Taxi Driver Online

Hi Toots

In essence, the fess the council take should be "ring fenced" and just used for "taxi" stuff, enforcement, bureaucracy etc.

They have (or at least should) be able to demonstrate where your and my money goes.

If (like me) you are experiencing a massive increase in plates issued (all extra income for the council), and no explanation is forthcoming on how they spend the money, then how can they just increase fees by an arbitrary RPI value??

With zero enforcement

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

In the case of Manchester City Council, (R) v King (1991) LGR 696(QBD), it was clearly stated that within the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, Schedule 4, paragraph 9(1), that no Council is permitted to raise revenue for anything other than the costs of the licensing function, and revenues were therefore “ring fenced”.

Correct.....not for the creation of income.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Would you say that making provision for funding a possible legal defence against the trade is a reasonable cost of the licencing function?

Captain Cab said:




This does of course beg the question, what the hell does our money go on??
_____________________________________________________________

The bureaucracy expands to meet the ever increasing demands of the bureaucracy

In my experience the legal services department usually take on board such defences, then internally bill the licensing department, thenafter fees are increased.

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Thank you for the brief explanation it's appreciated

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Our LA have a surplus on the account. When challenged it is a contingency to cover any legal costs that may arise in the future!

captain cab said:
In my experience the legal services department usually take on board such defences, then internally bill the licensing department, thenafter fees are increased.

This is absolutely brilliant, they use YOUR money to try and defend their illegality (alleged of course ), then if (or when) they loose, they charge you more for it.

How absolutely fecking brilliant!!

I didnt make the system

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

They can do it via vehicle fees under the any other option in the acts. Is it reasonable, of course not. But look at what you are dealing with, or against.

_________________
IDFIMH

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).
Remember you only have28 days to object from the date on which the notice is first published, so keep your eye out for it.


I would also put in an enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.asking for a copy of any report submitted by Licensing officers to the Head of Function or any Council body to request authority to implement the most recently revised scale of fees.Also ask them to provide a copy of the financial estimates for the operation of the Taxi Licensing function.Also ask them to provide details of the number of vehicle licences, driver licences and operator licences the Council envisages issuing in the current year.Also ask them to provide a copy of the Subjective Cost Centre(s) Budget(s) for taxi licensing activity showing the estimated costs and income for that year against each relevant nominal ledger code. Also ask them to supply a copy of the year to date outturn to the last available accounting period and any forecast outturn for the current financial year. that should keep them busy, always remember they are not allowed to make a profit so you have a right to see where your cash is going

I would also be interested to have details of any ‘best value’ comparison the council has carried out in respect of its licensing functions and how it compares with the authorities it may have used as a ‘benchmark’

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison.

please feel free to amend ie dates,names ect

Licensing of Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles, their drivers and Operators.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
Section 70 - Fees and Charges.


Enquiry submitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Information requested from the Council to allow Grandad to consider the current scale of fees and charges by reference to the costs chargeable by the Council to the Cost Centre(s) covering the licensing of Taxis.

I ask the Council to provide the following information at the earliest opportunity:-


a) Please provide a copy of any report submitted by Licensing officers to the Head of Function or any Council body to request authority to implement the most recently revised scale of fees.

b) Please provide a copy of the financial estimates for the operation of the Taxi Licensing function for 2008/09.

c) Please provide details of the number of vehicle licenses, driver licenses and operator licenses the Council envisages issuing in the current year.

d) Please provide a copy of the Job description of each member of staff wholly or partly employed in the carrying out of the vehicle, driver and operator licensing function. For staff not wholly employed on such activity please advise the percentage of time charged to the taxi and non-taxi activity in their job descriptions.

e) Please advise details of the staff and management structure in respect of taxi licensing.

f) Please advise details of staff costs charged directly to the licensing account
NB. I only request details of the posts and the aggregated total annual forecast cost including all Employer’s on-costs.

g) Please provide a copy of the Subjective Cost Centre(s) Budget(s) for taxi licensing activity showing the estimated costs and income for 2007/08 against each relevant nominal ledger code. Please also supply a copy of the year to date outturn to the last available accounting period and any forecast outturn for the current financial year.

h) Please provide details of how recovery of corporate overhead and any other indirect or apportioned charges are calculated for the Taxi Licensing Subjective cost centre(s).

i) Please advise, under the Council’s Constitution and scheme of delegation, which
Cabinet member(s) and Officers have responsibility for the determination of the
Council’s policies and practice in respect of any matters relating to its powers
under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and The Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 – S70
Fees for Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles.

Dear Sir,

We wish to OBJECT to the revised scale of fees and charges advertised recently.

Our ground for objection is that the fees to be charged by the Council are excessive and unreasonable in the context of the Act

We will be submitting a more detailed statement of the grounds for our objection shortly.

In the meantime I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this letter and advise the date of the Council meeting which will consider the Objection and what right of attendance and speaking rights will be available to us.


Yours faithfully,