Taxi Driver Online

Our solicitor is totally convinced that a council is not entitled to charge for "extras" I.E. plate fees, re-test fees etc. He also says however, that to take them to court would be prohibitive, and, all they would need to do is, charge the whole amount up front as the license fee.

My questions are:
1 How many of you pay these fees, and has anyone challenged it?
2 If it has been charged/paid and is illegal, then surely we could claim it back.

I would also be grateful if anyone can provide information on how to make the licensing team extremely busy on mountains of paperwork using such tools as the Freedom of Information Act, or the Human Rights Act.

How do you get something put onto a council agenda, without the licensing officer?

The taxi/phv budget is now presented in a different format each year, and is almost impossible to follow. (I suspect on purpose) Can we request it to be presented in a more simplistic way, with explainations?

How do you all cope?

Every driver write in and ask to see a copy of files held by the Council [taxi dept] under your name, for starters
everone when they receive annual renewal paperwork from the Council, write in and say I don't understand para so and so, please explain, the list is endless

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 12:22 am Post subject: Do Councils break the law?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our solicitor is totally convinced that a council is not entitled to charge for "extras" I.E. plate fees, re-test fees etc. He also says however, that to take them to court would be prohibitive, and, all they would need to do is, charge the whole amount up front as the license fee.

My questions are:
1 How many of you pay these fees, and has anyone challenged it?
2 If it has been charged/paid and is illegal, then surely we could claim it back.


-----------------------------------------------------------

It's one big scam. Your VEL is the actual licence that you require to use the public roads (roads maintained at the public expense), LA's do not have the powers to determine otherwise.
Motor cabs are members of the group B for Excise duty, and that mandatory licence gives you the entiitlement to use the public road. That has been the situation since !st Jan 1921, when the VEL system came into force.

Jeff, thanks.

What I am actually asking about is, S70 (1) of the 1976 act. A district council may charge such fees for the grant of vehicle and operators licenses as may be resolved by them from time to time and as may be sufficient in the "AGGREGATE" to cover in whole or in part-

This word "AGGREGATE" Is what our sol is talking about. He says there is no provision for extras. I.E. Plate fees and re-tests. He says the WHOLE fee is only payable up front.

It may seem a bit like moving deck chaires on the Titanic. But, if he's right, then the monies previously collected by these methods would surely have to be refunded.

If so what fun could be had forcing licensing authorities to hand back several hundreds of thousands of pounds, depending on the range and cost of these charges, over several years.

What you can do for nothing is to object the next time they advertise vehicle license increases. Or you can ask under the FoI Act for a budget break-down.

Under sec 70 councils can lump together all reasonable fees i.e. cost of plating, enforcement, etc. But these fees need to be advertised.

If the 'extras' haven't been advertised then they are not legal. Maybe that's what your solicitor is on about.

As for your question about councils breaking the law, well I have yet to see one that doesn't or hasn't.

_________________
IDFIMH

The best way is to get a petition up. Send it to the licensing chair and ask him/her to put it on the next agenda.

Try not to make it too political, just put across your point backed up by as many licensed drivers as possible.

_________________
IDFIMH

Obviously your solicitor is not aware of Liverpool City Council v Kelly Court of appeal 2003.

You can read the case on TDO but here's an insight taken from the report.

The appeal concerns the powers granted by section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to local authorities to charge fees for the grant of vehicle licences. The term ‘vehicle licence’ is defined in section 80 so as to mean in relation to a hackney carriage a licence under sections 37-45 of the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 and in relation to a private hire vehicle a licence under section 48 of the 1976 Act. For present purposes no distinction is to be drawn between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. Both Acts require the vehicle to be licensed. The later Act circumscribes the discretion of the local authority more than the former one.

Regards

JD

JD and Sussex

Thanks for your help. Back to the drawing board.

Sussex, in relation to the finances, what they do is, change the way they present the figures each year because we got good at working it all out and questioning specific items. So now you would need a degre in Nuclear physics to understand them.

What we need is, a private LA finance type of accountant, does anyone here know of such an animal?

If the figures are to be capable of auditing then they should contain comparatives for the previous year - comparatives are basically figures prepared on the same basis so that they can be compared from year to year.

So if they changed the methodology from last year to this year then they should change the comparatives from last year so that they figures for this year can be compared.

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk

Then maybe it's worth adding that complaint to your list when you and your colleagues object.

Also have a word with some of the licensing councillors, they should also be aware of the finances and they should be able to understand them. Thus if you ask them for clarification and they can't work it out, the ask them HTF (or words to that effect) you are meant to.

This is a long term way of doing it, but in time officials will get pi**ed off and will want you to be their mates.

_________________
IDFIMH

OOh, yes, I'm sure that all drivers will really want to put their heads above the parapet and sign a petition. Yeah, they'll be RIGHT behind you!!!

_________________
Former taxi driver

I would have thought that for something quite important, like an issue over licensing fees, then that's the least the 'trade' can do.

But then again the cab trade, in 30% of councils, are only concerned with one issue, eh?

_________________
IDFIMH

YES

Councils regularly break the law regards licensing

Renfrewshire Council does it every day

Comprehensive insurance minimum when the law states third party is sufficient

The Civic Government Scotland act 1982 states at 10.2

A licensing authority shall not grant or renew a taxi license or private hire car license unless they are satisfied that the vehicle to which the license is to relate is suitable in type, size and design for use as a Taxi or private hire car as the case may be and is safe for that use and that there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle a policy of insurance or such security as complies with the requirements of Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1972.

It would appear that as long as you comply with Part VI of the relevant road traffic act there is not a lot the council can do. I'll write to them and ask them which section of the 1982 act empowers them to attache a condition of mandatory fully comp insurance?

Regards

JD

Having spoken to the local council I was informed the requirement for fully comprehensive insurance is a condition the council has set themselves. If anyone needs to challenge the condition they are going to have to have their license suspended and test the condition in the Sheriffs court. If they lose they are going to have to appeal to the higher court.

Regards

JD