|
Agenda Item 9.2a
Brighton & Hove City Council
For general release
Meeting: Licensing Committee (Non-Licensing Act 2003 functions)
Date: 23 November 2006
Report of: Director of Environment
Subject: Deputation to full Council – availability of wheelchair accessible taxis
Ward(s) affected: All
1. Purpose of the report
1.1 To reconsider and respond to the deputation made by Ms Karen Coley to Council on 19 October concerning availability of wheelchair accessible taxis.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That this report is considered and informs Members in their resolution of a subsequent report setting taxi licensing policy and considering restriction or otherwise of hackney carriage vehicle numbers.
2.2 That the Committee considers these options:-
(a) Wheelchair accessibility to be a condition of additional all new hackney carriage licences as is current policy.
(b) Maximising the annual increase of wheelchair accessible hackney carriage vehicles within the managed growth policy, if such policy is continued.
(c) Notwithstanding, (a) and (b) above, issue 20 new hackney carriage wheelchair accessible vehicle licences to be conditional upon joining an operators’ radio circuit in addition to any licences issued by virtue of a managed growth policy and that authority to draft the condition is delegated to the Director of Strategy and Governance.
(d) Amending current policy and requiring existing drivers to be subject to DSA testing if they receive 7 points or more over a 1 year period.
3. Information
3.1 Between 2001 and 2003 the Council’s Equalities forum reviewed taxi services for disabled people. It set up an action group comprising; Sylvia Alexandra-Vine from the Domestic Violence Forum and Tim Williamson from DAAG and elected members of the Forum; Councillors McCaffery, Bennett, Simson, Framroze and Tonks. Members of the taxi forum joined it: Mark Durrell (Private Hire Association), Alex Haddow (Nation al Taxi Provincial Taxi Trade Union), Neil Parkin (City Cabs), Derek Standing (Brighton Streamline), Tony Turner (Brighton & Hove Radio Cabs) and Michael Hildreth (Transport & General Workers Union). Officers from the Members Services and Environmental Health and Licensing supported the group.
The key issues that emerged were:
· The number of wheelchair accessible vehicles required to ensure improvement to the service for wheelchair users;
· Deregulation for wheelchair accessible taxis;
· The cost of adapting a vehicle for wheelchair use;
· The lack of pecuniary incentive in responding to a short wheelchair call in relation to a potentially non wheelchair longer call, particularly when in the taxi rank;
· A subsidy to taxi drivers for answering wheelchair calls;
· The apparent impossibility of insisting that taxi drivers respond to calls from wheelchair users;
· The potential damage to health of taxi drivers when handling wheelchairs single-handed.
3.2 After much consideration and the realisation that there was no perfect solution, the Action Group agreed to put forward the following recommendations:
a) Wheelchair accessibility to be a condition of issuing new licences;
b) Transfer of licences to be conditional on adapting the vehicle for wheelchair users;
c) Installation of pagers for all taxis including those not on the circuit so they could also be called upon to respond to wheelchair users;
d) A number of licences should be issued for vehicles with wheelchair access in order to substantially lower the time wheelchair users have to wait for a taxi;
e) Taxi companies should consider following the example of one company and employ 1-2 drivers specifically for wheelchair work for that company vehicle;
f) Training in the handling of disabled users, including those using wheelchair to be made available free of charge to taxi drivers. All new drivers should receive wheelchair loading and unloading training before a new drivers licence is issued.
3.3 It was further recommended that:
a) The number of Community Link Vehicles should be increased and wider publicity given to the service
b) The Council should consider options available for supporting a subsidised transport service for wheelchair users. Consideration should be given to allowing the taxi trade to tender for some of the type of work undertaken by Community Transport.
c) The Council should establish a formal complaints procedure for customers to complain of dissatisfaction with wheelchair accessible taxi services.
Some of the recommendations were accepted by the Licensing & Policy & Resources Committees as being feasible.
