MARCH 2009


COUNCILS ROSSENDALE:


Dozens of Rossendale taxis could be forced off the road after the coun- cil decided to enforce a ten-year-old rule. Rossendale introduced a condition in 1999 say- ing that multi-purpose vehicles used as a taxi had to provide direct access to a door for each passenger or they would not be given a licence.


But the condition was never enforced and over the last ten years many taxis which fail to comply with the condi- tion have been given the go-ahead to oper- ate in the Rossendale area.


The council is now planning to impose the condition, which would affect 37 taxis in the Valley. Taxi drivers are opposed to the intro- duction of the rule and have entered negotia-


COUNCIL ENFORCES TENYEAROLD RULE predicament.


tions with the council. A spokesman for the council told the Lan- cashire Evening Telegraph: “We need to consider whether we should continue to license vehicles with four passenger seats if there is a risk that the passengers in the back would not be able to get out easily in an accident. Ideally all passengers should have direct access to at least one door which can be opened from inside and outside the vehicle. “We believe that there are approximately 37 vehicles which would be potentially affected by any changes in the licensing conditions; however, we believe that as many as half of these could easily be made compliant.” The council has pro- posed four options to tackle the current


They include ‘Grandfa- ther Rights’ which would allow the taxis to operate until the end of their licence before enforcing the rule, to recall the affected vehi- cles and amend the licence for the carriage of four passengers, to recall affected vehicles and revoke the licence, or to remove the licence condition al-together. Glen Bulcock, chair- man of Rossendale Taxi Association and owner of GB Taxis, Bacup, said: “The taxi associa- tion met last week to vote and every member agreed with the option to remove the licence condition all together. “We will meet with the council next week and propose our unani- mous decision, but we are willing to negotiate with any reasonable offer.”


SOUTH DERBYSHIRE: TAXIS TO BE REPLACED EVERY EIGHT YEARS


Cabbies and taxi firms operating in South Der- byshire will have to replace their vehicles every eight years as part of a crackdown to improve safety for pas- sengers.


South Derbyshire District Council’s environmental and development servic- es committee agreed to introduce lighter controls for private hire licence conditions during a meeting last month. Members considered a report presented by the council’s head of envi- ronmental services, Peter McEvoy, detailing the proposed changes. Drivers will now be sub- ject to a Criminal Records Bureau check every three years; have to have a medical at 45 and every five years thereafter until they turn 65, when it is required annually; all new appli- cants for a licence will have to sit and pass a Driving Standards Agency test; and they will also be subject to checks by the DVLA until their licence comes through. Other proposals includ- ed testing exhaust emissions every six months, allowing adver-


tisements on vehicles with prior approval of the council, and giving wheelchair accessible private hire vehicles a 50 per cent refund for the first year of applica- tion to encourage greater numbers. According to the Burton Mail, members were also asked to consider whether to introduce a rule whereby vehicle licences will not be renewed when a vehicle reaches the age of eight from first registration, except for specialist vehi- cles, or whether vehicles which are presently regis- tered with the authority should be allowed to con- tinue until replaced by their existing drivers, with any transfer of the vehicle needing to comply with the eight-year rule. Mr McEvoy told mem- bers: “These changes are designed to get a greater degree of pub- lic safety and bring the council in line with best practice.


“The DVLA has said it would like to see certain standards, and this set of proposals incorporates this. We have consulted with private hire owners, and the main concern


was the additional costs incurred for medicals and CRB checks. “We feel they are bene- ficial in the interests of public safety and are unavoidable.”


Hilton ward councillor Julie Patten, who is chairman of the authori- ty’s licensing and appeals sub-committee, said she welcomed the introduction of the eight- year rule for drivers to replace ageing vehicles. However, Woodville ward councillor Steve Taylor said: “If we do not have option B, we can be asking a high number of drivers to replace their vehicles immediately.” Swadlincote represen- tative Joan Lane said: “We could have a 20- year-old Rolls-Royce that fits the criteria, and if it is MOTd and the emissions are checked, I don’t see what differ- ence it makes. I’m more concerned with the safety and mainte- nance of the vehicle.” Members agreed to introduce the new con- trols but gave operators another two years to replace ageing vehicles from the time the con- trols are put in place.


