Minutes of Brighton & Hove

Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Consultation Forum

Held on 04 April 2012

Present;

(TN) T Nichols BHCC (Chair)

(JC) J Cranford BHCC

(MS) M Seymour BHCC

(BM) B McMenamin BHCC (Minutes)

(DrP) S Perry Council Medical Adviser

(AH) Austen Hunter BHCC (Transport Operations)

(PN) Paul Nichols BHCC (Parking Enforcement)

(JE) Jeff Elliott BHCC (Highway Services)

(AR) A Renaut BHCC (Transport Planning)

(MD) M Durell B & H PHA

(JdF) J DeFalco B & H PHA

(HA) H Abadeer STF

(KA) K Alsaadi ATA

(MA) M Albayyouk ATA

(DB) D Bayram Fares

(ML) M Little Independent

(JV) J Verguson NPTTU

(JO) J Oram Unite the Union

(JH) J Howell B & H Streamline

(TT) Tony Turner B & H Radio Cabs

(AC) A Cheesman City Cabs

(JS) J Smith GMB

(MH) M Hildreth GMB

Apologies; Peter Castleton, John Streeter,

Item / Minute / Action
Introductions were made
1 / Minutes from last meeting
Agreed.
2 / Medicals – Dr Sarah Perry
TN introduced Dr Perry to the forum. DrP attended to put forward a proposal in response to concerns about delays in processing medicals.
DrP outlined her proposal to streamline the medical referral process by offering to see drivers herself, eliminating the need for them to see their own GP and reducing the number of people involved in the process.
Concerns were raised over cover for the service when DrP was away or unwell. DrP confirmed there would be no cover, as it is now. TT asked whether, in DrP’s unexpected absence or illness, the HCO would extend licences. MS answered that they may not have extension – unexpected absence would be rare. JV asked if a driver would be able to appeal DrP’s decision about their fitness. MS confirmed that the appeal would need to be made against the refusal of the licence.
In response to questions regarding the necessity of DrP’s involvement above a consultant, DrP explained that few consultants will take the responsibility of deeming a patient fit to hold a taxi licence. She assumes that responsibility.
ML asked whether DrP would have access to driver medical records. DrP advised that she would request that the drivers bring a printout with them as she would only have her own files. Research suggests that most GPs will provide this free of charge. TT asked how much the drivers would be charged. DrP advised that the amount charged per medical would be £115, a figure based on the average of approx 20 GPs canvassed by DrP.
JS asked if the service was going to be put out to tender. TN explained that DrP was contracted following that process.
DB asked for the reminder letter to be sent out 3 months earlier to give them more time to get medical sorted prior to expiry to reduce delays. MS answered that it was rare to fail medical. Adequate time is already given and drivers should prepare better to reduce delays.
MH asked how many drivers a year are suspended through medical failures. TN answered approximately 8 a year. General forum concensus was that it might not be beneficial and that further conversations would need to take place. MH advised that the GMB may not be able to back it due to cost when current delays due to failure only affect a few drivers a year. He suggested that it go to ballot as was serious issue for drivers.
MD showed support for Dr Perry’s proposal.
TN acknowledged the great job DrP has done thus far and her attempts to respond to the problems raised. He requested that the forum acknowledge that the council is trying hard to respond to concerns. TN reminded the forum that the neutrality of medical adviser was essential. GPs and consultants consider the best interests of the patient whilst the Council must consider the best interests of the public. TN advised that this was only a proposal at this stage. The forum will need to feed back to their members and come to a decision. There will be no dual option. Either the system continues as it is or DrP conducts all medicals
ML asked whether DrP would test for conditions like diabetes or would only be taking it from records. DrP advised that she would only go through medical form and would not be looking to diagnose anything new, merely check what is already apparent.
The forum thanked DrP for attending.
3 /

Parking Enforcement – Paul Nichols

PN advised that parking enforcement has not been working well in certain areas and so a new project is being launched by which penalty notices will be issued by post, using CCTV. The roads focussed on will be Western Road, North Street, Lewes Road and London Road. Being monitored will be vehicles parking in bus stop; where there’s a loading bay; pedesrtrian crossing; parked on ranks; parked in disabled bays and school areas. Where this is seen, officers will watch for 30 seconds then issue parking ticket. Not interested in double yellows only the markings mentioned above. CCTV will only be monitored from 8am to 6pm at peak times.There are no resources to go beyond that time.
Officers are fully aware of taxi responsibilities. If they see mobility issues with passengers, they will allow as long as it takes to get passenger in or out. Normal vehicles will be moved on when seen by officers on the road. Taxi drivers will be given 2 minutes under normal circumstances before a ticket is issued.
MD asked when will this project commence. PN advised that it would commence in 2-3 weeks from the date of the forum. MD also made PN aware that PH drivers were being moved on despite being parked safely (though wrongly) and that it was making it impossible for PHs to do their jobs. AH advised that they were not aware of any such instruction and that they will take these comments to enforcement contractor and bring them to the next forum.
JO expressed concern regarding stopping on bus stops. He pointed out that major stores such as Marks and Spencer are in front of bus stop and it takes in excess of a couple of minutes to load disabled passengers. PN confirmed that if they have to park on bus stop for this reason, the people watching the CCTV will recognise the needs of the disabled passenger and won’t take action. If nobody comes back to the vehicle within a few minutes and it’s obvious that the driver is not helping such a passenger, a ticket will be issued and appeal should be made. They are focussing on private vehicles mainly. Any problems should be reported to them, but via TN.
JS said that it sometimes takes customers more than 2 minutes to come out of where they are, with or without disability, and asked what is expected of drivers in that position. PN advised that this should only affects small times of the day when it’s in everybody’s interest to monitor and issue tickets. Any drivers who feel that the ticket has been issued wrongly can appeal.
TT recalled a transport meeting a few weeks prior with AR and he was not sure whether taxis could stop on Lewes Road. PN advised that if it’s a loading bay then no vehicles can stop in morning and evening rush hour, except to drop off and pick up and leave immediately.
AC queried the conflict that drivers have over waiting times. They are expected to wait for 5 minutes by the Federation, which far exceeds the time allowed by parking enforcement. JE agreed that this may be a problem. PN will monitor this regularly and assess how many cases they get for appeal. This project is just starting and so it is not known whether there will be a large negative impact.
The forum asked why taxi drivers were not included or consulted about this project. AH advised that CCTV was part of cabinet report which was public so whilst they haven’t consulted directly, there was opportunity to react
AR confirmed that the consultation was still ongoing. Apologies were offered to the forum from the Council for this oversight and were assured that they would be included from this point onwards and were encouraged to get involved.
MH stated that if policy is changed, there is a duty to consult. PN stated that the project was not tackling new policies and were amendments to interpretations of existing rules so there were no changes that required consultation.
PN pointed out that the trade often come to their meetings. TN apologised for oversight and notified the forum of the existence of a design brief for Valley Gardens. Reps will be needed from the forum for this.
TT thanked PN and AH for attending and asked for the forum to continue to be invited to their meetings.
4 /

