Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD survey
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42205
Page 1 of 1

Author:  StuartW [ Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD survey

Nothing spectacularly out of the ordinary here, with boilerplate-ish stuff from all sides :-o

And you'd need to really engage with the detail to evaluate it all - looks like a mixed bag.

And, of course, with Lewes and the whole cross-border HC thing in Brighton, and the consequent CCTV spec etc, then that's obviously had a knock-on effect as regards fees etc.

Not sure to what extent the cross-border thing is still an issue with Lewes HCs (although I'm sure someone on here does). But that all demonstrated the nonsense of the 'unmet needs test' the trade is demanding here - see what I did there? :lol: :oops:

('Unmet needs' sounds more like a foodbank or something :-s )


Petition calls on Lewes District Council to consider higher taxi fares

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/busines ... es-5485551

Campaigners are calling on Lewes District Council look at higher taxi fares.

The demand comes as part of a petition, which also calls on the council to freeze the fees it for charges for taxi driver licences.

It was launched in response to proposed increases in the council’s overall licensing fees for the coming financial year.

Lead petitioner Sean Macleod, a former district councillor, argued the council needed to do more to protect its taxi trade.

In a press release, Mr Macleod said: “It’s clear the trade is struggling and after a 66 per cent fee increase last year to be hit with another 50 per cent [increase] in some cases this year is a clear kick in the teeth.

“It’s time councillors stood up for the trade and listened to their demands as they quite frankly have been ignored for too long.

“The four steps the trade are asking for are totally reasonable given the concerns the trade have … and their minimal expense.

“Given licensing money is completely ringfenced and in past years operated at a significant profit this should be considered as a reasonable expense. Not only that, it makes the trade feel listened to and that their concerns are being addressed.”

The petition says the council’s fare structure — the amount drivers can charge their passengers — is out of date.

It says it has failed to “keep pace with the dramatic and ongoing increases in operational costs, including fuel, insurance, vehicle maintenance and the overall cost of living.”

It also calls on the council to conduct a “comprehensive and independent audit” of its licensing department’s finances. It says campaigners have “serious concerns” about how the fees are currently being allocated and the level of transparency offered by the council.

The petition also calls on the council to commission a study — known as an Unmet Needs Survey — which would be used to determine whether the current number of taxis meets the district’s need. Mr Macleod said this would be expected to cost around £20,000.

A spokeswoman for Lewes District Council said: “We value the vital service provided by the taxi trade in Lewes district.

“The review of licensing fees is an annual process undertaken by local authorities across the country, and is in accordance with national requirements to ensure our licensing service remains sustainable and continues to meet its statutory obligations.

“The proposed fees for 2025-2026 are currently at the consultation stage and no final decision has yet been made. This proposal will be considered by the Licensing Committee, which will review all relevant information before reaching a decision.

“​Fee adjustments are never taken lightly. However, like all service providers, the council is facing significantly increased operating costs and inflationary pressures. The proposed increases reflect the actual cost of administering the scheme and ensuring the safety of the public and the taxi trade.

“Any petition submitted to the council will be considered through the authority’s formal processes.”

The proposed fee increases are set to be considered by the council’s licensing committee on Thursday evening (January 22).

A report to the committee notes how “it is proposed that the majority of fees will be increasing by 10 per cent” as a result of increasing “demand and inflation.”

However, the report goes on to note some taxi licensing fees are proposed to increase by 20 per cent.

The report says this is a result of “significant operating costs” linked to the council having become the data controller for CCTV systems installed in all licensed taxis.These costs were reflected in the taxi licensing budget carrying a deficit of £140,869 at the end of the 2024/25 financial year, the report said.

The proposed 20 per cent increases would only apply to the renewal of individual drivers’ licences.

Currently, the cost of a three year renewal comes to £472.50. It is proposed to increase this fee to £567.

Two other taxi fees could increase by a greater extent.

