Borough of Poole – Licensing Committee – 7 April 2010
BOROUGH OF POOLE
LICENSING COMMITTEE
7 APRIL 2010
The Meeting commenced at 7.04 pm and concluded at 9.50 pm
Members Present:
Councillor Mrs Butt – (Chairman)
Councillors Burden and Curtis (Co-Vice Chairmen)
Councillors Brown, Collier, Mrs Evans, Gillard, Maiden, Mason, Matthews and Rampton
Also Present:
Robert Spencer - Treatment Effectiveness and Workforce Development
Co-ordinator, Adult Social Services Commissioning
Katharine Watters - Strategy Directorate
Karen Fry - Passenger Transport Co-ordinator, Transportation Services
Susan Turner - Passenger Transport Co-ordinator, Transportation Services
John McVey - Passenger Transport and Accessibility Manager,
Transportation Services
Frank Wenzel - Principal Licensing Manager, Environmental and Consumer
Protection Services
Michelle Coplestone-Democratic Support Officer, Legal and Democratic Services
Mr D. Lane - Taxi Driver, Ariel Taxi’s
Mr Gibbens - Taxi Driver, Dial-a-Cab Taxi’s
Mr M Gale - Taxi Driver, Independent
Mr K. Diffey - Taxi Driver, Poole Radio Cabs
Mr Dobson - In support of Mr Gale
Members of the public present: 0
L40.10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adams, Montrose, Plummer and Wilkins.
L41.10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No declarations of interest were made.
L42.10 MINUTES
RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Licensing Committee held on 10 February 2010 and the Licensing Sub-Committee held on 2 March 2010, having been previously circulated, be taken as read and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment:
Licensing Committee 10 February 2010
L35.10 – Delete “Apologies for absence ….. and Wilkins” and insert “Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Burden, Rampton and Wilkins.”
L43.10 PROPOSED TAXI FARE INCREASE AND ADOPTION OF A FARES CALCULATION FORMULA
The Committee received a Power Point Presentation (attached as Appendix A) from Karen Fry, Passenger Transport Co-ordinator, Transportation Services, which explained the setting of Maximum Hackney Carriage Fares. The Presentation was accompanied by a report, which asked the Committee to consider the requests received from Poole Taxi Trade for an increase in Maximum Hackney Carriage Fares and to changes in the start time for Tariff 2 (Unsociable Hours). The Committee was also asked to consider the suggestions received from Poole Taxi Trade for a formula to calculate future fare increases.
The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator explained that requests for changes to the maximum Hackney Carriage fares must always originate from the Trade itself. Previously, requests were considered by the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG), however, following discussions with the Portfolio Holder for Delivering Major Projects (including Schools for the Future) and Transportation and the Portfolio Holder for Protecting the Environment, in consultation with the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, it was agreed that these requests were within the terms of reference of the Licensing Committee.
The Committee was advised that a report was produced for the TAG in 2009, which detailed proposals for changes to fares received from the Taxi Trade, however, the Report was withdrawn at the review stage following concerns that there was insufficient evidence to justify the proposed 5% fare increase and other changes to tariffs. To help facilitate the process of calculating a fares increase, the Taxi Trade was requested to adopt a formula for calculating future charges in fares. The Formula could then be applied annually and would allow changes to be readily justified and introduced on an agreed date. The Taxi Trade did not resubmit a formal application and therefore no increase in fares was advertised in 2009.
The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator advised that Transportation Services hadreceived a request from the Taxi Trade in January 2010 that it wished to discuss changes to fares.
A Fares Forum was arranged and representatives of the Taxi Trade were invited to attend. It was noted that despite three meetings taking place no single proposal for a fares increase for 2010 was agreed between the Trade. Transportation Services had subsequently received three different options for fare increases, based on three different Formulas, and two requests for a change in the times for Tariff Two (Unsociable Hours Rate). A summary of the current fares and the proposed increases were attached in Appendix A of the Report and details of the Formula were attached as Appendixes C, D and E of the Report.
The Committee was informed that Hackney Carriage proprietors and Metered Private Hire Operators had been contacted in writing and asked to indicate their support for the three options to increase maximum fares and changes in times for Tariff Two (Unsociable Hours Rate). The results were as follows:
· 65% of Hackney Carriage owners responded, representing 50 out of 78 Hackney Carriage Vehicles.
· 56% of Hackney Carriage owners favoured an increase in fares and preferred Option 3.
· 46% of Hackney Carriage owners were in favour of changes to Tariff Two (Unsociable Hours Rate), with a preference for it to run from 23.00 hours to 06.30 hours.
The 30 Private Hire companies with Metered Vehicles were also contacted in
writing and the responses given were weighted according to the number of vehicles on their circuits. A total of 12 companies responded, representing 165 of the 201 vehicles. The results showed a 60% preference for an increase in fares, with 52% preferring Option 2, 27% for Option 1 and 3% for Option 3.
The Chairman thanked the Passenger Transport Co-ordinator for presenting the Report of the Head of Transportation Services. The Taxi Trade Representatives were then given an opportunity to explain the three Options to the Committee.
The Chairman welcomed Mr Gibbens, representative of Dial-a-Cab Taxi’s, to the Meeting. Mr Gibbens proposed using a “Model Fare” (Option 1) to reflect a more realistic fare than a flat two mile job.
Mr Gibbens summarised the following Key points:
· He did not want to see the initial “flag fare” (also known as the “Pull-off” fee) increase as it would affect the elderly who used taxis a great deal and he did not want customers to be deterred from using taxis.
· He would like to see a fare increase spread across the whole journey.
· Currently, Taxi Drivers were losing 1.6 pence a mile due to the increase in fuel costs.
