Taxi Driver Online

This report mentions 'private hire', but that's presumably about PSVs rather than licensed private hire vehicles. However, the company's name is Kessingland Kabs, suggesting a trade link.

But Google Kessingland Kabs, and it's mainly company registration details that appears, suggesting it's maybe not a trading name.

But this firm also comes up, and it's called Xscape Taxis, Lowestoft, and shares the same phone number as Kessingland Kabs.

https://www.740xscape.co.uk/

Not much on the website, but there's a graphic at the top of the page showing a Seat saloon, and by the looks of it I'd guess it's a plated PHV.

So presumably the firm has been using PSVs and PHVs, and maybe also HCs, but no mention of that in this report, which is exclusively about the PSV aspect and the Traffic Commissioner.

Anyway, all that's just to say that although there's not much evidence in this article that the firm is directly part of the PH/HC trade (other than the word 'Kab'), the evidence suggests it actually is.


'Ashamed and embarrassed’ - Inquiry hears how transport manager missed basic maintenance checks

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/k ... -1-6882124

A former transport manager said he was “ashamed, embarrassed and frustrated” after vehicles at a private hire company missed out on basic maintenance checks.

Kessingland Kabs Ltd in Lowestoft, and the firm’s former transport manager Stephen Paul Fisher, were found to have breached regulations by a government official at a public inquiry.

They were called by the East of England Traffic Commissioner to appear at an inquiry in Cambridge in July “to consider whether there were grounds to intervene” in respect of the firm’s licence.

It was attended by Kessingland Kabs Ltd director, Michael Sutton, but Mr Fisher did not attend after resigning in June.

At the time of the hearing, Kessingland Kabs Ltd held a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) operator’s licence authorising five vehicles – meaning those vehicles were available for private hire.

The inquiry heard that in July 2019, one of the vehicles was issued with an immediate prohibition notice for “suspension holding down bolts/nuts, insecure. Axle moving relative to suspension unit.”

A subsequent vehicle inspection by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) was carried out in December 2019.

It heard: “In the course of the investigation the vehicle inspection records, preventative maintenance systems and maintenance arrangements were checked and the inspector was not satisfied with the results and marked the outcome as unsatisfactory.”

Maintenance inspection reports were assessed and the inspector found many had defects listed that were “not shown as rectified”.

Reports had not been signed and dated to declare vehicles to be in a safe and roadworthy condition on many occasions, according to the report.

Mr Fisher said in a letter to the inquiry “he could give no reasonable excuse or explanation” for the findings.

A report into the inquiry stated: “He also referred to being ashamed, embarrassed and frustrated. He should be.

“He has apparently reflected on the shortcomings set out in the Public Inquiry documents and concluded that it was only appropriate for him to step down.

“He also informed me that he no longer intends to take any role within the transport industry following this experience.”

The commissioner for the East of England suspended the operator licence for Kessingland Kabs limited.

Speaking about the findings, Michael Sutton, director of Kessingland Kabs Ltd, said: “We noted the errors that the traffic commissioner had pointed out, and have since came to the decision to surrender our license on August 14, 2020 until a time we feel that we can be fully compliant considering these uncertain times in the world.”

Indeed, the traffic commissioner's full decision states that Kessingland Kabs Ltd trades as Xscape Taxis, but no mention of any council aspect, but presumably they'll take an interest in this if indeed the firm does operate PHVs and/or HCs.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... rt-manager

Of course, ironically enough the licensing coucillor discussed in the other thread was involved in a cab firm in Lowestoft, so maybe a former competitor of this outfit?

So assuming this firm operates vehicles plated by the council, this demonstrates why the councillor maybe not the most objective person to take part in any review of the firm's licences, even if she has no current connection with the trade.

I mean, would you like to be up in front of the licensing committee with a former competitor as one of its members. Particularly if you maybe didn't get on with them when they were in the trade?

And, of course, to make it worse, other committee members might value the councillor's opinion more because of their past involvement in the trade

On here many of us moan about the lack of enforcement for the taxi/PH trade, and in many cases it's not far from the truth.

But taxi/PH enforcement is a zillion times better than the pathetic efforts that come from the Traffic Commissioner's office.

