North Yorkshire Council
Executive
07 May 2024
Review of Maximum Hackney Carriage
Fares
Report of the Assistant Director
– Assistant Director for Integrated Passenger Transport,
Licensing, Public Rights of Way and Harbours
1.0 PURPOSE
OF REPORT
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to consider a proposal to vary the
Council’s Hackney Carriage Table of Fares.
2.0
BACKGROUND
2.1 In
accordance with section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1976, the Council may fix the maximum rates of
fares to be paid in respect of the hire of hackney carriages within
North Yorkshire by means of a table (hereafter referred to as a
“table of fares”). The table of fares may comprise
charges for time, distance and all other charges in connection with
the hire of a hackney carriage vehicle.
2.2 A
hackney carriage vehicle can be hailed by passengers on the
roadside, it can stand on a rank to await the approach of
passengers and it can be pre-booked by telephone. In contrast,
private hire vehicles are licensed to perform pre-booked work only,
which must be obtained through a licensed private hire operator.
The Council’s table of fares applies only to hackney carriage
vehicles. The Council has no power to set maximum fares in respect
of private hire vehicles.
2.3 The
current table of fares came into effect in April 2023 following
consultation and consideration by the Executive. The current table
of fares is attached at Appendix A. It should be noted that drivers
may agree to charge a lower amount than the maximum fares at their
own discretion.
2.4 Any
proposed variation to the table of fares must be advertised at the
Council offices and by way of a notice in a local newspaper stating
a period (not less than 14 days from the date of publication)
within which interested parties may lodge objections. Where there
are no outstanding objections, the proposed table of fares shall
come into effect upon the expiration of the period specified in the
notice. If objections are received, the Council shall set a further
date (not later than two months from the first specified date), at
which time the table of fares shall come into force with or without
modifications as determined by the Council after consideration of
the objections.
2.5 Members
are therefore asked to approve the publication of statutory notices
proposing a variation to the table of fares as outlined in this
report, subject to further consideration in the event of any
objections being lodged.
3.0
CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN AND RESPONSES
3.1 On
receipt of two requests from the hackney carriage trade to review
the table of fares, the existing table of fares was compared
against the maximum daytime, night-time and public holiday rates
set by neighbouring authorities. The comparison charts are attached
at Appendix B.
3.2 The
comparison charts were sent to all drivers, proprietors and
operators in the week commencing 26 February 2024 along with an
invitation to provide comments on any potential fare
increase.
3.3 A total
of 17 responses were received from the trade, summarised as
follows:
Daytime rates (tariff
1)
·
There was a general consensus that
the flag fall rate (£4 for the first 440 yards) should not be
increased.
·
Some respondents indicated that the
current running mile (20p for each 167.2 yards) and waiting time
rates (20p for every 37.36 seconds) should not be increased while
others requested an increase of around 5%.
Night-time rates (tariff
2)
·
There was a general consensus that
the flag fall rate (£6 for the first 440 yards) should not be
increased although some indicated that this was already too
high.
·
Some respondents indicated that the
current running mile (30p for each 167.2 yards) and waiting time
rates (30p for every 37.36 seconds) were also too high while others
requested an increase of around 5%.
·
Some respondents indicated that
tariff 2 should apply from 10pm (11pm currently) and one indicated
that it should apply until 7am (6am currently).
Christmas and New Year rates
(tariff 3)
·
Aside from requests to either
reduce, freeze or increase fares across all tariffs, there were no
specific responses relating to Christmas and New Year
rates.
Other charges
·
Some respondents indicated that the
call-out charge of £1 per mile should be increased while one
indicated that it is difficult for drivers to explain the call-out
charges because fares for outward journeys may differ from inbound
journeys.
·
Some respondents indicated that the
£1.50 charge per person when travelling in larger groups was
too high while others indicated that larger vehicles should have
their own tariff to apply irrespective of the number of passengers
being carried.
3.4 The full
responses are attached at Appendix C.
