Issue - meetings

With the agreement of the Committee, this item was taken first.

Councillor Collop stated that he had been contacted by taxi drivers regarding the proposals, and had invited two drivers to the meeting.

Steven O’Donnell and Jason Smith addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·        Some of the fees looked like they had been duplicated, for example new wheelchair accessible vehicles had additional checks carried out by the testing station and at the Borough Council.  He added that the Borough Council only checked with the operator and not the driver as it was important that the driver knew how to load/unload wheelchair users.

·        Changing name had gone up from £5.50 - £11.00.  He asked whether there was a way to do this online.

·        Door stickers at £19.98. £5.60 of that related to administration charges but the drivers could go directly to the sign makers.

·        The drivers could not pass on any additional charges as they were on a metre.

·        Wheelchair accessible vehicles cost a third more to operate.

·        The trade needed to have clear understanding of the charges.

He concluded that he was aware that the Act had been brought in by Central Government but felt that a fair balance could be sought for both the Council and drivers.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community advised that it was the Cabinet’s decision only that should be scrutinised.

The Chairman advised that several taxi drivers had written in about the issues and had attended the Cabinet Meeting.  He added that the taxi drivers were a credit to the Council but at the same time the taxi drivers were unhappy with the proposed fees.  He stated that he hoped the Portfolio Holder could reassure the taxi drivers the reasons why the changes had to be introduced.

The Leader thanked both Steven O’Donnell and Jason Smith for attending the meeting tonight.  He explained that the Council now had to cover its administration fees which should not be costing the Council money for providing the service.

The Chairman stated that the taxi drivers knew their costs, and he would ask the Portfolio Holder to take on board what they were saying.  He suggested that a meeting could be arranged with the Portfolio Holder, taxi drivers and officers, which seemed to be a sensible way forward.

The Leader explained that this was not a public consultation meeting.  The Portfolio Holder was here with the appropriate officers to answer questions from the Committee.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community stated that the taxi drivers could contact the officers present to arrange meeting.  He added that the Council could not subsidise the fees and had to recover the actual processing costs.  He further added that a Member could have attended the Cabinet Meeting under Standing Order 34, if they had any points to raise, but did not think that this meeting was the right place to do so.

The Chairman stated that this would be costing taxi drivers extra money and could impact on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66

RECOMMENDED:      1)         That the new fee structure for drivers of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles be approved;

2)         That the new fee structure for private hire operators be approved.

3)         That the new fee structure for vehicles and other sundry matters attached in the fee structure set out in the report be approved.

Reason for Decision

The Council has to set reasonable fees based on cost recovery for the service provided.

Cabinet considered a report which explained that the Deregulation Act 2015 introduced a few changes to hackney carriage and private hire legislation from the 1st October 2015.

These changes were:

·        The duration of hackney carriage and private hire driver’s licenses would be three years;

·        The duration of private hire operator’s licenses would be five years; and

·        Private hire operators would be able to sub-contract bookings to a private hire operator licensed by another authority.

The introduction of the three year driver’s and five year operator’s licenses required a fee to be set. The last review of the fees was in 2011 so it was considered appropriate to review all hackney carriage and private hire fees at the same time.

The proposed fees looked to recover the actual processing costs and costs to the Council for providing this service.  In the past fees had not been calculated in this way and therefore had resulted in the service being subsidised by other service areas, however it was not intended to recover the costs previously incurred and not re-charged.

Councillor Long drew attention to the fact that in the consultation responses some drivers had indicated that they felt the meter charge made by the vehicle should be increased as there had been no increase since 2012.  He asked if this should be considered at this stage or if it was a separate matter.  The Environmental Health manager (Commercial) responded that it would form part of a separate paper, and had been consulted on directly.

Councillor Pope asked for clarification on how the figures for the costs of the service had been arrived at.  It was explained that although a crude figure, it had been calculated on the amount of time spent on the process.  She agreed to provide  Cabinet Members with the information as to how the figures had been arrived at.  Councillor Beales commented on the feedback received and that it would be reassuring if the methodology was available.

Councillor Beales also commented that the licensing of the service and properly charging for those licenses was protecting the drivers to make sure it was properly run and regulated. 

Councillor Long complimented the Borough’s drivers and trade should be proud of the service they provided, and supported not including the deficit into the increased fee levels.  This was supported by Councillor Beales.

It was noted that the Joint Panels had considered the report and supported it, with an additional resolution that they would review the policy in 12 months time.

RECOMMENDED:      1)         That the new fee structure for drivers of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles be approved;

2)         That the new fee structure for private hire operators be approved.

3)         That the new fee structure for vehicles and other sundry matters attached in the fee structure set out in the report be approved.

The above report is on the Cabinet Forward Decision List for 3 November

2015 and has been identified by the Chairman for consideration by the Panel.

The Panel are requested to consider the report and make any appropriate recommendations to Cabinet.

The Barrister presented the Cabinet report explaining that the Deregulation Act 2015 had introduced changes to hackney carriage and private hire legislation.  Changes included the duration of hackney carriage and private hire driver’s licences to three years, the duration of private hire operator’s licences to five years and the ability for private hire operators to sub contract bookings to a private hire operator licensed by another local authority.

The Barrister explained that the introduction of the new licence durations required a fee to be set.  The last review of fees was in 2011 so the Licensing Department had reviewed all hackney carriage and private hire fees at the same time.  The proposed fees and how they had been calculated was set out in the report.

The Barrister referred to the appendices contained within the report which included objections from members of the trade in relation to the increase in fees.

The Chairman thanked the Barrister for her report and invited questions and comments from both Panels, as summarised below.

Councillor Smith commented that he had read through all of the correspondence and felt that a lot of the objections could have been avoided if information had been made available at the outset on how the figures had been calculated.

Councillor Smith referred to the legislation which allowed for operators to sub contract out to operators licensed by another local authority.  He asked if the operators would have to adhere to the Borough Council’s standards and if there was a difference in the standards set between different local authorities.  The Barrister explained that there would be variations in the requirements of different local authorities, but they should all follow the same standard requirements such as the fit and proper test and take account of the guidance available and case law. 

The Chairman commented that one of the differences could be the age and mileage of vehicles which were allowed to be licensed. 

The Barrister explained that any complaints received would be considered and action could be taken against the driver if required.

The Chairman reminded those present that this was a new piece of legislation and Members would have to monitor its impact.  If significant problems arose, Members could lobby the relevant Minister and Local MP’s.

The Chairman reminded those present that the recommendations set out within the report were to approve the new fee structures.  The ability for private hire operators to sub contract bookings to a private hire operator licensed by another local authority was set out in legislation so had been included within the report for information.

Councillor Bubb asked why the fees had increased as a longer duration licence should take no more time to administer.  The Barrister referred to the report which set out the reasons why the fees had increased.

Councillor Smith requested that the Panel be kept updated on the impact of the new fees be provided to the Panel in 12 months’ time.

Councillor Kunes suggested that the meter rates could be increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76