Traffic Management – Jeff Elliott

Responding to concerns about consultation JE advised that he has spoken to the team doing TROs and he will ensure that these will always be passed on to the trade.
There has been a protest made by the bus company in relation to North Street. Buses were not using North Street at the time of the forum as repairs were needed to the road and the deadline was missed for these to be completed.Testing was being done and holes were to be fixed with works due to take approximately one week. JE anticipates full reinstatement of the road for middle of June but this is not finalised.
Works are going on outside IBIS on Queens Road. Further consultation willl take place mid-April/early May. The trade were encouraged to participate.
An initial fact finding workshop from people who use Valley Gardens will be taking place and a design brief will then be produced with ideas to be worked up for consultation. This item could be put on forum agenda if trade representation is not sufficient at the transport forum.
TT advised of a positive change in relation to the Stadium. He stated that a rank and drop-off point had been allocated with steward support to be given. AC corrected this information and advised that the space allocated is not a rank. This is going to be a casual space for taxis to pick up and drop off. It would be illegal to rank up as it’s private land. It will be mixed borough for use. For 90 mins before each match, and taxis cannot go near concourse for 40 mins after match. The space is enough for approx 8 vehicles only. TT confirmed that anyone not complying will be banned from the land. AR suggested that there will be a settling in period and that liaisons should be made with the stadium during this time. It should be noted that the concourse is directly adjacent and surround the stadium. It is not the tear drops.
AR advised that planning hearing for the stadium will be held on 25 April and information will be available on the Council’s website through the register.
JO pointed out that a big area by academy intended to be a carpark belongs to City Council. What about rank space on this?
AR responded that there was never a plan for ranks. A taxi/ drop off facilitiy is what it was called in legal agreement with 5 spaces. The parking land is under railway and has planning application for 684 spaces for events at the stadium and is different areas. They can accept objections up until the day of decision lodged with case officer.
The forum’s attention was drawn to the recent case of Page vs Gateshead – in that any Hackney there that didn’t have booking outside their area would have invalidated insurance. So any non-Lewes Hackney that sits there and takes without a booking will have invalid insurance.
AC expressed concern at fragmented nature of the forum and suggested that one person should rep for the forum with everyone in agreement.
JS mentioned the cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road and asked why the road had been closed at bottom, forcing traffic through the dials, with no consultation. AR confirmed that there was consultation but there were stops and starts. He is happy to hear comments and JE can respond to any feedback.
JE advised that the rank outside the Grand Hotel will lose a little space on the end between 16th and 20th April due to security barriers erected.
5 /

Fares – Dervish Bayram

This has been looked at for the last four months. A vote as to whether to proceed showed 3 members abstaining and all else in agreement. A meeting is to be set up with the Council to put forward proposal in the forthcoming 4-5 weeks. JC to contact DB with dates and the meeting will require a chair, JC, TN and a finance officer.
6. / Enforcement –
The HCO has moved to a new system for issuing licences. Although this should make the process more streamlined, there will be some delays whilst officers are being trained and are getting used to new system. Appointment times may be longer and the HCO apologises for any inconvenience to drivers in advance.
Over-ranking has become a matter for concern recently. The police, residents of the city and taxi drivers themselves have expressed concerns, particularly outside Madame Geishas, The Mash Tun and on the seafront. TN pointed out that if this problem does not improve, the council may need to look at prosecuting.
JO advised that times are hard and that whilst they discourage it, there simply is not enough rank space. AC expressed support for council enforcement action. TN reminded the trade that they had asked the council to intervene and that this what they will do.
Halcrow have been invited for consultation with regards to an Unmet Demand Survey, which will take place some time this year.
There has been a large interest from some members of the public who wish to licence pedicabs.
A driver has had his licence revoked after being convicted of drunk driving. Another driver has also had his licence revoked after being convicted and imprisoned for ABH. Another driver’s application has been refused after an officer suspected that his medical was not completed by a GP.
Tank man falls under psv licence not HCO.
JO asked MS to check whether HC477 was wheelchair accessible or not. MS advised would check and report back to JO.
JV asked what a driver’s options were if they could not afford to put on a wheelchair accessible vehicle. MS advised that they could appeal the refusal of a licence or surrender the plate to the council.