Taxi Driver Online

LICENSING SUB-COMMITTEE 5 JULY 2004

REPORT OF HEAD OF TRADING STANDARDS AND LICENSING

1. LICENSING OF HACKNEY CARRIAGES BY SOLIHULL METROPOLITAN
BOROUGH COUNCIL
1.1 Purpose of Report
To recommend to Members:-
i) the removal of a restriction placed on the number of Hackney Carriage
Licences issued by this Authority.
ii) the dissolution of the existing dual licensing system, involving Birmingham Hackney Carriages.

I .2 Background

I .2.1 Solihull Council is responsible for licensing all Hackney Carriage drivers and vehicles that ply for hire in any street in this district.

1.2.2 At present this Authority issues 32 single licence plates, which enables drivers to ply for hire in Solihull only and 117 dual licence plates, which enables the drivers to ply or hire both in Solihull and Birmingham. These dual licensed vehicles, are generally Birmingham Hackney Carriages that ply for hire, mainly within the confines of Birmingham International Airport, but which are also entitled to carry out their activities in the Solihull district.

1.2.3 The dual licensing arrangement was introduced in January 1987, to facilitate the Birmingham Hackney Carriages that were working from Birmingham Airport. This arrangement was set in place, to overcome the anomaly which exists, in as much that the land on which the Airport is located, belongs to Birmingham City Council; whilst the entire site, lies within the control district of Solihull Council. At that time it was hoped that by issuing Solihull licenses to those Birmingham Hackney Carriages plying for hire at the airport, the legal technicalities of the legislation had been covered and no offences would be committed by the Birmingham Hackney Carriages plying for hire outside their own district. However, this was deemed not to be the case, following a decision by the Court of Appeal in 1988, which determined that the Airport was private property (Young & Another v Scampion) and that the road system within the Airport parameters did not constitute 'a street' as defined by the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

1.2.4 Following the decision by the Court of Appeal, the dual licensing system remained in place, only to satisfy the requirements of a contractual arrangement between the Airport Management and the taxi drivers association, which had previously existed. The current contractual arrangements between the Birmingham & Solihull Taxi Association and Birmingham International Airport, in place at this time, would not be effected if the dual licensing system were to be dissolved.

1.2.5 In July 1989 an ‘unmet demand survey’ was undertaken by the Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, to assess any specific unmet demand for Hackney Carriages by members of the public, in this district. The final report and conclusions contained therein, was published in October 1989 and found that at that time, no significant unmet demand for Hackney Carriages was apparent. As a result of those findings, it was determined that no further single Solihull licenses were required and the existing thirty-two vehicles licensed at the time, would remain the constant figure, until such time as a future survey would be conducted.

1.2.6 During October 2002, a report was placed before the Licensing Sub-Committee proposing that this Authority should engage the services of a Transport Management Company, to undertake an up to date ‘unmet demand survey’, to produce an accurate picture of the current ‘Taxi’ transport system within this district. The proposal was made, to take account of the substantial business and residential development which has taken place within the Borough, since 1989. The proposal was agreed in principle by Members, but it became known at that time, that the Office of Fair Trading was engaged in similar research on a national scale, with a view to amending the existing legislation and removing perceived restrictive trade practices, encouraged by limiting the number of Hackney Carriage Licenses available for purchase. In view of this research, the Members deferred their decision, pending the publication of the Office of Fair Trading report.

1.2.7 The Office of Fair Trading report was published during November 2003, with a recommendation that all maximum limits placed by Local Authorities, on their Hackney Carriage fleets, should be removed, for the following consumer benefits:-
It would put more taxis on the road - estimated increase in numbers 30%.
It would make journeys safer - by making more licenses available; the need for illegal taxis would decrease.
More available taxis would reduce customer waiting time.
By making extra taxis available, there will be a substantial increase in peoples’ choice, when deciding how to reach their destination.
By promoting best practice in the application of quality and safety controls, to ensure the needs of local people are met and that individuals and businesses are not deterred from supplying taxi services.
Protecting the vulnerable from overcharging, whilst encouraging the benefits of fare competition.

1.2.8 It should be pointed out that the results of the Office of Fair Trading research were not accepted in all quarters and attracted some heavy criticism from the taxi trade and Members of a Government Select Committee that met to consider the findings. The main criticism appears to have been directed towards methods of research employed and the conclusion drawn from the resultant data. Following the Select Committee comments, the Government intimated that at this time, change to existing legislation was not under consideration.

1.2.9 In the light of the Office of Fair Trading publication, the Government published a document recommending that all local Authorities remove existing Hackney Carriage licence restrictions as soon as possible, with the proviso that should they not do so, the Authority must immediately publish a report, fully justifying the need to retain such restrictions. Each Authority is then required to carry out further research every three years, to justify any proposed continuance of their restriction policy and publish a report supporting the reasoning behind the decision made. Failure to follow the recommendations made to remove maximum limits on Hackney Carriages could in the long run, prove to be an expensive exercise.