3.5 The
Licensing Team has also consulted colleagues in the Council’s
Integrated Passenger Transport service (IPT) following concerns
that the value of some home-to-school and social care contracts
involving hackney carriage vehicles may exceed the Council’s
table of fares.
3.6 The
purpose of fixing a maximum rate of fares is to protect the public
from unfair or unreasonable charges. In the case of home-to-school
and social care contracts, financial safeguards are already in
place through IPT’s tendering process and therefore any risks
associated with these charges are adequately managed by other
means. However, it remains an offence for a driver to charge in
excess of the maximum rates and therefore further measures have
been considered to ensure that the Council’s table of fares
does not have an adverse impact on IPT’s ability to secure
transport for children and vulnerable adults in North
Yorkshire.
3.7 Officers
have reviewed the current table of fares having taken into account
the comparisons with neighbouring authorities, the outcome of the
preliminary consultation, the general impact of inflation and cost
of living and any wider concerns raised in relation to fares for
home-to-school and social care contracts involving hackney carriage
vehicles.
3.8 A
proposed table of fares is attached at Appendix D along with the
rationale to illustrate the purpose of each variation. The proposal
makes provision for the following:
·
A 5% increase on the running mile
and waiting times in Tariff 1 (daytime rates)
·
Applying tariff 2 rates from 10pm to
7am (currently 11pm to 6am)
·
An increase from £1 per mile
to £1.50 per mile on the maximum call-out charge
·
An increase from £1.50 per
head to £2 per head for the carriage of 5 or more passengers
subject to an additional requirement that the surcharge may only be
applied where it has been agreed with passengers at the time of
hiring.
·
The introduction of a new maximum
surcharge of £50 (plus £50 per passenger assistant) for
each hiring under the terms of a contract with North Yorkshire
Council.
4.0
CONTRIBUTION TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
4.1 The
Council is committed to protecting communities, safeguarding
children and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of the
public.
4.2 A regular review of the table of fares supports
economic growth and incentivises work in the hackney carriage
industry, which delivers significant public protection
benefits.
5.0
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED
5.1 The
Council is not legally obligated to set the maximum rates of
charges. However, the vast majority of licensing authorities do set
maximum fares to provide certainty, consistency and, particularly
in relation to occasional passengers, protection from unfair or
unreasonable charges.
5.2 The
Council may consider retaining the existing table of fares.
However, this may impact on the ability of the hackney carriage
trade to deliver a vital service and any ambiguities over charges
under school and social care contract arrangements would
persist.
6.0 IMPACT
ON OTHER SERVICES/ORGANISATIONS
6.1 The
Council’s Integrated Passenger Transport Service (IPT) is
responsible for arranging and managing school and social care
transport for children and vulnerable adults across North
Yorkshire. It is in the public interest to ensure that the table of
fares does not adversely affect the Council’s ability to
secure transport via hackney carriage services.
7.0
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Costs
relating to the statutory public notice, consultation and any
subsequent meetings are recovered from licence fees charged by the
council and paid by the hackney carriage trade.
7.2 Any
increase in fares would have a financial impact on taxi-users
throughout North Yorkshire, although drivers may agree to charge a
lower amount than the maximum fares at their own
discretion.
7.3
Any hackney carriage proprietors
wishing to charge fares at the increased rates would incur a small,
one-off cost for the meter calibration.
8.0 LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The
legislative framework for setting maximum hackney carriage fares
has been explored at paragraph 2 of this report.
8.2 Section
9D of the Local Government Act 2000 provides that any function of a
local authority which is not specified in the Local Authorities
(Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulations 2000 is to
be the responsibility of an executive of the authority under
executive arrangements. The power to fix maximum hackney carriage
fares under section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1976 is not specified in the regulations and is
therefore the responsibility of North Yorkshire Council’s
Executive in this instance.
