Taxi Driver Online

Even by the standards of the most routine of fare review articles, this very definitely represents a slow news day

Huge, mainly rural area, with few large settlements, I'd guess. So probably little scope for a united front from the trade, which may explains the limited response to the consultation. Then again, figures like that are probably about the norm for stuff like this...

Spot the deliberate mistake, though - I mean, T3 is always going to be that bit higher, but this one's off the scale

(And usual Scottish caveat - an operator is a plateholder up here )


Argyll and Bute maximum taxi fares up for consideration

https://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk ... ideration/

FEWER than 10 per cent of taxi operators in Argyll and Bute responded to a consultation by the council on maximum fares, a report has revealed.

The authority went out to consultation from October 24 to December 2, seeking operators’ views on whether maximum fares should increase in the area.

But only eight out of 101 operators across the area responded, with seven of them requesting an increase to the highest possible tariff.

Councillors will now be invited to review the area’s fare scales and propose when new scales will come into effect. They are also asked to authorise officers to advertise the proposed fares and invite responses.

A report will then come back to the council’s planning, protective services and licensing committee on Wednesday, March 19.

The current report will be considered by the same committee at its meeting on Wednesday, December 18.

Currently, tariff one (7am-10pm) is £3.45 for the first 860 yards, with an additional 23p, for every 176 yards. Tariff two (10pm-7am) is £4.14 with an additional 23p per 150 yards, and tariff three (public holidays) is £483 with an additional 23p per 120 yards.

None of the operators who responded are identified in the report, other than where they are based.

One response was received from the Lorn area, suggesting that starting tariffs should increase by about 10 per cent.

Two responses were received from the Cowal area, supporting an increase of 10 per cent to the initial charge and 17 per cent to the subsequent charge.

Three responses came from the Lomond area, with two suggesting an increase while one said that the fares should remain the same.

One response from Bute supported an increase of tariff one to £4, while another from the island did not specify an increase. There were no responses received at all from the Mid Argyll or Kintyre areas.

Executive director Douglas Hendry said: “Members are now required to review the matter of taxi fares.

“Members are invited to consider whether they wish to accept the general consensus from the eight written responses received whereby seven are requesting an increase to the fares and one is requesting no increase to the fares be made.

“If members are minded to propose an increase in fares they require to detail the proposed new scales.

“They may wish to reaffirm the current scale of maximum fares previously reviewed by the council on June 21, 2023 which came into force [on] October 22, 2023 whereby members agreed for fares to remain the same.

“A previous review undertaken in 2021/22 agreed to increase fares by 15 per cent. This decision took effect from April 22, 2022.

“Members further require to propose a date of which the proposed fares are to come into effect. It is recommended that this be April 22."

I certainly can't criticise anyone for copying and pasting press articles , but when PHTM (authors of the high-profile tariff tables) does that you'd think they'd at least correct the obvious error with the T3 flagfall

https://www.phtm.co.uk/news/7259/phtm-n ... r-response

It's all kicking off in Argyll and Bute

Actually, all very procedural here, but interesting to see how the councillors approach the issue of the low response rate to the consultation.

Naturally, it's suggested that it means the trade is largely content with the current tariff structure.

Not sure if I'd agree with that, although no doubt to an extent it's a plausible theory.

But, of course, the fragmented nature of the trade in such a huge, sparsely populated area is probably a factor - there's probably no association or similar group that the council can focus on as regards negotiations etc.

Similarly, many in the trade effectively rely on others to deal with this kind of stuff, therefore don't respond to consultations and the like. And I don't know about this particular area, but one reason many don't engage with their council is because they think there's little point

But you get the impression from the narrative below that the licensing committee is a bit more detached from the trade than the average city authority (say). Which in fact may reflect how the trade in Argyll & Bute is a bit detached from other members of the trade because of the geography and individual markets etc, as opposed to one big, uniform market in the likes of Dundee or Aberdeen.

Committee meetings here sound like a blast, though

And at least the decimal point has now been included in the T3 flagfall


Argyll and Bute Council considers 10 per cent taxi fare rise

https://www.helensburghadvertiser.co.uk ... fare-rise/

A 10 per cent rise in the maximum taxi fares in Argyll and Bute has moved a step closer after councillors decided in favour.

Operators across the area were consulted by the authority recently, but fewer than 10 per cent responded. Of those who did, the majority supported an increase.

Although some councillors were initially in favour of keeping the maximum tariffs the same, a decision to suggest a 10 per cent increase was unanimously agreed.

The proposal will now go out to advertisement and further consultation, with elected members to consider those findings in March. It is recommended that any increase is implemented from April 22.

The decision was made at a meeting of the council’s planning, protective services and licensing committee on Wednesday, December 18.

Currently, tariff one (7am-10pm) is £3.45 for the first 860 yards, with an additional 23p, for every 176 yards. Tariff two (10pm-7am) is £4.14 with an additional 23p per 150 yards, and tariff three (public holidays) is £4.83 with an additional 23p per 120 yards.

Councillor Jan Brown (SNP, Mid Argyll) said: “I remember this coming up last year and being disappointed by the response, and again, only 7.8 per cent have taken part.

“I am again conflicted as to whether we do put these up, or put in the paper we are not increasing, and see whether we get any response to that. They are obviously making enough money that they do not need to respond.”

Councillor Graham Hardie (Liberal Democrat, Helensburgh Central) added: “With such a low input from taxi drivers, it suggests they are happy with the way things are.

“I would suggest no increase, because if there was a demand, there would be much more response.”

Councillor Audrey Forrest (SNP, Dunoon) then said: “The one response from Cowal is from an operator who may be talking for quite a few vehicles.

“When you look at the table [in the report] we are cheaper than everywhere else. Given the comments received, and it is disappointing we have not had more, we need to listen to the people who did respond.

“Most of them are looking for a rise, and given there is a massive cost of living, I would go with what the people who have responded have said.”

Councillor John Armour (SNP, South Kintyre) added: “We need to take cognisance of those who have responded. They have gone into a fair bit of detail on how much everything has gone up since the last increase.

“I agree we could probably do with a better response, but Councillor Forrest made a really good point that it could be an operator speaking for various different ones in their area.

“I would be inclined to look at an increase, as taxi drivers provide an extremely good service and work through public holidays, including over the next couple of weeks.”

Councillor Kieron Green (Independent, Oban North and Lorn), the committee’s chair, said: “My view is largely in line with Councillor Forrest’s and others. I recognise there has been a disappointing response, but there may be other reasons for that other than respondents being happy with the rates being charged at this point.

“I would be minded to impose a 10 per cent increase, as it reflects the balance of the comments we have received.”

Councillor Armour seconded the motion, which was passed unopposed.

What an idiotic thing to say?

Most drivers in this trade are happy to keep their heads down and get on with the job. That doesn't mean they accept or agree with everything a council does, it may just means they have no confidence in the numpties that run the council and just can't be arsed to deal with councillors when they say such stupid things as the individual above.

_________________
IDFIMH