a breach of the Equality Act.

The report said: "In the week before the implementation date, the council received representations from the Suffolk Disability Forum that the revised table of fares potentially discriminated against people with protected characteristics due to the two-tier nature of the scale of fees which enables drivers to charge a higher rate for larger vehicles.

"The charge is based on the size of the vehicle rather than the number of passengers. Although the table of fares represent the maximum chargeable amount and drivers do have discretion to charge a lesser amount, the council has agreed a scheme that could inadvertently enable discrimination.

"On investigation it has emerged that, whilst an Equality Impact Screening Assessment was undertaken in respect of the review of the table of fares, a full Equality Impact Assessment was not carried out and therefore the impacts of the revised scheme were not properly assessed or mitigated.

"As the cabinet has made a decision based on incomplete information, the monitoring officer has advised that the decision needs to be quashed and reconsidered.

"In order to prevent the council breaching its duties under s.49 of the Equality Act, the council needs to act swiftly to suspend the implementation of the revised table of fares.

"These fares were due to come into effect on 5 April 2021, however the practical implementation has already been delayed due to issues with programming the taxi meters.

"Therefore, taxi companies and drivers have already been advised that the new fares will not be enforced at this time."

It is not yet clear when a revised attempt at the fares will be brought forward.

Members of the cab trade who gave representations in the previous consultations warned that basing the fares on vehicle size would unfairly hit passengers travelling alone, those with prams or buggies and wheelchair users, and suggested instead basing the tariff uplift on the number of passengers for a journey.

Hackney Carriage taxis are those which can queue in cab ranks and be hailed from the roadside. The new tariffs do not apply to private hire vehicles.

At least they worked it out in the end

most tables of fares in my neck of woods (deregulated don't forget) state t2 or t3 for 5+ passengers

problem solved and doesn't contradict equality legislation

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Who would have thought?

Clearly the only people in the country who thought this proposal wasn't a breach of the act work for that council.

It's actually quite laughable.

_________________
IDFIMH

The thing is those rates are in place now and drivers could charge those rates.

What a prize pillock of a council they are.

_________________
IDFIMH

New Babergh cab fares proposed to replace those which could 'enable discrimination'

https://www.sudburymercury.co.uk/news/l ... ed-8045276

Fresh fares for Hackney Carriage taxis in Babergh will go out to public consultation, after previous tariffs had to be scrapped just days before coming into effect because they breached discrimination laws.

And licensing bosses have said they have used suggestions from the cab trade to help ensure there are no issues this time around.

New fares due to be introduced in April had to be shelved at zero hour because the way the fares would work could breach the Equality Act, and a council report suggested it could "inadvertently enable discrimination".

That was because fares were based on the size of the taxi, rather than the number of passengers, which could have penalised those with walking frames, wheelchairs or pushchair buggies who have no choice but to use the larger vehicles.

Cab drivers in their consultation comments had raised the matter as a problem, but the proposals still proceeded.

The council's licensing committee on Friday morning, which ousted committee chairman Mark Newman with a vote of no confidence over the handling of the matter to date, agreed to a fresh series of tariffs.

Emma Richbell, assistant manager for food, safety and licensing, said: "The starting point this time was the trade itself.

"We had received a number of tariff proposals from drivers, operators and meter agents and we used this to draw up three tariff proposals which would provide an increased income for the trade while being affordable for the travelling public, and in particular would not penalise those who would only be able to travel in one of the larger wheelchair-accessible vehicles."

The saga has been ongoing for more than a year, with the latest fares the third set to come to committee in that time.

Cab fares have not increased in Babergh since 2016, with the raise designed to help drivers cover the increased costs of running vehicles during that time but not at the expense of putting travellers off.

A 28-day public consultation will now be held, with responses returning to the committee on August 13, and a final decision being made by cabinet after that.

The proposals for one-four passengers now start at £3.20 for a day rate with an 18p increase every 176 yards, £4.80 for evenings with 27p every 176 yards and £6.40 for Christmas and New Year with 36p every 176 yards.

For five or more passengers the day rate starts at £4.80 with 27p every 176 yards, £6.40 for evenings with 36p every 176 yards and £8 with 45p every 176 yards on Christmas and New Year.

Those fares are maximum fares and only applicable to Hackney Carriage cabs - those that can be hailed from the roadside, not private hire vehicles.

So the chairman carries the can, while the rest of the committee and officials get off scot free?

But at least they've all now worked out the difference between vehicles and passengers

What a novel idea?

_________________
IDFIMH

How refreshing to see, someone actually carrying the can for once.

_________________
IDFIMH

For five minutes, at least...


Ousted licensing chairman wins backing to return

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/local-counc ... ow-8198232

A committee chairman who lost a no confidence vote over changes to Hackney Carriage cab fares will remain in post after securing the backing of enough councillors to continue.

The rarely-used no confidence motion was held at the last meeting of Babergh District Council’s licensing committee in June, agreed by five votes to two, for committee chairman Mark Newman, who was forced to cede the chair for that meeting.

That was as a result of changes to Hackney Carriage taxi fares which resulted in a new tariff structure being agreed that was subsequently found to “inadvertently enable discrimination” just days before it was supposed to take effect, and had to be scrapped.

At Thursday night’s full council meeting, councillors voted whether to uphold the no-confidence vote and seek a new chairman, but Mr Newman was backed by 16 votes to 12, meaning he can continue in the post.

Committee chairs are allocated at the start of the council year in May.