3.4 Independent unmet demand studies
In 2003 the Council commissioned transport consultants to assess taxi demand (as required by the Transport Act) and requested that as part of that survey availability of accessible vehicles was reviewed. Consultees included taxi companies, Council departments, Councillors, disabled groups, MP’s, Police, City Centre Management. It concluded:
a) The rank observations indicated that very few wheelchair users obtain a taxi from a hackney carriage rank. This was in line with findings for other local authorities, with most disabled people preferring to telephone for a taxi. There is therefore little evidence to support an increase in the required number of wheelchair accessible vehicles serving the hackney carriage ranks.
b) However, the telephone survey results suggest that disabled passengers are likely to experience much longer delays when attempting to obtain an accessible vehicle via the telephone in comparison to a standard vehicle. At the time of the survey only 7% of the combined hackney carriage and private hire fleet were wheelchair accessible vehicles. In order to alleviate the discrepancy in delays it is estimated that the proportion of wheelchair accessible vehicles needs to increase up to 23% of the combined fleet size. At present this would constitute the exchange of 139 standard vehicles to wheelchair accessible vehicles. It should be noted that these vehicles could be licenced as either hackney carriage or private hire cars and that they do not need to be additional to the total fleet size. Furthermore, this issue does not relate to any significant unmet demand for hackneys as a whole as it concerns only telephone bookings and not rank or flag down hirings.
c) Clearly it is unreasonable to expect such a large number of taxi operators to immediately exchange their standard vehicles for wheelchair accessible vehicles. However, there are a number of policies that the Council could adopt in order to ensure the proportion of accessible vehicles in the fleet increases in the future. These would include ensuring that all new driver/operators entering the market operate accessible vehicles or that any new vehicles that are licensed by existing drivers/operators are wheelchair accessible.
A further survey was commissioned to report in 2006 and is reported on this agenda. All stakeholders were consulted. The question of accessible vehicles availability was included. It should inform policy development. Members will note that the report concludes that an additional 150 accessible vehicles are required to eliminate the discrepancy in telephone booking waiting times. The average delay for telephoning any type of vehicle was 14.1 minutes compared to 35 minutes for an accessible vehicle.
3.5 Current Council Policy
In September 2003, Policy and Resources set the Council’s policy for hackney carriages, which restricts numbers with managed growth:
a) The number of Brighton & Hove City Council hackney carriage licences were increased by 19 to a total of 478.
b) The number of hackney carriage vehicle licences issued by the Council would be increased by 5 annually in May, beginning in May 2004.
c) The additional licences would be issued in accordance with the Waiting List current in the year of issue.
d) By licence condition, the extra hackney carriage vehicle licences issued, would be restricted to vehicles which are constructed or adapted and configured to carry passengers seated in wheelchairs.
e) That following the issue of additional licences after May 2004 the following be reviewed:
the issue of licences restricted by condition imposed by, and
satisfaction levels with wheelchair accessible taxi services by passengers’ reports via the Council’s formal complaints procedure (as advised by the Equalities and Social Justice Consultation Forum).
3.6 Training / Knowledge
Before an application can be accepted for a new taxi driver licence, an applicant must have attended one of the Council’s Disability Awareness Courses. Drivers are instructed on safe handling of wheelchairs and passengers.
3.7 The Government’s proposals for implementation of taxi provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are awaited. Brighton & Hove is listed as a “first phase” authority for introduction of regulations over a 10 year period (2010-2020).
3.8 Recent disability discrimination legislation
The government has legislated to address the issue and the Disability Discrimination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2005 will come into force on 4 December 2006. Its effect is to impose the duties in Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 on the providers of certain transport services, including buses, taxis and private hire vehicles, making it unlawful for them to unreasonably discriminate against disabled people in the provision of their services. For example, it will deal with gratuitous discrimination where a taxi driver refuses to allow a disabled person to board their vehicle, even if it is otherwise accessible to them, for no other reason than their disability.
The introduction of the new duties will remove an anomaly which has existed since the exemption for transport services was first written into the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The effect of the Regulation is to:-
a) Make it illegal to discriminate against a disabled person in refusing to provide a service which is provided to other members of the public or providing a service of a lower standard or on less good terms;
b) Require the service provider to make changes where reasonable to any practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to use the service;
c) Require service providers to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.
The legislation recognises the importance of transport in maintaining quality of life and its impact on other areas of daily life. The result is that disabled people will no longer lose their civil rights against less favourable treatment just because they board a bus or a taxi, and they can have the confidence to use transport services in the knowledge that they are protected by comprehensive and enforceable rights, as they already are when using other services. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) will have enforcement powers and can support individual disabled people with legal complaints. An associated Code of Practice has been published by the DRC.
The requirements placed by the regulations on the Council will concern the provision of appropriate training in disability awareness, the cost of which can be charged to the participating drivers.
