Taxi Driver Online

FFS, I cant an answer out of them (that makes sense) over simple matters!

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

Ive just got a DBS certificate that was paid for in July, a 3 year badge this july will need a new DBS even tho ive got updates at the DBS. a new certifcate will be 3 years old come july 2018 and worthless really but if they do that to me i wont offer my update access.....

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

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

I did that for ours, if you remember I posted it up on here, they were quoting, lighting, heating, paper clips etc etc. The letter I sent back asking them for the address of the paper clip company because I'd like some gold plated paper clips didn't go down well at all.

I darent say too much cos i need a HC plate inside 7 days from a test rather than the 14 they quote

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

Here is the report to Councillors to be presented at the committee meeting on march 4th.
I am not sure yet because I haven't seen the paper but I think that the council have already advertised the fee increase even though the meeting to decide the fees is not until next week.

RURAL, ECONOMIC & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
4
TH MARCH 2015
REPORT OF HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
REVIEW OF CHARGES 2015-16: TAXI LICENSING
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To consider the charges that will operate from 1st April 2015, with regards to the
provisional conclusions agreed on 3rd September 2014 by this committee.
2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 That the Committee determines the level of charges for 2015-16 for each of the
services set out in the attached table (Appendix A) to operate from 1st April 2015.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 The Committee will recall that the charges for taxi licensing were set at its meeting on 3rd
September 2014.
3.2 The intention was that time recording would be undertaken to verify and/or adjust our
understanding of cost apportionment. Members will recall that before fees were set for
2014/2015 detailed time recording took place between October and December 2013. This
was to test the traditional assumption that the cost apportionment of Licensing was 40% of
the overall Licensing budget .The time recording indicated that it accounted for 43% of the
overall costs of providing the service.
3.3 However, the fees which were set for 2014/2015 are now resulting in a recovery level of
approximately 51% of these costs. On this basis the currently proposed 25% fees increase
for 2015/2016 would create a recovery rate of approximately 62% based on anticipated
levels of demand and budgetary provision. Appendix B to this reports sets out the cost
apportionment for the expenditure on licences of various types and compares this to the
current fees and those proposed for 2015/16.
3.4 As stated above it was originally proposed that a further period of time recording would be
undertaken. Unfortunately, time recording has not taken place due to periods of staff
absence which would have produced unreliable results, but it is considered that there is
sufficiently robust data to use for fees setting in this instance, based on that carried out in
2013. This is because there have been no significant changes in the pattern of work since
that time recording was undertaken and because the fees recovered will still be well short
of the overall cost of providing the service.
3.5 In addition, there have not been any significant change in circumstances that would have
a significant impact upon the staff resource required to provide the service. The current
volume and complexity of work is comparable with that recorded in the autumn of 2013
and the procedures and processes remain unchanged. The staff establishment, their roles
and other factors are very comparable to autumn 2013.There has been significant
progress in reducing the costs of the service overall from which the taxi licensing
component benefits, but they remain significantly more than the proposed new fees.
3.6 Even with the proposed increase in fees there will be a shortfall in full costs recovery of
approximately 38%. Any fluctuations in workload or other minor variations would have no
significant impact upon this shortfall and what continues to be a major difference between
income and the actual cost of providing the service.
AGENDA ITEM 103.7 The licensing of taxis and drivers is considered to be a service which, under the Charging
Policy, should achieve cost recovery. Historically, the fees and charges have not reflected
cost recovery and therefore this objective is not being met, with full cost recovery
estimated to require a further increase of around 100% (i.e. on the basis that the current
level of fees achieve 51%).
3.8 Members will recall that the fees set in 2014/15 did not cover the cost of the enforcement
of licences. If enforcement costs were included, the increase in fees necessary to achieve
cost recovery would be significantly greater.
3.9 Members will also recall that an increase of 25% was agreed as an approach that
balances the requirements of moving towards the charging policy with a sum reasonable
to service users. It should be noted that while a fees increase is considered to be
necessary, progress has been made in terms of reducing the overall costs of providing the
service.
3.10 It is therefore proposed that a similar increase is agreed for 2015/16, for the same
reasons. This, in combination with the increases made this year, would increase the
proportion of ‘cost recovery’ (calculated on this basis) to around 62%. Further increases
will be required in future years in order to reach a position of full cost recovery.
4.0 POLICY & CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS
4.1 The fees proposed are accommodated within the corporate charging policy which
recognises that discretion is limited because some fees are set by legislation (either
directly or through disciplines such as ‘cost recovery’ requirements).
5.0 FINANCIAL & OTHER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS
5.1 Financial and resource implications have been addressed above. The 2015-16 revenue
budget has been produced on the assumption that the increase referred to will be justified.
5.2 Local Government funding continues to be reviewed and there is great uncertainty
surrounding funding in later years although almost certainly will be reduced. This is
reflected in the Council’s MTFS and places a greater onus on the Council to seek to
maximise its income from other sources.
6.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS/POWERS
6.1 Local Authorities have certain limited freedoms to charge for discretionary services under
the Local Government Act 2003. However, in the cases above the ‘cost recovery’
requirements are specifically stated in specific legislation.
7.0 COMMUNITY SAFETY
7.1 There are no direct links to community safety arising from this report.
8.0 EQUALITIES
8.1 There are no equalities issues identified.
9.0 RISKS
9.1 The risks are considered to be of a legal nature, i.e the inability to demonstrate cost
recovery should they be challenged. We are aware of challenges on this basis elsewhere
in respect of Licensing and these measures are considered necessary to safeguard
against this or a ‘joint action’ such as that currently being pursued for Land Charges.10.0 CLIMATE CHANGE
10.1 There are no climate change issues directly arising from this report.
11.0 CONSULTATION
11.1 No consultation has taken place
12.0 WARDS AFFECTED
12.1 All wards are affected.
Contact Officer: P Reid, Regulatory Services Manager.
Date: 20th February 2015
Appendices: Appendix A – Review of Fees and Charges (delegated items – licensing extract)

