DEREG DILEMMA CALL FOR ‘COMMON SENSE’ IN CHELMSFORD
The secretary of Chelmsford Taxi Associ- ation is asking for ‘common sense’ to be shown over Chelmsford Borough Council’s deci- sion to give out more licences to cabbies. A strike over a row about too much com- petition for taxis in the area over the Christ-
mas and New Year period was called off because of the fear that people drinking in the town’s pubs might drink and drive.
The Association was to meet on 2 February to enable drivers to express their opinions on the proposal. Association secretary
Terry Michel told the Essex Enquirer: “Hopefully there will be a common sense approach by the Council to this sticky situation.
“There isn’t enough work for 30 drivers, let alone the 100 that could be on the road if this proposal goes ahead.”
AMBER VALLEY DRIVERS CALL FOR CAP
Taxi drivers in Amber Valley are calling for a cap on the number of licensed cabs as they fear there are not enough fares.
Firms say they are will- ing to pay half the cost of an unmet demand survey. Borough coun- cil officers had agreed with the need for a sur- vey and recommended one be commissioned - but then members voted against last June. Siobhan Connor, man- ager of NPHA member Amber Taxis, told the Ripley and Heanor News: “We feel that we need the number of taxis to be capped at what it is now and then reviewed every three
years. But the council has disregarded the evidence provided by the taxi trade and licensing board of the importance of carrying out the survey.” Amber Valley Taxi Association claims the council has issued too many licences since the market was deregu- lated in 2004, with taxis in the borough increas- ing by 64 per cent from 109 to 171 cabs in the last five years.
They estimate the council receives a rev- enue of around £85,000 from the licensing of taxis and PHVs, while the cost of an unmet demand sur- vey would be between
£7,000 and £10,000. However, Amber Val- ley has refused to reconsider its decision and has turned down the survey offer made by the association. A spokesman for the council said: “Most local licensing authori- ties do not impose quantity restrictions. The DfT regards this as best practice. “The DfT also states that it is not good prac- tice for surveys to be paid for by the local taxi trade - except through general revenues from licence fees. To do so can call into question the impartiality and objectivity of the survey process.”
SALFORD DRIVERS HIT BY LEGAL BILL
Taxi drivers say they will be crippled by costs after losing a landmark court case. Salford hackney car- riage drivers went to court to overturn the council’s decision to delimit taxis.
But their fight against the plans failed, leav- ing the drivers almost £50,000 out of pocket. The drivers, backed by national union Unite, will now have to find the money to pay the legal fees.
Dave Evans, from Unite, told the Salford Advertiser: “We are all devastated by the decision. The drivers will have to club together and find the money themselves. “It’s really difficult because all we wanted
PAGE 60
was a guarantee to get people round the table again to talk about the plans.”
The drivers had sought a judicial review to overturn Sal- ford City Council’s decision to delimit. Instead, they want a controlled increase of licences over the next three years.
The judge, Mr Justice Parker refused permis- sion for Judicial Review proceedings and awarded costs to Salford City Council. It is understood the council’s costs amount to £16,000 and the taxi trade’s costs could exceed £50,000. The new rules, which will come into force immediately, allow for a removal of the cur-
rent limits on the num- ber of hackney carriage licences the council can issue as well as other new rules which include refusing to licence any taxi which does not meet the council’s stringent emissions standards.
This potentially means all vehicles over seven years old cannot be licensed for use as a taxi.
Councillor Norman Owen, who supported the taxi drivers’ fight, said: “The decision is deeply disappointing. “The taxi trade has been landed with huge legal costs, when all they really wanted was more meaningful con- sultation with the council.”
CONSULTATION ON PERTHTAXI NUMBERS
Perth and Kinross Council is to hold a public consultation on the number of taxis operating in Perth. According to the Press
and Journal, there are 70 licensed taxi opera- tors in the town and the council wants to know if this number should be increased.
Residents can put their views forward by completing a ques- tionnaire available at the Council Buildings or via
www.pkc.gov.uk
WEYMOUTH HACKNEY CABS LIMIT REMAINS
The current limit on the number of hack- ney carriages operating in Wey- mouth and Portland is set to remain following a council vote.
According to the
Dorset Echo, members of Weymouth and Port- land Borough Council’s manage- ment committee unanimously approved proposals to keep the number of licensed
carriages operating in the borough at 80. Committee members also approved continu- ing to license a minimum of six wheel- chair accessible veh- icles in the borough.
LIMIT ON BASILDON’STAXIS?
Basildon Council is considering calls for a limit on the number of hackney carriages in the district from the Basildon Taxi and Pri- vate Hire Forum. According to the Southend Evening
Cabbies have lost their long-running battle to cap the number of licences in Tendring. Drivers claimed too many licences were being handed out and there was not enough work to go around. According to the
A taxi war is threaten- ing to break out in Swale if the council issues more hackney carriage licences to plug its budget deficit, cabbies warn.
Gareth Braithwaite, director of taxi firm Cab-It, based in Sit- tingbourne warned that cab companies were already pushed to the financial limit. He told ‘Your Swale’: “If the council chooses to raise income by issuing more hackney licences this won’t be welcomed. There are a limited number of spaces on the taxi ranks and everybody’s income is being squeezed.
Echo, the council’s licensing committee will discuss requests from parts of the local taxi trade who want a return to limits on the numbers of vehicles operating in the dis- trict. A cap was
Colchester Daily Gazette, Tendring Council said it would only look at restricting the number of licences, if cabbies paid for a survey to see if there were too many taxis. The survey would have cost each driver an
“More taxis would make a bad situation worse and definitely be a source of friction between drivers. “Cabbies who want a hackney carriage licence have to pay for and pass a medical check, a criminal records check, a driving test and a knowledge test every year.
“In addition cab com- panies have to pay for annual identity badges and identification plates for the cars. “In fairness to the council, the cost of the hackney licence has been kept down over the last few years. But they have massively increased the number
scrapped in 2005. Some cabbies believe it has led to a surplus of drivers in the dis- trict, which has affected their trade and they want an inde- pendent survey into the issue.
TENDRING CABBIES LOSE NUMBERS BATTLE
extra £70 a year. They opposed the move by 81 votes to 79.
Council licensing chiefs agreed to take no fur- ther action, but said the issue will be reviewed in two years to see if cab drivers had changed their mind.
SWALE CABBIES’ LICENCE LIMIT IS LIFTED
of taxis on the road. ” Swale council has a £1.6 million budget deficit and has identi- fied services that could increase rev- enue including issuing more hackney car- riage licences, funfairs and seaside chalets. Mr Braithwaite, 38, said the situation had not been helped by the news that VAT on fuel would be increased in the New Year. “We have been operat- ing 14 years and trade has been affected hugely in the last 18 months. The council used to have a limit on how many licences it issued but now there is no limit.”
PHTM FEBRUARY 2010
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
