Previous reference: Minute 49 (2021/22)

The Interim Strategic Director, Place, will provide a report (Document “AB”) to inform Members how the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Service is working towards achieving a high performing, customer focused service and how it analyses information to drive improvements in service delivery to the benefit of trade and employees.

Members are asked to consider, and comment, on Document “AB”.

(Carol Stos – 07582 101569)

The Interim Strategic Director, Place, provided a report (Document “AB”) to inform Members how the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Service was working towards achieving a high performing, customer focused service and how it analysed information to drive improvements in service delivery to the benefit of the trade and employees.

The report revealed how the service analysed information to drive improvements in service delivery to the benefit of the trade and its employees.  Statistics were presented including performance timescales; customer and service interactions obtained from customer surveys and customer drop in sessions.   An update on the number of telephone enquiries to the service and response times was also provided.

A summary of legal and financial obligations was provided as well as a statement as to the current financial position.

The report compared licensing process statistics from April 2021 to October 2022.  Members were advised that applicants were submitting their renewals sooner than previously although there was a slight delay in the average number of days for an application to be accepted by the service except for new vehicle applications.  It was explained that this was due to the current recruitment freeze in place whilst a service restructure was being undertaken.  More positively it was reported that an indicator of the process improvements was that once an application was started they were being processed more quickly.

Members questioned the number of applications received and it was reported that there were 1500 to 1800 new applications waiting; 5,500 current drivers and more than 4,000 vehicles licensed.

The number of vehicles which were not compliant with the district’s Clean Air Zone was queried.  Whilst the figures were not available at the meeting it was agreed that the information would be circulated to Members. 

Action plans which had been put in place to address cultural issues and ensure staff could deal with the city’s diverse population were questioned and it was reported that the service worked to address language barriers and no issues or complaints had been received.

A Member reported that complaints received from his constituents tended to be about vehicles being parked up with their lights on as opposed to the way they were driven and he questioned if complaints raised with operators were dealt with appropriately.  In response it was explained that the service worked with operators to help them run good businesses and understand complex Department for Transport (DfT) issues. 

Comparisons with enforcement issues with previous years were discussed and it was reported that the numbers were low.  The service was keen to facilitate educational sessions to ensure that the trade was aware what they should and should not be doing.  A particular hot topic at the current time was the use of mobile phones  in vehicles and sessions were being arranged to discuss issues since the law had changed.  Work was also undertaken to facilitate an understanding and raise awareness of serious issues such as child sexual exploitation (CSE).

The report revealed that the Enforcement Team carried out a variety of tasks and that 83 driver applications had been refused.  It was queried if these were new or existing drivers and it was explained that the figure was mainly new applications although some renewal applications had been refused for non-compliance with regulations. The figures quoted for revocation of licences were all existing drivers.

A Member reported concerns a number of his constituents had raised regarding enforcement processes.  It was understood that enforcement officers could take drivers off the road and then a team of enforcement officer would review and make a decision on each case. Enforcement officers have power to suspend vehicles and drivers provided there is a requirement and that the correct procedure is followed. An appeals panel was in place until 2019 which asked that Councillors ratified decisions of officers when they we minded to depart from Council Policy.

It was suggested that the Council’s District Appeals Panel would be a fairer and impartial process for considering those cases.  In response it was explained that the Council’s District Appeals Panel could only consider applications to grant a licence against policy as that responsibility was delegated to that panel. 

It was clarified that an enforcement officer would gather evidence to be presented to a panel of officers.  Drivers were also given the opportunity to present facts to the panel.  A weekly panel of officers considered all the facts of anonymised cases and did consider mitigating factors and challenged the original enforcement officer’s recommendation.

Enforcement powers were delegated responsibility from Council and any changes to that process would have to go through the constitutional process. 

Concern was raised by Members that not all drivers were computer literate or had the language capability to present their case and make representations.  In response it was explained that Bradford’s suitability policy was utilised and that this stated all representations must be made in writing.  It was acknowledged that most drivers would prefer a face to face interview and assurances were provided that every person had a right to attend an interview with a representative.  If a person was not happy with a decision they did have the opportunity to challenge that through the courts.

The Chair confirmed a recent experience of attending a hearing with a driver and was satisfied that he had the opportunity to make representations.

It was asked why comparisons of fees contained in the report did not include prices for Wakefield and it was acknowledged that this had been an error and those price comparisons were provided.  It was explained that comparisons were very difficult to make as all authorities considered differing criteria which could be separated as an additional cost but added towards the total fees to be paid, those included varying costs for DBS tests; training and administrative fees.

The rationale for vehicles having to undertake an MOT test and an additional vehicle test by the service was queried.  Members were advised that an MOT test was a minimum standard for all road vehicle users.  The additional vehicle compliance test was a separate check required as the vehicles were under more rigorous pressure than a normal car.  It was reported that if a vehicle had recently passed an MOT test but failed the service’s compliance test the MOT service station would be reported.  In response to questions about how other authorities conducted vehicle tests it was reported that some authorities also required two tests.  Leeds City Council undertook random selection tests and there was no consistent approach for all neighbours. 

It was confirmed that the compliance tests were done in-house by Council mechanics and in response to suggestions that the MOT test could be undertaken internally it was explained that there were constraints around the MOT process.  Other issues would be that if the vehicle failed the MOT test it would be immediately taken off the road whilst the vehicle compliance test would not do that if the vehicle was not dangerous. It was agreed that the issue could be revisited and ways around the constraints be explored.

The length of time taken to process a new application was questioned and it was confirmed that the service was currently working on applications made in September/October 2022.  The applications were processed faster than pre-pandemic but there were more checks now required.  It was explained that delays to the process had been incurred due to staff shortages.  A new staffing structure would soon be in place and applications would be processed more quickly.

That rationale for so many applications being submitted was questioned and it was explained that Leeds City Council had also seen an increase in applications.  It was felt that Bradford was relatively cheap compared to some authorities, particularly for training and that could be the reason for an increase in applications to the authority.  Vehicles could be licensed up to 15 years old and the service was proactive in assisting applicants through the process.  It had also been reported that the enforcement officers were supportive.

A Member referring to the pressures of the drivers’ roles asked if work was undertaken with public health officers to support them and it was explained that following the restructure the service wished to communicate with the trade and do more to support them going forward.

In response to queries about DBS checks and reminders to drivers it was explained that the checks were a condition of a licence and efforts were made, where possible, to ensure drivers did not miss those checks.

Resolved –

That a progress report be presented to this Committee in 12 months.

ACTION: Interim Strategic Director of Public Health