Meeting Details

RESOLVED that: the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 January 2025 be confirmed as a correct record. 

Chris Turner attended the meeting and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He was the proprietor of a licenced vehicle to which tinted rear windows had been professionally fitted which were shatterproof and offered an ultraviolet protection factor (UPF). His vehicle had previously passed all inspections, and there were no laws on rear window tints he wondered why his vehicle had recently been declared unsuitable for licensing. He considered that there was a disparity in the standards which were enforced across the taxi trade, with vehicles licensed by other local authorities working in Colchester under different licensing standards. He further considered that there were more serious issues than window tinting which should be addressed, such as hackney carriage plates being offered for sale, vehicles which were too small to hold an adequate amount of luggage, and vehicles operating without displaying the necessary door signage. He noted that tinted windows had been mentioned in the Council’s Hackney Carriage Private Hire Licensing Policy since 2019, and queried why it had taken until now for this element of the policy to be enforced. The Council needed to clarify what its standards were, and why as nowhere in legislation did it state that tinted windows posed a safety risk. Rear windows had to allow 74% light transmission but this was misleading, and the Council’s policy was misleading too. It did not state anywhere in the Council’s policy that 74% light transmission was a requirement, so why was this the standard which was being enforced by the testing garage which had been issuing notices giving drivers 28 days to move all window tints which had not been factory fitted? Professionally fitted tints could meet all necessary safety standards and there was no reason why factory applied tints were acceptable and non-factory tints were penalised. The Council needed to adopt a consistent and fair approach, confirm which rule was being enforced and why, and explain why the policy was unclear on the situation.

Paul Donaghy, Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager attended the meeting and responded to Mr Turner. A lot of information had been provided by Mr Turner, and it was suggested that the best way to deal with this was by a careful appraisal of the situation as the Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager had understood that there had been some issues with the Council’s nominated testing garage enforcing standards vigorously. He believed that this position may have eased recently as conversations had taken place between Officers and the garage, and it was possible that the issue of window tinting would be dealt with in the Council’s Policy, which was currently being reviewed. In general terms, if members of the public had concerns or wished to make complaints about licensed vehicles, they were encouraged to go to Licensing Officers direct, rather than complaining via social media, which the Licensing team did not monitor and were unable to use as evidence. It was not possible for Officers to deal with anecdotal, third-party complaints. In response to a further question from Mr Turner, who had been given a 28 day notice to remove his tinted windows, the Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that while the matter was under investigation Mr Turner did not have to comply with the 28 day notice.

The Committee expressed its gratitude both to Officers and to members of the taxi trade who had brought matters to its attention.

Payman Oyarhossein, the Chair of Colchester Hackney Carriage Association attended the meeting and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He wished to raise his concerns in relation to the licensing fees which were charged by the Council for driver badge and licensed vehicle plate renewal, which he believed were too high, and were among the highest in the country. He noted that it was becoming increasingly common for drivers and vehicles licensed in other areas of the country to come to work in Colchester, and while competition was to be expected, these drivers did not have to follow the same rules or pay the same fees, and were taking business from Colchester drivers. The Committee heard that a recent incident had seen an Uber vehicle which, had been licensed by Ipswich Borough Council, had parked in the middle of the High Street taxi rank in Colchester, and had refused to move when asked. A complaint had been made to Ipswich Borough Council in respect of this as local Officers were unable to take enforcement action.

The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager recognised that the Council’s fees and charges were expensive, however, he had inherited a fee regime which had been in place for a number of years and had only raised fees in line with inflation. The rise in fees had been necessary to ensure that staff costs were covered, and these costs included not only the hourly rate of staff members, but all the additional costs associated with staff such as the provision of equipment, suitable buildings, and other essential support. In the future due to local government reorganisation (LGR), it may be the case that the licensing regime for Essex would be dealt with centrally by the Mayor’s office.

Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting and advised the Committee that the proposed licensing fees and charges were currently subject to a period of public consultation which had been advertised in a local paper and on the Council’s website, and if there were any concerns these should be raised as part of this process to enable them to be considered.