I remember from when we was having fun with the Tuk Tuks down here, the Traffic Commissioner's office have three enforcement officers for the South East. That's 3 for 9,500,000 people.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think Lowestoft has Hackney saloons so they might run hackneys but I suspect the minibuses are for running tourists about etc.

looks like they have fairly substantial premises looking on google maps there appears to an 8 seater and a larger minibus in the yard but a neighboring compound appears to have more. I wonder if they struggle to pay the rent hence lower maintenance spend they certainly don't appear to be the biggest local operator

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

When you are called into a sub committee hearing you are permitted to object to any Councillor you like being on the panel in the same way as you can object to a juror sitting on your case at a court. I was on the licensing committee at our Council a while ago and obviously I could not sit on any taxi hearings but I sat on several alcohol license panels and we always had a panel of 3 Councillors sitting and had a 4th as a reserve just in case there was an objection.

_________________
Grandad,

Is that universal, or down to each council's procedures?

Not sure if we have that here in Fife. One difference in Scotland is that we can potentially complain to the central Scottish Standards Commissioner about councillor misconduct, although that's more about the councillor, and wouldn't help any aggrieved licensee.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=36034&p=402835

And our liquor licensing councillors sit on a separate body, while the taxi licensing committees deal with every other licence like scrap metal dealers and tattoo parlours

Not sure if every Scottish council is the same, but taxis etc dealt with by licensing *committees*, while liquor licensing dealt with separate licensing *board*. (Think you may be saying much the same, but obviously the terminology may differ.)

Think there's also some legal quirk whereby the licensing *committees* are part of the council, but technically the liquor licensing *boards* are an external body, but to all intents and purposes they're just different parts of the council's licensing functions.

Depends on how each licensing committee is structured, obviously, but here if it was up to me nobody connected to the trade would serve on a licensing committee, even if they were excluded from dealing with trade matters. After all, taxi and PH licensing seems to comprise most of the committee's work here

Would you also exclude land owners from sitting on the planning committee?

_________________
Grandad,

Good question, but a significant proportion of the population are land owners, and even those who rent a property can have an interest in planning matters.

But I suppose it depends on how direct the planning matter is to the interests of the particular councillor. An application for a supermarket on the opposite side of a city from where the councillor lives wouldn't immediately suggest any problems, but not if the councillor lived nearby or had business interests in the retail world.

But the problem with taxi licensing is that anyone involved in the trade has too much of a direct conflict of interest if they are a licensing councillor. I would certainly object if any licensing councillor here was involved in the local trade in any way, shape or form.

Or at least, that would be my opinion, but the problem with stuff like that is that I wouldn't necessarily make my opinion known in the public domain

But I wouldn't have councillors deciding these things anyway, because economic regulation is normally handed over to independent experts, not politicians.

Ditto the quasi-judicial aspect - in fact doesn't the quasi-judicial function fall foul of the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights?

As I recall it, councils get away with this because there's an appeal available to an independent court, but still highly unsatisfactory if you ask me

Ironically one of the people on our licencing committee was banned for drink driving, he'd not be eligible for the very licences his committee hands out.

Think that person will have a very bitter attitude towards any driver going in front of that committee.

Was it a taxi drivers fault that he got caught drink driving? he probably uses taxis quite a bit now.

_________________
Grandad,

Speaking as one who has been in the PSV industry for more years than I car to remember, there's a lot of "cab" companies out there that operate as Public Service Vehicles. A lot seem to operate on the fringes of the industry with scant regard for the regular maintenance regimes demanded by the terms of the PSV licence or the drivers' hours regulations. Each company MUST have a qualified transport manager ho has undergone a quite tough exam or has "grandfather rights". The maintenance regime means that the vehicle must be inspected at regular intervals, usually weeks 8-12 weeks, somtimes more often depending on vehicle age and use and all defects and repairs recorded.

Drivers are obliged to undertake a first use walk round check of the vehicle before they enter service and record the fact. Drivers must also use a tacho to record driving hours except in certain circumstances, such as use on locl scheduled bus routes open to the public or under contract such as school services.

In the bus trade press almost every week there's a case in the "legal pages" regarding errant minibus/cab operations. Most are cab operators (cab as in ph and HC) who have little or no regard for the stringent conditions imposed by the Public Passenger Vehicles Act. Most involve bad maintenance and drivers that are unlicenced. Many operate under the "restricted psv licence" which allow a cab firm to run up to 2 psv's (with less than16 seats) under less stringent financial requirement than a full licence.

I'm somewhat surprised that the Transport Manager has not been called to the Pubic Inquiry and has his competence questioned. After all, this firm has 5 O licences. He is likely to lose his "good repute" under a further Public Inquiry and be banned from the industry. It's worth doing an operator search on the DVSA website to find out a bit more. I'll have a look and post the links.