|
The Casey Column
By
Wayne Casey (LL SC SW)
The views in this column are not those of the National Taxi Association
Medallion
You must have noticed. Yeah, surely you have, the papers have been full of it. Local authorities are struggling for cash and they’re going to be closing day nurseries and care homes quicker than the French capitulate to Germans. They need more money and will struggle collect this, if they ever want to get elected again, from general taxation.
You see, whilst the general public actually like the thought of old people being cared for and carted off to care homes, but they don't generally want to pay for it. The public don't really want to face huge increases in Council Tax, which on the back of VAT increases, fuel increases and an ever increasing RPI index would generally be a burden too far.
It would seem they are all generally doomed, we could always allow them to sleep on the streets, but they are full of Albanians in cardboard boxes. Unless we want the old folks to go live with relatives, and judging by the way the relatives pushed them into taxis after Christmas lunch this year, they patently don't, we are going to have to find another solution.
Well it would appear a radical solution is being mooted.
As many of you will know, a number of Cities in the good ole US of A operate what is known as a medallion system. Taxi numbers are strictly limited, the license on a vehicle is known as a medallion and the City periodically sells off a number of medallions which in turn generates further income to the City.
Readers will no doubt be aware the press had a field day last year in Southampton. Where 346 people applied for 20 licenses, the paper claimed the licenses were worth £700,000, yet due to licensing law, the local authority could only charge £180 each. Weeks later the paper reported;
Southampton cab driver to make huge profit on taxi licence
THE owner of a new Southampton taxi plate is trying to sell it for a £30,000 profit just weeks after it was virtually given away by the council in a lottery-style draw.
Shouyb Mohammad Yaqub beat 342 other applicants to win one of four £180 Hackney Carriage licences issued in December.
But he has now put his money spinning taxi plate, together with a £25,000 seven-seater wheelchair friendly taxi, on the market for £55,000.
Defending the sale of the plate and Citroen car, a‘59 registration with 5,000 miles on the clock, Mr Yaqub said: “It’s a good deal. I will sell to whoever wants to buy it.”
Last night taxi trade chiefs accused him of profiteering and said he could have prevented a genuine driver from entering the trade.
If you consider the above story then consider, where the local authority didn’t make a single penny from the subsequent sale of the license, then mull over the following article which appeared in the times newspaper in Malta.
Woman bids €105,000 for taxi licence
A woman bid €105,000 for a licence to operate a taxi and was one of 20 people who between them paid €1.12 million for new taxi permits granted by Transport Malta yesterday.
The new licences are part of the reform of the taxi sector, which will bring about a total of 50 new licences by 2012. At present, there are 200 licences in Malta and 50 in Gozo.
Let’s look at the money earned here, Southampton Council would earn £3200 from issuing an extra 20 licenses, whereas the Maltese government earned €1.2 million euro (over £1 million).
Some people out there suggest European law would prevent such a thing from happening, this didn’t appear to stop the Maltese Government, ‘some people’ could of course and as ever, be wrong. Indeed, at a time when local authority budgets are stretched to the limit, the idea will doubtlessly have its merits in local government, close a care home or sell a medallion?
The taxi trade needs to seriously face some facts, currently some councils allocate taxi licenses by way of a lottery, the winning people, as pointed out above are basically given £30K (in the case of Southampton) and they sell the freely issued license almost as soon as a plate is screwed on.
Somehow this doesn’t strike me or the press in Southampton for that matter, as correct.
Obviously allowing local authorities to generate income this way would need debate, feedback at the moment does seem positive. It would, for example, be in a local authority’s interest to ensure the taxi market is not flooded with taxi licenses; this would destroy any demand for medallions.
It would also be in the local authority’s best interest for the taxi trade to become successful, something many have little interest in at the moment, the greater the demand for taxis, the greater the demand for medallions.
Furthermore, if local authorities are actually pro-active about the taxi industry becoming more successful in their areas, they will look at fares, rank space and our business in a more positive business like manner.
Under current law no local authority can sell licenses for huge profits, however, with budgetary constraints currently under stark consideration by both national and local government, the general idea is worth consideration. So let’s look at what would need to be done.
The charging power local authorities have in respect of licensing fees is contained within the acts of Parliament. In the case of England & Wales it’s the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 (LGMP 1976) and in Scotland its the Civic Government Scotland Act 1982 (CGSA 1982).
This is the cost of the issue of a license, administration etc. In the LGMP Act 1976 section 70 covers the charging power whereas under the CGSA it’s in section 12. Both acts state what the fees charged should be for.
It is obviously possible for any act of parliament to be altered or added to.
There could for example be a section 12 (1) in the Scottish act or section 70 (1) (d) which could refer to a fee pertaining to the initial grant of a taxi license which is determined by a demand survey, allocated by way of a lottery and such a fee would be permitted to go into the general fund of the local authority.
