Taxi Driver Online

STATEMENT OF REASONS
-for the-
REFUSAL OF AN APPLICATION
FOR THE GRANT OF A TAXI
LICENCE

by
JACQUELINE TURNBULL,
5 Carleton Square, Edinburgh

At their meeting on 14th December 2011, Licensing Sub-Committee of the City of Edinburgh Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") considered an application by Jacqueline Turnbull, 5 Carleton Square, Edinburgh for the grant of a taxi licence in terms of Section 10 and Schedule 1 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The applicant was not present but was represented by her husband, Alastair Turnbull. Mr Raymond Mackie, who had lodged a letter of objection to the application, was also present.

The Committee had the following papers before them –
(a) A report by the Council’s Director of Corporate Governance entitled “Applications for the Grant of Taxi Licences - (a) Jacqueline Turnbull and (b) Raymond Mackie".
(b) A letter of objection from Raymond Mackie, and
(c) A written submission made by the applicant.

Mr Donald Macleod, Principal Solicitor (Licensing) within the Council’s Department of Corporate Governance, advised the Committee that the letter of objection from Mr Mackie had been lodged out with the 28 day period permitted by the Act, but the Committee could still consider the letter if it was of the opinion that there was sufficient reason for it being lodged late. Mr Mackie said that the letter was late as he had been unaware of how to make an objection until he had contacted the Council’s solicitor. He had only contacted the Council’s solicitor after the 28 day period had passed. The Committee considered that the reasons provided by Mr Mackie did not amount to sufficient good reason to accept the late letter of objection and did not consider the content of Mr Mackie’s letter further.

4. Mr Macleod referred the Committee to the report by the Director of Corporate Governance. The Council’s policy is to limit of the number of taxi licences in the city, set at 1296 taxis. At the date Mrs Turnbull’s application was lodged with the Council there were 1295 taxi licences in effect. However, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, at the date of today’s Committee’s meeting to consider the application, there were 1,316 taxi licences in effect.

Mr Macleod advised the Committee that in his opinion the Committee had to consider the level of demand for taxi services at the date it considered an application, not the date the application was made. Mr Macleod advised that Mrs Turnbull’s application could possibly have been brought before an earlier meeting of the Committee for consideration. This had not been possible, however, due to a variety of operational reasons. This included staff illness within the Licensing team and the departure of the Taxi Monitoring Officer in June 2011. The latter’s departure had delayed the collation and analysis of rank observation statistics which the Committee required when considering new taxi applications. The grant of a further 21 new taxi licences by the Sheriff court on appeal now meant that the limit of 1296 taxis was now exceeded.

5. Mr Macleod advised the Committee that if they wished to use the powers available under S10(3) of the Act to refuse an application for the grant of a new taxi licence due to there being no significant unmet demand for taxi services, they were required to base their decision on relevant information. Mr Macleod referred Appendix 2 of the report containing details of the most recent taxi rank observation surveys and other information to assist the Committee in their assessment of the current demand for taxi services in Edinburgh.

Mr Macleod referred the Committee to the rank observation surveys carried out between February and June 2011, which were the most recent surveys available. There were peaks of demand at certain times and locations. However, the surveys indicated that 89% of passengers at ranks obtained a taxi immediately. The average wait times for the main city centre ranks were either non existent or not excessive. There were some isolated longer maximum waiting times. Mr Macleod highlighted one unusual observation at the Lothian Road stance on Saturday 7th May which showed a passenger arriving at the rank at 3:38 and 13 seconds am had obtained a taxi at 4:38 and 26 seconds am. This had been recorded, however, as an immediate hire. The survey company did not have the relevant video record but thought this was an error and that it was likely that the passenger had obtained a taxi immediately and the taxi left the rank at 3:38 and 26 seconds am. Apart from that one possible recording discrepancy, Mr Macleod referred to the report which showed that there were some longer waiting times. However, these times were not excessive and only a very small number of passengers encountered the longer waiting times.

