Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fees

In London where I have campaigned for judicious licensing and safety for most of my working life, we have had subcontracting, 3 year license durations and no restrictions as to who may use a licensed vehicle. Senior Management at TfL have made it clear that there has not been a single serious issue with these measures, since the passing of the 1998 Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act, in fact they say the benefits far outweigh any perceived downsides.

:lol:

but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden :lol:

http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf

aww look the LPHCA are all in favour

The debate also said that the idea was to reduce the red tape and make licenses cheaper because the cost of a 3 year license should be no more than the cost of a one year license. This is what our lot did in October. However since then a lot of councils have looked at this in a different way and increase the cost of the 3 year license by around 3 times the one year license and now charge the same for a one year license as they do for a 3 year license. Ours have now followed suit. This is not what parliament intended but it will probably take a judicial review to get it looked at. Anyone got plenty of money to spare?

I understand the frustration of the drivers, and it makes sense to delay the meeting.

However aren't cabbies in that area aware that there is such a thing as the internet, and on such a thing councils have websites, and they have the dates and the agendas of all council meetings.

captain cab wrote:

but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden :lol:

http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf

aww look the LPHCA are all in favour

grandad wrote:

captain cab wrote:

but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden :lol:

http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf

aww look the LPHCA are all in favour

You know full well they can't make a profit,so unless they were loosing money they can't increase.

I sent this into sefton....
nnnnnn, can you please supply me with the link to the minutes of the last liaison group meeting which I attended, where I made it perfectly clear, and expect to see it recorded in the minutes, that in my and other trade members opinion, the issue regarding the reserve account and the monies taken from it, has not been resolved (i.e. not explained clearly) as to what happened to the funds and why. It is my understanding it has been brought up on more than one occasion. It is also my understanding that the councillors have told Sefton officers to clarify this situation with the trade. This has not taken place. In fact reading the minutes of previous meetings it is clear the minutes give an impression to the councillors that everything is fine, when obviously it is not. Until this issue is resolved I can only strongly object to any licencing fee increase, such as the one that is being presented at present, which I do now.

I would appreciate it if you would send this email to the chair of licencing and whoever is appropriate so this objection is noted regarding the fare increase.

I would also like to point out that I have tried over 40 times in the last 4 weeks to contact you at your office, to no avail.

MR T
NWTA...........And I got back.......http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/i ... 8431&Ver=4

Aren't the council aware they have to consult?

. Mr Woodland also criticised the way that the change in fees was announced by the district council, claiming that the increases were published by the Western Gazette before the council told taxi firms themselves.

Author:	captain cab [ Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:	taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fees
Crewkerne taxi firm owner hits out at district council after rise in fees THE owner of a Crewkerne taxi company fears firms could be put out of business after the district council hiked vehicle fees. South Somerset District Council has increased the cost of a one-year badge for hackney and private hire drivers to £160, up from £53. A three-year badge has gone up from £80 to £260, while a three-year private operators licence now costs £820, having previously cost just £85. Meanwhile, the amount to be paid for operating a hackney vehicle has increased from £225 to £245, while an exam for taxi drivers', known as The Knowledge, will now set you back £25 having previously been free. Not all rates have been increased, however, with the rate for running a private hire vehicle down from £225 to £220. Roger Woodland, owner of CR Taxis, said: "If this situation continues and SSDC continues to increase our licensing fees, there could be a significant number of operators going out of business. "This will impact the services that are available to the public, will increase unemployment figures in the area and, rather than increase revenue return to the council, will have an adverse effect. "We aim to provide a valuable service to the community and with a decrease in public service transport our services are in a lot of cases a necessity, particularly for the older generation. In order for us to remain in business and to be able to continue to be an asset to our community, we need to remain profitable. "Comparing fees set by West Dorset Council, SSDC's rates are a great deal higher. I find it difficult to understand how one council's rates can differ so much from another, particularly when SSDC has a high number of licensed vehicles in its area." Mr Woodland also criticised the way that the change in fees was announced by the district council, claiming that the increases were published by the Western Gazette before the council told taxi firms themselves. He added: "Recently when there was an issue regarding some taxis refusing to take fares from Neo nightclub in Yeovil, a blanket letter was sent to all licensed drivers in the area at significant cost to the council. "These letters were even sent to private hire drivers, who would not be affected by such an incident, which was in my view a waste of money on the behalf of SSDC, but on a matter that is going to severely impact every driver in the area, they have decided to sneak it in within the Public Notices section of the Western Gazette. "I believe this is an unfair way in which to put this across to its license holders. SSDC is assuming that every driver or operator within the area will actually see or read the notification. There has in my opinion been no consultation whatsoever on the matter. "It is my belief that these changes are trying to be pushed through unopposed." The Western Gazette has contacted South Somerset District Council for a response. Read more: http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Crewker ... z429lISXHe

Author:	captain cab [ Sun Mar 06, 2016 9:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf aww look the LPHCA are all in favour

Author:	captain cab [ Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
In London where I have campaigned for judicious licensing and safety for most of my working life, we have had subcontracting, 3 year license durations and no restrictions as to who may use a licensed vehicle. Senior Management at TfL have made it clear that there has not been a single serious issue with these measures, since the passing of the 1998 Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act, in fact they say the benefits far outweigh any perceived downsides.

