Taxi Driver Online

You should receive the information within 20 working days. If the organisation needs more time, they will contact you and tell you when you can expect the information.

you said above that they did need to advertise fees and now you are saying they don't ......well the licensing officer was ordered by committee to do a public consultation on th 11/07/2011 and on the 24/08/2011 he LIED and told us he didn't have to consult we now feel this can be overturned because of his lies ( we have copies of council minutes for where he lied)


jogra4

They do not have to consult but they would be ill advised not to embark on some sort of consultation.
They do not need to advertise drivers badge fees but they do have to advertise vehicle license fees and operators license fees.

_________________
Grandad,

but like i said the council licensing committee ordered a consultation and it has just come to light with new doc's that the council supplied the ombudsman that the l/o lied to us saying he didn't need to consult it is quite confusing until you read all the docs but he has been shown to be a liar and needs a new job asap

Kicked me out to take in Trotters Tosky Triplet

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

You need to read what I and others have said.

The laws says vehicle and operator fees must be advertised.

The law doesn't say that driver fees must be advertised, as it is assumed they only cover the processing costs.

If driver fees exceed the costs of processing then the council are acting unlawfully.

_________________
IDFIMH

so if mine was £145 today, but £195 tomorrow and a missed medical (included) means me paying an extra £45 we can assume a 1 year badge costs £100 to issue today but £150 tomorrow...

BUT, a 3 year badge would have cost £270 today and £382.50 tomorrow (inc medical)

surely a 3 badge issue costs the same as a 1 year badge?..

and the 24 hour difference on the 3 year badge is £112.50, the maths dont stack up do they

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

I wouldn't assume f*** all.

I would FoI them to get their actual costing in relation to driver fees, and then compare them with what you are actually being charged.

As I've said loads of times on TDO, I struggle to see how a 3 year license can cost more than a one year license to process, except the cost of the CRB/DBS or any three yearly medicals.

_________________
IDFIMH

I had a meeting with the head of regulatory services regarding fee setting last Wednesday. This is a copy of the proposal he will be putting to the Licensing committee meeting in September.
Do you think the Ombudsman has been it touch with him?

Thanks for coming in and for such a candid discussion, and at such short notice. From the notes I took at the meeting I have worked up the following text in preparation for the Committee in Sept. and would welcome your comments:

Taxi drivers advise that their main objection to fees is that the evidence to support the charges for licenses is questionable. They understand that it is a proportion of the overall costs of the Licensing budget but consider this to be inadequate because:
• They do not register or record the actual time taken to produce a badge or distinguish between the different elements of work carried out to directly or indirectly support this activity.
• The time recording figures are out of date, dating back to 2008 and there is no evidence to confirm the view that they remain accurate in 2013/14.
Drivers will be happy to pay fees that are a true reflection of costs incurred, but until this is proven there remains objection to the level of fees and any proposed increase(s).

The Committee is advised that the appropriate legislation (s 53 and s70 of the Local Government (Misc. Provisions) Act 1976) provides the remit for the setting of charges and makes separate provision for Operator’s, Driver’s and vehicle licences. Accordingly, the approach of assigning 40% of costs to the overall Licensing function – whilst of merit in terms of the ‘ringfencing’ the taxi licensing element of the function from the remaining licensing activity – is not considered to be sufficiently detailed to determine how much resource each of the types of the licences demands and, in turn, how costs should be apportioned.

It is therefore considered that detailed time recording is necessary to determine the correct proportion. It is therefore recommended that setting of the charges is postponed until a sample period of time recording has taken place which addresses in more detail the demands made on resources (and therefore recoverable costs, under s53 and s70) of the individual types of licences for the ‘Q3’ period (October – December 2013) and that the Committee revisits this issue after that has taken place, in order to be able to set fees on a better informed basis.

_________________
Grandad,

The DBS is £44 extra on top of the 3 year badge fee

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

Possibly, but I would wager a pound or two that they have taken proper licensing legal advise, as that reads as if written by a lawyer.

But well done nonetheless.

_________________
IDFIMH

Good point, I didn't think of that. maybe I should forward a copy of the email to the Ombudsman.

_________________
Grandad,

There should be no increase in fees and charges for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles, Operator Licences and Driver Licences subject to there being a review in due process including further consultation with the Taxi Trade.

Due to the lack of precise information to enable the particular points of objection to be satisfactorily considered in the light of the requirements of S.70 of the Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions)Act, 1976.

Drivers will be happy to pay fees? I really don't believe you said that ?

Perhaps you would like to send this to him to?

A Council is a District authority and exercises powers under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in connection with the grant and supervision of licences for Hackney Carriages, Private Hire Vehicles and Operators of PHV’s as well as the drivers of such vehicles.


The Council is empowered to levy fees for the carrying out of those functions, by virtue of S53(2) and S70(1) of the 1976 Act.



Fees charged must be reasonable and no more than sufficient in the aggregate, in respect of S70, to cover the Council’s costs in whole or in part.


It has been established in a number of cases before the courts that a Council may not derive a profit or surplus from such licensing activity.


While the question of what is ‘reasonable’ can only be resolved by challenge, it seems clear that ‘costs’ charged to accounts to be recovered by licence fee income must be commensurate with the actual and necessary expenditure of human and material resources.


It follows that the Council must be able to demonstrate that those costs charged directly or by apportionment can be identified as being relevant and proportionate


Although a council has a statutory power to levy a fee this does not give it an absolutely free hand in relation to the scale of the fee that is levied.the impact of any increase upon the livelihood of those affected has to be taken into account,as does the scale of the increase.CONSULTATION must take place with interested parties,whether this is a statutory requirement or not, and results of that consultation must be considered by the council before the decision is made.it is important that any consultation is done fairly and the results considered properly by the council.ANY suggestion that the cosultation is a sham would be grounds for an application for leave to seek a judicial review of the final decision.
the judge in kelly v liverpool said although s53 contains no requirement for consultation, a local authority would be ill-advised not to embark upon some element of consultation with those persons who would be affected by an increase in fees (eg the drivers of BOTH hackney carriages and private hire vehicles).