Taxi Driver Online

Comments folks:

FOI for:

Staff hours required for HC/PHV licencing function.

Overall cost of licencing function for each of the last 3 years.

Hourly cost of licencing function for each of the last 3 years.

Number of vehicles licenced HC in each of last 3 years.

Number of vehicles licenced as PHV in last 3 years.

Projected vehicles to be licenced HC over next 3 years....

Etc., etc., etc.

LA must not make a profit from the function and may only cover costs (+ reasonable contingencies??).

ALL the information you need to fight this is available from your protagonists. You just have to be clever about a) how you ask for it and b) how you use it.

Others, with greater experience than I, will no doubt comment on the above.

Because the ( what was our local LA ) is now going to be taken over by the new East Cheshire Authority ( its a NEW one that wipes out several others ) my current LO doesn't even know if he will have a job come April, there will be no figures for the upcoming East Cheshire area as they do not have a past, while they could take all the figures from all the areas with which to reach an aproximation of costings the NEW authority doesn't even know how many staff will be in their licensing Dept, will they have worked it out ? I hear you say, you can bet your little cotton socks they will not have done so, merely thought to increase the charge as a way of taking more money.

Thats my opinion of this situation........... and it stinks.

How many areas has that taken in. I know Chester & Ellesmere Port are part of it who else is. Does that mean you all have one plate etc and can cover what would normally be areas that you couldn't cover previously

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

On our side alone, Macclesfield, Congleton, Sandbach, Wilmslow, Crewe etc etc the list is a long one.

No-one knows what the plate system will be as no info is forthcoming, as far as I'm aware there are quite a few current LO's who still don't know if they will have a job in the new Authority, seems they havent got their act together yet other than to put an add about fees in a paper that that was published on the 31st December, now how many people buy a local paper on a date like that ?

It all seems to be a little underhand at the moment.

Just to make my position a little clearer on this subject, I fortunately also have Wedding cars so I could easily stop the PH side increase the wedding work and just let everyone else sit back and pay up the fees proposed, but I find increases of this magnitude offensive at any time, let alone in a recession, what all of you decide to do is up to you but if you all do nothing you won't have made your opinions known to anyone in Gov and thats what the problem is .... complacency, if you don't stand up you will be ignored.

There is always a little bit that gets left out.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

So what you're saying, Is that a number of areas are combining into one . which means you have many more allies in the neighbouring areas both private hire and hackney who also have access to their MPs . I suppose they have already selected the New licensing committee made up of councillors from all areas , obviously these councils will have surgeries that are open to their constituency, of which some of the Taxi and private hire trade will be members... the work needs to be done at this level.



© John Thompson, January 2005

THE RIGHT OF COUNCILS TO CHARGE TAXI & PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE FEES AND TO
RETAIN SURPLUS FUNDS FOR OTHER USES- A discussion document.

The licensed Hackney carriage and Private Hire trades have repeatedly claimed that many
Councils were acting illegally in that the licence fee revenue over and above the costs of the
Scheme were placed into the general Revenue Account for other Council uses. They claimed that
Councils may only lawfully charge fees as permitted by the parent legislation. The Local Govt.
(Misc. Provisions) Act 1976, Ss 53(2) & 70(1) only permit the Council to charge such fees “in
whole or in part” as are sufficient to cover the costs of administering and policing the trades. It
does not allow for transferable surpluses of profit.

The trades are aware of the case of Manchester City Council,[R] v King [1991] LGR 696(QBD).
That case concerned charges imposed for Street trader’s licences under the Local Government
(Misc. Provisions) Act 1982, Schedule 4, paragraph 9(1). The wording of that Act is less
restrictive than the 1976 in that it allows Councils to make a reasonable charge to cover the
licensing scheme costs including the prosecution of unlicensed street traders. It was held that the
Act did not allow the Council to raise revenue for anything other than the costs of the Scheme.
Therefore the fees could not subsidise any other Council function and were ring-fenced for the
purposes of the licensing section.

The trades are also well aware of the result of challenges made to Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester,
Sefton and Birmingham City Councils when they tried to maintain the previous current position. In
each case the funds were ring fenced for licensing use only. In the case of Birmingham fees were
reduced by some 20% and they now pay £40,000 per annum for a full time Police Officer on
permanent secondment as an aid to enforcement. In Bolton so much was returned to the Section
funds that the Section bought its’ accommodation outright rather than renting it. Claims have often
gone back over seven years which in Sefton MBC’s case amounted to £248,126.

In the event that a Council declines to ring fence trades are now willing to complain (successfully)
to the District Auditor and also to consider issuing proceedings for Judicial Review, citing the 1991
Manchester case as proof of illegality on the part of Councils.

1. ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY NON-RING-FENCED COUNCILS
Many Finance Directors cite the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, S 148 (4) which
states: “ All receipts of a principal Council shall be carried to the appropriate fund, that is to
say ……. The general rate fund in the case of a district council.”

This it is often claimed to justify many Council’s policies but is unlikely to succeed.

2. REBUTTAL OF THIS POSITION
This is not difficult given the following Section 152 provision of the Local Government Act 1972,
which equally clearly states:

“Nothing in Sections 147 to 150 of the Act of 1972 shall be construed as requiring or
authorising a local authority to apply or dispose of the surplus revenue arising from any
undertaking carried on by them OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY
ENACTMENT OR INSTRUMENT APPLICABLE TO THE UNDERTAKING.” [My capitalisation]

1



© John Thompson, January 2005

Therefore as the Act of 1976 only authorises the charging of fees “sufficient in whole or in part” to
cover the cost of issuing licences and administering the trades it clearly does not authorise a profit
or surplus to be generated. The Finance-led argument that Section 148(4) of the 1972 Act
authorises the retention of the funds is clearly discredited by Section 152 of the same Act of
1972.

By then turning back to the decision in Manchester City Council [R] v King [1991] LGR
696(QBD) it is clear that the High Court has considered this point as far back as 1991 and
decided against the “Non-Ring-Fenced” Councils position!

3. CONCLUSION
In the event that any Council changes its’ stance then possible licensing budget implications are
reduced and from that point onwards anything the trades request will be possible, providing they
accept that their fees may have to go up to pay for it.

The downside is extra enforcement or facilities means licence fees may have to go up. Surpluses
incidentally generated can be ring-fenced and then, with proper trades consultation can be used to
benefit all licensed trades’ members in future years or to reduce fees.

Therefore the licensing scheme will not be a burden on Council Tax payers but will be formally self
financing as the years’ progress.

Mr John Thompson, M. Inst. Lex.

Editor of “The Book” 2004 onwards
5th January 2005

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this document are intended as a discussion document only. Any
persons seeking to rely upon the views expressed above are strongly advised to seek independent
legal advice before proceeding.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

I agree, but now you have objected that slows up the process.

Now you need to do FoI Act questions re the existing fees i.e. What is the actual costs of processing a drivers license? What is the actual costs of running the taxi/PH licensing system?

And a few more to p*** them off.

_________________
IDFIMH

If the LO doesn't know if he has a job next year how can he, or his boss, set a budget based on these huge increases?

_________________
IDFIMH

I have since discovered that NONE of the areas LO's have been informed as to whether they will have a job with the new East Cheshire area when it comes into being on April 1st ( yes, they picked the right day ) and your point is exactly what I asked them via email, for which I have never received any confirmation of receipt or contact from them, add to that the fact that none of the current Councils have a contact for the new authority via a phone number, so no-one can even call them !

Its all a bit like "Only Fools and Horses" except you can't even contact the "Plonkers".

The piece Mr T posted is the most relevant factor in the ring fencing of license fees. Mr John Thompson is quite correct in his view that section 153 negates section 148 of the 1972 act. The other piece of the jigsaw is section 53.2 of part 2 of the 1976 act which reads.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so.

The 1988 finance act amends section 148 of the 1972 act in so far that it expands the general purpose of funds relating to councils but it does not interfere with section 153 of the 1972 act.

Therefore if you read the three sections together namely 148, 153 and 53.2 it is clear that license fees can only cover the cost of the combined administration.

I suggest if anyone has a problem with license fees they should first write to the head of licensing and establush the criteria which they apply for administration? If they reply that the license fees are administered as per section 153 of the 1972 act and section 53 of the 1976 act then you can take it from there and ask for some figures relating to income and expenditure.

Regards

JD

_________________
Copyright notice © The contents of this post are copyright of JD and are not to be reproduced outside of TDO without written permission.

Having put in an FOI request for these figures myself, originally (fruitlessly) via the LO, may I suggest that you bypass the licensing department almost completely and directly seek your information from the accountancy department within the council.

In my (limited) experience they seem to know what you are asking, and tend not to "fudge" the issue - just giving un-garnished facts and figures.

I was origionally told that all "taxi" fees (in my case not even broken down into categories) and they did not have a clue where the money went! All revenues are simply thrown into the Environmental Health" pot.

This is on-going - and if anybody is interested I will update everyone later - but the process is a long one!

Please make certain that you ask EXACT questions - they will wriggle - trust me.
______________________________________________________

Hi Doc G,

I have on behalf of our members in several area's sent FOI requests on the very subject, have always sent to FOI office and by-passed all other departments.

The councils have always taken a long time to provide the answers, as you say, you have to ask the correct questions.

I wish you luck.

Regards
BB


_____________________________________________________

_________________
Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk