|
NATIONAL PRIVATE HIRE ASSOCIATION
Urgent and important letter in respect of the Council Fees charged for licences.
Do read this letter carefully and consider how much you might save in fees in your licensing area – This is a National issue
Private hire and taxi licence fees in this country are charged under sections 53 and 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Whilst some of you will be fully aware of these sections we have found that many do not have copies of these sections to hand; so for the benefit of all we set them below:-
53. Drivers’ licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles
(1)(a) Every licence granted by a district council under the provisions of this Part of this Act to any person to drive a private hire vehicle shall remain in force for three years from the date of such licence or for such lesser period as the district council may specify in such licence.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875 and the Town Police Clauses Act 1889, every licence granted by a district council under the provisions of the Act of 1847 to any person to drive a hackney carriage shall remain in force for three years from the date of such licence or for such lesser period as they may specify in such licence.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so.
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.
The wording of these two sections has recently come under strong examination following a report by the Audit Commission on Guildford Council. Do check the highlighted wording and you will see that apart from the words absolutely connected with the grant of licences and the administration of those grants, the only other charges that can be made are in connection with the testing of vehicles, the supply of hackney carriage ranks and the control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.
Among the strongly stressed points in the Guildford report, including not having advertised licence fees for some years, and consequently having to pay them back, was the decision that councils cannot charge for enforcement on drivers or operators. The exact words in the report are set out below:-
The Council’s view was that the costs of enforcement activity, a minor part of the whole costs of licensing taxis, can be included within the fee set under section 70 and that the reference to control and supervision must also cover drivers and operators.
Having sought and considered legal advice on this point, I do not agree with the Council’s position that enforcement licences for drivers, section 53(2) only provides that the costs of issue and administration are recoverable. Section 53(2) makes no reference to any other type of cost being recoverable. In relation to vehicle and operators licences, section 70(1)(c) provides enforcement costs are recoverable for vehicle licences only. It does not refer to enforcement costs being recoverable for operator’s licences. In my view, enforcement costs in respect of drivers (section 53(2)) and operators (section 70(1)(c)) are, by their omission from the wording of the legislation, not recoverable under the Act.
On the back of this case The Law Commission asked us to do a survey of licence fees, which we did at the end of 2011, this immediately caused us to wonder what councils did to actually set fares. This is of course based on the clear fact that councils can only charge the COST of licensing and cannot make a profit.
In the Guildford case it was quite clear that the council had not or could not show how they had worked out what their actual costs were, and only avoided being taken to Court because they embarked on an extensive review of their accounts.
Since 2011 more and more councils have been found to be in the same position as Guildford. Many have had to pay back unadvertised fees and even last month Hyndburn Council had agreed to pay drivers back £210,000 having not advertised testing fees.
But again this matter did not go to court and the entire trade in England and Wales are still left awaiting a full and final Court decision on what can or can’t be charged.
Twelve months ago the local trades of Manchester and Salford asked for our assistance in respect of complaints on overcharging which had been ignored by the Audit Commission. We stepped in and the paperwork generated in that twelve months is enormous to say the very least, but neither of the two Councils was able to show how they had worked out their costs, Manchester had failed to advertise re-test fees and many other errors were found.
The Auditors, in this instance and as in Guildford, had decided to take legal advice from a barrister as to what the wording of sections 53 and 70 actually meant; this because “many councils” that they audit needed this advice (not just Manchester and Salford). This barrister came out with a lengthy document which said that councils could charge for enforcement on operator licences.
No way! said the trade and so we took a QC’s opinion to counter their advice and he agreed with Guildford’s Auditor that these charges could not be legally made.
Our position is quite clear, and has been put to the Auditor whose final report comes out at the end of June, and that is: as far as we are concerned on advice from our QC, all that councils can charge for the grant of drivers and operator licences is just that;- a piece of paper for each licence, a badge for the driver and a set of conditions attached to the licence. Oh of course including the background behind the issue of the licences CRB (now DBS) checks, knowledge tests, examination of documents, checking a medical etc…administration.
So why the huge discrepancy in fees set by councils? We can supply you with a schedule of fees nationally (on line) to give examples of what a huge differences there are in fees set all over the country. But Operator licences run in three different ways:-
• Single fee (one year) – lowest £32 Waveney - highest Wolverhampton £785
• Fee per vehicle, low Hull - £9 per vehicle(+£56 flat fee)– high Ashfield £123 per each vehicle.
• Rising scale low - Brentwood £75 for one vehicle for 5 years rising to £650 for 5 vehicles or over for five years – high Reading £248 for one vehicle for one year rising to £5,240 at 60 vehicles plus £200 per vehicle thereafter for one year.
