Taxi Driver Online

Rupert Cope
Head of Taxi/PHV Branch

Dear Sir/Madam,

Government request to all councils restricting the number of taxi licences in England and Wales outside London to review Quantity Control policies

1. I am writing to ask you, following the announcement of a Government Action Plan for taxis (and private hire vehicles), to review your local policy to restrict the number of taxi licences that you grant and to publish the outcome by 31st March 2005.

Background to this letter

2. As you will know, the Office of Fair Trading published a market study into the regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles in the UK in November 2003. The Government responded in respect of England and Wales on 18th March by means of a Written Statement in the House of Commons.

3. The Written Statement included an Action Plan for Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles that I attach as annex A (Gov Statement 18/03/04) to this letter. Paragraphs 1 to 11 of the Action Plan, in particular paragraphs 4 to 8, cover restrictions on the number of taxi licences issued by licensing authorities.

4. As a result, this letter is for the attention of those taxi licensing authorities in England and Wales outside London that restrict the number of taxi licences that they issue. I am addressing this letter to the Chief Executives of the councils listed at Annex B (list of quota councils). For ease, I enclose a further copy for the appropriate taxi licensing officer. I am also copying this letter for information to the Chief Executives of County Councils and Passenger Transport Executives who will need to include justification of local policies to restrict taxi licences in their Local Transport Plans .

The power to issue taxi licences

5. Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as amended by section 16 of the Transport Act 1985, enables district/borough councils or unitary authorities to license taxis within their area and to restrict the number of taxi licences issued only if they are satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for taxi services in their area.

6. In effect, this means that a council can:

· issue a taxi licence to any applicant meeting the local application criteria

· grant at least such number of taxi licences as it considers necessary to ensure that no significant unmet demand remains

· refuse to grant additional taxi licences provided that it is satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand.

However

· if a council is unsure of the presence or absence of significant unmet demand it is not in a position to refuse to grant a taxi licence provided the application criteria are met.

The Government's position

7. The Action Plan makes clear that the Government believes restrictions should only be retained where there is shown to be a clear benefit for the consumer, and that councils should publicly justify their reasons for the retention of restrictions and how decisions on numbers have been reached. Thus, the Government considers that, unless a specific case can be made, it is not in the interests of consumers for market entry to be refused to those who meet the application criteria.

8. However, the Government also makes clear in the Action Plan that local authorities remain best placed to determine local transport needs and to make the decisions about them in the light of local circumstances. So it is not proposing at this time to take away the power to restrict taxi licences from local authorities.

What we are asking you to do

9. Accordingly, we ask you to review the case for restricting taxi licences for your area and to make that review public.

10. Though this is a new request, we do not consider that this should be burdensome in the light of what you should already be doing for your licensing area in respect of issuing taxi licences.

11. It is of course for you to make the case for your area in the light of your local knowledge of local needs and circumstances. Inevitably, this will mean that you will need to know whether or not there is any unmet demand for taxi services in your area. For example, if your understanding of (unofficial) taxi plate values in your district is that they are high, this would seem to indicate that there is significant unmet demand for taxis in your area.

12. Unless you are confident of the situation in this regard in your area, your consideration may therefore necessitate an unmet demand survey. However, such a survey may not be necessary if a recent survey can be demonstrated to have addressed the issues adequately.

13. In those areas that need to undertake a new unmet demand survey, the Action Plan makes clear that for the survey to be effective, latent demand should be taken into account.

14.To help you formulate and carry out a comprehensive review and reach a satisfactory conclusion, we thought it might be useful to provide some questions that highlight the issues that you will almost certainly need to take into consideration. The checklist of questions is at Annex C. Please note that the checklist is not exhaustive, but is offered in the spirit of aiding local consideration.

15. In reaching your decision, we would also ask you to take into account the advice we issued to all councils about local accessibility policies in September 2002. In particular, if you are lifting restrictions or issuing new taxi licences because you have found unmet demand in your area, we would urge you to consider whether the new licences should be for accessible vehicles.

16. We would encourage you to make all the evidence gathered to support the decision-making process available for public scrutiny.