Author:	captain cab [ Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
captain cab wrote: In London where I have campaigned for judicious licensing and safety for most of my working life, we have had subcontracting, 3 year license durations and no restrictions as to who may use a licensed vehicle. Senior Management at TfL have made it clear that there has not been a single serious issue with these measures, since the passing of the 1998 Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act, in fact they say the benefits far outweigh any perceived downsides. http://www.lbc.co.uk/illegal-minicab-dr ... itch-30399 http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Driver- ... story.html http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/1 ... _customer/ http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/cr ... _1_4047871 all going well in London

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Apr 12, 2016 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
District council fails to notify taxi drivers of meeting to discuss proposed increase in fees OBJECTIONS to a rise in the fees charged to operate taxis in South Somerset will not be considered until later this month after an administrative error resulted in the district council failing to notify cabbies of the meeting. The district council's licencing committee was due to meet today to discuss a series of concerns raised by taxi drivers after it was announced that vehicle fees would be hiked. But after complaints from taxi companies that they had not been told that the meeting was taking place, the discussion was deferred until April 26. Crewkerne-based Roger Woodland, owner of CR Taxis, was one of those that the district council failed to inform. He said: "I received a telephone call at 5.40pm on Monday from a fellow taxi operator based in Yeovil, who told me that by chance, he had noticed on the district council's website that there was to be an open meeting at 10am on Tuesday. "The meeting was to discuss the proposed license fee increases, objections received, my letter of objection and, the proposal for taxi fare increases, but I guess this was another of those meetings open to the public that the public doesn't actually know about. "I would have thought that if the objections to the proposal were to be discussed, then those opposing would be given the opportunity to attend the meeting, prepare their case and, put forward their reasoning behind their objections. "As I was only made aware of this the night before due to other work commitments, I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow. "I am somewhat surprised that the council did not have the decency to at least advise us the objectors that this meeting was taking place." In changes due to come into effect later this year, South Somerset District Council has increased the cost of a one-year badge for hackney and private hire drivers to £160, up from £53. A three-year badge has gone up from £80 to £260, while a three-year private operators licence now costs £820, having previously cost just £85. Meanwhile, the amount to be paid for operating a hackney vehicle has increased from £225 to £245, while an exam for taxi drivers', known as The Knowledge, will now set candidates back £25, having previously been free. Not all rates have been increased, however, with the rate for running a private hire vehicle down from £225 to £220. A spokesman for South Somerset District Council said: "Due to an administrative error, those who wrote to the district council objecting to the increased taxi license fee were unfortunately not sent a copy of the licensing committee meeting agenda. "Making note of the error, the item was not discussed at the meeting today and the licensing manager had the item deferred until the April 26 meeting, when objectors will receive a copy of the meeting's agenda in advance. "Once the licensing committee agreed the fees and charges for 2016/17, they were recommended to full council as part of the budget setting process. "A note was published in the Western Gazette, in accordance with legislative requirements, which stated the proposed fees, and any objections which were received, but not withdrawn, were to be considered at Licensing Committee on Tuesday, April 12. "Once these objections are considered, the council can either modify the fees in light of the objections or decide that the fees as originally proposed are to come into effect on a date to be specified, within two months of the original date." Read more: http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Distric ... z45dF3qbq8

Taxi Driver Online http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fees http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=28706	Page 1 of 2

Author:	grandad [ Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
captain cab wrote: but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf aww look the LPHCA are all in favour The debate also said that the idea was to reduce the red tape and make licenses cheaper because the cost of a 3 year license should be no more than the cost of a one year license. This is what our lot did in October. However since then a lot of councils have looked at this in a different way and increase the cost of the 3 year license by around 3 times the one year license and now charge the same for a one year license as they do for a 3 year license. Ours have now followed suit. This is not what parliament intended but it will probably take a judicial review to get it looked at. Anyone got plenty of money to spare?

Author:	captain cab [ Tue Apr 12, 2016 9:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
grandad wrote: The debate also said that the idea was to reduce the red tape and make licenses cheaper because the cost of a 3 year license should be no more than the cost of a one year license. This is what our lot did in October. However since then a lot of councils have looked at this in a different way and increase the cost of the 3 year license by around 3 times the one year license and now charge the same for a one year license as they do for a 3 year license. Ours have now followed suit. This is not what parliament intended but it will probably take a judicial review to get it looked at. Anyone got plenty of money to spare? No guidance from the government as to how to implement their grand plan either

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
I understand the frustration of the drivers, and it makes sense to delay the meeting. However aren't cabbies in that area aware that there is such a thing as the internet, and on such a thing councils have websites, and they have the dates and the agendas of all council meetings.