· Taxi Drivers had to endure “dead” mileage when returning to the rank i.e. a taxi mile would be one mile (to the point of destination) and the running mile would be the return journey (back to the rank) for which no fare was charged.
The Chairman asked the Committee if it had any questions regarding
Option 1?
A Member asked if the fare shown on the meter included the Driver’s return journey? The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator explained that a passenger would only pay for the journey taken and not the return journey.
Mr Gibbens advised that he had covered the cost of the return journey in Option 1. He explained that Options 2 and 3 had increased the flag fare, however, he would like the flag fare to remain the same with an increase to the running rate.
The Chairman summarised that Option 1 was based on retaining the current flag fare and increasing the running rate as a higher flag fare could deter customers. The Chairman noted that the running mile did not reflect petrol prices.
The Chairman welcomed Mr Diffey, representative of Poole Radio Cabs, to the Meeting. Mr Diffey had proposed backing the Retail Price Index (RPI) rise (Option 2) and proposed using the same Formula as Bournemouth Borough Council but with a 20% discount on the flag fare. This would increase the price of very short fares by 20 pence.
Mr Diffey summarised the following Key points:
· Poole Radio Cabs offered a 10% discount on its fares to blue card holders and holders of a hospital card, therefore, Option 2 should not adversely affect elderly customers.
· Option 2 would produce a small rise in line with the RPI and could be used for future calculations. This would provide Poole Taxi’s with a competitive edge over Bournemouth Taxis, which were competing with Poole for trade.
Note: Councillors Burden and Gillard declared a personal interest at this stage as they both held a bus pass.
In response to questions Mr Diffey confirmed that Poole Radio Cabs competed against Bournemouth Taxis, however, bookings were received by telephone and Poole Radio Cabs did not ply for hire in Bournemouth. He added that Hospital Transport Provision did not affect Option 2 as Poole Radio Cabs set different fares with regard to Hospital Transport. He pointed out that other drivers had recommended a flag fare of £5.00 to cover the fact that they often had to wait at the rank for jobs.
The Passport Transport and Accessibility Manager explained that Mr Diffey was recommending that Poole Taxis adopt the same Formula used by Bournemouth Taxi’s as Taxi Drivers covered variable distances. It was important to meet the needs of all drivers and the Formula used by Bournemouth ought to be considered by the Committee.
The Chairman welcomed Mr Gale, Independent Taxi Driver, to the Meeting. Mr Gale explained that he had put forward Option 3 and that Mr Dobson had carried out the calculations as shown in Appendix E of the Report.
Mr Gale summarised the following key points:
· The flag fare for Poole Taxi’s had been the same for sometime at £2.00.
· Short distance journeys were causing drivers difficulties, as customers driving longer distances received a higher fare. The Committee was informed that it would cost approximately £2.60 at present to travel from Poole Bus Station to Poole Hospital, however, the fare used to be £2.80. The fare had decreased due to an increase in the running mileage. Mr Gale explained that unless the flag fare was increased, short journeys would not see an increase in fares.
· An increase in the flag fare would not deter customers as Poole was still 71 pence below the average flag fare in the South.
· Bournemouth’s flag fare was now £2.60 and Mr Gale explained that his proposed Formula worked out the same as Bournemouth’s. He added that drivers made more profit by travelling long distances and that customers ought to be encouraged to travel further by taxi.
The Chairman summarised that short journeys were causing a problem as
drivers did not get the yardage required to pick up a decent fare and that Poole was behind the South’s national average for the flag fare. The Chairman also noted that Mr Gale would agree to using the Formula used by Bournemouth as it would assist drivers by dictating any future increases and prevent future difficulties when asking the Licensing Committee to consider a request for an increase in maximum Hackney Carriage fares.
The Chairman confirmed that the Taxi Trade had been through a Fares Forum and that no single option for a fares increase for 2010 had been reached. The Taxi Trade Representatives confirmed that this was the case.
The Chairman thanked the Taxi Trade for its representations and advised that a broad spectrum of options had been put to the Committee for consideration.
The Chairman advised that the Borough of Poole required a robust Taxi Trade which worked well together. The Taxi Trade Representatives were asked if they would consider returning to the Committee with a single option for a fare increase that was endorsed by all? Mr Gibbens, Dial-a-Cab Taxi’s, explained that this was not an option.
A Member advised that the Committee had only heard details of one example journey (Poole Bus Station to Poole Hospital), however, the impact of this journey could not be related to all Taxi Users. The Committee felt that it was necessary to see the impact on all Taxi Users as it was vital to ensure that a Formula was put in place that was fair to both Taxi Drivers and Taxi Users in Poole.
In response to questions raised by the Committee, the following points were clarified:
· The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator confirmed that the Council could not set taxi fares for Private Hire Vehicles. Private Hire Vehicles would provide customers with a telephone quote, which left the customer to choose which taxi firm to use (market forces).
· Mr Gibbens, Dial-a-Cab Taxis, explained that the fares were calculated in yards as opposed to miles, as the taxi meter moved in increments of 20 pence. The Passenger Transport and Accessibility Manager added that “yardage” was stated in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 which covered Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles.
· The Passenger Transport Co-ordinator referred to Appendix B of the Report and explained that the percentage of drivers listed related to the following:
- 65% of Hackney Carriage owners responded to the consultation regarding the proposed increase in fares out of 78 individuals, which equated to approximately 50 responders.
A discussion ensued and the following points were raised by the Committee:
· The consideration of an increase in taxi fares was very complex and if the Committee agreed any one of the three options presented the remaining parties would be disadvantaged.
· It was unfair that one driver could get a short journey when the next driver could get a long journey. It was understood that was the nature of the taxi business, however, nobody wanted to see drivers unhappy at having to drive a short distance.