17. Those councils who have not undertaken an unmet demand survey for some time and now decide to do so, might find it helpful to consult neighbouring, local councils who have recent experience of such surveys.

18. We would ask you to make your conclusions public by 31st March 2005 and would appreciate a copy of them no later than 30th April 2005.

19. It seems to us that the outcome of your review will be either (i) to deregulate and thereby grant a taxi licence to anyone meeting the application criteria, or (ii) to continue restricting the number of taxi licences issued. In that instance, three scenarios would appear to be possible outcomes:

· maintaining the current limit of taxi licences;

· granting a number of new licences to meet the unmet demand that you have identified by means of a new survey;

· granting a specific number of new taxi licences each year.

Future requirements

20. The justification by 31st March 2005 is a one-off requirement for local councils. The Action Plan sets out the following on-going arrangements for councils continuing to restrict taxi licences:

· a three yearly review, with published conclusions

· justification of the local policy for quantity restrictions in the 5 yearly Local Transport Plan process.

21. The Action Plan commits the Government to review the situation regarding quantity controls in three years' time, with a view to further action if necessary.

22. We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

R F Cope

ANNEX C

Useful questions when assessing quantity controls of taxi licences

· Have you taken into account the Government's view that quantity controls should be removed unless a specific case that such controls benefit the consumer can be made?

Questions relating to the policy of controlling numbers

· Have you recently reviewed the need for your policy of quantity controls?
· What form did the review of your policy of quantity controls take?
· Who was involved in the review?
· What decision was reached about retaining or removing quantity controls?
· Are you satisfied that your policy justifies restricting entry to the trade?
· Are you satisfied that quantity controls do not:
- reduce the availability of taxis;
- increase waiting times for consumers;
- reduce choice and safety for consumers?

· What special circumstances justify retention of quantity controls?
· How does your policy benefit consumers, particularly in remote rural areas?
· How does your policy benefit the trade?
· If you have a local accessibility policy, how does this fit with restricting taxi licences?

Questions relating to setting the number of taxi licences

· When last did you assess unmet demand?
· How is your taxi limit assessed?
· Have you taken into account latent demand, ie potential consumers who would use taxis if more were available, but currently do not?
· Are you satisfied that your limit is set at the correct level?
· How does the need for adequate taxi ranks affect your policy of quantity controls?

Questions relating to consultation and other public transport service provision

· When consulting, have you included etc
- all those working in the market;
- consumer and passenger (including disabled) groups;
- groups which represent those passengers with special needs;
- local interest groups, eg hospitals or visitor attractions;
- the police;
- a wide range of transport stakeholders eg rail/bus/coach providers and traffic managers?

· Do you receive representations about taxi availability?
· What is the level of service currently available to consumers (including other public transport modes)?

Now that bugger should be interesting.

A specific case, hmmmmmmmmm.

_________________
IDFIMH

In Annex B, the DfT list 144 councils in England and Wales that restrict.
http://www.phtm.co.uk/media/1089271676.pdf page 2

I think they have got it wrong in the cases of;
Adur - will allow WAVs on demand
Amber Valley - de-limited July 2004
Cardiff - de-limited 2003
Castle-point - delimited 2002
Chelmsford - in the process of de-limitation
Crawley - de-limited 2004
Guildford - in the process of de-limitation
Harlow - delimited 2002/3
Merthyr Tydfill - in the process of de-limitation
Selby - delimited 2004
Stratford upon Avon - de-limited 2004

Does anyone know any more the DfT got wrong?

Oh, I can't wait for this one to be addressed.

That's of course if they can work out a way to assess it, and how to act on that assessment.

_________________
IDFIMH

I think Mr Cope has simplified this whole debate in clear English which is easy to fully understand.

The way I read it is that Councils who still restrict should consider derestriction on the other hand those who have de-restricted or any councils considering restrictions maintain their rights to re-restrict if they believe that demand is being met providing that belief can be justified through a survey or if they believe that by issuing more plates service standards to the consumer suffer.

People quite often say that Gateshead has de-restricted, it has not. The council still restrict the number of saloon car licenses it issues, new licenses are only available on submission of a WAV.