Mr Macleod advised that no complaints had been received from members of the public by the Licensing Department as to a lack of taxis in the city. Mr Macleod also referred to the reports from some of the 2 taxi booking offices indicating that response times were high. He also referred the 12 new taxis just coming into operational use which would also further address customer demand

Taking all of the forgoing into account Mr Macleod said that there appeared to be evidence that there was no significant demand for taxi services in the city which was unmet.

Mr Turnbull provided the Committee with his wife’s written submission and Mr Macleod was asked to comment on the points raised –

(a) Mrs Turnbull considered that, as there was a taxi licence available when she applied fro a taxi licence, she should be granted one now. Mr Macleod stated that, in his opinion, the assessment of demand and number of taxis had to take place at the time the application was being considered, not the date the application was made.

(b) As regards Mrs Turnbull’s suggestion that her application had been deliberately delayed to allow other taxi licences to be granted on appeal, Mr Macleod said that this was not the case and the delay had been due to genuine operational issues mentioned previously. He said, however, the Committee could possibly consider these to be special reasons justifying grant her application notwithstanding that there was evidence of no significant unmet demand for taxi services.

(c) As regards Mrs Turnbull’s claim that the survey data from Count on Us had not been analysed and compiled into a proper survey and was therefore raw data, Mr Macleod did not agree with this. Although the data had not been analysed by specialists in this area, the data had been compiled and analysed and relevant and appropriate conclusions drawn from them. These interim rank surveys and complaint levels and information from booking offices were designed to supplement the major survey reports prepared every few years. This was the information that the Committee had to hand on which to base its decision.

(d) Mrs Turnbull considered that the information provided by the taxi companies was uncorroborated and that these companies had objected to new taxi licences in the past. Mr Macleod accepted that these companies had objected to new taxi licences being granted in the past and that the Council had not verified the data provided by them. The practice of the Committee was to obtain these figures as part of the assessment procedures.

Councillor Snowden asked Mr Macleod to explain the circumstances that had led to a taxi licence becoming available. Mr Macleod explained that a taxi licence holder had applied for renewal of his taxi licence but had been unable to provide a suitable vehicle for licensing. His renewal application had therefore been refused. Councillor Snowden then asked if the availability of a taxi licence was publicised. Mr Macleod explained that it was not publicised, but that Mr Turnbull was present at a Licensing-Sub-committee meeting on 22 June 2011 where this was highlighted in relation to another application relating to a taxi licence with which Mr Turnbull was involved. Mrs Turnbull’s application was made the next day.

The Committee concluded that there was no significant demand for taxi services in the city which was unmet. The Committee therefore refused this application in terms of S 10(3) of the said Act. The reasons for the Committee’s decision, with particular reference to points raised by the applicant are set out below.

(a) The Committee considered that it should consider the question as to whether there was unmet demand for taxi services as at the date of their meeting, rather than the date the application was made.

(b) The Committee considered that the information before them indicated that the vast majority (89%) of passengers at taxi ranks obtained taxis immediately.

(c) The Committee noted the time that other passengers had to wait before they could obtain a taxi as detailed in Appendix 2 to the Report by the Director of Corporate Governance. The average waiting times for the main city centre ranks at day time were not excessive, between 2 and 3 minutes. The times some passengers had to wait to obtain taxis were occasionally longer at the evening/early morning. Again most passengers obtained taxis immediately and, of those who had to wait, the waiting times were not excessive, up to 4 minutes.

(d) The Committee did note the longer waiting times that certain passengers had to wait at the Waverly Bridge Stance between 3am and 5am, with an average wait time of 7 minutes 59 seconds and a maximum wait of 17 minutes 23 seconds. They agreed with the conclusions of the Director of Corporate Governance’s report that these results were based on observations of only 23 passengers (out 1,492 passengers observed) (1.5%) and that, whilst this might indicate unmet demand for taxi services, it did not amount to a significant unmet demand for taxi services overall.

(e) The Committee also noted that that there had been no complaints made to the Taxi Licensing Section as to a lack of taxis. The Committee were of the view that this supported their opinion that there was no significant unmet demand for taxis as otherwise some complaints would have been expected from the public.