9.0
EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS
9.1
Disability is a protected characteristic within the meaning of the
Equality Act 2010. Having due regard to the need to advance
equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant
protected characteristic and persons who do not, the Council must
endeavour to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons
who share a relevant protected characteristic and take steps to
meet their needs.
9.2 A
balance must be sought to allow hackney carriage drivers to make a
reasonable living from their trade whilst also removing or
minimising disadvantages suffered by persons who have relevant
protected characteristics.
9.3 The
maximum table of fares applies equally to all licensed hackney
carriage vehicles. Drivers of hackney carriage vehicles are not
permitted to make any additional charges for carrying mobility aids
or for providing reasonable assistance to disabled
passengers.
10.0 CLIMATE
CHANGE IMPLICATIONS
10.1 Regular reviews of
the hackney carriage table of fares ensure that drivers and
proprietors are able to plan for future investment in new vehicles,
which should mitigate the environmental impact of licensed vehicles
in North Yorkshire.
11.0 POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
11.1 In its Best
Practice Guidance published in November 2023, the Department for
Transport recommends that “in reviewing fare rates,
authorities should pay particular regard to the needs of the
travelling public, with reference both to what it is reasonable to
expect people to pay but also to the need to give taxi drivers the
ability to earn a sufficient income and so incentivise them to
provide a service when it is needed. There is likely to be a case
for higher fare tariffs at times of higher demand to encourage more
drivers to make themselves available or when the journeys are
required at anti-social times”.
12.0
COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
12.1 Hackney carriage
drivers play a particularly important role in the night-time
economy by transporting members of the public home safely late at
night. On that basis, it is in the interests of the public to
ensure that drivers are fairly rewarded for working during
anti-social hours and encouraged to continue providing a vital
public service.
13.0
REASONS FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 The Council is
expected to set and regularly review the maximum fares to be
charged by hackney carriage drivers with a view to protecting the
public and ensuring that licensees are fairly rewarded for their
work.
|
14.0
|
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
14.1
|
To approve the
publication of the proposed variation to the Council’s
Hackney Carriage Table of Fares as set out in Appendix D (with or
without modifications), subject to further consideration in the
event of any objections being received.
|
APPENDICES:
Appendix A – Current table of
fares
Appendix B – Fare comparison
charts
Appendix C – Responses to preliminary
consultation
Appendix D – Proposed table of
fares
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
Local
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Taxi and
Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice (Department for
Transport)
Paul
Thompson
Assistant
Director for IPT, Licensing, Public Rights of Way &
Harbours.
County
Hall
Northallerton
17 April
2024
Report
Author:
Simon Fisher, Licensing Service Development Lead; and
Gareth Bentley, Head of
Licensing
Presenter of
Report: Simon Fisher, Licensing Service Development
Lead; and
Gareth Bentley, Head of
Licensing
Initial requests for a review of hackney
carriage fares
1.
We are writing to you to request a
tariff increase from 1 April 2024 onwards, we feel the flag fall is
already sufficient in comparison with most other districts and do
not wish to penalise those more vulnerable in society who use us
for short distances. We therefore request that the flag fall
remains as it is however we feel that as Harrogate did not get any
increase on the measured mile at all last year and Richmondshire
and Ryedale had a drop in the measured mile that in line with two
years inflation and a rise of 10 percent last year on minimum wage
and the 2024’s rise of another 7 percent, that between 10
minimum and 15 percent maximum would be an appropriate rise on
tariff one. We do not request any rise on tariff two, however we
would like the option to use it from 2200 onwards in line with
continental shift workers in order to attract those workers to the
trade and pay night shift workers an extra premium as most trades
do from 2200 onwards. We also feel that tariff 3 is adequate as it
is however we would like you to look at the call out charge , to
run a licensed vehicle before making a profit is approximately
£1.24 per mile so with a call out of £1 per mile we are
running at a loss on this , we would ask that you consider £2
per mile perhaps with a maximum cap of 15 miles. We would
appreciate your feedback on this and also a request for you to put
before committee or out for consultation as soon as possible so we
can get this in place in plenty of time. This representation is on
behalf of 44 licensed drivers.
