ROUND THE COUNCILS PENDLE:
BEDFORD: SCAPPING LICENCE RULE BLOCKED
Scrapping a taxi rule which stops refused applicants re-applying for a licence could have seen rapists, drug dealers and violent men repeatedly trying to gain a licence, councillors have been told. Emotions ran high when when two Pendle councillors called for a rule to be removed, which currently stops rejected taxi applicants from submitting a fresh bid within 12 months of a refusal. The bid was rejected but prompted wide debate. Taxi safety and vehicle checks have been raised regularly at Pendle Council meetings. Councillors Faraz Ahmed and Sajjad Ahmed put forward a motion calling for the 12-month rule on failed applicants to be removed at the latest full council. Cllr Ahmed, who has been a taxi committee chairman, said: “It’s very important that a change should take place. Not being able to reapply within 12 months is unfair. We need to work with taxi drivers and the industry.” But Lib-Dem Cllr, Tom Whipp, said: “I assume there is a process to review and appeal decisions, if there’s a feeling that the protocol has not been followed? It’s right that people should not come back-and-back to overturn a properly made decision. Twelve months seems reasonable.” Pendle True Independent Cllr, Yasser Iqbal, said: “Taxi applicants face a system where council officers are often the judge, jury and executioner. Officers are not perfect and sometimes decisions can be wrong. “I had a constituent who could not work for five months. He had four mouths to feed. It was serious. He appealed to a magistrates’ court but there are delays. “Also I am the son of a taxi driver. My dad could not work for some time when I was younger. It was a genuine struggle. There are human stories behind these cases.” But Conservative Cllr, Kieran McGladdery, also with taxi committee experience, said: “ I think this is one of the most dangerous motions ever. There could be any kind of crime with some applicants. There is an allowance that says if someone did something wrong in the past and it has lapsed, it can be dealt with. But removing this section would allow the rapist or drug dealer to re-apply. “Taxi licensing officers would be swamped with the worst-of-the-worst reapplying.” Instead of scrapping the taxi policy, councillors asked the taxi committee and the executive for their views.
42 ROOF SIGN RULES TO BE DEBATED
Fears have been raised that Bedford BC’s roof sign requirements for PHVs could lead to confrontations when PHV drivers refuse an unbooked passenger. David Masih attended the council’s General Licensing Committee on April 25, to speak about roof signs on behalf of the borough’s private hire trade. “The policy from the DfT has been updated,” he said. He drew the committee’s attention to the updated section which states: “Licensing authorities should not permit roof signs of any kind on PHVs. “Regardless of the wording required on such a sign it is likely to increase awareness of the vehicle and the likelihood of being mistaken for a taxi. “This increases the success of those illegally standing or plying for hire and may lead to confrontation when PHV drivers refuse a request for a journey that has not been prebooked.” Mr Masih said: “Having an illuminated sign on taxis and prohibiting them from PHVs will provide a simple way for the public to differentiate between the two services. “We encourage all licensing authorities to promote the difference [between them]. “We believe that the safety benefits that were initially envisaged when implementing the roof signs have been eroded over the years,” he said. He added that improvements in technology, includ- ing sending the driver’s picture to the user, have improved safety, and that a neighbouring council had already removed the need for roof signs on private hire vehicles. “It seems roof signs are more of a costly hindrance and of almost no benefit to the ride users,” he said. Gillian Anderson, manager for service application, said Mr Masih was correct that the guidance had changed. “However, along with a lot of other licensing officers across the country, my view remains that the roof signs are a community safety issue and they do help vehicles be identified,” she said. “[They] enable members of the public to identify a private hire vehicle if they wish to make a complaint. “They are clearly defined; the yellow signs are for hackney carriages and the green signs are for private hire,” she said. Councillor officers will look into Mr Masih’s request regarding roof signs for PHVs, and this will be debated by the committee at a later date.
JUNE 2024 PHTM
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
