162
Peyman Oyar Hossein attened the meeting and addressed the Committee in
accordance with Colchester City Council (the Council)’s Have Your Say!
arrangements. Mr Hossein was the Chair of Colchester’s Hackney Carriage
Association. He has used a card machine for over 12 years, but strongly felt that the
Council should not be dictating that card machines in all licensed vehicles were
mandatory. The reason for this was the poor internet signal in and around
Colchester, and in areas of poor signal it was extremely difficult to receive payment
for a fare. Asking passengers to pay for a journey up front did not look professional,
and until the network could provide drivers with perfect reception, then the provision
of card machines in licensed vehicle should not be compulsory. It was considered
that other business which were licensed by the Council did not have to provide card
payment machines, so why were licensed vehicles being made the exception?
Although it was still possible to accept cash as payment, many people did not carry
cash anymore and a request for payment up front could cause offence and
arguments, and the taxi trade felt that it was vulnerable to disputes and passengers
making off without payment.
Councillor Goss, Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhood Services and Waste, attended
the meeting remotely and addressed the Committee in accordance with the Council’s
Have Your Say! arrangements. Councillor Goss voiced his support for the proposal,
noting that he had heard from residents who had been caught out late at night when
taxis were unable to accept card payments, leading to longer journeys to get cash
out from a cash point. It was therefore right that the Council mandated card
machines in licensed vehicles, however the option to pay by cash should remain.
The majority of businesses were able to accept payment by both card and cash, and
he noted that the proposed Policy allowed for payments of any form to be accepted.
He considered that it should be down to the individual proprietor to chose the type of
card machine that they employed, although did accept that network connectivity
problems were a legitimate concern. Although there was the possibility for fraudulent
payments to be made, this was a risk accepted by any business, and the presence
of closed circuit television in many taxis would go some way to protecting the drivers
against this activity. On balance, he offered his support for the proposals, and
considered that the vast majority of his constituents would also welcome the
scheme.
David Daniel attended the meeting and addressed the Committee in accordance with
the Council’s Have Your Say! arrangements. He had been a taxi driver for over 40
years and did not think that the provision of card reader machines should be
compulsory. He noted that the majority of comments which had been received in
response to the consultation were from mini-cab drivers who had the support of their
employer and who had no idea of the aggression which hackney carriage drivers had
to deal with. He did not have a card machine in his vehicle, and noted that there
were very many hackney carriages equipped with card machines, who were able to
take jobs paid by card which he could not. He was happy to wait longer for a job
which would be paid by cash, and it was his right to run his business as he saw fit in
this regard.
Stewart Beer attended the meeting and addressed the Committee in accordance
with the Council’s Have Your Say! arrangements. He had been a hackney carriage
driver for over 20 years, and had been taking card payments for the past 6 years. He
did not understand how the method of payment used in licensed vehicles was a
licensing concern. He advised the committee that in November 2022 an official
government response to a survey had stated that businesses were entitled to accept
payment by whichever method they wished. He was happy to accept card payments,
but noted that there were licensed establishments in the town centre who accepted
cash only, and questioned why licensed vehicles were treated differently. He was
aware that it was possible to ask for payment for a journey up front, but did not like to
do this as he felt that this questioned his customer’s integrity. He was very
concerned about the proposed penalties for failure to provide a card machine listed
under the Council’s Penalty Point Scheme, and considered these to be draconian.
Although it had been suggested that larger private hire companies did take payment
up front, Mr Beer reminded the Committee that drivers for these companies were in
receipt of protection from their employers which sole proprietors were not.
Jon Ruder, Licensing and Food Safety Manager, attended the meeting to present the
report and assist the Committee with its deliberations. The Committee heard that
there had been 48 responses to the consultation, with 36 of these in favour of
introducing the requirement for card payment machines to be made available in
licensed vehicles, with 6 against and 6 uncertain. In response to the comments
which the Committee had received, it was clarified that the proposed Policy would
not require all payments to be made via card, and there would always be the option
for cash payments to be received. Although a detailed list of complaints received in
relation to the refusal to accept card payments was not available at the meeting, it
was confirmed to the Committee that anecdotally, the number of complaints
associated with failure to accept card payments from both the public and the
licensed trade itself had increased since the end of lockdown as people now
preferred to pay by card.
