Meeting documents

To Consider the report attached.

Contact Officer: 01296 585083

The Council’s current policy on taxi and private hire had been last reviewed in 2010. Over the years it had been subject to various specific changes resulting from decisions made by Licensing Committee often arising from a change of law and practice or a specific request. Examples included changes to advertising on vehicles, the introduction of the penalty point system for enforcement and more recently an updated policy on criminal behaviour and unacceptable behaviour.

In recent years the Council has undergone a number of significant changes particularly in respect to the introduction of new technology. This had in turn been reflected in the administration of licences. In this respect alone the Council’s policy required updating. The taxi licensing team had also implemented changes, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Committee without formally updating the policy. For example, arrangements in relation to medicals and driver competency.

All operators were contacted and informed of the Council’s intention to undertake a review. They were advised that this was an opportunity to revisit some of the standards and conditions imposed by our current policy and to take a view as to whether some should be relaxed and others tightened. Although views on any aspect of the Council’s policy would be welcomed, they were specifically sign posted on the following.

• Existing vehicle conditions, age limits, types of vehicle and signage;

• Operator licences;

• Driver application process, including medicals, knowledge test and English language tests; and

• Enforcement, including penalty points system and policy on criminal conduct.

Following consultation with the trade, 25 responses were received and these were attached as an appendix to the report. It was noted that many of the comments were irrelevant in the context of shaping policy and either criticise or praise the current service. However, some comments were perhaps worthy of further consideration. Examples being a re-consideration of the current rules on age limits, rules relating to licensed operators, English language testing and the design of hackney carriages.

It was also noted that a number of drivers staged a spontaneous protest on 3 June 2016 arising from a joint police and licensing enforcement initiative. With the help of a small number of key operators the protest was short lived and uneventful. However they were once again asked to put their various grievances in writing. Also attached as an appendix to the report was a letter from the Private Hire Association.

In 2012 the Law Commission published a draft Taxi and Private Hire Bill and Members contributed during the consultation. Unfortunately this piece of much needed work to provide National standards and conditions never reached fruition. However, at that time the scourge of child sexual exploitation had not been revealed to the extent that it now occupied policy making and regulatory decisions. It was speculated that if a new bill were to be published it would not merely attempt to update historic legislation but focus on a whole range of different priorities.

During 2015 the Casey Report had been published criticising Rotherham Borough Council’s corporate failure to protect young and vulnerable people. In response AVDC’s licensing service carried out a thorough review of its own procedures and policies and found them to be significantly superior to arrangements in Rotherham at that time.

As recently as May 2016 Mary Ney, Commissioner of Rotherham Borough Council produced an update for the Local Government Chronicle and this was also attached as an appendix to the report. In respect to her comments relating to the ‘fit and proper’ test, AVDC already met the more stringent arrangements only recently introduced by Rotherham and relationships and intelligence sharing with partners is enviable by neighbouring authorities.

However Rotherham had introduced additional initiatives. Examples were BTEC certificate training, safeguarding training, insisting that drivers subscribe to the Disclosure and Barring Service online update service which notified the Council of any changes to criminal records and perhaps more controversially the installation of cameras in taxis.

From the comments received from the trade to date, it was suspected that any additional burdens placed on them would not be received well. The Council’s licensing services had always endeavoured to work with the trade whilst not compromising public safety. At this stage Members were not asked to make any specific decisions but provide a general steer as to what should form part of the Council’s revised policy. A new draft would be drawn up and brought back to Licensing Committee in September 2016.

Members welcomed the opportunity to comment on the replies received following consultation with the trade and the other documents attached to the report.

The idea of having CCTV in all Hackney Carriages and private hire cars was welcomed in principle; however Members acknowledged that not all drivers would welcome it. Members also queried how footage would be monitored, how long it could be kept for and how much benefit it would give to drivers and passengers. Before any decision could be made regarding CCTV, officers were asked to investigate further and report back at a later date.

With regards to the age of vehicles, although Members acknowledged that there were many older executive type vehicles on the market that could be used as private hire vehicles  they had concerns about the amount of mileage a vehicle clocked up in a year and the eventual wear and tear to a vehicle. Although lease hire vehicles were

an option for drivers this had been looked into and could prove problematic for drivers. It was acknowledged that passenger safety was paramount.

Members were also concerned that a number of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles were already starting to deteriorate and needed replacing in the near future.

Members also referred to the responses regarding medicals. Suggestions in the responses to the consultation included less medicals for those under 45 years of age or for medicals to match those of bus drivers. Officers reported that because of issues in the past when drivers would go to their own GP for a medical, the Council had recently agreed that drivers can go to any GP as long as they are registered with a practice.               

Unfortunately, due to one company operating a low fixed price system some years ago, many other drivers and operators had had to lower their fares in order to compete. The public now expected the low charges and many drivers were finding it hard to make a living. The Council had no control over fares charged by private hire vehicles only those of Hackney Carriages. Any overcharging by Hackney Carriages was dealt with by enforcement.

There was concern that the penalty points system had in some cases been too vigorous, with drivers incurring penalty points for quite minor "offences" such as damage to a vehicle caused by a customer. However, there was a right of appeal and in a number of cases the Licensing Manager had removed the penalty points. The system would be reviewed in due course.

A number of respondents to the consultation had complained about the length of time it took to get through on the phone to officers. This had been reviewed and calls would in future go direct to the Licensing team. The team would also be increasing its number of staff.

Members felt that although there were very good sat-nav. and smart phone systems in place, all drivers should undergo some form of knowledge test and English language test.

It was also felt that all drivers should be made aware of Safeguarding issues and undergo some form of training. Bucks County Council had introduced training for their drivers. However, officers would need to investigate types of training and report back on this.

RESOLVED –

That Members noted the report and the comments made by the trade, the policy developments recently introduced by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and agreed the changes identified above to be included in a future policy for Aylesbury Vale District Council.