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

I smell a rat
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24057		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  grandad [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 1:45 am ]
Post subject:  I smell a rat
On Wednesday evening I attended the Council meeting where the debate took place regarding the increase of our licensing fees. No problem there except that the public notice advertising the fees was published in our local paper on Thursday morning. Which means that the public notice was produced and sent to the paper BEFORE the result of the Council vote had been taken. In fact I will be checking on Monday but I am fairly sure that the paper would have been printed BEFORE the meeting took place.
Author:  mancityfan [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
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.
Author:  grandad [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
mancityfan wrote:
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.

As usual there was no consultation prior to the fees being advertised in the press. I was aware that the fees were likely to be increased by 25% last September, subject to the Council carrying out a time and motion study. When I proposed the increase in the fares for this year I included this 25% hike in the formula.
I have asked the head of regulatory services for a copy of the data collected and also the calculations used to determine the fees. I am still waiting for a reply.
Interestingly, he was asked at the meeting how our fees compared to other authorities in the area and after searching his laptop for a couple of minutes he was unable to find the information. It is a pity that I was not able to speak at the meeting because I could have given them the information.
I will be forwarding this information to all the members of the committee this week.
Author:  mancityfan [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
mancityfan wrote:
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.

As usual there was no consultation prior to the fees being advertised in the press. I was aware that the fees were likely to be increased by 25% last September, subject to the Council carrying out a time and motion study. When I proposed the increase in the fares for this year I included this 25% hike in the formula.
I have asked the head of regulatory services for a copy of the data collected and also the calculations used to determine the fees. I am still waiting for a reply.
Interestingly, he was asked at the meeting how our fees compared to other authorities in the area and after searching his laptop for a couple of minutes he was unable to find the information. It is a pity that I was not able to speak at the meeting because I could have given them the information.
I will be forwarding this information to all the members of the committee this week.


Perhaps you should copy and send this to them as well, and point out no consultation has taken place, and as it's been advertised before the meeting took place, so you consider it a sham.ect.

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).
Author:  Sussex [ Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
On Wednesday evening I attended the Council meeting where the debate took place regarding the increase of our licensing fees. No problem there except that the public notice advertising the fees was published in our local paper on Thursday morning. Which means that the public notice was produced and sent to the paper BEFORE the result of the Council vote had been taken. In fact I will be checking on Monday but I am fairly sure that the paper would have been printed BEFORE the meeting took place.

If you get what you want, then say nothing.

If you don't then go to you mate the Big Omb.
Author:  grandad [ Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
Oh dear, I sent this question to the Council.
Could you please tell me why the revised hackney carriage table of fares that was approved by the REEA committee on Wednesday evening 5th of March was not published in the Melton Times on Thursday 6th March?
I received this reply.
The reason being that until the Tariff had been agreed at REEA, it could not be advertised. The deadline for advertisements in the Melton Times is usually 10am on a Tuesday, before the Wednesday night meeting.
Light the blue touch paper and retire.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.
As you are aware I sent a copy of the original email to the Chair of the REEA committee and I have sent him a copy of this email with your reply.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
Now you have to go public

but that means involving the same press who got paid to advertise the notice

thats tantamount to biting the hand that feeds them
Author:  Sussex [ Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
Oh dear, I sent this question to the Council.
Could you please tell me why the revised hackney carriage table of fares that was approved by the REEA committee on Wednesday evening 5th of March was not published in the Melton Times on Thursday 6th March?
I received this reply.
The reason being that until the Tariff had been agreed at REEA, it could not be advertised. The deadline for advertisements in the Melton Times is usually 10am on a Tuesday, before the Wednesday night meeting.
Light the blue touch paper and retire.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.
As you are aware I sent a copy of the original email to the Chair of the REEA committee and I have sent him a copy of this email with your reply.

What a mess. [-X

I really don't know where to start. ](*,)
Author:  grandad [ Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
I have asked the head of regulatory services for a copy of the data collected and also the calculations used to determine the fees. I am still waiting for a reply.

