Ripon City Taxi Proprietors Association taken the same action
http://www1.harrogate.gov.uk/localdemoc ... ntID=22774
Objection from the Ripon City Taxi Proprietors Association
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Sections 53 and 70 – Fees and Charges
Objection submitted under sub-section 70(3)
Preamble: This document sets out the OBJECTION submitted by the Ripon Hackney Carriage drivers’ association as noted in our covering letter..
Contents:-
1) Introduction
2) Summary
3) Hackney carriage licensing – Survey of ‘unmet demand’
4) Recovery of costs by the Council – allocation and enforcement
Appendix 1 – Extract from a report of the District Auditor to
Guildford Borough Council
1) Introduction .
The Objectors submit their grounds for objection to the proposed revision of fees for the grant of Hackney Carriage, Private Hire Vehicle and Operator licences.
It is our opinion that the revision of fees proposed, cannot be supported
by the report submitted to the Licensing Committee on.
. November, 2010
11th
We comment on that report and our belief that the proposed fees are neither reasonable nor permissible, based upon the information provided by the Council
and the other evidence we present.
Specifically, we believe the Council should not be seeking to collect sums now from existing licence holders, for the purpose of conducting in the future a survey
of demand for Hackney carriages, because they may not be the ‘beneficiaries’ or otherwise of any decision based upon the findings of an exercise which might be
conducted in two years time.
Whilst the legislation does not permit an objection to be raised specifically in relation to the fees demanded for the issue of driver licences we believe the
Council, because it does not identify the cots of the issue and administration of
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
1
driver licences distinct from the cost of vehicle and operator licences, cannot be complying with either S53(20 or S70 of the Act.
In support of that contention we have attached, as an appendix, an extract from the determination of the District Auditor to Guildford Borough Council issued
recently, which has significant implications for all councils in respect of the determination and setting of fees for the grant of licences under he Act.
Therefore, we believe the Council should set aside the proposed variation of fees for ALL licences until it has considered the arguments we set out below and has
had an opportunity to review its costing systems for the determination of each type of licence.
2) SUMMARY
The Objectors have considered the information provided by the Council’s officers and submitted to the Licensing Committee.
We are concerned that the increases in fees proposed will place a further financial strain on individuals and operators at a time of a severe general contraction in taxi
related activity.
The deterioration of the national economic situation, which has worsened considerably of late, makes the imposition of the proposed increases even more
unacceptable
The proposed fees include provision for the collection of monies for a future survey of demand for hackney carriages in 2012. We do not believe those currently in the
trade should be expected to provide funds for a future event. In addition we do not believe the Council has lawful authority to collect money for such a purpose.
The Council has not presented separate identifiable costs for each type of licence in order that it can be certain that it is complying with S53 (2) and S70 of the Act.
The findings of the District Auditor in Guildford suggest that Harrogate Council does not currently have financial information which supports the fees being demanded.
In addition, the auditor in Guildford, in a significant ruling, has supported the view that licences for drivers and Operators may only recover the cost of issue and
administration and NOT any costs associated with enforcement.
Accordingly we ask the Licensing Committee to set aside the proposed variation of fees pending consideration of the matters we have now raised as our Objection to
the fees increases.
3) Provision for the future conduct of a survey of demand for Hackney Carriages.
We believe the collection of monies now for an exercise which, if based upon the guidance provided by the most recent Code of Best Practice for the licensing of
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
2
taxis, issued by the DfT in March, 2010, would firstly, it is recommended, require an a priori consideration by the Council of whether it was minded to retain a restriction
on the issue of licences for hackney carriages. If not, then the expending of a considerable sum of money would be unnecessary. To collect monies now for a
contingent event could be seen perhaps to be a pre-determination of the issue.
Further we would contend that the Council has no authority to collect fees for such an exercise.
The power to regulate the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences in issue at any time is provided for by S16 of the Transport Act 1985. That Act has an omission
in that no ‘charging’ clause was included within the Act and therefore there is no power for the Council to seek to recover the costs of such an exercise as a survey of
demand.
4) Recovery of costs by the Council – allocation and enforcement.