1.2.10 To comply with the recommendations made, Officers have already engaged in consultation with the Highways Department and the local Police with a view to increasing the number of Hackney Carriage stands available in and around Solihull Town Centre as a means of accommodating additional Hackney Carriage vehicles. It is perceived that the extra vehicles would reduce waiting times for members of the public, particularly late at night or in the early hours of the morning, when assaults, disorder and damage to property occurs.

1.2.11 Both the Highways Department and the Police are supportive of the proposal to remove the existing restrictions on our Hackney Carriage fleet and agree that any initiative to improve the night time transport system in the town centre, would be an extremely important aspect in the fight against crime and disorder, particularly at night.

1.2.12 Consultation has also taken place with the representatives of the Birmingham & Solihull Taxi Association, who are not opposed to the proposals in principle, but have expressed concerns that too may licenses made available too soon, would effect the financial well being of their existing members and may not necessarily resolve the Hackney Carriage Vehicle shortage, late at night, particularly at weekends. Birmingham & Solihull Taxi Association would prefer to see only a limited number of Hackney Carriage licences issued, as opposed to a general de-restriction. This is not a view that is supported by Officers and would appear to be in conflict with Government recommendations.

1.2.13 Should Members wish to proceed with the removal of the existing Hackney Carriage restrictions in this area, such changes will need to be advertised in the local press and conditions prepared, to ensure proper entry controls in respect of those additional vehicles seeking to be licensed by this Authority.

1.2.14 Members may also wish to encourage the evolving role of the Hackney Carriage trade in this district and be seen to support the raising of standards in general, by ensuring that only vehicles of a high quality are accepted and licensed to work in this district. Officers would therefore recommend that the criterion required, prior to the issue of any new Hackney Carriage Licence by this Council, should be the production of a new vehicle, which will be defined as - ‘a vehicle of a type and design as approved by the Local Authority, bearing a current registration plate, with no more than one thousand miles recorded on the odorneter’.

1.2.15 Such improvements in our Hackney Carriage fleet would enable the dissolution of the existing dual licensing system to take place, whilst ensuring that a quality service develops to serve the needs and requirements of all Solihull residents and visitors alike.

Members are asked to approve:-
i) the removal of the restriction on the number of Hackney Carriage licenses issued by this Authority;
ii) the advertising of the removal of Hackney Carriage licence restrictions in the local press;
iii) the implementation of appropriate conditions and control measures in respect of any vehicle submitted for licensing as a Hackney Carriage
Vehicle: and
iv) the dissolution of the existing Hackney Carriage dual licensing system and introduce an improved system, to satisfy the aims of this Authority.

_________________
IDFIMH

When do they vote on this little package?

It's interesting to read their views and interpretation of the Governments recommendations. This report is following a pattern which is becoming oh so familiar for those Authorities that wish to implement the Governments policy.

Best wishes

John Davies

I find it amazing that only new vehicles should be allowed and that no mention is made of WAVs.

Solihull Council should consider the DDA and their obligation to provide accessible transport to those residents of the district who live with a disability.

Disgraceful.

B. Lucky

Solihull and Birmingham have been wheel chair cars only for years.
It looks like they are more interested in the quality of vehicle and driver, then a pure numbers game.

They only licence purpose built vehicles so that particular issue doesn't arise.

The more I think about the DDA I am beginning to form the opinion that sometime in the long distant future, councils may well be forced to have a variety of WAV vehicles, including Saloon cars. I suppose thats a long way off but I can understand the argument that some disabled people are uncomfortable getting in and out of Black cab type vehicles.

Black Cabs are good for just rolling in a wheelchair but the high step level doesn't suit everyone and for those who have severe muscular leg problems the pressure of transfering the weight to just one leg can be unbearable. Therefore, I think in time as the DDA developes and "choice" dissapears, the focus will be concentrated on the lack of choice.

Best wishes

John Davies

Ok well that answers my question then.

However, I don't believe that if you allow some people to use saloons you must expect the majority to, I say this because in Solihull the vehicle presented must be new and if someone had the choice between a £15k saloon a £22k E7 or a £38k TXII I doubt very many would go for either of the accessible options.

Another example of why deregulation DOESN'T offer drivers choice

Bearing in mind they have the same vehicle policy, both before and after de-limitation, how can it offer less choice?

_________________
IDFIMH

But it doesn't offer more.
Also are we saying here that drivers should have a choice or not Sussex, cause from where I am it seems as though the only choice you want is to whether you get a HC plate or not.



Very suspicious motives Sussex, very suspicious indeed.

Yes of course drivers should have a choice, but if a council or the gov don't give them one, we have to deal with what we are given whether we like it or not.

As for my motives, I very much doubt I will be the only one to benefit if councils across the land wake up and de-limit.

_________________
IDFIMH

But you don't SM, your not willing to deal with anything that contradicts your own beliefs or best interest.

To say "but if a council or the gov don't give them one, we have to deal with what we are given whether we like it or not." is a contradiction to your entire argument.

Good God, some people.

B. Lucky