Taxi Driver Online

A council can use Licensing funds to bring or defend an action against it in relation to its powers and duties under the relevant acts.



However, if the challenge was to the effect that the council had acted outside its powers under the acts, then if the council lost the action I believe the costs of that action awarded against it would fall to be borne by the central core funds of the council. If a council had acted unreasonably or was plainly irrational in its actions then again I believe the costs of defending/ bringing any action could not be taken from the licensing fees account/ charged to the trade in a future budget.

A council can use License fees to carry out ‘unmet demand’ surveys with a view to determining whether to impose a cap on Hackney carriage plates or to remove a cap, if it has not recently (best practice – within the last three years) carried out such a survey to be able to defend any action by someone wishing to have a plate.



However, if the council is asked to carry out a survey with a view to imposing a cap I believe the Licensing Committee (or similar body) should first pass a resolution that it is ‘minded to impose a cap’ subject to satisfactory evidence that there is ‘ no significant unmet demand for Hackney Carriages. Otherwise, the spending of £15/20,000, if they are not willing in any circumstances to impose a cap, is clearly a willful waste of money.

Any other surveys carried out using Licence fee monies would have to be judged on their merits as to the relevance of the data sought and the proportionality of the value of the information in relation to the costs of gathering it.

Cheers for the answer

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Here is the result from my objection. At no time have I even been told what the costs of running the department are or how much is raised from the licenses. The letter also just says that objections have been considered, it doesn't say that they were considered by the committee. I never got given a date for the committee meeting to consider the objection.


Dear xxxxxx



I refer to your objection to the increase in Hackney Carriage and Private Hire fees for the year commencing 1 April 2009. This matter has been carefully considered and the fees will increase on 1 April 2009 as determined by Committee.



This matter is not one for Consultation. xxxxxx Borough Council determine the fees to be set on a Cost Recovery basis and as the income raised by the fees still falls a long way short of that needed to run the service these fees will continue to rise each year to bring them into line with the actual cost of the service and to take account of inflation.



The legislation requires xxxxxx Borough Council to advertise and to have a mechanism for objection. These objections are then considered. The legislation requires only that the fees are reasonable, I can see no reason why they would not be considered so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that ‘reasonable’ would be full cost recovery. These licence fees actually fall short of that at the present time therefore no changes will be made to the fees set.



Before the fees increased last year we received objections, these were carefully considered when looking at the new fees set for the year 09/10 and it was decided to limit the increase due to the high fuel prices at that time. However, there is a great deal of pressure to increase the fees substantially over the coming years. xxxxxx Borough Council has a duty ensure that the financial burden of running this service does not fall upon the General Council Tax payer.



Your Freedom of Information request is still being dealt with and you will receive an answer within the statutory timescales.



Yours sincerely









xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

Licensing Officer

xxxxxx Borough Council

_________________
Grandad,

Grandad.....contact the audit commission.

But be aware of the maths and get a good look at the reports that were put in front of councillors.

They should basically read like your company accounts......or more specifically the report from Darlington I posted a few days ago.

To have the basis of an increase of some RPI is pathetic and hardly evidence.

regards

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I would also be interested to have details of any ‘best value’ comparison the council has carried out in respect of its licensing functions and how it compares with the authorities it may have used as a ‘benchmark’

By virtue of the Local Government Act 1999 the authority is required to carry out such comparison

Dont want to appear dumb.....but is that the case in licensing or is the act only truely compliable with certain specific functions?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

yes thats the case in licensing.

‘Best Value’ legislation

This might also be worth reading.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20030533.htm

______________________________
Consultation on amending the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 to improve transparency of reporting remuneration of senior officers in public bodies
___________________________________
Subject LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ACCOUNTS : AUDITS : FINANCIAL REPORTING : PUBLIC AUTHORITIES : REMUNERATION

Author

Department for Communities and Local Government

Mar 31, 2009

A Department for Communities and Local Government consultation on proposals to amend reg.7 of the Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 to extend the requirement on public bodies when producing their statement of accounts to include additional information about the remuneration of senior office, seeks views on: the proposed level of disclosure for senior officers in terms of salary, bonuses, additional payments, benefits in kind, compensation/ex-gratia payments, and pension entitlements; a definition of "senior"; and a proposed change to the way staff earning over GBP 50,000 is reported, breaking this down into GBP 5,000 bandings in place of the existing GBP 10,000 banding. Comments by June 22, 2009.

Legislation referred to

Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 533) reg.7

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publicati ... nsultation

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.

thanks

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

what, not like the "help groups", council handouts and councillor expenses then? and the free parking perks, jaunts abroad, "consultant fees" and redecorating the offices?...

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

Just had a letter about fee increase/alterations...

New fees start April 1st 2009


hang on, whats the date today?.....


can they do that?

_________________
Of all the things ive lost, i miss my mind the most

they have to publish it in a local paper and give you 28days to object.
write and ask the when it was advertised better still phone them

Your council decided on the new fees in February.

http://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/downloads/Item_5_48_.pdf

You need to do two things.

1) Ask for a copy of the advertisment in the local newspaper as required under section 70 of the 1976 Mis Act.

2) Ask for a breakdown of the actual costs of processing a driver's license, as the 19% increase is a bit of a pi** take. Ask them to justify the large increase in costs. If they can't then they are going against Manchester-v-King 1991.

_________________
IDFIMH