The Council does not indicate whether it has excluded from its financial estimates for the conduct of the taxi licensing service the element of time etc. which is expended
in connection with enforcement activities for the supervision of drivers or Operators.
Further, as the Council does not identify the costs associated with driver licensing as provided for in S53(2) distinct from the costs associated with the licensing of
Vehicles and Operators it cannot be certain that the fees demanded for each type of licence are reasonable; and based upon the lawfully recoverable costs associated
with each type of licence.
As noted earlier we have attached, as Appendix 1 below, the findings of a District Auditor elsewhere, in connection with a challenge raised in that respect..
We believe the auditor’s findings are significant and should be taken into consideration by all councils when seeking to determine reasonable fees for the
issue of taxi licences.
Appendix 1 – Extracts from the report of the District Auditor to Guildford Borough Council.
Mr Mark Rostron
Vice Chairman and Secretary Guildford Hackney Association
Dear Mr Rostron
Guildford Borough Council: Objection Audit of Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2009 Decision and Statement of Reasons
I am writing to advise you of my decision and the reasons for my decision on the objection made by Mr Williams-Wynn to the accounts of Guildford Borough Council
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
3
(the Council) for the year ended 31 March 2009. You act as Mr Williams-Wynn’s representative. The objection and my decision relate only to the financial year
2008/09 and not to any earlier years, the audits of which are now closed.
The objection
The objection was set out in your letter of 19 August 2009. In your letter and in subsequent correspondence you refer to the fees that the Council set and charged
for licences for Hackney Carriage Drivers and Cars, Private Hire Drivers and Cars and Taxi Company Operators. You stated that the Council did not comply with the
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (1976) and that the fees were unlawful. You made three assertions in the objection:
• the Council did not properly advertise fees over £25;
• the Council did not keep proper records of costs and fees for each type of licence; and
• fees were in excess of costs.
2) The Council did not keep proper records of costs and fees for each type of licence
I considered the quality of records supporting the costs and fees in the taxi licensing service. I also reviewed the quality of record keeping supporting the different types of
licence.
Records of costs of the department
I reviewed the Council’s records of the costs of the taxi licensing service in 2008/09. I carried out further audit work on some of the specific costs included within the taxi
licensing fees. My further audit work focused on costs in respect of vehicle tests, overheads/recharges, other non-staff costs, and salaries. In total these costs
represent about 95% of the total costs of the service.
Vehicle tests, overheads/recharges and other non-staff costs
In my view the Council’s accounting records adequately supported the costs of vehicles tests, overheads and other non-staff costs in 2008/09.
Salaries
Salaries costs in taxi licensing were £128,516 in 2008/09. A salaries budget of £133,040 was used to inform the setting of the fee for 2008/09. The underspend
against the salaries budget was, however, more than offset by overspends against the budget for other costs. This resulted in the taxi licensing service making an
overall deficit for the year of £21,251.
The salaries costs represent roughly half of the total expenditure incurred by the taxi licensing department. In other documentation, the Council referred incorrectly to a
staff establishment of 2.82 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staff. The establishment in the budget is, in fact, 3.82 FTE staff. This includes a post which was vacant at the time
of setting the budget for 2008/09. The vacant post meant that, at the time of setting the budget, only 2.82 FTE posts were filled.
The proportions of time allocations (the FTE values) used to inform the budget and the fee were set during the Council’s budget setting round for 2008/09. They were
decided by the Licensing Services Manager and the Head of Environmental Health and Licensing, who agreed the proportions of salary to be charged. As such it was
an assessment of workload by the people most closely involved in the service. The
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
4
salary proportions were based on their observations of how the post holders historically split their time across the licensing functions: taxi licensing, gambling
licences and Licensing Act activities.
However, the Council did not keep any record of this meeting, of the basis of the staff allocations or of any further rationale supporting the precise reasons for the
values used.