Looking to the future, the taxi accessibility provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are due to be implemented in ‘first phase’ authorities (which will include Brighton and Hove) over a 10-year period from 2010-2020. These will allow Government to set standards for wheelchair access and a range of other features to help disabled people use taxis.
3.9 Disability Access Advisory Group (DAAG)
In March 2004, officers discussed taxi accessibility with DAAG. A significant issue was the frequent lack of response to requests for wheelchair accessible taxis and excessive waiting times were key issues to be addressed
The measures taken at that time were:
· 19 new hackney carriages were licensed along with growth of 5 new ones each year. All of these are to be wheelchair accessible.
· A new training scheme has been launched for taxi drivers to assist wheelchair passengers loading and unloading run by Brighton & Hove Federation of the disabled.
· A review taxi licensing policy took place to assess take up of licences and passenger / customer feedback.
National position
· The Department of Transport plans to make accessibility regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act. Brighton & Hove is listed as an authority, over a 10 year period from 2010 – 2020.
3.10 Recent developments
a) One operator, City Cabs, has “O” licensed three 10 seater and one 15 seater public service vehicles capable of transporting 3 and 6 wheelchairs and passengers respectively. He reports that they are under utilised.
b) Since investing in partnership, an excellent modern DVD was produced by VAR Consultants, used to train drivers in wheelchair and passenger loads and unloading.
c) A survey shows that of those who expressed a preference, 53% of disabled people prefer to use saloon cars rather than wheelchair accessible vehicles hence a policy of mixed taxi fleet (saloons & WAVs)
d) Drivers and operators are all self employed; operators often cannot guarantee availability of pre booked private hire cars logistically. If operators controlled some wheelchair accessible hackney carriage vehicles, then this problem may be ameliorated but it would lead to unfairness towards waiting list applicants for hackney carriage vehicle licences. Some operators have available non-hackney carriage licensed wheelchair accessible vehicles.
e) There are financial influences for taxi drivers:
· Costs of purpose built taxis / saloons,
· Costs of joining a radio circuit.
f) The proportions and number of wheelchair accessible vehicles constantly increases, but at a slow rate.
g) By increasing the number of wheelchair accessible hackney carriages and requiring them to join a radio circuit, the difficulties customers and operators have in advance booking such vehicles may be ameliorated. It may also reduce waiting time discrepancies.
3.11 Operators and the Unions report difficulties in finding and keeping drivers and that the requirement for Drivers Standards Agency testing for drivers with 4 points over 2 years is much stricter than other nearby licensing authorities. The Transport and General Workers Union have found 14 South East England licensing authorities that allow 12 points over a 3 year period and they request possibly reducing our requirement to 7 points over a 1 year period.
3.12 Complaints
Complaints of non-availability of WAVs have been made in the past to DAAG. In line with P & R resolution, the corporate complaints process should be used to register and investigate complaints. This can be done directly or via the hackney carriage office.
3.13 The deputation and chairs response are appended.
4 Consultation
4.1 At a Taxi Forum on 1st November 2006 the following views emerged:
(a) There was support for an adjustment in points requirement for DSA testing. Allowing an accumulation of 7 points in a single year before a requirement for DSA testing was requested. A report from the Transport & General Workers Union is appended (Appendix C)..
(b) Most operators, Transport & General Workers Union and Plate Holders recommend issuing 10 new wheelchair accessible vehicle licences conditional upon joining an operators radio circuit now with 10 more in May 2007 under the same conditions, with continuation of the managed growth policy of 5 wheelchair accessible hackney carriage vehicles per year from May 2008.
(c) The Private Hire Association support the recommendations as set out in 2.2 (c) and (d).
4.2 Correspondence and comments from the taxi forum members are appended.
COMMITTEE REPORT APPENDIX 1
Meeting/Date Licensing Committee (Non Licensing Act 2003 functions) 23/11/2006
Report of Director of Environment, Jenny Rowlands
Subject Availability of wheelchair accessible taxis
Wards affected All
Financial implicationsIncome from the issuing of plates and licenses is used to pay for the administration of the scheme with the aim there will be no cost to the council tax payer. The current waiting list is expected to be sufficient to cover any reduction of current license holders. Finance Officer consulted: Alasdair Ridley Date: 23/11/06
Legal implicationsPrivate hire vehicles, which principally do telephone work, may not resemble hackney carriages.There are risks of legal challenge in attaching conditions to a licence that could be considered unreasonable.Legal officer: Rebecca Sidell
Corporate/Citywide implicationsTaxis are a principal means of transport for disabled people. Risk assessmentSome more radical options may attract litigation.
Sustainability implicationsNone directly arising from this report. Equalities implicationsKey issues are:· Shortfall of wheelchair accessible hackney carriages· Discrepancies in waiting times· Difficulties pre-booking wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Implications for the prevention of crime and disorderModern wheelchair accessible hackney carriages with a separating screen are considered safer for drivers.
Background papers :
Contact OfficerTim Nichols, Head of Environmental Health & Licensing – telephone 2163
Appendix A
Deputation to Brighton Council – Karen Coley – 6th September 2006
My name is Karen Coley. I have worked for American Express for the last 18 years, and use taxis to get to and from work. The problems that I am about to outline have been ones that DAAG have highlighted to you in the past, but no improvement has taken place.
I require a taxi to pick me up from my home in Shoreham to take me to Edward Street at 7.50 in the morning and to collect me at 14.30 to return me home. Until January 2006, I had a regular taxi driver, but when he sold his accessible vehicle, I was unable to find anyone that would pick me up after work.
Several taxi companies told me, that the time I wanted to finish work clashed with the lucrative school runs, or that their drivers did not want to be “tied down” to a regular job. I was even told that if I changed my work hours and work pattern perhaps something could be done. How many people have to approach their employer to ask to be able to change their hours just so they can get to work?
For several months my husband has had to pick me up, because no taxi company will do it. I am lucky enough to have an able bodied husband but what if I was a single person or my partner didn’t drive? It also means he cannot work as no employer will take him on, when he needs to be available to drive me. Had be not been around, the reality is that I would have had to give up work. The Government is encouraging disabled people to work; yet their basic needs for getting to and from a place of employment are being ignored.
I took this issue up with the taxi companies in writing and with the Licensing office to see what could be done. I was told that taxi drivers operate as self-employed people and as such cannot be forced to take passengers they do not wish to. I would like to point out that these very same reluctant drivers are very willing to take me to Heathrow or Gatwick at a single fare of £115!
However, the problem is much wider than my personal circumstances. It is not possible for a disabled, wheelchair bound person to just call up a taxi on the spur of the moment, and to be collected within a reasonable waiting time. If I was an able- bodied person, I could go to the theatre, and call up a taxi to collect me when the play had ended. I could go out to dinner with friends and call up a taxi to take me home. Not so if you are disabled.
In addition, as a disabled person I am not able to pre-book a taxi. I have been told when I tried to do this that pre-bookings will not be taken from a wheelchair user. The only exceptions are for Gatwick and Heathrow trips.
Several DAAG members have had recent experiences where they have been left waiting for hours, because no taxi company will agree to pick them up – one member called up a taxi company when she had finished her shopping with her disabled daughter, to be told that she could have a taxi the next day! Another member had to wait 4 hours after the end of a DAAG meeting, before a taxi turned up. Another one had her car break down with her wheelchair bound husband in the car, and was left stranded for hours, on the busy A27 because no wheelchair accessible taxi would agree to collect her and her husband.
I would like you to work towards eliminating this discriminatory practise and to strive for a City where every member of the public can pre-book or simply call for a taxi when one is needed. I am sure, that as a Council, you support the right of your constituents to work and to lead an independent life. In conclusion, I would like this Council to drive a change in the legislation, both at a local and national level.
Appendix B
DEPUTATION TO FULL COUNCIL – response from Chair of Licensing Committee
Ms Coley has expressed difficulty in obtaining an account with a private hire operator for a regular wheelchair accessible vehicle to take her from her place of work in the afternoon. I would like to express my sympathy to her. This is a serious and complex problem that the Council has been addressing for some time. Sadly, it is not straightforward.
Over the past five years detailed work was done by Equalities Forum and taxi licensing policy was developed and set by Licensing Committee and Policy & Resources Committee. Discussions have also been held with the Disabled Access Advisory Group.
New equalities legislation should provide additional protection against discrimination. The Council will ensure that new transport vehicle regulations are fully implemented in the City. Disabled people will have the confidence to use transport services in the knowledge that their rights are properly protected.
It seems that the trade and Brighton & Hove Federation of Disabled People have supported a policy of retaining a mixed fleet of wheelchair accessible vehicles and saloon cars.