2.
After consultation with members of
the trade, I would like to propose the following tariff increase to
come into effect on 1 April 2024. No change on the flag fall 5%
increase on the running mile and waiting time. Summoning charge up
from £1 per mile to £2 per mile, as this has remained
unchanged for many years and no longer reflects the price of
fuel.
Responses to preliminary
consultation
1.
As a representative of 70 drivers i
have sent Mr Bentley a request for a 5% increase on the running
mile, and waiting time, as well as an increase on the call out
charge from £1 per mile to £2 per mile, as due to high
fuel costs drivers at present are not prepared to travel distance
to pick customers up, as they are losing money in doing so. My
request is based on the fare formula previously used by Harrogate
borough council, and also London taxis, it takes into account all
increases in expenses that we are having to deal with and is an
impartial body using current figures. We have also been informed
that fees are about to be increased by 6% for drivers’
licence and nearly 12% for vehicle licences, as well as the council
now insisting, we take two courses before our badge is issued, at a
cost of either £65 or £80 depending on which company
you use. North Yorkshire council cannot insist on such high
standards without allowing drivers a fair increase to keep up with
these increases.
2.
I think the daytime tariff should be
10p a mile more. the night tariff i wouldn't increase but would
change to 10pm. i think we need a bus tariff day and night as
adding it on at the end has cause no end of problem and confutation
that isn't needed when the machine can do it and they can see what
they are paying without a £12 jump at the end of the trip
would save us no end of agro and been slandered on face book or
been told dick turpin wore a mask.
3.
Seeing as N.Y.C.’s own
licensing fees to us are increasing due to inflation, etc then
it’s logical that we get a similar increase in fares as
we’re also subject to the same inflation.
4.
The increase in the charge for a
minibus from a car is totally inadequate and does not cover the
extra costs e.g. fuel our minibuses do about 20/23 mpg our cars
40/55 mpg the longer the journey the less viable it becomes to a
point where we have had drivers refusing to do a job. I think
increasing the charge based on the number of people travelling is
completely the wrong approach.
5.
I believe the daytime fares are
acceptable. As a company station taxis in Scarborough no longer
works after 11pm or before 6 am as the fares are way too high. When
it was an extra 20% it was ok but fare and a half is too much. My
main issue is the £1 a mile to pick up, it just doesn’t
work. Example filey to Scarborough hospital…£8 in
extras plus £21 to go from filey to hosp. Return journey
£1 in extras plus £21 fare. Station to Cayton bay, pick
up off rank, no extras £12 to Cayton .Return journey £3
in extras plus £12 fare. How can the above be explained to a
customer? This should be abandoned completely and replaced with
extras of 50p per person. £1.50 per person extra in
multiseaters is ridiculous. Example.. 16 passengers are going to
alpamere, 8 get in to two separate cars are charged £7 per
car. So £14 total for those 8. The other 8 get in a cab which
charges £19 , £12 in extras plus £7 fare. Totally
legal but totally wrong.
6.
I am a hackney carriage taxi driver
in Skipton and I would like to express my concerns in regards to
the meter prices we are charging customers. I know we can drop our
prices and not charge the price to what it says on the meter, but
it's putting a lot of the customers off from using our taxis due to
the starting price of tariff 2. We have seen our trade drop since
these new prices were introduced. We having to compete with other
taxi drivers which are not part of north Yorkshire county council
taxi licensing. These are uber, Steeton and silsden, and
finally Aireside taxis. These just the few to mention. We are
having to face the anger of the customers as well. Please I would
appreciate if you can look into these prices again and drop the
meter price of tariff 2.
7.
Here's an idea to make sure that the
public are not deterred from using Hackney carriages taxis and also
private hire taxis...stop increasing fares and more importantly
stop uber from operating illegally throughout North Yorkshire
without an operating licence. We drivers fork out a small fortune
for our plates and badges to operate around the area and you the
council are just sitting back and doing absolutely nothing and
allowing a multinational company to operate illegally.
