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

The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=18226		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  edders23 [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
Following on from comments made in the law commission section i felt i need to put the record straight.

First a reminder of why it came about. About 20 years ago the council received a complaint about a fare taken by Discount cabs in Grotsville basically they received a booking from Corby Glen ( about 12 miles away) to go to a neighbouring village. Driver started his meter as he was leaving grotsville and charged the customer accordingly. Customer complained to council and council sued discount cabs and LOST costa awarded against council (legal bill was about £25000 I believe) Council reacted by deregulating fares allowing any Hackney to set their own fares just like a PH BUT also sets a default rate We also have no limits on numbers or type of vehicle we operate which means that in the 20 years since this came about taxi numbers have more than doubled in the district BUT NOT in Grotsville they have about the same number of cars still all the additional vehicles are in Stamford,Bourne and the Deepings

In the early years the taxis that worked grotsville railway station put their start rate up by 20p to recover the fees they pay the railway to operate there. Most of the rest stayed on the default rate. Elsewhere everyone stayed on the default rate fearful that if they put their fares up they would be screamed at by punters and no longer used.

3 years ago 3 indepedant drivers from stamford tried changing their tariff to a start of £3.00 including the first mile which meant that for fares above a mile they were cheaper. Within 6 months 1 changed his meter to standard council tariff and came to work for me 1 gave up taxying the other changed his meter back to Council default and continued for a while but left the business and unsuccessfully entered the pub trade.

Why well the customers only notice the start rate on the meter not the final cost and the other firms and drivers were only too pleased to keep pointing this out to customers so no one would get in their cars except a few regulars. I have discussed changing our tariff to one of our own choosing with my drivers but i was told bluntly if i did they would go elsewhere because they are petrified of losing trade that way

The second long term result of this is that with meters starting at £1.50 cherrypicking is rife more than half of the drivers at night time regularly refuse smaller jobs and one driver will not pull off front rank unless a £7 or over job gets in !


Deregulation in South kesteven has on balance been a total failure for the drivers but as you can see by the position in the league table the councils aim of getting better vaule for money for taxi users has largely been achieved as fares have and will always remain depressed because no one wants to be the first to put fares up for fear of losing trade
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
edders23 wrote:
Deregulation in South kesteven has on balance been a total failure for the drivers but as you can see by the position in the league table the councils aim of getting better vaule for money for taxi users has largely been achieved as fares have and will always remain depressed because no one wants to be the first to put fares up for fear of losing trade

I think your trade suffered because the council got the hump with losing in court. I did have the case but can't find it now. It was South Kestevens - Parsons 1996.

The council lost the case about meters and conditions, and said right if you don't want us controlling you via conditions then go your own way. And the trade have suffered since.

Quite often the trade is it's own worst enemy, and this is a case in point.
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
In the case of Parsons v South Kesteven District Council the Council required that all taxis be installed with a taximeter prior to the granting of a licence.

Mr Parsons did not feel that this was 'reasonably necessary’ and that the Council had no power to impose such a condition under Section 47(1) over the whole of the area.

After the Transport Act, 1985, extended the licensing powers to the whole of a Councils area, to include both urban and rural, South Kesteven made a resolution and instituted a table of fare which applied to the whole of the district.

Mr Parsons was aggrieved that due to the vast area of the district he could travel up to 10 mIles before being allowed to start the meter so made an appeal to Magistrates Court in January 1996.

The Council deregulated and set a default tariff’ only and left it to the parties concerned to agree a tare. The 'default tariff’ was to allow for a booking fee to make up the cost of ‘dead mileage'.

In the Judgement after the above events the court was satisfied that the Council could regulate the trade for the whole of the area and also in a reasonable way regulate the fares (but they had no say in how this could be achieved).

In summing up It was said; "taxlmeters are meaningless without a Table of Fares, the real effect of the Respondent’s condition that there be a taximeter was that the Council were imposing a condition as to the fares that could be charged. indeed they must have thought that when they commenced their prosecution of a driver for not imposing their fare Structure”.

In conclusion it was not ‘reasonably necessary’ to Impose such an unfair fare structure and the appellant was Justifiably aggrieved.

