Agenda item

Report of the Borough Solicitor and Director of Environment & Culture

1.      The full cost to the Council of providing the Private Hire and Hackney service, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report has been noted.

2.      The objections contained in Appendix 2 of the report and Appendix 1 of the supplementary report are rejected for the reasons outlined in the letters of response.

3.      Cabinet’s earlier decision to implement the fees outlined below are reaffirmed and are to be effective from Monday 29 June 2009.

RESOLVED

That this item be adjourned to Wednesday 10 June 2009.

10 June 2009

The meeting reconvened on Wednesday 10 June 2009 at 6.00pm to consider this item only.

Present: Councillor Woods (Chair), Councillor B Hoare (Deputy Chair), Councillors Beardsworth, Church, Crake and Glynane.

Apologies: had been received from Councillor Mildren.

As the relevant portfolio holder, Councillor Crake presented the report and explained that Cabinet members had now examined all the letters of objection.

John Kelly addressed Cabinet suggesting that the proposed licensing fees increase was unlawful owing to the Council having contracted out the inspection of vehicles in 1996 at a considerable cost saving.  He also felt that the twice-yearly vehicle inspection and licence fee was unreasonable.  Mr Kelly then mentioned that members of the Trade were proposing court action to retrieve what they considered to be past overcharges. He commented on the proposed fee rises being above the inflation rate and referred to the Council’s lack of detailed accounts justifying the rise.  He then requested that a cap be placed on the number of licences granted in the town.

Councillor Woods asked whether, if the Council were to set the charges to recover most of the costs of providing the service, this would be acceptable to Mr Kelly. Mr Kelly commented that he would be satisfied if it could be proven that the proposed fee rises were in line with current costs. In relation to points made in Mr Kelly’s written submission, it was noted that the rises were not being calculated in line with the retail price index. Further, in relation to the capping of licences, it was made clear that there was no Government legislation to restore capping if unmet demand was not there.  It was also clarified that fees charged by Hackney Carriages were a matter for discussion at the Licensing Committee.

Mr Fidler then addressed Cabinet and produced a paper that was received by the Chair and circulated to Cabinet members.  Summarising his objections, Mr Fidler explained his interpretation of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, that the window in which the proposed fees were to be implemented was incorrect and that the time for this had now expired. Furthermore, he maintained that the Council should keep separate accounts detailing exactly the proportion of the Licensing budget that was allocated to the administration of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire service.  He did not agree the 60% estimation as set out in the report.  Finally, referring to the figures appended to the supplementary report, Mr Fidler submitted to Cabinet that they could not impose higher fees than those that had been advertised.

Councillor Hoare commented that it was not possible to have an exact breakdown of the costs of direct and indirect overheads in relation to licensing administration but that Cabinet was satisfied that the officers’ scrutiny of the process was accurate.  Whilst Mr Fidler disputed the reliability of the data, especially in comparison to figures produced by other councils, it was noted that it was the duty of this Authority to cover its own costs as calculated by its finance officers.

Kevin Willshire addressed Cabinet reading through the list of proposed increases as advertised.  He questioned the actual costs of driver inductions, charges for returned cheques and CRB checks and felt that there was not enough detail supplied for a proper audit leading to the proposed fee increases. He went on to suggest that any increase in fees would have to be passed on to the customer.  He also objected to the higher increase in fees for larger operators. Again Councillor Woods asked whether, if the Council set the charges to recover most of the costs of providing the service, this would be acceptable.  Mr Willshire confirmed that it would be.

Stuart Russell addressed Cabinet referring to a previous item on the agenda in which the Council was suggesting ways to help the public through the current recession.  He commented that people would suffer more if the increases were agreed, as the cost would be passed on to the trade’s customers.  Councillor Hoare pointed out that by not imposing the increases, Council Tax payers would be subsidising the costs, whether or not they were taxi users.

Addressing the points made by the speakers, Councillor Woods received confirmation from the Borough Solicitor that the window quoted in the report for the date of implementation for the increase was accurate.  Councillor Woods then confirmed that the increases proposed were those as set out in paragraph 2.3 of the original report to Cabinet and as advertised in the local press.  It was then made clear that the financial information relating to the proportion of the licensing budget allocated to the administration of taxis was accurate as verified by the Director of Finance and the Licensing Officer.  It was considered that there would be no advantage in imposing a cap on the number of licences issued and anyway, this would be against the advice of the Department of Transport.  Fees for CRB checks, returned bank cheques and induction had been calculated at the cost to the Council plus a nominal charge for officer time connected with their administration.

In relation to the twice-yearly testing and licensing of vehicles, it was noted that, even with this level of testing, a significant number of vehicles failed on-the-spot checks when the quarterly ‘multi-agency check’ operations were carried out. The Council had responsibility to ensure the safety of the public in licensed vehicles.

RESOLVED

1.      That the full cost to the Council of providing the Private Hire and Hackney service, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report be noted.

2.      That the objections contained in Appendix 2 of the original report and Appendix 1 of the supplementary report be rejected for the reasons outlined in the letters of response.

3.      That Cabinet’s earlier decision to implement the fees outlined in recommendation 2.3 of the report be reaffirmed and that they take effect from Monday 29 June 2009.