As a licensing authority, the Council has challenges to overcome to improve availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles. Taxi drivers are self employed and owners of wheelchair accessible hackney carriages cannot be required to join the radio circuit of an operator. Wheelchair accessible vehicles are more expensive than saloon cars and there can be lack of financial incentive in responding to wheelchair calls when waiting on a rank. Drivers and operators are separate businesses, so operators may not be able to guarantee availability of a wheelchair accessible vehicle in advance.
Nevertheless, over the past few years the Council has made advances in tackling this problem.
We have licensed more wheelchair accessible vehicles, at a rate of five per year, and so increasing the proportion of them.
New taxi drivers must attend a disability awareness course that includes instruction on the safe handling of wheelchairs and passengers.
In partnership with a local consultant and the taxi trade, an up to date training DVD has been produced.
Officers are aware of local operators who appear to be able to offer customer accounts for this type of work.
However, I would recommend that:
Complaints of non-availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles are made to the Council’s hackney carriage offices.
Licensing Committee will shortly be considering policy, as the independent survey recently commissioned will be reported to Committee, and it is important to encourage increased availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Consideration could be given to expanding Easylink (Community Transport) who currently provide a transport service for people in wheelchairs to and from superstores, the city centre and local shops, or identifying a charity that would provide these work to home journeys.
Please may I ask that this deputation is referred to Licensing Committee for officers’ report and discussion in full.
Appendix C
T& G MEETING
BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL
LICENSING COMMITTEE
REPORT OF: T&G BRIGHTON & HOVE BRANCH SEC 1/222
SUBJECT: DRIVING STANDARD AGENCY (DSA) HACKNEY CARRIAGE PRIVATE HIRE ASSESSMENT TEST
1. Purpose of Report – To determine all Licensing Authorities in the South East of England’s requirements for their respective fleets of Hackney & Private Hire vehicles.
2. T&G Union Taxi DSA Study South East Authorities – 16/10/06
Licensing Authority DSA Test New Driver Max Points Allowed on License Roll Over Period
Adur District Council Adopted 12 *3 years
Ashford Borough Council Not Adopted *3 years
Crawley Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Eastbourne Borough Council Adopted 12 *3 years
Gosport Borough Council Adopted 12 1 year
Guildford Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Horsham District Council Adopted 12 3 years
Rother District Council Adopted 12 3 years
Runnymead District Council Adopted 12 3 years
Rushmoor Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Sevenoaks District Council Adopted 12 3 years
Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Tonbridge Borough Council Adopted 9 3 years
Wealdon District Council Adopted 12 3 years
Woking Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Worthing Borough Council Adopted 12 3 years
Surrey Heath Borough Council Adopted 6 1 year
Brighton & Hove City Council Adopted 4 2 years
*Authorities who have not adopted a penalty point system less than a normal driver license for legal reasons
3. The results of the survey show that almost all the authorities have adopted the DSA New Driver Directive and that, with the rollover points system, if a driver accrues more than an agreed number of points he would be required to undertake the DSA Driving Standard Test. It is particularly severe in the case of Brighton & Hove City Council, 4 points in a two year period.
4. Consultations with representatives took place at earlier forum meetings and it was undertaken to adopt the DSA Assessment Test for all new applications for Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licenses with effect from 1st August 2005. The rollover and the number of points, although discussed, were not agreed upon.
5. Because of this and in the light of the survey results we, the representatives of the taxi trade, would respectfully ask the Licensing Committee to reconsider the position.
Signed………………………………………………………
A Krasniuk – Branch Secretary 1/222 – Transport & General Workers Union
Appendix D
Mr Michael Doyle
GMB B&H Licensed Drivers Representative
C/O City Cabs
63, Queens Road
Brighton
BN1 3XD
6th November 2006
Mr. Tim Nichols
Head of Licensing
Brighton and Hove City Council
Bartholomew Square
Brighton
'Suspect' BN1 1JP
Dear Tim,
Re: Ms Karen Coley’s complaint to council
Following a meeting tonight of our Brighton & Hove members I'm writing to you asking for our views to be considered fully in the report, that will be put before members of the licensing committee, looking into Ms Coley’s complaint.
