Taxi Driver Online

Colchester taxi drivers on plan for mandatory electronic payments

A COLCHESTER cabbie opposed to council plans to enforce mandatory electronic payment options in all taxis said the move goes against his human rights.

Another driver said the “vast majority” of late-night passengers in the city are “drunk out of their brains, drugged up, or both”.

A third cabbie said punters find it “offensive” to be asked for card payment, adding: “This leads to an icy journey as the customer is not happy with these rules.”

These are some of the responses to a six-week consultation over Colchester Council’s plan to require drivers to fit their vehicles with a means of accepting electronic payment.

According to council bosses, the requirement is being considered following complaints over some licenced vehicles being unable to accept card payments.

Should the change be approved, licence holders would need to purchase an electronic device, which could cost in the region of £100, within three months.

It is also anticipated each transaction would also incur a charge of about 1.6 per cent.

The council would need to fork out about £1,000 on stickers for its fleet of vehicles which would inform passengers of its card payment capabilities.

The authority’s licensing committee is set to meet to consider 50 responses from taxi drivers, proprietors and operators across Colchester to the plans.

The majority, around 30 responses, either voiced support for the move or confirmed they already use electronic means of payment.

“Card payments mean you are not carrying large amounts cash,” said one driver.

“They are traceable – safer for the driver, especially Hackneys who don’t have any customer details.

“We are a city in 2022 and it is unprofessional not to accept card payments, it is not a great look to tourists, business people visiting and our population.

“The drivers who object should have two choices: Accept cards or leave the industry.”

But around 15 of the responses either opposed the scheme outright or voiced fears over the plans.

Many pointed out Colchester has several signal blackspots which leave devices without a connection to the internet.

One driver said: “There are many passengers who have no intention of paying to get home, and it those who would most likely complain.

“Cash only payments can safeguard against ‘runners’.

“The cost of fuel has risen but the fares have remained unchanged.

"We cannot afford to lose out when customers do not want to pay at the end of a journey.”

The council’s licensing committee is set to debate the consultation at 6pm on January 18, at a meeting at Colchester Town Hall.

_________________
IDFIMH

Where does our trade get these people from?


And?

Exactly how hard is it going to be in getting those punters to wave their cards in front of a card reader?


And exactly what is this one on about? Card readers may be mandatory, but card payment by customers isn't.

_________________
IDFIMH

Do they do a gold-plated version now then?

_________________
IDFIMH

What they mean is that if paid by card there will be a small charge from the provider but there will be a bigger charge from the tax man because they may have to declare their card earnings. Paying cash into a business account can cost just as much, if not more than a card machine.

_________________
Grandad,

He's obviously like the drivers in Portsmouth who think supporting a petition on a tariff issue means they're automatically supporting a rise

To be fair, though, reading the likes of the newspaper's headline and opening paragraph, on a literal reading the driver would be correct with his interpretation of the headline:


It's only in the opening paragraph things are made a bit clearer with the introduction of the highlighted word:

Colchester Gazette wrote:

A COLCHESTER cabbie opposed to council plans to enforce mandatory electronic payment options in all taxis said the move goes against his human rights.

Would be interesting to hear his argument on how precisely it breaches his human rights, though

But, like the rest of the stuff about drunks and druggies etc, it's just blather deflecting from the substantive case for compulsory card readers (and note I said compulsory card readers, not payments )

Payment in cash, why pay it into a bank? It goes to pay cash for the fuel, tyres and other stuff that isn't declared.

Card readers are being enforced so the government and HMRC can track what you are doing a lot easier and make it easier to collect tax. Pity the off-shore accounts can't be traced.

I think this was my point.

_________________
Grandad,

Nothing particularly new here, but they've had a meeting.

But maybe the councillors in favour should make the argument in terms of the lack of market choice in public hire markets, or similar, as opposed to the blather about 'ambassadors' etc.


Colchester taxi drivers blast council over 'draconian' card machine rule

https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-n ... il-8051481

The majority of drivers responded in support of the plans in a consultation

Taxi drivers have criticised plans by an Essex council to penalise drivers for not installing card machines in their vehicles. Colchester City Council's licensing policy could be changed to require local taxi drivers to fit their vehicles with a means to accept electronic payments as well as cash.

An officer's report says card payments have become the norm for a large percentage of the population and a disparity within the trade is causing problems for customers. But drivers who fail to comply could received up to 12 penalty points on their taxi license.

In a consultation with drivers, 36 out of 48 who took part responded positively to the proposed changes. The survey also suggested most drivers in the city already accept card payments. However, not all taxi drivers were in favour, with some appearing at a licensing committee meeting yesterday evening (January 18) to oppose the plans. One, Stewart Beer, said: "The penalty for drivers failing to comply, that's horrendous and draconian."

