Agenda item

This report presents a request made by one Hackney Carriage driver and supported by a further 9 drivers within Melton to an increase in the tariff charges. Following the prescribed process, a 14-day consultation period took place which attracted responses from 4 drivers and no members of the public.

The Taxi Fare Review was presented to the Committee. In introducing the report, the Regulatory Services Manager outlined to Members the addendum which was as a result of a late representation. The Committee was informed that the representation had raised concerns regarding the methodology used in calculating the fare increase and that the addendum highlights the new proposal resulting from the concern raised.

A query was raised regarding the specifics of the tariff charges; however Members were informed that the process involves taxi drivers proposing tariff charges with the role of the Committee considering the proposed tariff charges.

Following a question on why some tariffs had vastly different waiting times, it was confirmed that each tariff relates to a different scenario depending on the time of day, number of passengers or whether it is a bank holiday. In referencing tariff 5, the Regulatory Services Manager stated that this particular tariff is a response to a problem that had been identified by taxi drivers during consultation.

In response to the question on whether the late proposal was proposed by someone who could have responded to the original consultation, it was confirmed that each taxi driver had an opportunity to respond to the original consultation and that the late proposal was proposed by someone who had the opportunity to respond at an earlier stage. The Committee was informed that the proposal was received a day after the Committee papers were published. In those papers, the formula that had been used to calculate the tariff fares was also published, whereas it had not been for the original consultation as there is no requirement to do so, and that the proposer stated that if they had sight of the formula beforehand then their contribution to the consultation would have been different.

A query was raised regarding how and when the fuel prices were calculated, however in response the Committee was informed that Officers had used RAC calculations in order to calculate the fuel prices to be used within the formula for the calculation of tariff fares.

A Member commented that the original proposal should be considered first as it had already been through the consultation process. However, although fellow Committee Members were sympathetic to that position, it was agreed that the late proposal was as a result of information that the proposer was not aware of at the time of the original consultation. A comment was also made that the fares not only need to be at a level where taxi drivers can make a living wage, but that they need to be at a level that drivers have enough income to replace their vehicles, if required.

It was noted that if the Committee accepted the revised proposal, then the Council would have to go out to consultation for a second time. Despite this, Members expressed support for the revised proposal and recognised that it had been a number of years since the last increase and that to support taxi drivers within the town then an increase is required.

RESOLVED

1.       The Committee accepted the alternative proposal as valid and approved further consultation based on the new proposed fee amounts and therefore agreed, in principle, that the fare table be varied.

2.       The Committee agreed that authority be delegated to the Regulatory Services Manager, in consultation with the Chair of the Licensing Committee, to resolve any objections received before deciding to implement the new fee table.