FIGHTING INFLATED FEES
We appreciate that this is a surplus made on the whole of the licensing fee account, however, despite many FoI requests to have this amount broken down between the various streams of licensing income, the trade has been fobbed off time and time again. We are sure though that a substantial amount of the almost £4 million pounds would be from the taxi and private hire licensing accounts. We therefore put you to providing a detailed and precise breakdown of this surplus income.
Additionally, we are aware that each financial year the licensing service is given a “negative” budget which sets out the income expected from the service. This is broken into the income streams for licensing. We believe that budget is arbitrarily fixed with a clear intention to raise amounts in excess of actual costs.
Not a single penny is given to the licensing service from central budget to assist in its functions although we are aware that some functions attract no fee income. For example, house to house collections, Hypnotism permits, street trading (where application refused) etc. Therefore, the cost of carrying out these functions is swallowed up by the licensing regimes that do attract fees. This is grossly unfair and unlawful.
With regard to the surplus income we mention above, we have found no evidence that year on year any of that surplus income from any of the preceding years has been returned back to the licensing budget. It has simply disappeared and no account has been given to the licensing service and more importantly to its fee payers for these surplus monies collected by the council.
This is blatantly unlawful. It is well established both in legislation and case law (R (Cummings) v. Cardiff [2014] EWHC 2544) that a council can only set its fees to cover the reasonable cost of the various heads of licensing and cannot make a profit. Any surplus (or deficit) must be carried forward and form part of any subsequent review of fees. This has clearly not happened ever that we can ascertain, in reviewing fees for hackney carriage and private hire licensing by Kirklees Council. That cannot be allowed to go unchallenged again.
We are also aware that the actual cost of processing, administration and enforcement, has reduced as there is no longer any constant and consistent enforcement, especially late-night enforcement on the hackney
PHTM SEPTEMBER 2023
carriage and private hire trade. Additionally, officer numbers have reduced. Officers paid for by licensing income also appear to be carrying out enforcement for the noise nuisance team within environmental health. How is this fair to the fee payers?
Accommodation costs must also have reduced in that many officers now regularly work from home, there is no longer a dedicated “licensing office” for the full licensing team to sit and those who do go in to the office are now desk sharing. Counter provision has been delegated to what is effectively a “tin hut” at Fartown with no proper customer facilities. (We would invite elected members to go check that out for themselves).
It is not a lawful consideration to say: “We haven’t raised hackney carriage and private hire fees since 2015 so a fee increase is overdue”. Before determining whether a fee increase (or reduction) is necessary a full and transparent review of the account is called for taking into account all profits and/or losses. Considering the excess income licensing has made over the past years this clearly has not been done, yet current proposed increases range anywhere between a 10% and a 58.8% increase.
The council now needs as a matter of urgency to review its position immediately by publishing a financially accurate and detailed licensing fee income and expenditure under its separate income heads for all years shown in the above table. Then and only then will the hackney carriage and private hire fee payers be satisfied that the council is operating with transparency and fairness. Then and only then can the members of the Licensing and Safety Committee be confident that what they are currently being invited to vote on by the management team is not unlawful.
Therefore, with the current lack of any such evidence and transparency by the council and the clear evidence of an almost £4 million overcharge to the service we must therefore strongly object to the proposals as they appear to be not only unjustified but also unlawful increases.
Yours sincerely C Walter, Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Consultants
For and on behalf of Huddersfield Hackney Carriage Association
57
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