Although other types of businesses were licensed by the Council, these were not
regulated in the same way that hackney carriages and private hire vehicles were,
and the Policy which was applied to these vehicles was not implemented by Officers,
but rather the Licensing Committee. It was possible to request a cash payment up
front, however, if the meter in a hackney carriage showed a fare which was less than
the amount which had been paid up front, the difference must be refunded to the
customer. The costs associated with taking a journey in a private hire vehicle were
managed via the private hire operator.
A Committee member noted the concerns which had been raised by drivers in
relation to the proposal, however, considered that when a destination was requested
by a passenger, the driver would know whether or not it was likely to be in a bad
signal area, and then could ask for a card payment up front or cash on arrival.
Provided there was clarity from the start in this manner, it was suggested that most
problems could be avoided. In response to questioning, it was clarified to the
Committee by Jon Ruder that to refuse to take a passenger from a taxi rank could
constitute an offence, and there were only certain circumstances where such a
refusal would be lawful, even if the journey requested was a short one. Issues could
be caused by drivers not adhering to rank etiquette with regard to accepting fares,
and any complaints which were generated as a result of this would be investigated
on their own merits.
A Committee member voiced surprise that not all licensed vehicles were already
equipped with card machines, considering that most people did not carry cash
routinely these days, particularly the younger generation. They had considered the
points which had been raised very carefully, but recognised that when policy was
changed, it was not possible to please everybody. On balance, they considered that
the benefits offered by the provision of card machines outweighed the stated
disadvantages, and would further serve to increase the safety of drivers and
passengers alike, noting the recent press reports of a spate of robberies of licensed
vehicles. It was considered unlikely that the introduction of mandatory card machines
in licensed vehicles would make drivers worse off, but it could very well make them
better off and better able to offer a more attractive service to customers.
In further discussion, a member of the Committee was uneasy with the enforced
introduction of card payment machines, noting that of the responses which had been
received to the consultation, 33% were against the proposal or were undecided,
which was a significant amount. They considered that the trade should have the
choice on whether or not to use card machines, and further thought that the
proposed level of penalty points for failure to make a card machine available was far
too high. Jon Ruder advised the Committee that the amount of penalty points which
would be applied for failure to comply with the policy could be revisited by Officers.
The Committee wondered whether it was appropriate to delay the introduction of the
proposed policy until the network provision across the city had been improved to
allow card payment to be taken in more areas, and some concern was raised that
the proposed policy would potentially negatively impact on the income of taxi drivers.
The Committee was advised that it was considered that it would be dangerous for
licensed drivers to advertise that they only took cash on the their vehicles, as this
could make them more likely to be targets for robbery.
Christine, the owner of Panther Cabs, attended the meeting, and with the permission
of the Chair, addressed the Committee. She said that of the 196 which her company
used, only 3 did not have a cad machine in their vehicle, which was their choice.
Although she personally would choose to make card machines available, she did not
consider that this should be made compulsory, and should be the driver’s choice.
David Daniel raised further concerns that he would receive points on his licence for
advising customers that he preferred to be paid in cash, even if he did provide a card
machine, and did not think that this was fair. Jon Ruder assured the Committee that
penalty points under the Council’s policy were not issued without a full investigation,
including making reference to CCTV and other sources of evidence where available,
and interviewing the driver concerned. It was already an offence to refuse a fare for
any reason, and all complaints would be investigated.
The Committee, and those in attendance, were advised that the Committee was
being requested to refer the adoption of the new policy on to Full Council for a final
decision, where the matter would again be the subject of debate prior to
implementation, providing another opportunity for concerns to be raised.
RESOLVED that:
- it be recommend to full Council that the Council’s Hackney Carriage and
Private Hire Licensing Policy be amended to require licensed vehicles to be
fitted with the means to accept electronic payments in addition to cash.