TAXI LAW EXPLAINED TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE FEES
This article was supplied by: Stephen McCaffrey Head of Taxi Defence Barristers and Taxi Defence Scotland 020 7060 4773
www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk www.taxidefencescotland.co.uk
for the grant of vehicle and operators’ licences 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:
(a) the reasonable cost of the carrying out by or on behalf of the district council of inspections of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles for the pur- pose of determining whether any such licence should be granted or renewed;
It is the time to the year when licensing authorities are setting their fees for the next financial year.
It is important that taxi and private hire licence holders understand the law relat- ing to fee setting to understand how licensing authorities should arrive at their fees and how this can be challenged.
In this article, I will consider what the leg- islation allows licensing authorities to take into account when setting fees, some of the most significant and well established “redlines” and briefly look at the ways the trade can challenge licensing fees.
LEGISLATION Fees for drivers licences
s.53 of the Local Government (Miscella- neous Provisions) Act 1976:
“…a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so.”
Section 53 above therefore limits the cost of a driver’s licence to the council’s administra- tion costs associated with the “…the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hack- ney carriage, or a private hire vehicle…”.
Fees for vehicle and operators’ licences
s.70 of the Local Government (Miscella- neous Provisions) Act 1976: “…a district council may charge such fees
82
(b) the reasonable cost of providing hack- ney carriage stands; and
(c) any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.”
The licensing costs recoverable by a district authority in respect of vehicles and opera- tors is limited to vehicle inspection costs for the specific purpose of determining their suitability to be licensed, reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands, reasonable administration costs for pro- cessing the licence application and finally reasonable costs associated with “…control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.”
It is clear from section 53, that a licensing authority cannot include driver enforce- ment and supervision costs against driver licence fees. Saffam J in the Wakefield case therefore concluded that, to this extent, licensing regimes cannot be fully self-funding.
ADOPTING
The 1976 Act prescribes the procedure that a district council must follow when setting fees for vehicle and operators’ licences.
s.70(3)-(5) states that if a district council sets fees in excess of those prescribed in subsection 2 (which all licensing authori- ties do), it must consult by placing a notice in a local newspaper circulating in the dis- trict and allowing for a consultation period of no less than twenty-eight days. If any person makes an objection to the pro- posed fees, a further date (not later than two months after the first specified date) must be set to allow the council to consid- er the objection and to vary the fees if applicable.
The fee adoption and variation process is important for the trade to be aware of because, if a district council does not com- ply with the advertising and consultation requirements, the fees set by it would be unlawful and open to challenge and claims for restitution.
REDLINES
Over the years there has been substantial litigation on the subject of licensing fees and particularly in connection with taxi and private hire licensing fees. From this have arisen a number of general common law principles that are now established and embedded as non-negotiable fee setting principles.
ABDUL REHMAN v WAKEFIELD DC
In a very important ruling on taxi fees, the Court of Appeal handed down its ruling in the ongoing Wakefield District Council case. Whilst there is not the capacity to consider the case in any great detail in this article, it is important to draw a number of important points that are relevant to this article.
1. The Court of Appeal confirmed that each licence type is a separate legal entity and fees should be calculated accordingly.
2. S.53 (above) cannot be used to recover the costs of enforcement against drivers.
3. S.70 however can be interpreted to include the cost of enforcement against drivers.
4. The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no legal principle that licensing should be cost neutral.
More about the case here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ 2019/
2166.html
CANNOT BE USED FOR REVENUE GENERATION
There is an established important principle that taxi and private hire licensing fees cannot be used as a general source to raise revenue for a district council. A series of court cases, starting with Manchester City Council [R] v King [QBD] 1991, has estab- lished the principle that a district council must, when setting fees, consider any pre- vious surplus and, if they so chose, deficit and adjust the level of fees accordingly.
JANUARY 2020
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