The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed to the Committee that Officers had no power to prevent vehicles working for Uber to operate within Colchester, and the practice was legal. It was not possible to use licensing legislation as anti-competition legislation. With regard to Ipswich and Chelmsford licensed taxis, complaints had been received from the hackney carriage associations in those districts about Colchester licensed vehicles which had been operating there. Officers took enforcement action where this was possible, and passed information on to the correct agents to act on this.

A Committee member considered that the issues which had been raised highlighted points which the Committee had been debating for some time. The original legislation which governed the licensing regime had been thought fit for purpose as the time it had been enacted, however, recent changes had led to issues for the local trade. Himself and the Chair of the Committee had written to the Secretary of State to complain about the current position and requesting that a set of national licensing standards and fees was introduced. He noted that the function of the licensing regime was not to promote 1 business model over another, but simply to promote and safeguard public safety. It was absurd that drivers who were licensed elsewhere were permitted to work in Colchester when complaints about them would have to be dealt with by Officers in a different council on the other side of the country. The Chair of the Committee added his support to the remarks which had been made and encouraged all members of the public and licensed drivers to report any issues which they experienced to Licensing Officers.

Shaun Moore attended the meeting and addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He advised the Committee that air pollution was taken seriously by the Council, however, he noted that in the past hybrid and electric vehicles had paid reduced licensing fees as an incentive for these vehicles to be adopted. Under the proposed new fees and charges, fees for these vehicles had massively increased, and he anticipated that there would be a lot of complaints in relation to this. He noted that the Council had just commissioned an unmet demand survey which he believed was covered exclusively by the fees paid by hackney carriages, and had been surprised to see that private hire proprietors had been involved in this survey via the questionnaire; why had this happened when private hire proprietors had not contributed to the cost of this? Turning to another topic, Mr Moore advised the Committee that other Councils did not allow their private hire vehicles to use bus lanes, so why were out of town vehicles using bus lanes in Colchester when they were not able to use them in their own areas? He raised further concerns about the vehicle inspection regime, stating that a small oil leak would not result in an MOT failure, but would result in a vehicle failing its licensed vehicle inspection. Furthermore, when an MT failure was awarded the driver had a period of time in which to re-present their vehicle for re-testing free of charge, whereas a re-test which was required after failing a vehicle inspection had to be paid for.

The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager addressed the points which had been raised. He advised the Committee that when the council licensed a vehicle, its details were passed to Essex County Council (ECC) which was the authority that managed the bus lanes across Essex. How ECC chose to enforce against vehicles which used bus lanes was a matter for it, and was not something that the Council could get involved with. With respect to the vehicle testing regime, meetings had taken place between the garage and Officers which had led to a 30% drop in failure rates, and further meetings were scheduled. The fee which was charged for a re-inspection was something which the Council paid, and this was being looked into. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed to the Committee that fees which were charged for the hackney carriage and private hire licensing were calculated on the basis of strict cost recovery, and the cost of issuing a licence to a hybrid or electric vehicle was the same as for a petrol vehicle, which was why the same fee had to be charged. The fees were currently the subject of a public consultation if Mr Moore wished to make comments.

Mr Moore confirmed that he would be participating in the consultation process regarding fees to put his thoughts to the Council. He sought some additional information on the likely outcome of LGR, however, the Committee had no further insight in respect of this. Members of the public were, however, encouraged to provide responses to consultations which were taking place in respect of the proposals.

A Committee member noted the common themes which had been raised in respect of the testing garage, and wished to thank Officers for the work which had been undertaken to recognise and address the concerns which had come forward.

The Committee considered a report which detailed the unmet demand survey for hackney carriage vehicles, which had been produced by LVSA on behalf of the Council, and which recommended the adoption of its recommendation.

In response to a question from the Committee, Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, confirmed that the cost of providing the survey was approximately £12,000.