Remember that it would appear that councils can only charge for the grant of the licence and the law allows under section 55 for operators to have a five-year licence as in Brentwood. Just think of the savings in council time and effort they could make if they just charged for one piece of paper every five years.
If we go to driver licences, here we stick to renewals because of the huge number of councils that have different and complicated ways of granting a licence: – CRB, medical, Knowledge, BTEC, DSA driving test, etc then we get a level playing field that we can compare:-
• lowest – Carmarthenshire £33 highest Eastbourne £299 (however if you go to get a licence on the Isle of Man it will rip you off £15 for a three-year licence!
Remember that with drivers licences they can only charge for issue and nothing else. Furthermore the law permits drivers to have a three-year licence. As far as we are aware only Mid Sussex no longer issues a one-year licence, it’s a three-year licence only.
Just think of the savings in council time and effort they could make if they just charged for one piece of paper every three years.
Finally, vehicle licences, and here remember councils can charge for “control and supervision” so as we have never seen a vehicle in court or in the Licensing Committee room this should be a level playing field shouldn’t it?:-
• Vehicle lowest – Uttlesford £70 - highest Chorley £462
To be honest Uttlesford fees would be appreciated by all of us - Driver £40 Operator £60 Vehicle £70 and nothing else.
So what is this all about? It is about getting a Court decision which will force Councils to obey the law, to actually do some work to show what licensing is actually costing them, and then and only then set honest and proper licensing fees. Just consider for a moment that most councils in the country have downsized their staff, cut back on enforcement, and in some cases do not even allow us access to the licensing department at all just to paper shuffling bookkeepers / telephone blocking clerks; and yet licence fees have, for the most part, risen.
The Auditors that are working on Manchester and Salford do so under the Audit Commission Act 1998. Having done their investigations they can take these matters into Court to get a deliberation of the problems found, or may make their decisions “formally published” so that guidance can be used by one and all, a position also taken by the Guildford Auditor. However at this moment in time it looks, on the face of it, that in Manchester and Salford they will not be doing either of these things. What they are saying is that these Councils have now got their act together and should walk away scot free. He has even said that he will not look at previous years’ accounts because they are “signed off and finalised”, even though we have clearly shown that fees have been charged unlawfully and the Statute of Limitations allows us to claim back up to six years of unlawfully charged fees. (Hyndburn £210,000)
Manchester’s income last year was £2,000,001 (yes two million+) and our initial calculations might require a repayment of between two and five million pounds. Even this audit suggests a profit of over £300,000 last year.
Regardless of the fact that in his report the Manchester Auditor states that the council had probably acted unlawfully over eight times, and then stated but “it is ultimately for the courts to decide” and, more significantly, “Until such time as a court rules definitively upon the subject, local authorities are in some difficulty ascertaining where the clear lines should be drawn in this regard.” It would appear that he is not going to take it court.
It is more significant to us that although the Auditor was investigating a complaint from the industry and found that the council had acted unlawfully, nowhere in his report does he take the side of the complainant and state that the council should take any action to compensate those who have been unlawfully charged.
So what is this letter all about? I think we have shown you the current situation which clearly shows that our trade is being ripped off for fees all over the country; but that since 1976 nobody has managed to get this matter before the courts to solve the issues. We now have an opportunity to do this and we seek your help.
Under section 17 (4) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 if the Auditor fails to take the issues to court the complainant can appeal that decision. Alternatively there might be an opportunity to Judicially Review the matter.
We have taken a QC’s opinion and he suggests that we have a very strong case but, as usual with these matters, the issue of costs rules all possibilities. We have got our main solicitor to run the case pro bono (for nothing unless we win and get costs from the councils) but with a QC and the threat of costs if we fail we need to have about £50,000 cover in hand. In short a fighting fund.
Can we please ask you to make a donation to this fund? Please donate any amount you can from say £100 onward. The QC’s opinion was paid for by 777 Taxis in Salford who donated £3,000. But the important thing is that we only have till the 20th July to decide what to do – so the pressure is on to say the least.
You have our assurance that if we do not proceed we will repay all donations as soon as that decision is taken (unless you send it just as a charitable donation to the NPHA) but please do it today.
Thank you
Bryan Roland
Please send donations to:-
National Private Hire Association
8, Silver Street
BURY
Lancs
BL9 0EX
Or phone 0161 280 2800 between 10am and 3 pm and speak to Karen
_________________
IDFIMH
|
Login
Register
FAQ
