Taxi Driver Online

Taxi fare rises approved for part of East Suffolk

A rise in cab fares for part of East Suffolk has been agreed for the first time in eight years.

East Suffolk Council’s licensing committee on Monday night gave the go-ahead to a revised fare structure for Hackney Carriage taxis – those that can be hailed from the roadside – for the old Suffolk Coastal district area.

It means that on the day tariff the starting rate goes up by 20p up to £3.60, with a 40p increase on the current £4.20 for one mile, a 60p increase on the two mile distance, £1.20 increase for five miles, £2.20 increase for 10 miles and £3.20 increase for a 15 mile journey.

For the night tariff between 10.30pm and 5.30am the flag fare and one mile journey increases by 30p, 50p for two miles, £1.10 for five miles, £2.10 for 10 miles and £3.10 for 15 miles.

The request was brought forward by the taxi trade itself, which has not had an increase since May 2012.

Mike Stokell, an established operator in East Suffolk who runs 22 of the 30 licensed Hackney Carriage cabs in the south of the district, in his representation said the new structure brought it more in line with other nearby authorities.

He added: “It is now eight years since the last fare increase.

“Since then all of our costs have increased with the exception of fuel.”

The committee voted 11 to one in favour of the changes, but said that work would soon need to begin to bring the different tariffs in the north of the district – the old Waveney District Council area – and the south together into one uniform tariff.

That work is likely to begin early in the 2021/22 financial year.

Councillor Steve Wiles said: “The taxi drivers in the area would be best placed to make the decision on how the economy is running in their area.

“Covid has taken a lot of business away and if you are looking at the rate of inflation in the last eight years without inflating their prices I think they have done pretty well.”

However, councillor Linda Coulam, who has previous experience working in the trade, said: “I don’t think this is the right time for us to have an increase.

“I think if you agree to this increase when you do come to put the taxi fares together [for north and south] that is a lot to ask the north to agree to.

“With Covid I don’t think the taxi drivers need an increase at the moment – they need more help to keep their taxis on the road. Life is very difficult for a taxi driver right now.”

Another option the committee is set to assess in the future is a mandatory increase every two or three years.

If there are no objections from the public the new fares will begin from December 1, or be considered at the committee’s January meeting if objections are received.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed.

_________________
IDFIMH

I would have thought that Councillor Linda Coulam should not be on the Committee at all if she has been in the Trade previously, unless she was in the Trade in different Licensing Authority area.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Why? I would think that having someone on the committee who has some knowledge would be a good thing. However I don't agree that now is not the right time because there will always be some issue around "the right time" and with that attitude it will never be "the right time".

_________________
Grandad,

Her statement "for us" could be taken she still has an interest within the trade.
Any increase is not for the Council but only belongs to licensed vehicle proprietors.

Maybe. On the other hand, 'us' could mean the committee members, or just the wider council area and its residents.

A quick search reveals that Coulam was director of a business called D&L Cars Ltd, established July 2011, dissolved April 2019.

None of which confirms she has no current interest in the trade. She could be involved in some other way. The other named director was David Coulam, so presumably her husband, or could be another family member. So perhaps David still involved in the trade, while the councillor isn't, so to that degree a confilct of interest.

Also, 'previous experience working in the trade' suggests she's not now 'working' in it. But it doesn't preclude the possibility that she is still working in it. But if it's the latter, then might have been better to report that she's currently working in the trade, even though to simply say she has 'previous exprencience working in the trade' wouldn't be wholly inaccurate.

As for Chris's point about the possibility that she could have been working in a different area, the company's registered office was in Lowestoft, which indeed is in the council area.

However, the registered office address doesn't mean that the company couldn't have actually been operating elsewhere - accountant's or solicitor's offices, for example, are often used as registered offices, but the business of the company carried on elsewhere.

But in the final analysis, there just isn't enough information available to know for sure where and when the councillor's experience working in the trade came from.

But with the information available, I'd guess she did work in the trade within the licensing area, but that she's not currently working in the trade.

The fact that she mentioned in a Council meeting that she had previously worked in the industry would suggest to me that none of her immediate family have any current connection to the industry. All Councillors have to make an annual declaration of interests and I have to declare my and my immediate family interests that could be considered to be prejudicial by the ordinary person in the street. now I am sure that if this was the case then another Councillor of a different party would have certaily made an issue of it.

_________________
Grandad,

Indeed. But we don't know for certain that she actually *mentioned* anything at all in the meeting. There's no quote marks in the report when it states her previous experience so it's conceviable that it's just a well known fact locally that the journalist thought fit to include, but which might not have actually been stated in the meeting in the way it's reported.

On the other hand, she might have actually said: "For the avoidance of doubt, I was previously a taxi owner-driver in Lowestoft, and was a director of a despatch operation there. However, the company was dissolved last year, and I'm no longer a driver, and neither my husband nor wider family members have any current insterests in or connection with the taxi trade."

Which, of course, a newspaper wouldn't report in full in a brief article summarising the process.

There are other uncertainties - if I saw the name D&L Cars Limited, my money would be on it being a PH operation, but in fact it could be all-HC, or a mixed fleet, or mixed fleet all with meters fitted.

Which from our perpsective might make it a whole different ball game, but even licensing councillors would probabaly regard it as a 'taxi' interest, as would the average journalist, but from our perspective HC or PH or mixed-fleet would make a whole lot of difference to the process and conflicts of interest etc.

Anyway, I think we're in danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees here, and over-analysing things a bit

I would be surprised if the lady is still connected with the trade as she wouldn't be able to decide on fare reviews, although she could deal with other non taxi licensing matters.

I also believe it's a good thing having someone on the licensing committee that knows something about our trade. We have suffered throughout time by having idiots on the licensing committee that have no idea about licensing let alone the taxi/PH trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

I feel the need to contribute further.

If the Lady Councillor has been in the trade locally, as it would appear from conjecture she was, whilst she has every right to be elected to the Council she should NOT be on the Licensing Committee.

The Licensing Committee amongst other things is a Quasi Judicial body. If there is a potential for Disciplinary Decisions, which there is, for deciding who pays what for what Licence, which there is, then the Lady must recuse herself.

She is not supposed to even offer advice to the Committee.

I am amazed the Legal Department in that Manor have not sorted the situation.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

I know one former local Councillor whose son was a taxi driver was not allowed to participate in anything taxi related despite her having never been in the trade

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I am able to offer my opinion to committee members but I am not allowed to even be present at any decision making meeting.
I very much doubt that this lady has any current connection with the trade.

_________________
Grandad,

Why do you say that?

One of our licensing councillors was a former bigwig in the local trade - a sort of Grandad-style figure in St Andrews. However, he'd left the trade before becoming a councillor, as I recall it, and certainly before becoming a member of the licensing committee.

I've been thinking a lot about stuff like that during the past wee while, although more in terms of other grounds of unsuitability and conflicts of interests etc.

But I don't necessarily see how the fact that a councillor was involved in the trade once upon a time would preclude them from serving on a licensing committee, unless there's some kind of ongoing conflict of interest, such as relatives or even close friends still active in the trade.

Are there any legal precedents or similar for your view?

As she is a member of the scrutiny committee how would she be able to carry out her duties if looking into something the licensing committee decided and was being looked into.