Iain MacDonald, LVSA, attended the meeting remotely to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The Committee heard that the unmet demand survey was concerned with identifying the level of passenger waiting times for hackney carriage vehicles through taxi rank surveys, and whether this was significant. Other sources of information were also considered such as consultation with key stakeholders. Although some issues relating to taxis in Colchester had been brought up via the public consultation which had been carried out, relatively little was to do with availability of vehicles, which indicated that this did not present a particular problem in Colchester. When comparing the number of hires observed at taxi ranks with the number identified in previous surveys, it could be seen that the volume of hires was significantly lower than demand had been pre-covid, and there was less demand on a Friday and Saturday night. This did not mean that people were not going out, but did indicate that fewer people used taxis from the High Street taxi rank to get home afterwards. The level of unmet demand was well below the level which would be said to be significant, and there was no reason to delimit the numbers of taxis licenced by the Council as a result of this.

A Committee member posed a number of questions:

1. When was the last time an online survey to identify latent unmet demand had been carried out?

In response, Iain MacDonald, LVSA, advised that the public consultation survey which had been undertaken had included questions about unmet latent demand. If people responding to the survey had indicated that they had given up waiting for a taxi on the rank or not visited a rank due to the expectation that the wait would be excessive, then follow up questions had been asked. It was common for people to respond to the survey and state that they had given up waiting for a taxi, when follow up questions would then reveal that a phone call had been made from home and no vehicles had been available. For the purposes of the unmet demand survey, only attempted hires from a taxi rank were considered, and figures for the identified latent unmet demand were used in the final calculation which was undertaken.

2. The report showed that the 2024 profile of hires per hour was significantly lower than either 2018 or 2021. Was it possible to get Officers’ commentary on the potential reasons for this, and was there anything within the power of the Council to improve things?

Paul Donaghy, Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager, considered that there was a number of potential reasons for the decline in hires per hour, including technological advances and changes in the ways in which people sought to arrange to hire a vehicle. It was noted that post-covid the city centre appeared to be quieter in general, and the current cost of living crisis further contributed to this situation. Unfortunately, there was little that the Council could do to improve this situation, as it was unable to advertise private businesses or services, and was not able to implement additional taxi ranks in favourable locations.

3. It was noted that there were survey questions relating to the standards of drivers dress and hygiene which had both elicited an overall response of ‘poor’. What could be done to improve the situation?

The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager advised the Committee that although this issue had been raised via the survey, members of the public had not brough any issues to the attention of Licensing Officers, who were only able to deal with issues they were aware of. There were standards of appearance and of cleanliness that could be enforced. The Colchester Hackney Carriage association had asked for more enforcement, however, staff resources were limited. Consideration was being given to carrying out more operations with Essex Police and other partner organisations to address commonly inferred issues such as overcharging, and if Officers observed issues of poor standards in drivers, then these would be dealt with as well.

4. Drivers refusing to accept cards had been among the most common problems reported via the survey. Did the taxi drivers have the right to refuse card payments?

The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager advised the Committee that drivers had traditionally requested cash when travelling to certain locations where there were known issues with the signal necessary to make card payment machines work. Complaints had been received in the past in relation to drivers refusing to take card payments which had been investigated by Officers who had applied penalty points to driver’s licences where the complaint had been justified. All hackney carriage and private hire drivers were required to accept card payments, and vehicles carried stickers to advise the public of this, however, Officers had not received a single complaint in relation to a refusal to take a card payment in recent months.

A Committee member noted that Uber was now operating in Colchester, had the effect of the operation of this private hire operator on existing hackney carriage and private hire operators been studied in towns of a similar size to Colchester? What was the market share of journeys which Uber was taking away from other vehicles? Additionally, had the potential additional demand for taxis on Head Street been considered as the result of the proposed re-opening of a large retail unit there?

Iain MacDonald, LVSA, explained that in his experience the impact of Uber varied in different locations. Changes in demand for taxi services were influenced by a variety of factors and although it was tempting to conclude that Uber had reduced demand for other services, this was unlikely to be the sole cause. He did not have any direct comparison data relating to the impact of Uber in other areas, and could not recall having seen an example of a stark change in the taxi trade as the result of Uber becoming active in an area. He considered that the taxi rank on Head Street was in a good location as it was on the route to the High Street which would enable taxis to collect people waiting there.

