Taxi Driver Online

All-out opposition fails to derail taxi charge rise

ALL-out opposition from some drivers has failed to derail plans for a four per cent increase in fees and charges for hackney carriages and private hire cars in the Chichester district.

The district council's licensing and enforcement committee has agreed that the rise should be implemented with effect from June 1.

Objectors claimed they were currently experiencing hardship because of falling levels of trade.

They said the rise was above inflation, and maintained there had been no proper consultation with the taxi operators.

Following the committee decision, the Chichester District Hackney Drivers' Alliance says it now plans to take the matter to the district auditor and the local government ombudsman.

_________________
IDFIMH

Is Calderdale relevant?

I know that planning matters requiring publicity must be advertised in the London Gazette, at least one local publication and notified to all those likely to be afftected.

What is the publicity requirement for our matters?

I suspect the Doc will give us the full SP, but I think this is different to Calderdale. There they didn't advertise, here I think they did, but didn't consult with the trade prior to the advert.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

_________________
IDFIMH

In relation to drivers badges, they don't need to advertise as they can only cover the processing costs.

In relation to vehicle and operator fees section 70 of the 1976 act applies.

70 Fees for vehicle and operators' licences
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a district council may charge such fees for the grant of 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 any such 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) The fees chargeable under this section shall not exceed —
(a) for the grant of a vehicle licence in respect of a hackney carriage, twenty-five pounds;
(b) for the grant of a vehicle licence in respect of a private hire vehicle, twenty-five pounds; and
(c) for the grant of an operator's licence, twenty-five pounds per annum; or, in any such case, such other sums as a district council may, subject to the following provisions of this section, from time to time determine.

(3)
(a) If a district council determine that the maximum fees specified in subsection (2) of this section should be varied they shall publish in at least one local newspaper circulating in the district a notice setting out the variation proposed, drawing attention to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this subsection and specifying the period, which shall not be less than twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication of the notice, within which and the manner in which objections to the variation can be made.
(b) A copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall for the period of twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication thereof be deposited at the offices of the council which published the notice and shall at all reasonable hours be open to public inspection without payment.

(4) If no objection to a variation is duly made within the period specified in the notice referred to in subsection (3) of this section, or if all objections so made are withdrawn, the variation shall come into operation on the date of the expiration of the period specified in the notice or the date of withdrawal of the objection or, if more than one, of the last objection, whichever date is the later.

(5) If objection is duly made as aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the district council shall set a further date, not later than two months after the first specified date, on which the variation shall come into force with or without modification as decided by the district council after consideration of the objections.

(6) A district council may remit the whole or part of any fee chargeable in pursuance of this section for the grant of a licence under section 48 or 5 5 of this Act in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so.

_________________
IDFIMH

So, save for an ad in the local paper and the notice being available at the council office, they don't actually need to notify us at all until they send out the renewal demand?

I think some sort of consultation should take place, especially if the increase is in excess of inflation.

_________________
IDFIMH

But, such consultation is not contained in statute, unlike some other areas of public control, eg Planning.

They aren't even required to consult with those whose names and addresses they have!

Is it contained in statutes, just not licensing ones.

_________________
IDFIMH

Depending on how much, 4% is hardly gonna break the bank is it, I don't want increases but I also understand the need for them, 4% isn't unreasonable, had it been 20% I could understand the venom, but working on mine it's likely to be £185 going up to £195, hardly bank breaking is it.

Especially when said fees are tax deductable.

_________________
now a licensed hackney driver

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

All has not been fully reported!

Whilst the moaning about the increase is perhaps seen as a bit petty, the whole point of mounting an objection was to try and show the Council that they are in fact acting illegally.

The Alliance has already proven that the fees are not ring fenced, therefore illegal, and the council have now (semi) acquiesced, and are “undergoing a review” of services to get themselves legit

The announcement in the paper was on the 27th March, and renewal notices were sent out charging from the 1st April (Where is the 28 day "public consultation" in that??

The council meeting to discuss matters took approximately four minutes for them to shaft us – despite them being told in no uncertain terms that they were illegally increasing fees- way above inflation – when not ring fencing

Combine all that with the fact that the “licensing function” has just mysteriously increased in costs by £85,000, suposedly causing a plunge from a £25,000 surplus (where did that go I wonder?) to a deficit of £60,000 suddenly - in a year, since the Alliance started looking closely at where the frickin money goes

That can be added to the other mountain of bull we have been hearing in an attempt by them to justify themselves - which is unsurprisingly not working.

All goes to proove that these councils do not listen, do not give a stuff about the trade, and only use us as a cash cow / revenue stream.

The Alliance only started looking closely at the budget when we desperately needed enforcement action FFS - (see posts ad nausem) abd we are not going to stop probing and embarasing this shameful and irresponsible shower.

So, the latest headline was - "All out opposition" - you aint seen nothing yet.............

Doc, just for the record what's the name of your association?

_________________
IDFIMH

It pays to advertise!!

One another thing that was evident in the "meeting" where they tried to undermine what we were about by attempting to belittle our numbers - not realising that for the first time ever the Alliance and the local Taxi Association have united in a common cause, so just about every local hack driver was represented for once.

They dont like it up-em
________________________________________________________
Stands for:

All Local Lads Incensed Against Council Excesses

They cannot increase fees because of inflation.

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

I would 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.

On consultation I think any council would be ill advised not to consult with the trade under the Wednesbury principles.
Associated Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1KB 223