According to a council report, four points would be issued for a first offence, eight for a second and 12 for a third.

Councillor Roger Mannion (Con, Tiptree) said: "I am uneasy, actually to be fair, with the forced use of card machines. As members of the trade have said, it's a business. They should have the voluntary ability to choose if they want a card machine or not."

He later said: "I would think that the points that you're talking about here, when you get to a second offence, it's pretty harsh."

Councillor Tim Young (Labour, Greenstead) responded by saying that because drivers are ambassadors of the council, it should be able to decide the conditions they work under. He said: "Whether cash will completely die out in the future, who knows, but that's the way its going and I just think we've got to put the customers first. Young people today wouldn't dream of carrying cash about with them, they use their phone. They don't even use cards, they use their phone to pay and that's what we've got to take on board."

He also said he was concerned about signal black spots in the city which would prevent card machines from working. However, he agreed drivers would be able to identify these in advance when they asked customers where they wanted to go. Councillor Patricia Moore (Con, Mersea and Pyefleet) said: "Listening to the concerns of the drivers, it does seem to me that when you go to a taxi rank and you ask to be taken somewhere, you usually say the destination, where you want to go. The taxi driver will know if the reception is bad at that place and that is the point where he can say to the passenger, it will have to be either card upfront or cash, your choice."

The committee voted to recommend the changes to full council, meaning there is one more vote left before the policy is amended.

Thanks for that insight into how it all works - the other councillors must think the drivers just go to random destinations with the people they pick up

To be fair, she's got the general idea, but what if they don't know where they're going, and what if the driver doesn't have a detailed map of mobile phone coverage committed to memory?

Not that I'm disagreeing with compulsory card readers, but she's making it sound a bit more foolproof than it is in reality

More meetings, more councillor waffle.

Why does something quite simple need two committees to agree to it?

_________________
IDFIMH

Tell me about it. It is usually a lot more than 2 meetings. the first meeting would have been when the idea was put forward. Then there would probably have been a meeting to discuss the details and put it out to consultation. Then there would be the meeting to discuss the consultation results and if you are lucky a vote on either accepting the proposal or not. If accepted then the decision has to be ratified either by the Council cabinet or the full Council. So that is at least 4 meetings and around 6 to 9 months.

_________________
Grandad,

When it comes to licensing I'm surprised stuff gets sent to another committee.

Licensing decisions are quasi-judicial, so their decisions should really only be changed/adapted/appealed against in a court, not in another committee.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex, on the contrary, because it's quasi-judicial, it's maybe good government that the licensing committee doesn't make the rules like that (on the other hand, I don't think the quasi-judicial thing would apply to stuff like policy on credit cards anyway - committees are only quasi-judicial when deciding on individuals as regards fit and proper etc, and not as regards stuff like setting tariffs. Therefore, deciding whether or not to make card readers compulsory isn't quasi-judicial, whereas if a driver gets into a ruck with a punter about a card payment, then when he appears before the committee then that is quasi-judicial).

Anyway, it's maybe all to do with the doctrine of the separation of powers, which states that major parts of the state should be separate, namely the executive (government), legislature and judiciary. Most obviously, the legislature (in the UK, MPs in the House of Commons) shouldn't also be part of the judiciary - those making the rules shouldn't judge who's broken them.

So as regards a licensing committee, it's maybe better that they don't make the rules then judge who's broken them. Of course, in practice that's precisely what licensing committees do, but you won't find any academic or commentator saying that it offends the separation of powers doctrine, because they regard stuff like that as small fry.

On the other hand, when ECHR came in and one of the provisions was a right to a fair trial etc, as I recall it that's roughly why people couldn't be councillors and JPs or magistrates, which I think was commonplace a few decades ago

Basically, a councillor is a politician, and to that extent shouldn't be sitting as part of the judiciary as a JP or magistrate

On the other hand, as regards licensing committees and their quasi-judicial function, then that offends against the right to a fair trial in ECHR because essentially you're being tried by politicians. But, as I recall it, I think things were allowed to stand as they were because quasi-judicial decisions could be appealed to a properly constituted court.

But, in essence, it's all related to basic notions of due process and natural justice in the quasi-judicial context. And, more generally in government, stuff like checks and balances, and avoiding conflicts of interest.

So, for example, in theory at least it's maybe better that those setting the rules for testing HCs and PHVs shouldn't judge people who break those rules. Of course, in practice that's precisely what does happen

On the number of meetings I forgot that the scrutiny committee may also look at it and could refer it back to the committee for another meeting.

_________________
Grandad,

to justify that they are actually doing something not lining their pockets with expenses claims

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