Our application to our council to temporarily suspend the issuance of new HC licenses pending an unmet demand survey and consultation with the trade is within the guidelines Mr Cope has given on behalf of government. The Policy of managed growth, allows more plates if demand, even if latent, is considered to be unmet.

It is also interesting to see that Mr Cope, on behalf of the government, consider ranking spaces to be a point that should be addressed, realistically to guage latent demand. Again in Gateshead we have 22 ranks for 276 HC, if we had more ranks (particularly at the Metrocentre) the public would have more oppertunity to use HC services and demand would follow as a matter of course.

Some people have already started quoting small parts of these guidelines which on their own offer a different slant on what the whole document is all about.
In some areas I have no doubt there will be unmet demand, in some areas I believe the consumer suffers becuase of a lack of vehicles, but at no stage of this or any other document does the government recomend that councils should derestrict, it only advises that councils should review their policies and whichever decision they make should be within the best interest of the people they represent and because any decision they make will effect those people they must make public their reasoning for adopting a policy of restriction.

It all seems very fair to me.

B. Lucky

well,
in pure simple terms the [edited by admin] has hit the fan, all those smiles of were ok is back in the melting pot, notice how all the responses have to be in around the expected election date.

nowhere in his letter does cope mention managed growth, in fact he says if there is unmet demand, wipe it out, and issue according to criterion.

councils have to look for ranks, despite what was said earlier we are in a whole new ball game.

its ok by Mick so its all ok!


sit back and wait for the writs , moans, civil disobedience,
as the taxi trade is dragged kicking into a modern era

To actualy call for a survey is ludicrous

they dont just count the numbers but call for other policies like newer vehicles training for all drivers, fares reduction.

this trades unionist is wanting to cut my wage with avengence.

by the way he claims to lead half the cabbies, hes got 8 members.

A bit of civil service waffle here, in terms of what is high and what isn't. But it's the first time I have seen the gov say that plate premiums mean SUD.

Not rocket science I know, but it saves the likes of me banging on about it.

But how high is high? Me I would say if the council give it away for nothing (or a small deposit), then anything over that is too high.

_________________
IDFIMH

I agree, he says that quotas are wrong, and to be rid of them.

Well I missed that bit. He says councils have a choice to de-limit, or stay restricted if they can prove no SUD, be that patent or latent. Prove a specific case for keeping them, and show that punters want less cabs.

I think that's quite a good start.

_________________
IDFIMH

Believe what you will.

Some people claim they represent their EMPLOYEES when they only employ those who work in their office, their drivers are self emloyed and in most cases are brainwashed yes men, anyone who offers an opinion that differs from their own is out the door, its my way or the highway.

The main differance here is that what we ask our council for benefits anyone with a HC plate in our Borough, what other people ask for benefits those who choose to pay their circuit over £100 per week.

What I will say is that Gateshead Council have been provided with evidence of who we represent, constant claims that we are not representative are constantly made but the council have the real figures and that is what is important.

B. Lucky

I wonder how many of those councils that restrict now, will still have that policy in their Local Transport Plans next year.

Perhaps Manchester and Liverpool, but not that many more. I think the OFT must be rolling about on the floor in joy.

If you believe that then you mustn't drive either PH or HC in Gateshead and you are therefore of no consequence to me.

If you do drive either PH or HC in Gateshead then you will recieve notification of our next meeting, you should come along and question my leadership and raise the concerns you have.

B. Lucky

Would people be so exited if a council set its policy to derestrict the number of HC licenses but stipulated in their criteria -

Only new WAV's.
Compliant with Londons Conditions of fitness.

A DSA driving test.

One person one plate.

Vocational training to a National standard.

HC vehicles to be no more than 10 years old.

amongst a wide range of other things which will exclude some people from joining the trade and well within the guidelines set out by the government.

B. Lucky

But at least all will be able to meet those standards.

With quotas no-matter how stiff the standards are, new entrants wont have the chance to be able to meet them.

Gotcha Sussex!

you are wrong! plate values as a test in unmet demand is in circular 3/85 the notes to the 85 act

it is and always has been open to us all in a court situation to cite premiums alone to the test of unmet demand.

nothing new sorry.