I have had the reply. =D>
Some of you may remember last year when I was unable to get any figures from the council and I even tried the ombudsman. Well you would have thought that the council would be expecting me to ask again this year wouldn't you?
Here is the reply.
As you are aware, XXX XXXXXXX is poorly at present and this has hampered my ability to respond fully. She managed the time recording exercise on which the calculations were based. Also, I did not retain calculations, but dropped them straight into the Committee report so will have to take a little time to re-work them and send them to you.
Well I laughed. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Author:  grandad [ Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
A few days ago I sent this to the Council.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.

This is the reply.
I have discussed this with XXXXXXXX and he has advised that the advert regarding the fees was arranged in advance of the meeting, with the knowledge it could have backfired had the meeting not agreed the increases or if it had agreed a different increase or different configuration. This was a judgement he made personally, considering the risk, with no communication with the Chair or any other Member of REEA. Suggestions that the meeting was prejudiced are without foundation. He also considered that the risks associated with the advertisement for the fares increase to be greater and therefore did not adopt this approach for them.
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
A few days ago I sent this to the Council.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.

This is the reply.
I have discussed this with XXXXXXXX and he has advised that the advert regarding the fees was arranged in advance of the meeting, with the knowledge it could have backfired had the meeting not agreed the increases or if it had agreed a different increase or different configuration. This was a judgement he made personally, considering the risk, with no communication with the Chair or any other Member of REEA. Suggestions that the meeting was prejudiced are without foundation. He also considered that the risks associated with the advertisement for the fares increase to be greater and therefore did not adopt this approach for them.

It is not acceptable behaviour that he gambled license fee money on the advert.

That's really not the way things should be done. [-X
Author:  grandad [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
A few days ago I sent this to the Council.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.

This is the reply.
I have discussed this with XXXXXXXX and he has advised that the advert regarding the fees was arranged in advance of the meeting, with the knowledge it could have backfired had the meeting not agreed the increases or if it had agreed a different increase or different configuration. This was a judgement he made personally, considering the risk, with no communication with the Chair or any other Member of REEA. Suggestions that the meeting was prejudiced are without foundation. He also considered that the risks associated with the advertisement for the fares increase to be greater and therefore did not adopt this approach for them.

It is not acceptable behaviour that he gambled license fee money on the advert.

That's really not the way things should be done. [-X

Is it illegal? Is it an abuse of power? Is it a breach of due process?
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
grandad wrote:
Is it illegal? Is it an abuse of power? Is it a breach of due process?

Yes, to a larger or lesser extent.

The council have f***ed up massive on this.

I'm struggling to remember a more serious breach by an official.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
A few days ago I sent this to the Council.
This now raises a concern as to how the increase in fees, that was not agreed until the same meeting of the rear committee, was published in last Thursday's Melton Times.
Now as I see it either there was a deal done with the REEA committee prior to the meeting, which would render the debate and vote at that meeting a sham. Or the notice was published without the authority of the REEA committee which means that the licensing department seem to have no regard for due process.

This is the reply.
I have discussed this with XXXXXXXX and he has advised that the advert regarding the fees was arranged in advance of the meeting, with the knowledge it could have backfired had the meeting not agreed the increases or if it had agreed a different increase or different configuration. This was a judgement he made personally, considering the risk, with no communication with the Chair or any other Member of REEA. Suggestions that the meeting was prejudiced are without foundation. He also considered that the risks associated with the advertisement for the fares increase to be greater and therefore did not adopt this approach for them.

It is not acceptable behaviour that he gambled license fee money on the advert.

That's really not the way things should be done. [-X


what if TWO optional adverts were booked for 1 slot, 1 with a notice of new fees, 1 stating fees wouldnt change...

with a last minute decision which went in the paper?
Author:  grandad [ Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: I smell a rat
wannabeeahack wrote:

what if TWO optional adverts were booked for 1 slot, 1 with a notice of new fees, 1 stating fees wouldnt change...

with a last minute decision which went in the paper?

The paper was already printed by the time the meeting took place. I checked.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/