The case of Manchester vs. King 1991 basically underlines the point that street trading fees could only be used to cover costs and NOT for creation of income to council’s over expenditure costs of enforcement etc.
With regard to this case I can understand where Manchester City Council (and of course Mr Button) were coming from.
Obviously certain market stall pitches are more lucrative than others. Why should a stall holder pay the same money for a stall position that may have little passing trade as another who has a prime position?
Ironically, many local authorities have sold off their markets which are now in private hands.......guess what......the private companies now charge by the pitch location.
In respect of a medallion type system the value of a medallion would possibly be determined by a survey of demand and those survey companies out there, they already factor the cost of plate values into many surveys in England and Wales.
Laws have been changed for a lot less.
Response
Being a person of many contacts within the taxi trade, I managed to snaffle a copy of a response from a certain pirate hire company (private hire surely.....Ed), not just any pirate hire company mind you, it was a company that claims to be amongst the biggest, if not THE biggest in the UK. I like ego’s, indeed as many of you will gather from merely reading this column, I like egos very much.
One company claims to do 8,500,000 jobs per year. No doubt people will go WOW!!! That’s a lot, which of course it is, but as a colleague pointed out after some rudimentary mathematics, with 1700 PH cars on the radio circuit, it equates to 13 jobs per day each. If the average fare of this company is £4 per job then I and others find it strange they appear to be bragging about drivers earning £52 per day less costs and naturally, radio settle. In some people’s books, that’s slave wages.
Moreover, if this particular company is the model where people are hoping to aspire, it’s very worrying indeed.
Further to the above, another large private hire company, one who points to their drivers all having those jolly nice NVQ’s and BTEC awards apparently had a driver allow a teenage girl to get out, during the extreme weather conditions of December on a motorway miles from home.
Yet these companies are seemingly the ones holding themselves up as shining examples of brilliance in the world of private hire?
One point I have been trying to make in respect of private hire companies whinging about the current licensing system. They seem to whinge about a system that has undoubtedly benefitted their companies........strange that.
The calls they make
I received a call from the press during December, the press wanted to know how the cost of fuel was affecting the taxi trade, because as they pointed out to me, as if I’d forgot, fuel must make up a rather substantial part of a cab drivers expenses. I told him to phone back in January, after the VAT had increased and the penny per litre was added to the fuel escalator.
I wasn’t in a particularly good mood with the press on this particular day, I’d just been reading some report about MP expenses, which had resurfaced.
The reporter asked me about trade in general, I said it was ‘sh*te as usual’. He asked ‘why?’ I responded by saying that taxis were seen often as a luxury item, non essential and something that could be cut from a family budget, however we are an essential service to some because they may be unable to get to bus stops, carry large amounts of shopping and luggage on public transport.
He agreed with the above points. I then told him ‘but you b*stards don't help’. He took offence (I don't know why) and asked why I thought that. I told him to look at the headlines concerning MP expenses, taxis are portrayed and itemised like a luxury.
I carried on trying to show him some basic maths, advising that some regular customers, pensioners for example, use taxis to get about, they use cabs maybe 4 times per week 50 weeks per year. The reporter told me he knew this, taxis were needed to get old folks about. I asked him to do the maths,
4 trips per week at £4 per journey over 50 weeks amount’s to £800 per year in cab fares.
Perhaps Her Majesty’s gutter press should investigate pensioners?
February
For some reason I seem to have attracted criticism by some North of the Border, so much so Jack Clyde has disappeared and Grumpy Bob is retiring. Sadly, my reverse Midas effect seems to be sadly ineffective in so far as my Jock (Scots surely) father in law goes.
However, a little known fact are my more direct Scottish roots from my mother’s part of the family, she had the maiden name of Douglas, which as my late grandfather told me was a historically powerful family in Scotland during the 12th & 13th Centuries.
Fighting alongside William Wallace and friendship with Robert the Bruce made the Douglas family highly influential and powerful in Scotland. This power was deemed a threat, so much so, King James II invited William Douglas, under safe royal conduct, to dinner at Edinburgh Castle on 22nd February 1452, he was subsequently seized and beheaded.
The English readership will no doubt be aware of a chap called Harry Hotspur, who derive from the Percy family of Northumberland, but had land in the Tottenham area, apparently some football team from North London took their name from his. He was regaled in England for his ‘dashing willingness for running into the thick of battle’. During August 1388, Hotspur led superior numbers of English forces (reportedly double the number) against the forces of James Douglas at the Battle of Otterburn.
The English were soundly defeated, Hotspur was captured and subsequently ransomed.
James Douglas was killed in the battle.
Till next month
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
