Agenda item

The Licensing Committee received a report on the Hackney carriage and private hire licensing annual review. Prior to service alignment and the implementation of the Council’s new Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, the Licensing Service committed to providing reports to the Licensing Committee, which related to service delivery and policy impact. In June 2022, the Committee received the first enforcement update report. This was the first annual report, focusing on the period 6 September 2021, the date of policy implementation, through to 30 September 2022.

The report provided an overview of application outcomes, an update on enforcement activity, key changes to service provision and improvements in service delivery, legislative changes and other matters considered to be of relevance or interest to the Committee such as communication with the trade, updates on safeguard training and English language assessments.

With regard to English language assessments, it was noted that paragraph 2.39 of the report should have stated that during the reporting period, 223 new drivers and 109 existing drivers were registered to take the test. However, they did not all take the test. Out of the 262 tests which were conducted in that same period, 174 tests were passes and 88 were fails which resulted in a pass rate of around 66%.  However, as 60 drivers took more than one test, the pass rate was actually closer to 86%.

The report also contained an overview of hackney carriage and private hire related matters on the horizon, which were likely to impact the service and the trade over the coming year. Financial considerations such as income, expenditure and other budgetary matters had been excluded from the report. A separate report had been prepared for consideration by the Licensing Committee and this information would form the basis for licence fee review.

As the first report of this nature, the Licensing Service welcomed feedback from the Committee on its content and suggestions for any appropriate amendments.

Members were invited to ask questions of officers.  In response to a question regarding how many active taxi driver licences there were, officers advised that there were just under 2,500 active taxi driver licences.  Following a question about DBS checks, it was confirmed that DBS checks had successfully been outsourced to a third party supplier called Taxi Plus and that the documents required for uploading were the same as an in-person DBS application. It was noted that whilst the DBS checks had been outsourced, Licensing Officers were doing identity verification checks on drivers when they come to the Council officers to collect their badge.  

In relation to communication with the trade, a Member raised a concern that some of the trade were having an issue with the telephones not being answered in a timely manner and that the advice they were being given was sometimes hard for them to understand. The Member enquired whether a hotline they could contact would be helpful.  In response, officers explained that the Licensing Service had been working hard to improve communication with the trade.   There was a dedicated taxi licensing administration team embedded within the service which dealt with calls into the service and managed emails. The back office system also allowed messaging backwards and forwards through the application process.  The outsourcing of DBS checks had enabled the service to reallocate some more resources to cover the telephones. In January the average wait times were about 3 minutes for a call to get through to the team, which was an improvement as prior to this the average time was 8 minutes.  The Service was working to reduce the number of unnecessary calls by encouraging applicants, who had submitted valid information, to not call to check on the status of their application unless they had not heard from the Service within a given timeframe.  This way the telephones could be freed up for those that require help with their application.  

The Licensing Service had also improved communication with the trade by setting up a new Taxi Working Group, involving trade representatives from the hackney carriage and private hire trade, council officers, and other organisations such as disability user groups and the police. The group met approximately every quarter and discussed a wide range of trade related issues, with a focus on working collaboratively to address those issues. The Service also published a regular electronic newsletter which was distributed via text and email, where possible, to all licence holders. The newsletter contained key points of interest such as pending changes to service delivery, legal changes, trade advice and other items of interest. Furthermore, licence holders were sent regular automatic reminders in advance of their licence expiry date to help them prepare for their pending renewal application.

A Member stressed the importance of ensuring that passengers with mobility issues could use the front seat of taxis when needed.  Officers explained that all drivers and operators were required to attend safeguarding and disability awareness training and that the Service worked closely with the training provider to ensure that any feedback received from passengers could be incorporated into the training.  Drivers and operators were kept up to date with any changes in legislation via the newsletter, electronic messages and the website. One of the categories on the Council’s website, which passengers could select when making a complaint about a taxi or private hire driver or vehicle, was discrimination. 

In response to a question regarding rejected applications and whether there was a charge for these, officers advised that there was not a charge for rejected applications.  A Member commented that the Council should be able to charge an administration fee for those applications which were repeatedly rejected. Officers explained that the Service was working to reduce the number of rejected applications, for example, by contacting applicants who were having problems with their application and offering them advice.  The Service was also considering running clinics for larger operators which have staff in their operating offices/bases who were struggling to submit valid applications. A question was asked as to whether similar to pre planning advice, applicants could pay an accelerated fee in return for advice and help in completing the application.  In response, officers agreed to look into this further and whether it would comply with legal requirements and would report back to the Committee.   

With regard to appeals, a question was asked as to why the Magistrates had allowed an appeal against the Council’s decision to revoke a driver’s licence who had been stopped by police driving at 100mph in a 70mph zone with passengers onboard.   In response, the Committee were advised that an appeal before the Magistrates court was a rehearing and therefore the evidence put before the Magistrates court could include new items. In this particular case, the appellant stated that there was a mechanical fault with the speedometer and produced an invoice in relation to repairs for the vehicle which had not been available when the Council’s decision was made. The Magistrates hearing the matter afresh accepted the driver’s evidence and allowed the appeal.

The Committee welcomed the detailed and informative report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.