It is interesting to note that the Crown Court Judge in this case agreed with South Kesteven in so much as they had the power to set a table of fares for the whole district and the arguments put before the court but then found against them.

source: NALEO book
Author:  edders23 [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
I think things might have been much different had we not had the asian invasion at the the southern (wealthier) end of the district we are now getting very hefty discounting of up to 25% off metered rates on phone bookings being offered by some firms in a desperate scramble for market share. This year I feel will see drivers quitting BUT it will be the locals who don't have a large network of family and friends subsidising them giving up because they can't afford to replace their vehicles with a car that meets the new age regulations or will go and work for the asian companies a number have already gone down that road including 3 that are out and out racists mind you no one else will touch them because they have worked for most firms and wrecked cars and upset customers
Author:  edders23 [ Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
I think a lot of the argument used against the council was a provision in the 1897 act for hackeys carriages more than 3 miles from the main post office being able to charge for the additional mileage to the pick up point or something like that long time ago now
Author:  mancityfan [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
IN THE LINCOLN CROWN COURT
AT LINCOLN

Before Judge Richard Pollard

D.C.Parsons
Appellant
v.
South Kesteven District Council
Respondents
Judgement
1. This Appeal arises from a decision of the Grantham Magistrates
on 22 January 1996. The Appellant has an interest in a hackney
carriage licence. His case is that conditions in his licence are
unlawful, for reasons set out hereafter. Although the Magistrates
held that he was a "person aggrieved" they refused him any
relief.
2. The first issue that arose on this appeal was whether or not
the Appellant is a "person aggrieved" within s.77 of the Local
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. We gave our full
reasons yesterday for holding that he is such a person.
Essentially it is impossible to obtain a hackney carriage licence
from the Respondents unless the applicant has a taximeter
installed in his vehicle. We concluded that that amounted to a
"condition attached to the grant of a licence", within s. 47 of
the 1976 Act. As will become apparent later we also conclude that
the requirement to have a taximeter means that the Respondents
inevitably thereby enforce their Table of Fares.
3. A Council is entitled to impose such "conditions" as it
"considers reasonably necessary", s. 47(1) of the 1976 Act. In
this case the Council had considered it "reasonably necessary"
to require the installation of taximeters as a prerequisite
(which we deemed a condition) for the obtaining of a hackney
carriage licence, that being in their judgement necessary to
balance the interests of the public on the one hand and the
providers of the service on the other.
4. The Appellant's complaint is twofold:
(i) that the Respondents' decision was such that no reasonable authority could deem such a condition "reasonably necessary";
(ii) that the Respondents have, in any event, no power to impose such condition over the whole of their area.
5. To understand those arguments it is necessary to look at the
history and geography of the respondent's district and then to
look at the history of the legislation governing the grant of
hackney carriage licences.
6. South Kesteven District Council is comprised of the old urban
districts of Grantham, Bourne and Stamford, together with the surrounding "rural areas". It covers a total area of 360 square miles. It is one of the creatures of the 1972 round of local Government re-organisation created down by the Local Government Act 1972.
7. The history of hackney carriage licensing dates back to the
Town Police Clauses Act 1847. Under s.37 of that Act
commissioners were authorised to license such carriages "within
the prescribed distance, or, if no such distance is prescribed,
within 5 miles of the GPO of the town." Section 68 empowered the
commissioners to fix the fares charged by licensees. The
commissioners have been replaced by local authorities. By Section
171 of the Public Health Act 1875 the phrase "within the
prescribed distance shall, for the purposes of this Act, mean
within any urban Council".
8. Under the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 14, para. 24(b)
the general extension of the powers of the old councils to the
new was made inoperative in relation to Hackney Carriage
licensing, that schedule stipulating that such licensing was
limited to the old urban areas.
9. Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
a local authority was given the means of formally administering
its licensing controls, by s. 47, cited already (para 3 above).
The Respondents applied these provisions to its old urban areas.
That is admitted by both sides (see admission 15 and Document
12).

