Taxi Driver Online

Is the the norm now or just an option? are 1 year badges to be done away with?

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Read the act.

_________________
Grandad,

cant find me glasses

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Are the costs of the licensing function taken out of drivers badges, vehicle licences or both ?

Just had my renewal - giving the option of a 1 or 3 year badge, the 3 year one being just under (of course !) the cost of 3x1 year badges by about £40.
I'm thinking of doing a FOI, definately if the cost is for the badge itself and no other licensing function.

The costs are for the issue and administration of the licence. Administration might involve the on-going costs associated with reminder letters and the arrangements for obtaining and checking DBS and DVLA disclosures and medicals etc.

rent for office...electric..heating...equipment..computers....new software..stationery..administration clerks wages..department manager wages....or proportion of.. and more..

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

55. ​Subsection (2) changes the law in such a way as to establish a standard duration of three
years for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences. The section specifies that a licence may be granted for a period of less than three years but only in the circumstances of an individual case, not because of a blanket policy.

So as of 26th March 2015 all councils have to issue three year badges - except in individual cases ?
I've been given the option of a 3 or 1 year badge, as have others. Seems like a blanket policy to me ?

So if they issue a 1 year badge they can charge for one years worth of administration, but if they issue a 3 year badge can they charge for 3 years worth of admin ?

But is this paid for from drivers badges, vehicle licences or both ?!?

But is this paid for from drivers badges, vehicle licences or both ?!?[/quote


Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so.
there is knowhere else in section 53 which allows the council to make extra charges,such as enforcement and supervision.
the House of Lords case says
The rule was that a charge could not be made unless the power to charge was given by express words or necessary implication.
So they can charge for the function of actually issuing the licence,checking the paperwork,typing the details on the computer,printing of the licence and issuing the badge.
I don't know how long it takes your council, but grandad will tell you it should be able to be calculated.
So let's say 15 mins,and you have found out how much an hour it costs in a council office,not hard to work out.

2.1 The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (“The 1976 Act”) entitles the Council to recover the cost of administering the hackney carriage and private hire licensing service:

i) Section 53 – Driver’s licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so”

ii) Section 70 – Fees for vehicle and operator’s licences.

“(1) Subject to the provision of subsection (2) of this section, a district council may charge such fees for the grant of the vehicle and operators’ licences as may be resolved by them from time to time and as may be sufficient in the aggregate to cover in whole or in part –

(a) The reasonable cost of the carrying out by or on behalf of the district council of inspections of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles for the purpose of determining whether such a licence should be granted or renewed;

(b) The reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands; and

(c) Any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.”

2.2 There have been a number of legal challenges as to the use of the licence revenue resulting in further clarification of the rules governing licence revenue:

i) The statutory power to charge fees for the grant of licences is not to be used to raise revenue generally, (Liverpool City Council [2003]).

ii) The hackney carriage and private hire licensing regime is intended to be self-financing. It incorporates statutory powers to finance it by charging fees (R v Liverpool City Council [2001]); and

iii) The 1976 Act expressly reveals that parliament intended the licensing fees to be specifically used for:

* The cost of issuing drivers’ licences and administration;

* The reasonable cost of carrying out inspections of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles to determine whether such vehicles should be granted or renewed;

* The reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands;

* Any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the cost of inspections and hackney carriage stands; and

* Any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the control and supervision of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles.

2.3 Guidance on these issues is however provided by R V Manchester City Council ex p King [1991]. In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the analogous street trading licensing regime which included a statutory power to charge fees as the authority considered reasonable for the grant or renewal of a street trading licence or consent. The Court held that the authority was not merely confined to the cost of issuing the licence, it might also take into account the costs it would incur in operating the scheme, including the prosecution of those who traded without a licence.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

New Supreme Court ruling in licensing case of Hemmings


On April 29th 2015 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in R (on the application of Hemmings (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd) and others) v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 25, in what was a significant case for regulators and the regulated of licensing or other similar regulatory regimes.

The full UKSC judgment and press summary are available here.

Lord Mance gave judgment on the appeal by Westminster City Council, as the licensing authority, against a decision of the Court of Appeal in favour of the respondents, who are licensees of sex shops in Westminster.

The case concerned the situation of an applicant who applied for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence for any year and who had to pay a fee made up of two parts. One part was payable regarding the administration of the application and was non-refundable and another part (which was considerably larger – £29,435 in 2011/12) for the management of the licensing regime and was refundable if the application was refused.

The central issue for the court was whether it was legitimate under domestic and or European Union Law for Westminster City Council to charge the fee for the management of the regime. One of the arguments run by the Respondent (Hemmings) was that following the introduction of the Provision of Services regulations 2009 (SI 2009/2999 to give effect to Directive 2006/123/EC), Westminster City Council were no longer entitled to include within their fee the cost of running and enforcing the licencing regime.

t licenThe Supreme Court disagreed. Paragraph 17 of the judgment reads, “Nothing in article 13(2) precludes a licensing Authority from charging a fee for the possession or retention of a licence and making this licence conditional upon payment of such a fee”. The judgment went on to say that any such fee would need to be proportionate but that there was no reason why it should not be set at a level enabling the authorities to recover from licenced operators the full costs of running and enforcing the licensing scheme including the costs of enforcement of proceedings against those operating sex establishments withouces.

The court went on to consider two schemes used by licensing Authorities concerning with the way in which the fees were required. Scheme A, required the applicant on making the application to pay the costs of authorisation procedures and formalities and on the application being successful, a further fee to cover the costs of running and enforcing the licensing regime. Scheme B, required the applicant on making the application to pay the costs of the authorisation procedures and formalities and at the same time pay a further fee (which is returnable if the application is unsuccessful) to cover the costs of the running and enforcement of the licensing regime.

The court ruled that Scheme A was within the law but in respect of Scheme B it ruled that the answers to questions raised were not clear. One of these questions was whether this scheme and in particular the element of having to pay the fee for the enforcement and running of the regime even if subsequently unsuccessful in the application and even though this was returnable, amounted to a charge by Westminster council on the licensee. The Court directed that Westminster should continue only with Scheme A whilst it referred the issue relating to scheme B to the Court of Justice in Luxemborg.

http://www.6pumpcourt.co.uk/news/new-su ... an-update/

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

No, theres only 1 session of admin either way

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

So it costs £70 to print of and laminate 1 A4 sheet of a PH Ops licence?

a fking Banksy would be cheaper

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most