A private hire boss in Tyldesley has hit out at a ban on his vehicles displaying free adverts for other local busi- nesses.


Metro councillors rejected Geoff Cun- liffe’s idea, saying that the public might think that cars carry- ing adverts were hackney carriages rather than private hire cabs, and try to flag them down in the street.


Mr Cunllffe said: “In Tyldesley we don’t have any hackney car- riages to be mistaken with private hire as Wigan Council won’t give us any!” The Jackie’s Taxis boss came up with the adverts scheme after becoming concerned about the effect the huge rival Trafford Cen- tre is having on traders in his home town of Tyldesley.


The borough’s licens- ing committee also added that the move would be seen to set a precedent for adver- tising, which other firms might exploit. Mr Cunllffe, who is sec-


PRIVATE HIRE AND TAXI MONTHLY


95


WIGAN: FREE ADVERTS SCHEME BLOCKED


retary of the borough private hire associa- tion, told the Wigan Evening Post: “These councillors have put an axe straight through a lifeline for local busi- nesses.


“I know of six or seven businesses that have gone bust in Tyldesley in the last six months and we had the sur- vivors queuing up to push their firms on the sides of our private hire vehicles.


“I am very disappointed with the committee’s response. I have informed Tyldesley Chamber of Trade of the outcome of the application and, like myself, they feel the committee has got it wrong this time.” The committee felt that the adverts might lead to a blurring of the distinction between the hackney carriages and PHVs in the minds of the pub- lic, leading to safety issues.


Metro principle licens- ing officer Allan Balderstone said: “The committee was of the view that this was


LEEDS: DRIVERS FEAR SIX YEAR RULE CRACKDOWN


New safety rules could drive hundreds of Leeds private hire vehicles off the streets.


Leeds City Council is looking at cutting the age limit for private hire cars from eight to six years and drivers fear it could put many out of business. Council officers have yet to make recommen- dations after a safety review, but say there are concerns over the safety of some cars. The drivers say only the city’s biggest hackney carriage firm was con- sulted.


There are more than 5,000 private hire vehi- cles in Leeds and between 500 and 550 hackney cabs.


Now the private hire drivers plan to form their own campaign organisation. Private hire driver Javaid


Akhtar, based in Hyde Park, said: “The coun- cil is talking about making the age limit for private hire cars six years instead of eight years. It should be raised to ten in the credit crunch. A lot of people with mort- gages and families are in no position to buy new cabs.


“If enough drivers come forward we will form an association to challenge the council. “There is no consulta- tion with us. They only talk to the big cab companies like Amber.”


Leeds City Council has carried out a safety review over the last two and a half years. It involved full inspec- tions of both types of taxis of various ages. A spokeswoman said: “We’ve carried out a full technical inspec-


tion of over 5,000 pri- vate hire vehicles and hackney carriages and the final results will be reported to the coun- cil’s licensing and regulatory panel, prob- ably in March.


“Officers will be putting forward a number of options to address the high failure rate of licensed vehicles. “It should be noted that many licensed vehicles, which are standard production cars, may clock up 60,000 miles per year and in working condi- tions which are not identical to normal domestic use.


“No decisions have been taken and coun- cillors will have the opportunity to consider all the facts and make recommendations or decisions as appropri- ate at an open panel meeting.”


against council policy and that providing the ability for hackney car- riage and PHVs to display commercial advertisements would lead to the differentia- tion between them being less clear and cause confusion for members of the pub- lic.”


The wording on the sides of taxis and pri- vate hire vehicles is strictly controlled by the Metro under the Local Government Miscella- neous Provisions Act 1976.


Mmm...Don’t shoot the messenger! Section 48(2) LGMPA states: “A district council...may attach...such condi- tions as they may consider reasonably necessary including... conditions requiring or prohibiting the display of signs on or from the vehicle...” No such subsection exits under section 47 governing hackney carriages. So the council can prohib- it adverts on PHVs....sorry! But with no hackneys in the area, where’s the rea- sonableness? - Ed


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  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120