Author:	mancityfan [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
Sussex wrote: I understand the frustration of the drivers, and it makes sense to delay the meeting. However aren't cabbies in that area aware that there is such a thing as the internet, and on such a thing councils have websites, and they have the dates and the agendas of all council meetings. Aren't the council aware they have to consult? It is common ground that the principles applicable to consultation are set out in the decision of the Court of Appeal in R v North and East Devon HA ex parte Coghlan 2001 QB 213 at para 108 in the following terms: “It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper, consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this purpose; and the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning 1985 84 LGR 168. ” pursuant to the pre-action protocol pointing out that a decision in principle had been taken in advance of any consultation so as to render unlawful

Author:	mancityfan [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
grandad wrote: captain cab wrote: but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf aww look the LPHCA are all in favour The debate also said that the idea was to reduce the red tape and make licenses cheaper because the cost of a 3 year license should be no more than the cost of a one year license. This is what our lot did in October. However since then a lot of councils have looked at this in a different way and increase the cost of the 3 year license by around 3 times the one year license and now charge the same for a one year license as they do for a 3 year license. Ours have now followed suit. This is not what parliament intended but it will probably take a judicial review to get it looked at. Anyone got plenty of money to spare? You know full well they can't make a profit,so unless they were loosing money they can't increase.

Author:	grandad [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
mancityfan wrote: grandad wrote: captain cab wrote: but the government said firms were in favour of these changes as they saved an administrative and financial burden http://www.privatehirenews.co.uk/magazi ... sponse.pdf aww look the LPHCA are all in favour The debate also said that the idea was to reduce the red tape and make licenses cheaper because the cost of a 3 year license should be no more than the cost of a one year license. This is what our lot did in October. However since then a lot of councils have looked at this in a different way and increase the cost of the 3 year license by around 3 times the one year license and now charge the same for a one year license as they do for a 3 year license. Ours have now followed suit. This is not what parliament intended but it will probably take a judicial review to get it looked at. Anyone got plenty of money to spare? You know full well they can't make a profit,so unless they were loosing money they can't increase. They say they were losing money. However for the vehicle license we have been paying £202 per year until January when it went up to £252.50. The proposal going through at the moment is stating that there is a deficit of £4243 on the vehicle license and that the new fee including the full deficit is £156. To recover 50% of the deficit would have made the license £129 so it doesn't take a genius to work out that the cost of the license should be £102 per year for full cost recovery. Yet in January it was stated that the fee of £252.50 would only recover 71% of the cost. Now if the actual cost now is £102 and we have been paying £202 and £252.50, HOW ON EARTH COULD THERE HAVE BEEN A DEFICIT?

Author:	MR T [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
I sent this into sefton.... nnnnnn, can you please supply me with the link to the minutes of the last liaison group meeting which I attended, where I made it perfectly clear, and expect to see it recorded in the minutes, that in my and other trade members opinion, the issue regarding the reserve account and the monies taken from it, has not been resolved (i.e. not explained clearly) as to what happened to the funds and why. It is my understanding it has been brought up on more than one occasion. It is also my understanding that the councillors have told Sefton officers to clarify this situation with the trade. This has not taken place. In fact reading the minutes of previous meetings it is clear the minutes give an impression to the councillors that everything is fine, when obviously it is not. Until this issue is resolved I can only strongly object to any licencing fee increase, such as the one that is being presented at present, which I do now. I would appreciate it if you would send this email to the chair of licencing and whoever is appropriate so this objection is noted regarding the fare increase. I would also like to point out that I have tried over 40 times in the last 4 weeks to contact you at your office, to no avail. MR T NWTA...........And I got back.......http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/i ... 8431&Ver=4

Author:	captain cab [ Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
MR T wrote: I sent this into sefton.... nnnnnn, can you please supply me with the link to the minutes of the last liaison group meeting which I attended, where I made it perfectly clear, and expect to see it recorded in the minutes, that in my and other trade members opinion, the issue regarding the reserve account and the monies taken from it, has not been resolved (i.e. not explained clearly) as to what happened to the funds and why. It is my understanding it has been brought up on more than one occasion. It is also my understanding that the councillors have told Sefton officers to clarify this situation with the trade. This has not taken place. In fact reading the minutes of previous meetings it is clear the minutes give an impression to the councillors that everything is fine, when obviously it is not. Until this issue is resolved I can only strongly object to any licencing fee increase, such as the one that is being presented at present, which I do now. I would appreciate it if you would send this email to the chair of licencing and whoever is appropriate so this objection is noted regarding the fare increase. I would also like to point out that I have tried over 40 times in the last 4 weeks to contact you at your office, to no avail. MR T NWTA...........And I got back.......http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/i ... 8431&Ver=4 That PMcL - ffs he's an attention seeking tw*t aint he.

Author:	Sussex [ Sun Apr 17, 2016 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
mancityfan wrote: Aren't the council aware they have to consult? Haven't they already fulfilled that obligation else the fella wouldn't have said "The meeting was to discuss the proposed license fee increases, objections received, my letter of objection and, the proposal for taxi fare increases"?

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	mancityfan [ Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: taxi firm hits out at district council after rise in fee
Quote: . Mr Woodland also criticised the way that the change in fees was announced by the district council, claiming that the increases were published by the Western Gazette before the council told taxi firms themselves. I would say that this was not a consultation?