_________________
Grandad,

When did they advertise?

Have they, or are they, considering any objections?

_________________
IDFIMH

What about "pop up" charges?

like a brand new reg

if you licence a vehicle on the V5 "new keeper" section only you only get a 1 month plate (after paying for a 1 year plate) and then have to pay £15 for the full plate upon production of the V5 in the new keepers name.

(i suppose you could always wait till the new V5 comes back.....)

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

I have now checked the paper and the advert is not yet in. we can't object to an increase that has not yet been voted on by the committee. This means that they will have to have the advert at the newspaper by 15.00 next Wednesday and the meeting isn't until after that time, just like last year. The committee will not be told of any objections, as usual the head of regulatory services will use his "delegated powers" and dismiss all objections. They have never let the committee consider any objections. I have sent an email today asking for the contact details for the district auditor.

_________________
Grandad,

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.

Statute of Limitations allows us to claim back up to six years of unlawfully charged fees. (Hyndburn £210,000)
Manchester’s income 2012 was £2,000,001 (yes two million+) and the initial calculations might require a repayment of between two and five million pounds.
in his report the Manchester Auditor states that the council had probably acted unlawfully over eight times.Manchester had failed to advertise re-test fees and many other errors were found.

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 Hyndburn Council had agreed to pay drivers back £210,000 having not advertised testing fees.

Here is the reply from the council for the contact details of the district auditor.

Dear xxxxxxx

Thank you for your email and sorry for the delayed response but there was no one in the licencing team on Friday for us to obtain the information you required.

I have spoken to xxxxxxx who has advised that he has sent your request to our internal auditors for them to respond to you direct.

If I can be of any further assistance do not hesitate to contact me.


Quite interesting? Why would they need to speak to licensing to give me the contact details of the district auditor? The person that was spoken to is, wait for it, the head of regulatory services?
Do I detect a fobbing off is due? Will the district auditor be someone in the internal auditing department?

_________________
Grandad,

I detect bullshit.

I have again requested the contact details for the district auditor.
I have written to all the Councillors on the committee that is meeting tomorrow evening. i wonder if my letter will get a mention by any of the Councillors?
I will be going to the meeting to hear what is said.

_________________
Grandad,

Here is the letter sent to Councillors.

Dear Councillor,
My name is XXXXXXXXX and I am writing to you directly ahead of the committee meeting on 04 March 2015.
I have read the report from the head of Regulatory Services and I feel that there are some issues that need addressing before you make your decision on the increase in fees proposed. Firstly, last year I made representations to the head of Regulatory Services regarding the way in which the 2013 time recording was carried out. The method used is fundamentally flawed in many ways. Firstly the time recording was done by the members of staff themselves and can not be independently verified. Secondly, there was no recording of any other activity carried out by members of staff other that what they say was connected to Hackney and Private hire issues. Thirdly, there is nothing recorded to say what activity actually took place, just basic headings such as "drivers licenses", "vehicle licenses", and "operators licenses". I met with the head of Regulatory Services to discuss these issues and to present the results of a similar time recording study carried out by Bournmouth Council. This study runs to 13 pages and I can supply copies if required.
It is important to know that although the council would like to achieve full cost recovery from the Hackney and Private Hire licensing activity that only certain costs can legally be recovered. basically, before a fee can be set there are some things that need to be known and the department do not have these figures at all. The first thing to know is how much per hour it costs to run the Council. Next you need to know how long each licensing activity takes to complete. As far as I am aware, and I have sent in freedom of information requests to ascertain these figures, they do not exist which is why there was to be a new time and motion study carried out before the decision on the 2015/16 fees could be set.
Because of the fundamental flaws in the 2013 study and the failure to carry out the new study as stated at the committee meeting that took place on 03 September 2014 I am referring the license fees to the District Auditor for him to look into the situation and I would urge members of the committee to ask some searching questions regarding this issue and defer any decision pending the outcome of any inquiry by the District Auditor.
Yours sincerely,

_________________
Grandad,