(f) The Committee noted the applicant’s concerns as to the reliability of information from taxi companies who objected to the grant of new taxi licences. The Committee has no information which would indicate that these large companies had provided information that was incorrect or amended to present a favourable response rate. The Committee, however, noted the applicant’s concerns and decided not to consider the booking offices’ reports and to base their decision purely on the information obtained from the Count on Us surveys and from the lack of complaints from the public.

(g) The Committee did not accept the applicant’s assertion that consideration of her application had been deliberately delayed by the Council’s Licensing department to allow other taxi licences to be granted by the courts. They accepted the explanation provided by Mr Macleod that this was due to staff absence in the Licensing team due to illness and the retirement of Mr Lang, the previous Taxi Monitoring Officer. This had unfortunately delayed the collation of the survey data and preparation of the required report to Committee. The Committee considered that these were complex matters and that officers had a wide range of other duties which required their attention. Whilst appreciating the applicant’s disappointment with the possible consequences on her application, they did not consider that this delay amounted to any special circumstances which would justify grant of her application contrary to the policy on taxi limitation.

(h) As there appeared to be no other special circumstances relating to this applicant, and taking all of the foregoing in to account, the Committee were of the view that there was no significant demand for taxis which was unmet in the city and refused the application in terms of Section 10(3) of the said Act.



StReasonsNewTaxis141211JacquelineTurnbull

:lol:

Im sure you will try again and again and again Keep on trying its your life

Serious question Private Reggie, if you were neutral in this (not the owner you currently are) would you think the current system was fair?

One problem with the current system is the way the council and previous councils have allocated licences, i feel Edinburgh is a small city that is suited to the regulation or restriction of the numbers of taxi licences, other cities are suited to de-restriction but only London springs to mind, the 2 cities are totally different markets, Edinburgh's streets couldn't support de-restriction, Edinburgh tries to balance its transport needs.

All the de-restrictors have in there argument is the ph is growing out of control, there lies a problem too and that problem is the problem we have to find a solution for, there has to be a way to restrict the growth of ph, i believe it can be done through cost, hence the medallion system.

Then you have the carpetbaggers who abuse the flawed allocation system, they influence others to abuse the system, changes need brought in to the cgsa to finaly stop all the Schect that goes on in our trade, im happy with the trade as long as it gets sorted out but if there is ever a realistic chance of de-restriction then i would wish for the trade to get right behind the medallion system.

Its just my opinion and others may differ but all im interested in really is earning a reasonable living, you won't get that with a de-restricted black cab trade running alongside a de-restricted ph trade, the only winners will be corporate profiteers such as ecph.

I do feel that the regulation acts fairly and without discrimination in all other way's except in the way above (Allocation), we knew the rules when we became cabbies, im happy to play along to those rules

:lol:

Im sure you will try again and again and again Keep on trying its your life

If it had been Publicly announced that there was one Plate short I wonder how many applications would have went in the next again day. So, even if it had been announced the following week, you would have had applications the day after people were made aware. Ali, it could be argued, had an unfair advantage, he was at a meeting on other business, and was alerted to the availibility of the plate. I don’t know if it could have been done this way but in my opinion, it would’ve been fairer. However, 6 months delay because a couple of staff are off work & someone retires ?. What other Business or Oganisation would grind to a halt in these circumstances ?.

You can't tell me, Ali's licence application wasn't prejudiced from the outset. How the [edited by admin] could anyone get a fair hearing under these circumstances?

Of course Ali's application was prejudiced, because he had an unfair advantage not afforded to the hundreds of others who would have applied for the licence if they had known it was available.

So Skull, you're right, how could anyone who wants a taxi licence get a fair hearing under such circumstances?

I'm not saying it's Ali's fault (because he just happened to be at the right place at the right time) but if he gets the licence then it will self-evidently be unfair on all the other prospective applicants.

Thus the big question is whether there's any means of redress for other prospective applicants.

So Dusty, there was no unfair advantage that was not of the council's own making.

Yes, that was precisely what I said.

But the defensive nature of your response is a tad revealing