Our members share the concerns expressed by Ms Coley to the full council, and we believe urgent action is needed to address those concerns. Ms Coley is not alone when it comes to wheel-chair bound customers receiving a second rate service from the local taxi/PH trade, and our members have voted to support the following proposals that we believe will go a long way to addressing Ms Coley’s compliant;
1. The council should issue 20 new hackney carriage vehicle licenses straight way.
2. Those licenses should have a condition that they should be adapted to take wheel-chair bound customers.
3. Those licenses should have a condition that stipulates those vehicles should be linked to a taxi radio circuit for a three year period.
4. The maximum amount of points a driver receives before they need take the DSA ‘taxi test’ is increased from four to seven.
Our members believe these proposals will address the chronic lack of suitable vehicles in the short term, but also that much more needs to be done for the longer term.
Yours sincerely
Michael Doyle
Appendix E
Re: Report into the complaint by Ms Karen Coley
On behalf of the Private Hire Association can I confirm that the standard of service (or in this case the lack of it) that Ms Coley has been receiving is, regrettably, not an uncommon sight.
On all four of the major radio circuits my friends and colleagues see time and time again customers waiting hours for wheel-chair accessible vehicles (WAVs). Often customers requesting WAVs are not even allowed to pre-book, they just have to ring up and take pot-luck. So I have no doubt that whatever Ms Coley told the full council meeting is an accurate assessment of how the taxi trade in Brighton and Hove treat wheel-chair bound customers.
Of course this isn't a deliberative act by the radio circuits. This has been happening for many many years, and unless the council and the taxi trade act together to address this issue now, it will happen for many years to come. In my view, without significant action now this issue will never go away.
The Private Hire Association are therefore recommending that the council issue 20 new hackney carriage vehicle licenses immediately, with a condition that these vehicles are adapted to take wheel-chair bound customers. This we believe is a sensible starting point in attempting to address the poor level of service both Ms Coley and other wheel-chair bound customers currently receive from the Brighton and Hove taxi trade.
We also support the proposal that a further condition be attached to the licenses ensuring those vehicles remain on a radio circuit (if such a condition is passed by the council's legal department), with the proviso that that condition is reviewed in a few years time, and is not abused by any of the radio circuits.
We also support the proposal to slightly amend the number of points existing drivers amass before they are required to sit the DSA 'taxi test'. This proposal should ensure that driver numbers increase in line with hackney carriage vehicle numbers.
Many thanks Mark Durell
Brighton & Hove Private Hire Association
Appendix F
HACKNEY CARRIAGE & PRIVATE HIRE CONSULTATION FORUM
WEDNESDAY 1st November 2006
COMMITTEE ROOM 3, HOVE TOWN HALL
Present: Chris Nutley, Tony Fish, Gary Lord, Barry Levene, Andrew Cheesman, Mick Hildreth, John Oram, John Streeter, Michael Doyce, Mark Durell, Jeff Defalco, Andrew Charalambous, Len Holloway, Tony Krasnuick, Neal Webb, Julian Wyborn-Doré, Tim Nichols, Jean Cranford, Martin Seymour, David Collins, Chris Cope, Colin Giddings, Teresa Bowley, Liz Eccles, and Tom Roberts (minutes).
1. Liz Eccles overview of Unmet Demand Survey (UDS)
Liz Eccles provided a brief overview of the Unmet Demand Survey (UDS) and its findings.
In order to measure patent demand, 369 hours were spent on rank observations between April and June 2006 (not including Easter holidays) and some further observations in July and September. Latent demand was measured using face to face interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires to stakeholders.
Halcrow use a number of indicators to determine if there is any unmet demand. An ISUD (Index of Significant Unmet Demand) value of 80 or more is indicative of significant unmet demand). The survey found that Brighton & Hove had ISUD value of 50 indicating that there was no significant unmet demand. Another major finding was that waiting times for both drivers and the public had decreased since the last UDS in 2003.
2. Questions relating the UDS
Tony Fish asked why TucTuc were included in the survey.
Tim Nichols explained that this was in order to be able to give authority to decisions concerning licensing them as taxis.
John Oram asked how did the wheelchair element of the survey manifest itself, i.e. was the question “pre-book basis” or “immediate hiring”?
Liz Eccles explained that it was on the basis of immediate hiring and calls were made at various times in the day.