A Committee member had been taken aback by comments which had been made in the survey in relation to standards of dress and cleanliness of vehicles. He considered that although it was always possible to find something to complain about, the operation of taxis and private hire vehicles was a commercial enterprise, and it would be in the interests of drivers to ensure that their standards were at as high a level as possible to attract more trade, meaning that in his opinion standards of dress and vehicle condition should be self-regulating. The Chair of the Committee confirmed that he used licensed vehicles on occasion and had always found that these had been spotless in condition and a credit to the city.

Payman Oyarhossein, the Chair of Colchester Hackney Carriage Association attended the meeting and, with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee pursuant to the provisions of Meetings General Procedure Rules 5 (1). He wished to know whether the survey in relation to unmet demand had included vehicles licenced by other local authorities which were working in Colchester? He further noted that in the past it had been suggested to the Committee that the fumes generated by wheelchair accessible taxis on the taxi rank had been an issue, had consideration been given to the fumes which busses generated in the same area?

Iain MacDonald, LVSA, confirmed that the survey had only been sent to Colchester licensed vehicles and operator, as there was no mechanism in place which would the survey to be sent to the holders of licences issued by other local authorities.

In response to a question from the Committee in relation to the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles, Iain MacDonald, LVSA, confirmed that some people had reported finding it difficult to hire a vehicle which could accommodate their wheelchair, however, he considered that in Colchester there was little difficulty in obtaining a suitable vehicle when one was required, however wheelchair users may experience additional difficulties. The level of feedback which had been received through the survey had been relatively low compared to other surveys, and on this basis wheelchair users appeared to be satisfied with the current levels of availability of suitable vehicles. It was, however, important to note that the majority of trips in a licensed vehicle by a wheelchair user were pre-booked and therefore provision of these vehicles would not necessarily be a feature of the unmet demand survey.

The Licensing Team Leader confirmed that whether or not there was adequate provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles in Colchester was difficult to measure, however, Officers did receive enquiries from people who were seeking disabled adapted vehicles. There were also additional challenges around school contracts, but it was difficult to address this issue. Disabled adapted vehicles were licensed within Colchester, and every hackney carriage vehicle plate over the number 200 was required to be disabled adapted.

The Committee discussed the provision of disabled adapted vehicles further, and was advised that with regard to the provision of special educational needs school contracts, these were provided by, and regulated by, Essex County Council (ECC), and the only dealing which the Council had with these contracts was to investigate any complaints which had been received.

A Committee member wondered whether there was any way in which the Council could make it more attractive for proprietors to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles to try to ensure that more were available? The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that unfortunately it was not possible to incentivise one type of vehicles over another, and he understood that one of the barriers which may prevent proprietors from purchasing disabled adapted vehicles was the additional cost associated with purchasing and maintaining these vehicles.

The Committee sought to understand the level of fares which were charged by hackney carriage vehicles, and the Licensing Team Leader confirmed that fares had recently risen, and the Council set these in line with recommendations received from the trade. Any change in fare was advertised publicly and there was the opportunity for anyone who wished to, to make comment on the proposed fares, however, no such representation had been received during the most recent consultation.

In discussion, the Committee sought additional information about the impact that the coronavirus pandemic had had on the taxi trade, and Iain MacDonald, LVSA, confirmed that the majority of towns had been affected by the pandemic and had not yet recovered. A variety of complex changes had occurred in society following the pandemic, including changes in the way in which people worked and businesses operated and how people made use of their leisure time. The most visible illustration of these changes was the reduction in rail patronage, particularly on Friday and Saturday, where a significant proportion of hackney carriage demand was provided by the railway stations. It was considered that the reasonably high level of taxi fares in Colchester meant that it was potentially more likely to retain experienced drivers in the hackney carriage trade, however, this was not necessarily the case in the private hire sector. In the experience of Iain MacDonald, LVSA, there was no evidence to suggest that there was a correlation between fees charged by a local authority and an increase in vehicles licensed elsewhere working locally, but a number of factors would influence this pattern of working, including the ease of acquiring licences. He believed that the practice of cross border hiring was now common across the country, and was very difficult to address.

RESOLVED that:

- The current number of hackney carriage vehicle licences be maintained at 131.

The Committee considered a report which set out its work programme for the current municipal year.

Matthew Evans, Democratic Services Officer, attended the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries.

RESOLVED that: - the contents of the report be noted.