Taxi Driver Online

I have had an email.

"I note your view and have to say I don’t agree; to me it was just good preparation, albeit not risk free as XXXXXX has explained. If you wish to take it further I would have to refer you to the complaints process."

_________________
Grandad,

You have 28 days from the advert to object. As it was advertised before the meeting is enough grounds.
Dear Sir,
I object to the proposed fee increase on the grounds that the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when it decided to increase the taxi licensing fees and charges.

You could request

1 ​Please provide a chronology of events for this matter, starting from the date
when the Licensing Officer decided to review the fees/charges.

2. ​Please provide a copy of the letter sent to interested parties following his/her review
of costings/fees as well as the newspaper advertisement.

It's obvious they have 'pre-judged' the matter. So you should gather as much info as you can for the ombudsman

At the meeting, he asked the committee to give him delegated powers to deal with any objections, which were given by the Chairman of the committee.

_________________
Grandad,

ask for a copy of the figures and how they arrived at a 25% increase, seems very excessive to me. then send them to me and I will take a look.

As you are aware, xxxxxxxxx is poorly at present and this has hampered my ability to respond fully. She managed the time recording exercise on which the calculations were based. Also, I did not retain calculations, but dropped them straight into the Committee report so will have to take a little time to re-work them and send them to you.

_________________
Grandad,

_________________
Grandad,

Which license business are these?

Are they the massive pub chains? No.

Are they the large night-time clubs? No.

Are they casinos and lap dancing clubs? No.

All the above have fixed incredibly low licensing cost, so before the LO opens his gob I suggest he engages his brain.

_________________
IDFIMH

I have received some of the figures and I have requested more information from the Council. But I have to say that I have "concerns" about some of the figures. For instance the Council state that in the next 12 months they expect to produce 10 private hire operators licenses, 86 drivers licenses and 76 vehicle licenses. A total of 172 licenses. now they state in the figures provided to the committee that the material costs, "proportion of costs directly associated with type of license (e.g. paper, badges, software licenses etc). as being £8772. This is broken down to £38.76 for each drivers license. £55.40 for each vehicle license and £122.80 for each operators license. Now at this stage I do not know what software licenses are required and what the cost of these are but the operators license is just an A4 sheet of paper. For the drivers license we get an A4 sheet of paper and a plastic badge with a clip. The vehicle license is an A4 sheet of paper and 2 plastic plates. Now I am no expert but If these costs are a true representation of the actual costs incurred I think there needs to be a rethink into the process.

_________________
Grandad,

If theres one party in overall control the decision will have been taken at their group meeting they know they cant lose so they book the advert

_________________
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

The figures that the Licensing department provided to the Committee stated that the cost of taxi licensing is 43% of the total licensing costs. I asked how this figure was reached and I was told that it was from the time recording exercise that I had asked for. They provided the data which was wholly inadequate for the purpose and you could not tell how the 43% had been reached. Basically they had the staff in the department record what time they spent on taxi licensing over a 3 month period. However they were not required to record the time they spent on other activities so where did the 43% figure come from? I assumed that it came form the total hours that had been recorded as being 43% of the total hours worked by all the members of staff. To me that would have seemed to be the logical way in which the 43% figure was calculated but I was wrong.
This is the explanation that I received this morning.

" The 43% relates to one of the members of staff who did the recording, but it gets a little more complicated than just that. The cost for licensing come from different sources and we were quite discerning how we these were apportioned to taxi licensing specifically.
The direct costs is where the Officer who recorded 43% is funded and the other costs within this budget all apply generically to licensing so this proportion has been applied to them, as you will have seen.
However another member of staff is funded as an indirect cost and she recorded 36% and this has been applied to indirect costs where applicable. We have been quite careful with these not to apply any for irrelevant activity (such as Building Control, who contribute significantly to licensing but only in respect of premises (alcohol) licences, so discounted altogether) and of course enforcement because we have successfully argued these should be included, despite the legislation allowing it. Time recording for these staff has been provided, but because of this position, it doesn’t ‘filter through’ to the costs or therefore the fees."
So it seems that the 43% relates to only the time recorded by one member of staff and that figure has been used to represent all the direct costs and indirect costs have been set from the time recording of a different person.
Where do I take this from here? It is so obviously being done wrong at every level but the department and committee don't see it as a problem.
I think I need to compile a list of Councils who are having to re-pay fees because they have got it wrong. I know there are some on here but I can't remember them. I know that Cardiff is one but there are more.

_________________
Grandad,

Guildford.

_________________
IDFIMH

At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask

how many cars does that include?

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

This clearly states they are not keeping or never have kept proper records for taxi licensing

3.8.5 The Committee is advised that the appropriate legislation (s 53 and s70 of the Local Government (Misc. Provisions) Act 1976) provides the remit for the setting of charges and makes separate provision for Operator’s, Driver’s and vehicle licences. Accordingly, the approach of assigning 40% of costs to the overall Licensing function – whilst of merit in terms of the ‘ringfencing’ the taxi licensing element of the function form the remaining licensing activity – is not considered to be sufficiently detailed to determine how much resource each of the types of the licences demands and, in turn, how costs should be apportioned. This issue is also a matter of legal challenge elsewhere in the country and it is considered beneficial to ensure the basis for calculation is as robust as possible.

Sardar v Watford 2006.

_________________
Steve.