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

HC survey fees in sefton
http://taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4362		 Page 1 of 12
Author:  bolton [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:  HC survey fees in sefton
Environmental Protection Department
3rd Floor Balliol House
Stanley Precinct
Bootle
L20 3AH
Telephone: 0151 934 2100
Fax:0151 934 4276
Minicom: 0151 934 4657
Email: Epd@environmental.sefton.gov.uk
Your Ref:
Please Contact: David Packard 11th September 2006



Re: £2 Levy for hackney carriage unmet demand survey

I refer to your complaint regarding Sefton Councils imposition of a £2 levy on all private hire and hackney carriage licence fees from April 2001 to fund unmet demand surveys and your dissatisfaction with the Trading Standards Managers response to your complaint into how this decision came about (attached).

I have reviewed all relevent reports and minutes relating to this issue going back to the year 2000. There is a clear account of consideration of the matter at the trade working group meetings and licensing committee.

Your objection, on behalf of private hire drivers in Southport, to the then proposed £2 levy is clearly minuted at the meeting on 20th June 2000, when the levy was first proposed. Five elected members of the licensing committee were present at that meeting. The subsequent approval of the proposed levy by the licensing committee on 17 July 2000 made the £2 levy Council policy.

The matter was again discussed by the joint trade working group on 12 August 2003 where the objection to the imposition of the levy was again made by the SODA representative . The minute states that NWTA, SLOPA, SSTA and SSHLDA supported the £2 levy and concluded that they were happy with the previous decision taken on this matter, although the minute does indicate that concensus between representatives of private hire associations was not reached. The clerk outlined the constitutional procedure to be followed should SODA wish the council to formally reconsider its decision on this matter. The minutes of this meeting were circulated (as normal) to all members of the licensing committee.

In addition to the above, the £2 levy for unmet demand survey is clearly indicated when annual hackney and private hire licence fees are set by the licensing committee (and Cabinet) and therefore the policy decision for the £2 on all private hire and hackney carriage licences does have repeated annual political consideration and recorded endorsement.

In the course of my investigation I have seen no evidence of improprietary on behalf of any council officer as you allege or any evidence that political democratic processes were not followed in agreeing the levy initially, or in its annual endorsement. Indeed it seems that the balance of trade group opinion on discussion of the matter in 2003 was favourable to the £2 levy. Given that a needs analysis could equally benefit both the private hire and hackney trades, general support for the levy from the majority of trade groups (as minuted) does appear to be logical.

It appears to me that you are aggrieved by the political decision to impose the levy on private hire operators despite you having taken the opportunity in front of elected members to clearly state the objection of the private hire drivers in Southport to its imposition. However, it is clear that elected members made their original decision in the full consciousness and consideration of your objection on behalf of private hire drivers in southport.

I would advise you that should you wish the Council to revisit its policy on this matter, the constitution allows for residents to obtain reconsideration of a political decision through the submission of a petition signed by no less than 25 sefton residents. The petition should be sent to the chair of the Licensing and Regulatory committee. The petition would need the endorsement of an elected member of Sefton Council, preferably not a member of the Licencing and Regulatory committee. The supporting Councillor need not have any particular sympathy to the issue at stake, but merely endorse the petition.

In conclusion the policy position in relation to the £2 levy for unmet demand surveys to be levied on private hire and hackney carriage annual licence fees will remain until the licensing committee formally reconsiders its position on the matter and resolves to support an alternative position.

If you are still not satisfied with the Councils internal investigation or advice in relation to this matter, you are at liberty to take your complaint to the independent Local Authority Ombudsman, whose role is to investigate claims of local authority maladministration. Their contact details can be found below.

Yours sincerely



David Packard
Assistant Director

Local Authority Ombudsman
Beverly House
17 Skipton Road
York
YO 30 5FZ
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
strange thing to post on your second appearance :roll:

CC
Author:  bolton [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
At the inception of this unreasonable levy only 1 association existed that represented PH driver’s interest SODA, Sefton clearly chose to ignore the objection from the PH drivers to the HC proposal.

The article is published to show the councils domineering procedure.
Author:  TDO [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
captain cab wrote:
strange thing to post on your second appearance :roll:

CC


I was more worried about his avatar :roll:
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
so is bolton actually taxi driver online?

the mystery deepens

CC
Author:  TDO [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, he's just borrowed my avatar from the gallery.

As the thing's set up at the moment anyone can use any avatar, but obviously it defeats the purpose a bit if two or more use the same, especially when it's the TDO one. :lol:

Indeed anyone can use yours as well Captain but, unsurprisingly, no one seems to want to :lol:
Author:  bolton [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorryllllllll
Author:  TDO [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
No problem Mr Bolton - each in the gallery was selected by individual members.

You can email the site with your own avatar or photo, or just tell us where there's a photo on the web that you want to use.

I think you can upload photos yourself via your profile, but I'm not sure if that works too well.
Author:  MR T [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
If my memory is correct. the private hire companies themselves did a in house survey of their own, they asked their drivers if they agreed with the Levy and from my recollection they did, in fact the overall consensus was that it was only fair, if my memory serves me correct the four representatives of soda then went out and created three more associations, yet the same group still worked from the same radio company, and again if my memory serves me correct the leader of this group went to the licensing committee, demanding that Sefton allowed the private hire to pick up off the road and had problems understanding it was not in their remit to do so.
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
bolton wrote:
At the inception of this unreasonable levy only 1 association existed that represented PH driver’s interest SODA, Sefton clearly chose to ignore the objection from the PH drivers to the HC proposal.

From my point of view if a council wants to restrict taxi numbers then it should be they that pay for SUD surveys.

And if the taxi trade want to pay for it, then so be it, but taxi surveys have f*** all to do with the PH trade. They are taxi surveys into taxi demand to defend taxi quotas.

As I said f*** all to do with the PH trade. [-X
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Indeed anyone can use yours as well Captain but, unsurprisingly, no one seems to want to


Well, i'd kinda take umbridge if they did.

CC
Author:  TDO [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sussex wrote:
As I said f*** all to do with the PH trade. [-X


Unless you're a PH op, in which case restricted numbers keeps the drivers where they want them, ie under the thumb.

And even better if you can get the suckers to pay for the surveys to prop quotas up [-X
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
and again if my memory serves me correct the leader of this group went to the licensing committee, demanding that Sefton allowed the private hire to pick up off the road and had problems understanding it was not in their remit to do so.


Ahh, now he sounds like an intelligent type of chap :lol:

CC
Author:  captain cab [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
At the inception of this unreasonable levy only 1 association existed that represented PH driver’s interest SODA, Sefton clearly chose to ignore the objection from the PH drivers to the HC proposal.

The article is published to show the councils domineering procedure.


Have you actually read what you posted?

I'll help you out here, because I'm the helpful type;


It appears to me that you are aggrieved by the political decision to impose the levy on private hire operators despite you having taken the opportunity in front of elected members to clearly state the objection of the private hire drivers in Southport to its imposition.

The LA have according to the ombudsman followed the correct procedure and you have had the opportunity to make your feelings known.

CC
Author:  TDO [ Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
But it would help if the ombudsman had a clue:

Quote:
Given that a needs analysis could equally benefit both the private hire and hackney trades, general support for the levy from the majority of trade groups (as minuted) does appear to be logical.


That's a bit like saying apartheid benefited blacks and whites equally :?
Page 1 of 12 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/