The taxi licensing service does not use any time recording system. The service had considered introducing such a system in the past but declined to do so, on the basis
that the cost of such a system would outweigh the benefits. I have not, therefore, been able independently to verify the accuracy of the salary allocations used. 5
Records in respect of different types of licence
You alleged the Council has not accounted properly for the different types of licence. You referred to an extract from the book Button on Taxis (Licensing Law and
Practice) 2009 Edition by Jim Button. Button interprets the legislation, in chapter 4.17, as requiring “at least two identifiable accounts relating to the fees levied under
each section, and if different fees are levied under each section in respect of the different licences covered by the provision, there must be a separate breakdown for
each”.
Button argues that the overall effect of the provisions in the 1976 Act are that, “in relation to drivers, the costs of issue and administration can be recovered; in relation
to vehicles, the costs of inspection, ranks, control and supervision (including enforcement), and the administration connected with it, can be recovered; and, in
relation to operators’ licences, it appears that only the costs of administration are recoverable”.
The Council’s view was that the costs of enforcement activity, a minor part of the whole costs of licensing taxis, can be included within the fee set under section 70
and that the reference to control and supervision must also cover drivers and operators.
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
5
In my view there is scope for the Council to keep better records of the costs and fees for each type of licence, and of the basis of apportionment of salaries costs. Having
sought and considered legal advice on this point, I do not agree with the Council’s position that enforcement costs (control and supervision) relating to operators’ and
drivers’ licences are recoverable under the Act. In relation to licences for drivers, section 53(2) only provides that the costs of issue and administration are
recoverable. Section 53(2) makes no reference to any other type of cost being recoverable. In relation to vehicle and operator’s licences, section 70(1)(c) provides
enforcement costs are recoverable for vehicle licences only. It does not refer to enforcement costs being recoverable for operator’s licences. In my view,
enforcement costs in respect of drivers (section 53(2)) and operators (section 70(1)(c)) are, by their omission from the wording of the legislation, not recoverable
under the Act.
In my view the Council has not taken full account of the differences in the wording under the Act between section 53 and section 70 and the different licences. To
enable the Council to demonstrate it has set an appropriate fee sufficient to cover its costs, it should be able to show:
• in the case of drivers’ licences (section 53) its estimate of costs of issue and administration; and
• in the case of vehicle and operators’ licences (section 70), how it has estimated its reasonable costs in respect of:
* inspections of vehicles (section 70(1)(a));
* the provision of hackney carriage stands (section 70(1)(b));
* administration and other costs relating to vehicle and operators’ licences (section
Having sought and considered legal advice on this point, I do not agree with the Council’s position that enforcement costs (control and supervision) relating to
operators’ and drivers’ licences are recoverable under the Act. In relation to licences for drivers, section 53(2) only provides that the costs of issue and administration are
recoverable. Section 53(2) makes no reference to any other type of cost being recoverable. In relation to vehicle and operator’s licences, section 70(1)(c) provides
enforcement costs are recoverable for vehicle licences only. It does not refer to enforcement costs being recoverable for operator’s licences. In my view,
enforcement costs in respect of drivers (section 53(2)) and operators (section 70(1)(c)) are, by their omission from the wording of the legislation, not recoverable
under the Act.
In my view the Council has not taken full account of the differences in the wording under the Act between section 53 and section 70 and the different licences. To
enable the Council to demonstrate it has set an appropriate fee sufficient to cover its costs, it should be able to show:
• in the case of drivers’ licences (section 53) its estimate of costs of issue and administration; and
G:\Active Coins Agendas and Minutes\Licensing Committee\2011_01_20\T axi Fee Report Appendix 2.doc
6
• in the case of vehicle and operators’ licences (section 70), how it has estimated its reasonable costs in respect of:
* inspections of vehicles (section 70(1)(a));
* the provision of hackney carriage stands (section 70(1)(b));
* administration and other costs relating to vehicle and operators’ licences (section 70(1) c and
* control and supervision (enforcement) of vehicle licences.
In setting the fee, the Council was not originally able to show how it had set the fees for each type of licence, taking into account the above legislative requirements. The
initial management accounts failed to distinguish between section 53(2) and section 70 as well as the differing licences issued. Subsequently, however, the Council has
produced management accounts which do provide separate breakdowns for drivers’ licences (section 53(2)), vehicle licences (section 70) and operators’ licences
(section 70
Login
Register
FAQ