This may include the amount the council charges to provide vehicle livery. This fee could be increased from £83 to £125 — an increase of 50 per cent.

The fee charged to replace a door sign could also increase from £15 to £24 — an increase of 55 per cent.

Most other taxi licensing fees would increase by a lesser degree, however. Some fees — such as the cost of replacing ID badges and interior stickers — are only expected to increase by around 50p (less than one per cent in most cases).

Operator licence fees — the licence which allows a business to run a fleet of licensed drivers — are not set to increase at all.

If backed by the committee, the fees would then be expected to be put to a full council vote for the final decision.

The petition can be found at: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/lew ... licensing/

Author:  StuartW [ Thu Jan 22, 2026 2:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD su

To be fair, the 'unmet needs' terminology is the press's, and not the petitioners, although I only had a quick skim through.
And maybe it's just me, but if there's one very basic presentational thing that annoys and distracts when reading things, it's people who don't double space paragraphs :-o
Always press the 'Enter' key twice; never once [-(
You know it make sense :D
And always avoid smilies and stuff like excessive exclamation marks in official correspondence - always looks awful!!! :lol: :oops:

Author:  Sussex [ Thu Jan 22, 2026 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD su

Quote:
It also calls on the council to conduct a “comprehensive and independent audit” of its licensing department’s finances. It says campaigners have “serious concerns” about how the fees are currently being allocated and the level of transparency offered by the council.

I think that's a very valid proposal, and it has 100% chance of never happening.

Quote:
The petition also calls on the council to commission a study — known as an Unmet Needs Survey — which would be used to determine whether the current number of taxis meets the district’s need. Mr Macleod said this would be expected to cost around £20,000.

I think that's an utterly pointless and stupid proposal, and it also has a 100% chance of never happening.

Lewes has lost over 50% of its hackneys since the pandemic. Drivers have either left the trade or they have gone PH and work Uber in B&H.

But even if there were good reasons for a SUD survey, in just over a year Lewes is going to be a part of the East Sussex Unitary Authority, with several other councils, and the taxi/PH trade is going to be governed by an elected Sussex Mayor.

In short, Lewes taxis will no longer be Lewes taxis, and they will not be governed by Lewes, or for that matter, East Sussex councillors.

Author:  edders23 [ Thu Jan 22, 2026 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD su

StuartW wrote:
To be fair, the 'unmet needs' terminology is the press's, and not the petitioners, although I only had a quick skim through.
And maybe it's just me, but if there's one very basic presentational thing that annoys and distracts when reading things, it's people who don't double space paragraphs :-o
Always press the 'Enter' key twice; never once [-(
You know it make sense :D
And always avoid smilies and stuff like excessive exclamation marks in official correspondence - always looks awful!!! :lol: :oops:



NO :lol: :badgrin: :-({|=

Author:  StuartW [ Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD su

...anyway, this happened :-o

Nothing spectacularly interesting, but I think the licensing person is alluding to some sort of driver shortage here (as highlighted) - never seen that kind of thing before :-s

So it's the usual 'trade is struggling' from one part of the trade, but maybe a perceived shortage of drivers from others in the trade, and a hint of council capture in the latter regard.

(But, on the other hand, avoiding the plate cap capture demanded by others...)


Lewes councillors back taxi and other licensing fee increases

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/busines ... es-5488027

Lewes councillors have backed plans to raise licensing fees next year, amid calls to freeze costs for taxi drivers.

On January 23, Lewes District Council’s Licensing Committee endorsed plans to introduce new fees and charges structure from April 2026, with a final decision set to be made at an upcoming full council meeting.

Before making this decision, the committee heard how the council had received a petition raising concerns about part of the proposed structure to increase fees linked with taxi licensing.

The petition, signed by more than 250 people at time of publication, calls on the council to: freeze fees at their current level; hold an independent audit of the council’s licensing finances; commission a study into whether the district has enough taxi drivers; and review what Hackney Carriage drivers can charge in fares.

