Scottish Taxi Federation News February 2012.
Dear Member,
It seems like only a few weeks since I last wrote to members but in fact it has been around 4 months, which is indicative of how quickly time is passing these days. I hope that you were fortunate enough to have had a busy and prosperous festive period as unfortunately it seems that difficult times may well be with us for some time to come. Now for an update in news as it has and is affecting our members since the last letter.
East Kilbride:
Our EK members lost much of their school contract work to a group of PH operators who undercut prices to an extent they were unable to compete with. They took this up with South Lanarkshire Council objecting on various grounds and in particularly on the basis that the group concerned did not hold a booking office licence. They were confident they were on solid ground and that their objection would be upheld. The Council in their response pointed out that a booking office licence was only necessary, when there were 3 or more licensed taxis/ph cars in a group who were providing services to the general public. Their view was that providing services to private contractors, such as councils was outside the scope of requirement of a booking office licence.
On behalf of our member I took this up with the Justice Secretary who took some time to respond but when he did, it was to advise that (a) the Government could not interfere with decisions taken by local authorities and (b) the Council were correct in their interpretation of the booking office regulations. They also thanked us for bringing this matter to their attention.
So, it seems that for every legitimate business that works within the framework of the various regulations, there is one that spots loop holes and assisted by some Licensing authorities, who put price above all else, the legit organisations are likely to end up on the losing side. This loophole in the booking office regulations makes a complete nonsense of the Governments assertions that it is their intention to rid the taxi/ph industries of the individuals the regulation was supposed to help control.
Edinburgh:
For as long as I can remember, ECC have been considered by the trade to be among the most progressive in the country. However, in more recent times this has changed quite considerably. It now seems that every request by the private hire car business is being granted on the basis that there may be a court challenge if the application is refused. In the last 12 months or so the Council have agreed that private hire cars fitted with a meter can decide their own tariff, provided it is less than that agreed for taxis set by the council under sections 17 and 18 of the ’82 Act.
They have also agreed to a request for additional advertising on rear doors of ph cars on the grounds that the information displayed,will serve to assist the public in making the distinction between taxis that can be hired without advance booking and ph vehicles which must be booked in advance. The reality as we know to our cost is that individual private hire operators and drivers, will likely use the additional advertising to raise their profile and act illegally as taxis.
In addition to this piece of non-joined up thinking, they have also granted permission for a two-door smart car to be licensed as a ph car. In granting this application the Council were advised in the official report, to simply ignore existing licences conditions which determine that only four door vehicles can be licensed as private hire cars. We question the undue haste with which this and the advertising decisions were taken and why there was no consultation process. It seems that the basis for the decision is that the application is considered by the Council to be innovative. What appears not to have been taken into account, is that in licensing a two-door vehicle there is an increased risk to public safety in that there may be greater risk of passengers being trapped in the event of a RTA.
These decisions by ECC appear to have been granted by utilising delegated powers. This is power given by the Council to such as licensing solicitors to enable them take decisions on the Council’s behalf without the necessity of referring the matter to an appropriate committee. One wonders if that is what caused the tram debacle.
Stirling:
Our members in Stirling are being blighted by the increasing boldness of private hire cars, who knowing there is little chance of there being any sort of enforcement in place, feel free to act openly as taxis. The reaction from the police is predictable. For example; while several taxis sitting in a line are considered to be creating an illegal stance and are either moved on or threatened with being booked, meanwhile private hire cars doing the same are not. It seems no attempt is made to establish if the privates are there for advance bookings or whether they are simply chancing their arm.
There is another difficulty in that it seems that police officers to-day are given no training in licensing matters. This appears to be confirmed by Central Scotland Police, who in recent a letter advise that; commencing January 2012, Stirling sub area officers will receive licensing awareness training including current taxi issues and the reporting of offences. This could be viewed as progress, which will hopefully assist with the overall problem.
Trade magazines:
I noticed an article in a recent trade magazine, which referred to the law commission for England and Wales and the work they are carrying out to modernise taxi legislation. It seems during the consultation process it was revealed they were leaning toward a one-tier system of licensing, IE scrapping private hire and having taxis only. Thankfully the trade were for once united and unanimously opposed to such a move. We will need to keep a watchful eye on this in Scotland in case the powers that be decide to mimic what goes on down south.
Non-payers:
Another article discussed the growing and widespread problem of non-payment of taxi fares. Members will recall we have discussed this subject both in newsletters and at General meetings. The main difficulty faced by drivers who in taking non-paying passengers to the nearest police station may find themselves not only not being assisted but could, if the passenger complains, end up being cautioned for abduction.
The advice we previously issued still holds good. If you or your members/ drivers find you have the need to take non-paying passengers to the police, then please remember, “it was because the driver had good reason to believe that a crime was about to be committed”, IE the common law crime of fraud. If the passenger has no money then the police could charge them with such an offence. If on the other hand they have the means to pay but are refusing because of a grievance, then it is likely the police may not be so keen to help out.
Seat Belts:
The police have again been active in one of our regions by issuing a fixed penalty ticket to a taxi driver for failing to wear a set belt. The problem here is that the seat belt law, in terms of how the law applies to taxi drivers, is more than just a little confusing. The DFT web site states that taxi drivers don’t require to wear a belt if they are plying for hire or have passengers on board. This suggests that since you can’t ply for hire in another area, or you don’t have passengers on board seat belts should be fastened.
To get to the bottom of what is right or wrong, I intend to get an updated copy of the seat belt law as it affects licensed taxi drivers and then advise members appropriately. In the mean time the best advice we can give is if in doubt fasten the belts.
Dundee:
In order that this particular issue is not dismissed as simply a Xmas card version let me close on a happier note. Our members in Dundee report that they are at last being listened to by their local Council in that it seems likely that their present mixed fleet of vehicles is set to continue and not only that they are on the brink of turning things around by have the numbers cap re-instated. Up wae the bunnets!
Finally:
We will shortly be having a meeting with SG officials to discuss various aspects of the ’82 Act.
Bill McIntosh
General Secretary.
4