8.
my opinion would be to freeze any
thoughts of increases, however, the £2 bus fares are what's
killing us . . . nothing more to say just don't increase the
tariff's for this financial year, review again prior to the
following financial year and lets see how the state of the country
is at that point. Customer always moan when an increase is applied,
but I feel the rates at the moment are fair, if you want to go out
late then you pay accordingly and the drivers who are out
sacrificing their Homelife are recompensed. My opinion is a common
one amongst our ranks so hopefully we keep things as they
are?
9.
In general, I'm happy with the
current tariff rates but would like to suggest that the tariff two
rate from 11pm to 6am reverts back to midnight and 7am, getting up
early to do jobs for the standard rate is not fair on the drivers.
And I would like to suggest again that tariff two is extended to
cover all day on a Sunday i.e. from midnight (or 11pm) on Saturday
night to 7am (or 6am) on Monday morning.
10.
I would like to reiterate my
feelings in the fares we really do not need a flagfall rise it us
already far too high compared to literally everywhere and penalises
the most vulnerable in society who use shorter journeys, we
do however need a rise in the measured mile as this for ryedale
went down from 2022 to 2023 this malnig longer journeys cheaper we
need a minimum 10 percent on the measured mile increase
11.
I think you have it totally wrong
with your fares and i think your flagfall not only going up but
shortening the distance has a massive impact on the most vulnerable
in society that rely on a taxi to get them around the town. The
flagfall should be half a mile minimum with the rise being put on
the distance. Looking at the first mile on your charts we are
around the same as York which is a massive tourist region. At the
moment your price rises since last April have only impacted the
wrong people and the wrong type of journeys and i think you need to
seriously look at this and change the pricing structure
12.
Looking at the charts and from
experience the issue is for Whitby taxi rank is our customers seem
to be really put off by the £6 starting price after eleven
and bank holidays they seem to respect the price at the end of the
journey but question the start price I personally feel it's fair to
charge more after 11pm because Whitby is so quite after that time
especially in the week any less and more drivers will just go home
as it's not worth their time staying out late as since covid we
have seen a massive drop in late night trade.
13.
With regard to the T3 T3 Hackney
meters, I am very confident that in Area G Selby, if you scrap or
reduce the T2 and T3 tariffs, there will be no drivers after 2300
hours and certainly no one will put their business before their
family during the festive season. I'll certainly won't be working
and actually I would very much consider changing from Hackney to PH
and then I would be able to charge my own rates. Having spoken to
many other drivers in Selby area G I'm pretty confident that you
won't get any other objections because asking for feedback via
letter is not what we need. We need a formal meeting face to face
to discuss the options that you have already decided to put in
place.
14.
I've been a taxi driver for just
under a year although I expected this year to be exceptionally
hard. What I didn't expect to be doing would be fighting to
maintain a standard of living off a council that is intent on
destroying the hackney carriage industry. my outgoing's alone for
this year total just over 30,000 pounds my fuel bill on a monthly
basis is approximately a £1200 pounds per month and rising,
my insurance has risen by 400 pounds of a year to 2400, my
licensing bills having increased by a few hundred pounds, my
mechanical cost for my vehicle stands at 8,000 pounds. Based on the
average fare of £6 I have to do 5000 journey per year before
I can buy food and pay household bills. If tariff 2 and 3 are
removed would over the course of a year say cost anyone who works
these unsocial hours potentially thousands of pounds in takings.
This will in my opinion cause any or all of
·
drivers moving away from the
business
·
drivers moving to other
areas
·
more unlicensed taxis
·
less public safety
·
less availability for the
public
·
more drivers taking only private
hire job that they can quote for ( a lot more variation in fares
for customers )
·
the local pub / restaurant trade
will also suffer a downturn in customers
·
the town centre shops will even see
a knock on effect I as I'm sure most other drivers can't or at
least don't want to see many of these things happen or to see a
significant hit to our ability to earn a living.