Mark Durell wished to make the point that with the 2006 UDS, 16% fewer people had been spoken to than in 2003 (531). He also raised some points regarding the survey – see below, point by point
2.3.1 Why did the UDS survey ranks between the hours of 1am and 4am when Brighton is a “24 hour” city.
Liz Eccles explained that the hours had been extended to 4.00am from 2.00am in the last survey as it was recognised that pubs and clubs were now operating longer hours but it was not possible to survey all hours in a day.
2.4.2 Why use old population figures (2001) to give a hackney carriage to people ratio. How can this be relevant and correct for 2006?
These were the figures from the census and considered the most accurate for the purpose of the survey.
2.6.5 Why the discrepancy between the statement/findings of Manchester UDS and the Brighton UDS.
Liz Eccles stated that she could only comment on the Brighton & Hove report.
3. The measurement of UDS is at odds with government best practice and why did Halcrow not submit to the government’s best practice guidelines.
Liz Eccles pointed out that the guidelines were not published until after the UDS had collated and published and that the guidelines were not consistent with case law.
3.6.1. It was the Private Hire Association opinion that to state and then ignore latent demand because it was deemed that there is no patent demand goes against previous case law.
Liz Eccles explained that as there was no unmet demand then there is no latent demand.
The Private Hire Assocciation wished to highlight the following parts of the report and made the following statements:
4.2 The fact that drivers waited more than passengers.
4.5.2 52% of people waiting is not indicative of significant unmet demand?
5.4.2. The fact that 27% of people had given up waiting for a taxi at a rank in Brighton and Hove, and 29.1% had given up searching for a taxi on the streets – how could this not be indicative of significant unmet demand.
Mark Durell made a general comment stating that in terms of looking at the wheelchair accessible vehicle issue, did Halcrow make use of the Maude V Castle Point case.
Liz Eccles stated that Halcrow had used the Brighton case which says that wheelchair accessible demand is private hire demand.
11.2.2 Rupert Cope? Halcrow was not asked to write a response to Rupert Cope. This would be looked at and possible removed from the final report.
11.5.1 Where the UDS states in this section “The Local Transport Plan (LTP) for East 'Suspect'” it should read “The LTP for Brighton” and what are the implications for the following statement in this section – does it still hold true?
Liz Eccles stated that it was probably merely a typographic error and she would look into it.
3. Discussion relating to findings of the UDS
Several members of the forum stated that not enough members had seen the report in advance of the meeting and Tim Nichols stated the report had been emailed to all members but would ensure that more reports would be circulated if necessary.
Tim Nichols advised the forum that following a deputation to full committee that a report would be going to the Licensing Committee recommending that committee consider granting a number of additional hackney carriage plates. These additional plates would only be granted for wheelchair accessible vehicles as the lack of availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles was seen as a major issue.
Tim Nichols proposed that a caveat that if any hackney was transfer that the vehicle is wheelchair accessible upon replacement. The trade were supportive of this but wished to know the legality of this.
According to recent figures: out of 493 hackney carriage vehicles, 88 are wheelchair accessible (17.8%); and, out of 488 private hire vehicles, 21 are wheelchair accessible (4.3%).
In order to encourage more wheelchair accessible vehicles and to make them more available at crucial times, Tim proposed a possible alteration to the rules regarding the points system and the sitting of the DSA test. Tim Nichols requested that Tony Krasnuik provide him with the national (by local authority) DSA/points accumulated chart electronically as provided at the previous forum.
Following on from the findings of the UDS, Tim Nichols stated that the Council had the following options:
1. Issue no further plates until the next survey.
2. Continue with a managed growth policy.
3. Delimit.
The trade consulted amongst themselves and proposed the following options.
(a) Issue 10 Hackney plates immediately, 10 in May 2007, and five plates in May 2008 (with all new plates to be attached to a circuit and WAV – Tim Nichols to consult with Legal regarding this matter).
(b) Issue 20 Hackney plates immediately (with all new plates to be attached to a circuit and WAV – see note above) and then none until May 2009.
(c) Delimit.
Out of the 14 interested parties at the Forum:
· 10 voted for option (a): Brighton and Hove Streamline, T&G, all operators (including Andrew Cheesman), and the Plateholders.
· GMB would provide an answer at a later date.
· Gary Lord representing Plate holders voted for option (b).
· The Private hire Association voted for delimitation, failing this option (b).
In order to address driver shortage and pressure caused by DSA testing there was also unanimous support for relaxing the requirements for existing drivers, in that a DSA test would only be required for drivers receiving 7 penalty points in a year.
_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