In a press release issued ahead of the meeting, lead petitioner Sean Macleod — a former district councillor — said: “It’s clear the trade is struggling and after a 66 per cent fee increase last year to be hit with another 50 per cent [increase] in some cases this year is a clear kick in the teeth.

“It’s time councillors stood up for the trade and listened to their demands as they quite frankly have been ignored for too long.

“The four steps the trade are asking for are totally reasonable given the concerns the trade have … and their minimal expense.”

The committee heard from Jo Dunk, the council’s lead for regulatory service. She said: “We are actually in the process of looking at Hackney [Carriage] fares, which have been agreed to and consulted with the trade. It is purely a legal matter now to get final signatory on that Hackney fare increase; that over 51 per cent agreed to within the Hackney trade.

“I must point out that Private Hire fares are not something that we have any influence over.”

Ms Dunk acknowledged that the process behind the fee increase had taken longer than usual as a result of ‘resource’ issues within the licensing department.

She also discussed the requested study — known as an Unmet Needs Survey — which the petition argues is needed to understand whether the current number of taxis within the district meets local need.

She said such surveys are only legally required when a council has a cap on the number of taxi drivers it allows to have a licence. Ms Dunk said: “Unlimited licences can be issued, unfortunately there is not the appetite for people wanting to apply for that licence.

“We did research this last year and the quotation of costs would be approximately £20,000 to undertake such a survey and [the cost of] undertaking that type of survey would have to be met through the taxi budget. So in turn those costs would impact on the trade itself.”

Ms Dunk also noted how the council has commissioned an internal audit into the licensing department, which is due to take place this year. The petition had called for an “a complete, external, and independent financial and procedural audit” of the department.

The committee also heard how the taxi licensing fee increases had been deemed necessary as a result of the cost of the service, which was carrying a deficit of £140,869 at the end of the 2024/25 financial year.

Ms Dunk said costs had increased as a result of several factors, including the introduction in 2023 of a mandatory requirement for all taxis to have CCTV systems. This had resulted in the council having become the data controller for footage recorded by these systems; a responsibility which carries a significant cost.

By law, the committee heard, these costs must be covered by the licensing fees and cannot be ‘subsidised from general funds’. The council is also not allowed to generate a profit from these fees.

The proposed increases for the taxi trade include the costs of renewing or applying for a new taxi driver’s licence. These costs would increase by 20 per cent, when compared to the current year.

This increase would see the council’s drivers’ licence application fee increase from £340.20 to £409, while the charge for a three-year licence renewal would increase from £472.50 to £567.

Other proposed increases include the amount the council may charge to provide vehicle livery. This fee could be increased from £83 to £125 — an increase of 50 per cent. The fee charged to replace a door sign could also increase from £15 to £24.

Most other taxi licensing fees would increase by a lesser degree, however. Some fees — such as the cost of replacing ID badges and interior stickers — are only expected to increase by around 50p (less than one per cent in most cases).

Operator licence fees — the licence which allows a business to run a fleet of licensed drivers — are not set to increase at all.

The committee also considered the amount it charges for street trading licences.

If adopted, the new structure would see the daily and weekly rates charged individual traders both increase by 10 per cent. This would see the daily rate increase from £11.55 to £13, while the weekly rate would increase from £86.63 to £96 instead.

The annual rate for individual traders would double, increasing from £548.63 to £1,098. The annual rate for market operators is set to increase by 200 per cent — rising from £548.63 to £1,646.

The committee agreed to recommend these fee increases to full council, but also called on officers to review what “concessionary fees” could be charged to non-profit organisations and Community Interest Companies (CICs).

Author:  StuartW [ Fri Jan 23, 2026 11:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Lewes petition demands rethink on fees, fares and SUD su

Quote:
The committee heard from Jo Dunk, the council’s lead for regulatory service.

Bet she's fed up of all the 'slam dunk' jokes :lol:

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/