It's not even like the council is
trying to protect our livelihoods by stopping uber drivers coming
into the town poaching our customers, not giving us protection on a
night because I am sure that I will not be working after 11 o'clock
at night for no enhancement to be swore at spit at assaulted and
generally abused by drunken customers coming out for the reduced
amount is not worth it
15.
I believe that tariff three should
be abolished altogether as during the Christmas and New Year it
puts people off from using taxis. This in turn affects other
businesses as customers stay away from coming to town. Instead
tariff two should be used for this period. Tarif two should be
1.25% of tariff one. Currently this is 1.50% which is excessive
therefore tariff 2 should be reduced. Tarif two should not be used
for bank holidays. There is no need for this. This is confusing
both for customers and drivers. Use of £1.50 per person extra
should be stopped for minibuses. This is another confusing thing on
the current tariff card. These minibuses are already taking away
customers from other taxi drivers. These minibuses also do
lucrative school runs. The licensing policy should make it less
attractive to have larger minibuses which take a larger amount of
space on taxi ranks. It should be a level playing field. Tarif one
should be revised each year and it should be linked to
inflation/minimum wage. As the minimum wage is going up in April
2024 so should the tariff 1 be. Taxi drivers also have homes and
families. We don't have luxury of pension contributions, holiday
pay, sick pay or any other work-related benefits. I would like a
simplified system that is understandable to both customers and
drivers. The tariff card should be set in miles rather then in
yards. The meter should go up every 1/10 of a mile. This will be
easier for everyone to understand. The tariff card should be
displayed at the taxi rank on a similar style as bus timetables are
displayed. There should be a list of prices for nearest 20 places
from the taxi rank so that customers can check the price before
they get in the taxi. These lists should also be displayed on the
council's website. Please simplify the tariff card and licensing
policy because the way things are going Uber will destroy hackney
carriage business model in North Yorkshire as it has already done
in cities around the country.
16.
I know the fares have always been
set by the council, but I do feel that it is time for change, you
don’t tell a market stall holder how much they can charge for
an apple or any other business what they can charge
their customers. We lost a considerable amount of money when the
fuel prices increased and we were not able to pass those costs on ,
everything else was affected by this but not taxi fares ,, i am
just using this as one example ,the costs of running a car as a
taxi have increased incredibly over the recent years , it is now
cheaper to get home in a taxi for some people than it is to buy a
pint of beer Uber change their prices according to how busy they
are and what sort of car you prefer to be picked up in ,what time
of day it is etc , I believe it’s time for change
17.
we've had 2 enquiries today, Danby
Castle to Glaisdale at 12.30am and Hinderwell to Liverton Mines at
10.30pm both journeys for today. The Danby one we've quoted
£40 as per the current Policy and the second one £25,
these are obsurd prices for the time of the journeys, only being
able to quote £1 per mile for lead miles, especially on the
first journey which should be £3 per mile at that time and
the latter one being at one of the busiest times on a Friday night,
so with lead miles only being £1 per mile I've turned down
both jobs. The policy of £1 per mile for lead miles is
killing the rural customers, this isn't the first time this has
happened and as such we refuse to be drawn into cheap far away
fares, especially after 11pm, common sense says why travel
somewhere out of the area when you can only get £1 per mile
but if you stay in town you get £3 per mile? It's not rocket
science and if the LA's are really trying to look after the entire
communities in North Yorkshire, then simply apply lead miles at the
rate of which they are if the customer was onboard, the vehicle is
still doing the miles for the journey and the fact we can't charge
accordingly unless they're onboard is ridiculous and hence leaves
the rural communities without any taxi coverage I believe Mr Chin
thought this was a good idea!!! I know many of us are adopting this
attitude, right or wrong but we are a business which has increased
costs all over the place, my insurance on AD57 TAX for instance has
gone up £500 this year! and don't get me started on fuel
costs lol
