TaxiForums.co.uk, The Taxi Drivers Forum
The forum for taxi drivers in the UK!

 A THM Website

   
21 November 2008                 Register
You are here :            Home

Forums > General Issues > General taxi chat
Subject: Convoy of cabs protest at proposed licence fee rise
Prev Next
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author Messages
TonyUser is Offline
Bradford
TF Post Graduate
TF Post Graduate
Posts:671
03 Apr 2008 4:06 PM Alert 
 
OVER 70 taxis joined a demonstration drive through Stockton Town Centre in protest at licence fee hikes.
Private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers joined up for the first time to fight Stockton Council’s proposals to charge up to £300 extra a year for licences.
The cabs, escorted by police, drove around the town centre before stopping outside the council offices on Church Road yesterday.
There they handed in hundreds of letters of objection. A statutory consultation is taking place and the taxi trade has requested information from the council to help it to prepare an official objection to the new fees.
In addition, drivers are planning to withdraw over the weekend of March 28-30 as well as a series of events including ‘slow drives’ at peak times will follow after March 31, if the council confirms the proposed fee increases.
Acting secretary of the association, Javid Khazir said: “The council has created a situation where the senior manager of the council function, which includes the taxi licensing department, is also the person who will consider, and accept or reject our objection to these massive increases. We have no belief that this arrangement can be regarded as either fair or independent.”
Hackney Carriage driver Paul Tooke said: “I think in all fairness increases should be limited to the retail price index or the current rate of inflation.”
Granting of a new Hackney Carriage vehicle licence rises from £370 to £500 and £295 to £500 for a private hire vehicle.
This compares to Redcar and Cleveland Council’s £304 for a Hackney Carriage licence and £268 for a private hire vehicle licence.
Cllr Steve Nelson, Stockton Council’s Cabinet member for housing and community safety said: “This showed there has been undercharging for a number of years.
“Adjustments have been made to the current year’s budget and the proposed budget for next year which have resulted in the proposed increases.”
 
 
 
 
www.taxi-today.com

voted best trade publication2005, 2006 & 2007

www.taxiinsurancetrader.com

best place for cheap taxi insurance quotes online
foxUser is Offline
rossendale, lancashire, BACUP
TF Guru
TF Guru
Posts:62
04 Apr 2008 7:08 PM Alert 

the councils reply rings a bell there, lol thats excactly what our council said to the letter when they increased our fees 70 per cent last month, cant they come up with anything new, by the way we are going to court our barriester has just notified them, seems there jumping about like   headless chickens   sometimes you got to stand up to them
glenn bulcock
NICKUser is Offline

TF MVP
TF MVP
Posts:242
04 Apr 2008 11:28 PM Alert 
HE RIGHT OF COUNCILS TO CHARGE TAXI & PRIVATE HIRE LICENCE FEES AND TO
RETAIN SURPLUS FUNDS FOR OTHER USES- A discussion document.

The licensed Hackney carriage and Private Hire trades have repeatedly claimed that many
Councils were acting illegally in that the licence fee revenue over and above the costs of the
Scheme were placed into the general Revenue Account for other Council uses. They claimed that
Councils may only lawfully charge fees as permitted by the parent legislation. The Local Govt.
(Misc. Provisions) Act 1976, Ss 53(2) & 70(1) only permit the Council to charge such fees “in
whole or in part” as are sufficient to cover the costs of administering and policing the trades. It
does not allow for transferable surpluses of profit.

The trades are aware of the case of Manchester City Council,[R] v King 󞩷] LGR 696(QBD).
That case concerned charges imposed for Street trader’s licences under the Local Government
(Misc. Provisions) Act 1982, Schedule 4, paragraph 9(1). The wording of that Act is less
restrictive than the 1976 in that it allows Councils to make a reasonable charge to cover the
licensing scheme costs including the prosecution of unlicensed street traders. It was held that the
Act did not allow the Council to raise revenue for anything other than the costs of the Scheme.
Therefore the fees could not subsidise any other Council function and were ring-fenced for the
purposes of the licensing section.

The trades are also well aware of the result of challenges made to Bolton, Liverpool, Manchester,
Sefton and Birmingham City Councils when they tried to maintain the previous current position. In
each case the funds were ring fenced for licensing use only. In the case of Birmingham fees were
reduced by some 20% and they now pay £40,000 per annum for a full time Police Officer on
permanent secondment as an aid to enforcement. In Bolton so much was returned to the Section
funds that the Section bought its’ accommodation outright rather than renting it. Claims have often
gone back over seven years which in Sefton MBC’s case amounted to £248,126.

In the event that a Council declines to ring fence trades are now willing to complain (successfully)
to the District Auditor and also to consider issuing proceedings for Judicial Review, citing the 1991
Manchester case as proof of illegality on the part of Councils.

1. ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY NON-RING-FENCED COUNCILS
Many Finance Directors cite the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, S 148 (4) which
states: “ All receipts of a principal Council shall be carried to the appropriate fund, that is to
say ……. The general rate fund in the case of a district council.”

This it is often claimed to justify many Council’s policies but is unlikely to succeed.

2. REBUTTAL OF THIS POSITION
This is not difficult given the following Section 152 provision of the Local Government Act 1972,
which equally clearly states:

“Nothing in Sections 147 to 150 of the Act of 1972 shall be construed as requiring or
authorising a local authority to apply or dispose of the surplus revenue arising from any
undertaking carried on by them OTHERWISE THAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY
ENACTMENT OR INSTRUMENT APPLICABLE TO THE UNDERTAKING.” [My capitalisation]

1



© John Thompson, January 2005

Therefore as the Act of 1976 only authorises the charging of fees “sufficient in whole or in part” to
cover the cost of issuing licences and administering the trades it clearly does not authorise a profit
or surplus to be generated. The Finance-led argument that Section 148(4) of the 1972 Act
authorises the retention of the funds is clearly discredited by Section 152 of the same Act of
1972.

By then turning back to the decision in Manchester City Council [R] v King 󞩷] LGR
696(QBD) it is clear that the High Court has considered this point as far back as 1991 and
decided against the “Non-Ring-Fenced” Councils position!

3. CONCLUSION
In the event that any Council changes its’ stance then possible licensing budget implications are
reduced and from that point onwards anything the trades request will be possible, providing they
accept that their fees may have to go up to pay for it.

The downside is extra enforcement or facilities means licence fees may have to go up. Surpluses
incidentally generated can be ring-fenced and then, with proper trades consultation can be used to
benefit all licensed trades’ members in future years or to reduce fees.

Therefore the licensing scheme will not be a burden on Council Tax payers but will be formally self
financing as the years’ progress.

Mr John Thompson, M. Inst. Lex.

Editor of “The Book” 2004 onwards
5th January 2005

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed in this document are intended as a discussion document only. Any
persons seeking to rely upon the views expressed above are strongly advised to seek independent
legal advice before proceeding

You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > General Issues > General taxi chat > Convoy of cabs protest at proposed licence fee rise

Taxi Insurance Trader
Email Signup

Click Here to signup to our mailing list

 
 
Privacy Statement    |    Terms Of Use e-Byss - ebusiness solutions Copyright 2007 Taxi HyperMarket Ltd
Free Taxi Classifieds Taxi Driver Forums Taxi Magazine Free Taxi Advertising