10. A table of fares was thereafter introduced regulating the
Hackney Carriage fares in Grantham, Bourne and Stamford and
everyone proceeded on that basis.
11. The Transport Act 1985 extended Hackney Carriage licensing
powers to the whole of a Council's the area i.e. in this case to
the whole of the area administered by the South Kesteven District
Council. There is no other possible interpretation of the plain
wording of that Section. If there is any doubt about the meaning
of that Section it is immediately resolved by reading the
Circular from the Department of Transport at Paras 1 to 4, 7(c)
and 9 (Document 22). That Act also set up a potential system of
shared fares.
12. The Respondents, empowered so to do by the 1985 Act, applied
the licensing provisions of the 1976 Act to their whole district,
i.e. the rural as well as the urban areas. This was done by
resolution of the Council, as is again agreed under Admission 17,
and see Documents 13 and 14. Thereafter they instituted a Table
of Fares which was to apply to any journey within the District.
That was last updated in 1993.
13. The difficulty for licensees in such a vast area is that they
might have to travel 10 miles (the "dead" miles) before they can
"start the meter running" and it is this that is the Appellant's
grievance. We are told that the trade continued to charge above
this structure (without deliberately flouting it) to allow for
the fact that they cannot charge for the "dead" mileage. In
effect they carried on charging for the "dead" mileage on rural
pick-ups. It was only when an ultimately unsuccessful prosecution was launched that the present disputes between the - trade and the Council erupted. The Council finally climbed down in June 1996 and deregulated the trade, laying down only a "default tariff" but otherwise leaving it up to the parties to agree on a fare. The "default tariff" allows for a booking fee to make up for the "dead" miles.
14. We have concluded that the Council was empowered by statute
to regulate hackney carriage licences within its whole district
and decided so to do and that, therefore, the phrase "prescribed
distance" of the 1847 Act is replaced for present purposes by
"the whole of the area of the South Kesteven District Council".
15. We are satisfied that the Respondents have power to regulate
the hackney carriage trade within the whole of its area and may,
therefore, if it can do so in a reasonable way, regulate fares
within its whole area. The fact that it may be difficult to
construct a table of fares that is fair to all is a problem that
they and the trade are going to have to face. We can have no say
in how that is achieved. It may be that the Table of Fares will
have to differentiate between urban and rural fares, it may be
that the present system of allowing a "Booking Fee" in defined
circumstances is appropriate. That is a matter for the Council,
so long as it acts reasonably.
16. We are also satisfied that to impose an old urban fare
structure over a vast rural area was unlawful in that no
reasonable authority who applied its mind to the situation (and
we doubt that this one did) could expect the trade to cope with
that, given the inability to charge for the "dead" mileage. That
would mean that someone travelling 2 miles within Grantham would
be charged the same as someone travelling 2 miles within the
country, even if the taxi had had to travel 5 miles to pick them
up. For that is the fundamental nature of hackney carriages.
They can only charge from the point of pick-up (whether they
obtain the fare by plying for hire, sitting at a stand or by
answering the phone. In that last event the hiring is a private
one but the fare is still limited to the Table).
17. We believe that it is sophistry to say that we can look at
the requirement of a taximeter but that we cannot look at the
Table of Fares. We reject the contention that the Table can only
be looked at by way of judicial review. We cannot make any sense
of the appellate jurisdiction given to the magistrates and to
this court without looking at the Table and its inevitable
effect, particularly as the Table has effect, for the purposes
of the 1847 Act as if it were included in hackney carriage
byelaws (s. 65(5) of the 1976 Act). Taximeters are meaningless
without a Table of Fares. The real effect of the Respondent's
condition that there be a taximeter was that the council were
imposing a condition as to the fares that could be charged.
Indeed they must have thought that when they commenced their
prosecution of a driver for not imposing their fare structure.
18. We therefore conclude that it cannot have been "reasonably
necessary" to impose such an unfair fare structure. The
Appellant is justifiably "aggrieved" and we find in his favour.
Subject to argument we are minded to order the Respondents to pay
his costs, here and below.
Author:  skippy41 [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
So basically if I received a call for a pick up say 5 miles away and they are only going 2 miles in any direction, I could technically ask for more than the metered rate, as we do not have a call out fee on the tariff sheet, and the council insist that the meters be on from A to B
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
skippy41 wrote:
So basically if I received a call for a pick up say 5 miles away and they are only going 2 miles in any direction, I could technically ask for more than the metered rate, as we do not have a call out fee on the tariff sheet, and the council insist that the meters be on from A to B

I suppose it boils down to where the law states the hiring began.

A case could be made, IMO, that the hiring began when the driver got the job, be that at a rank or on the phone. :-k
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
Sussex wrote:
I suppose it boils down to where the law states the hiring began.

A case could be made, IMO, the the hiring began when the driver got the job, be that at a rank or on the phone. :-k



Thats what used to happen before the days of radios.

CC
Author:  grandad [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
Sussex wrote:
IMO, the the hiring began when the driver got the job

I had a phone call this morning from a customer requesting a taxi on Saturday night. I have already told the driver who will be doing the job so based on your opinion the meter should already be on. :roll:
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
mancityfan wrote:
IN THE LINCOLN CROWN COURT AT LINCOLN

Before Judge Richard Pollard

D.C.Parsons Appellant

v.

South Kesteven District Council


Of course its a crown court case and therefore only persuasive?

CC
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
grandad wrote:
Sussex wrote:
IMO, the the hiring began when the driver got the job

I had a phone call this morning from a customer requesting a taxi on Saturday night. I have already told the driver who will be doing the job so based on your opinion the meter should already be on. :roll:

No because they booked it for a time, allowing you to organise your fleet to fulfil that booking.

My point is that if it's a straight away job/hiring, then a case could be made if the driver put the meter on once he accepted that job, as he was hired.
Author:  captain cab [ Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: The South Kesteven Deregulation Experiment
In the old days the prescribed distance was from the GPO :shock: it wasn't the entire council area.

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