FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Our council only has one vehicle test- ing station in the district, so of course all taxi and private hire licence hold- ers have to use that facility – as do members of the public, corporation dustcarts and no end of other vehi- cles. However, the trade generally is in agreement that (a) the testers are so strict, they fail our taxis and PHVs for one little scratch, and we cannot get a re-test on the same day, often having to wait for days and being put off the road. (b) Because this testing station has themonopoly on taxi test- ing, the staff there treat us like sec- ond class citizens as we can’t go anywhere else. Why can’t we have a second testing station?
I appreciate that many other vehicle pro- prietors out there are asking the same questions, and want their council to look at the possibility of establishing a second testing station. However, we would ask that the following points be considered first in relation to the existing testing facility:-
1. Who owns the testing station; is it a lim- ited company and who are its shareholders? Often the testing station is totally independent of the council’s licensing service, and comes under a completely different department. So does this mean that the council owns the garage?
2 How much does it cost for the testing station to conduct a taxi and private hire test? Where does any profit go to on taxi and private hire tests?
3.What does the testing station charge for an MoT? Does this include further criteria for taxi/PHV compliance or just the standard MoT? Again, is there a price difference between the station charge and the maximum the Govern- ment states can be charged for the MoT.
4. What is the service agreement between the council and the testing station; does this include levels of service expected by customers – members of the taxi and private hire trade as well as the public?
5. What is the complaints process from the trade, and is it published so they are familiar with it? If not, why not? It has been stated by some councils that com- plaints should not be brought to the licensing department, but instead to
46
reasons vehicles fail creates an open and transparent system, and also allows both the public and taxi/PHV licence holders to know why vehicles fail. This can be broken down to vehicle age, bodywork failures, brakes, tyres, sus- pension and interior as an example. Is your testing station’s current data pub- lished or collated in this way?
SPREAD THE WORD
the workshop manager. However, that can often backfire as the complaint is levelled at the workshop manager him- self, so it goes no further. To avoid this dilemma it is best to complain to the relevant Head of Service at the council.
6. The Association has always banged the drum of putting everything in writing. So it’s no use blowing off steam down the phone at somebody; a formal com- plaint must be made if it is believed that a vehicle has been failed unjustly. Photographs of the relevant failure area(s), such as scratches or paintwork, even tyre tread, should accompany the written complaint.
7. Does the workshop manager or his staff take the plates off any licensed vehicle that fails? If so, are they issuing the req- uisite notices under the legislation?
8. Is there undue delay between the origi- nal test and any re-test? If it can be proven that a licensed vehicle was pre- vented from working merely because of an administrative problemat the testing station, or the licensing department in returning the plate, and the vehicle was found to be sound, the vehicle propri- etor/driver can put in a claim with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for loss of earnings. We’ve outlined this process in a recent FAQs page; it involves writing to the Chief Executive, documenting any financial losses in detail, and including the origi- nal written complaint about the testing station – in other words, exhausting all possible avenues of complaint locally.
9. We have been advised in several licens- ing areas that licence holders want the information from taxi and private hire tests to be combined into data which can be published either quarterly or twice annually. Publishing data on the
As part of their testing process most facil- ities could compile this failure data onto a spreadsheet/document and make it avail- able to anyone who wishes to view it. By agreeing to the above procedure it is sub- mitted that this will make the testing of vehicles much more transparent.
If the vast majority of vehicles fail for seri- ous faults such as bald tyres or illegal brakes, this would help both the trade and the council to know by way of hard facts the reasons vehicles fail, the age of said vehicles and also would help satisfy whether vehicles fail on minor bodywork or are in fact failing because drivers/own- ers are not doing checks prior to test.
Finally, this data will also help to decide if there is actually a need for a second test- ing station. As highlighted in our question this month, we know for a fact that a large number of licence holders and vehicle pro- prietors are pressing for a second facility in their district, mainly on the basis that they feel they are often treated badly because the original testing station has the monopoly for testing in the district and they cannot go elsewhere.
However, there is no point in establishing a second testing facility if the same proce- dures – which are not always satisfactory at the first facility – were carried out at a second testing station.
Of course having a second testing facility opens up a whole plethora of new chal- lenges: different pricing structures, quality control issues, competitive tendering.
So as is often the case, it could well be “better the devil you know” – if some of the current and recurring difficulties within the existing testing station can be resolved.
Donna Short National PrivateHire and TaxiAssociation 0161 280 2800
www.npha.org.uk donnadale.npha@
btconnect.com
AUGUST 2018
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
