Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri May 01, 2026 5:53 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
Taxpayers foot bill for £200k taxis blunder



TAXPAYERS will foot the bill for an administrative blunder that will see cabbies paid more than £200,000.

Colchester Council has agreed to pay drivers the year-on-year increases in licence fees it charged in error for the last six years.

The figure is likely to be more than £200,000, shared between the borough’s 1,390 licensed drivers. Each is set to receive at least £150.

The council has not advertised its fee increases in respect of Hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licences, and operators’ licences over the last six years.

A spokeswoman said: “The increases in fees charged in respect of Hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licences, and operators licences have not been correctly advertised.

“This was an oversight on the part of the council and we have been working closely with representatives of the Colchester Hackney Carriage Association and the private hire vehicle trade to agree the process by which the refunds due will be repaid.

“Having taken legal advice, we are committed to refunding the increases that have been made since 2006.”

Refunds will issued from next month. The issue was first raised in September 2010 by Christie Wettasinghe, who runs Colchester cab firm Hawaii Five-O.

Mrs Wettasinghe said: “The council has known about this for nearly two years. If it was the other way around, it would have been taking me to court. It is one rule for them and one rule for the rest. “Business these days is a struggle and it doesn’t help the council is taking my money.”

The council was caught out because the Local Government Act 1976 says any fee rise of more than £25 must be advertised in a local paper. The increases were only advertised on the council’s website.

Mrs Wettasinghe made the inquiry after local government watchdog, the Audit Commission , found Guildford Borough Council had unlawfully increased its licence fees.

source: http://www.chelmsfordweeklynews.co.uk/n ... s_blunder/

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:39 am 
Oh dear, and a good day for the little people, I bet someone at city hall is taking it personal like it's out of their own account, JOBBSWORTH COOONT!


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:24 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
captain cab wrote:
TAXPAYERS will foot the bill for an administrative blunder that will see cabbies paid more than £200,000.

Maybe a claim should be made against the assets of the councillors who passed the increases illegally.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Can that kind of thing be done? I seem to recall that it could be done in the past, but not now.

Anyway, I suspect councillors would have to be acting in bad faith for action like this to be taken against them, but councillors simply turning up to rubber-stamp things on committees - as they tend to do - probably couldn't be characterised in this way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57355
Location: 1066 Country
Dusty Bin wrote:
Can that kind of thing be done? I seem to recall that it could be done in the past, but not now.

I think they can, but it happens very rarely.

Sort of come about when Tories in Westminster didn't want certain areas made into council houses.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
Yes, you're right, the power to surcharge was only used very rarely, but I think it was abolished and replaced by a new offence of misuse of public office, or something like that, but I can only find bits and pieces on it online, so I'm not really sure what precisely the position is these days.

But I think the problem with the surcharge power was that it could only be used if whatever happened left the LA out of pocket, which perhaps wouldn't apply in the current case. Indeed, since it was lining the council's pockets at the expense of drivers it could be argued that it was doing precisely the opposite to leaving the council out of pocket. :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:20 pm
Posts: 3272
But whatever the particular powers in place to stop this kind of thing, I think it's still safe to assume that they won't be used nearly as often as they should be [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:45 am
Posts: 9966
Location: Braintree, Essex.
Will a FOI request see where the monies have been spent??


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:06 pm
Posts: 24391
Location: Twixt Heaven and Hell, but nearest Hell
Lichfield DC did exactly the same....how many more have?

How many have paid the extra fees but since left the trade and wont see a refund?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 37494
Location: Wayneistan
wannabeeahack wrote:
Lichfield DC did exactly the same....how many more have?

How many have paid the extra fees but since left the trade and wont see a refund?



yes the law commission will snuff these councils out........thats why they hardly mentioned it ](*,)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 7:24 pm
Posts: 6755
Can any one tell me what Political Party was in control during the time of overcharging ?????????

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 14152
Location: Wirral
trotskys twin wrote:
Can any one tell me what Political Party was in control during the time of overcharging ?????????


I'm sure you can find it yourself or are you being as lazy as me :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:11 pm
Posts: 8119
Location: A Villa in Aston NO MORE!
trotskys twin wrote:
Can any one tell me what Political Party was in control during the time of overcharging ?????????

Probably the Bolshevik Apparatchiks!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 533 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group