The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “J”) seeks the approval of the Committee to implement new conditions for private hire driver/operator/proprietor licences and hackney carriage drivers and vehicle licences.

 

The report explains that the conditions will assist operators, proprietors and drivers in delivering an effective and safe service, improved vehicle maintenance and better business protocols. It states that the use of good practice will increase the safety of the travelling public.

 

Recommended –

 

That the implementation of the proposed new conditions for private hire driver/operator/proprietor licences and hackney carriage drivers and vehicle licences, as set out in Paragraphs 3.1 to 3.5 of Document “J”, be approved.

 

(Carol Stos - 01274 437506)

 

The report of the Strategic Director, Place (Document “J”) sought the approval of the Committee to implement new conditions for private hire driver/operator/proprietor licences and hackney carriage drivers and vehicle licences.

 

The report explained that the conditions aimed to assist operators, proprietors and drivers in delivering an effective and safe service, improved vehicle maintenance and better business protocols. It stated that the use of good practice would increase the safety of the travelling public.

 

In presenting the report the Strategic Director highlighted the following points:

 

·         Condition – Display of Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)/Safeguarding Information in Licensed Vehicles (Paragraph 3.1):

 

This required the display of approved safeguarding information in the form of a window sticker in all licensed vehicles.

 

·         Conditions – Suitability of Employees (Paragraph 3.2) and Employee Code of Conduct (Paragraph 3.3):

 

The Licensing Service had no direct responsibility or powers in terms of the employees of operators.  These members of staff could have access to a lot of personal information and it was therefore important that operators take responsibility for undertaking basic checks on them to ensure that they were suitable and to ensure that they were aware of their obligations in respect of the Employee Code of Conduct.

 

·         Condition – Amendments arising from the Deregulation Act 2015 (Paragraph 3.4):

 

This meant that drivers would have the option of either a one or three year licence and operators a one or five year licence. It was noted that the changes to fees would need to be advertised prior to implementation.

 

·         Condition – Vehicle Safety and Maintenance (Paragraph 3.5):

 

The Service had worked hard with proprietors to ensure the safety of vehicles but the overall rate of failure of safety inspections remained around 40% and the percentage of these vehicles with serious or multiple faults was around 20%. It was acknowledged that drivers had raised concerns that, in some cases, a vehicle had been deemed to pass its MOT but problems had been identified by the safety inspection soon afterwards. In these instances details were passed to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) in these instances. In order to encourage safety the new condition would require proprietors to provide a certificate of mechanical safety and vehicle maintenance and the fee structure would be revised to increase the fees for safety failures judged to be either critical or dangerous.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director explained that:

 

·         The provision in relation to Licensed Operators being responsible for conducting checks on employees to ensure that they were of a good character and suitable for the position held and for providing training did not relate to drivers but to employees such as those based in their offices.

·         The Council encouraged the installation of CCTV (in accordance with the Council’s CCTV Code of Practice) but this was currently on a voluntary basis. It was understood that the Local Government Association intended to publish new guidance on the use of CCTV later in the year and this was awaited prior to any consideration of whether this should be made a mandatory requirement. A lot of local authorities were considering this issue; it was believed that it could be of benefit to both drivers and the general public.

·         In terms of the consultation undertaken on the new conditions; these proposals had first been put forward in October 2016.  Four meetings a year were held with licensed operators each of whom were required to attend a minimum of 75% of these meetings. The minutes of the meetings were published on the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Service website and feedback on the issues raised was encouraged. It had been suggested that all drivers/operators should be given the opportunity to comment on the proposals and, as a result, an online survey had been undertaken.  This had been open for responses for several weeks with a reminder being sent out in December 2016. Of approximately 7,500 licensees 126 had completed the survey.

·         The survey had been sent to the operators and the onus was on them to ensure that their drivers were informed.  One of the conditions of a licence was that drivers should make regular visits to the website.  The Service was in the process of recording drivers’ email addresses and it was intended that in the future information could be sent directly to them.

·         The situation in respect of vehicles which had passed their MOT but then had a fault identified by the safety inspection was complex and each case was considered on its merits. The Service could not engage with the garage concerned directly but the driver should be able to use the failure sheet from the inspection to challenge their work. 

·         The aim of these changes was to ensure that vehicles were safe for both passengers and the drivers themselves.  It was noted that the Licensing Service had no incentive to increase fees.

 

Representatives of various parties put forward the following points to the Committee:

 

Independent Private Hire Association Bradford

 

·         It was questioned whether the rates for vehicles considered not to be roadworthy had got better or worse over the last five years; figures should be available in order to assist in making a considered decision.

·         Drivers were disappointed with the proposals. There were issues in respect of the consultation process.

·         It was considered astonishing that only 126 responses had been received from over 7000 drivers but nothing had been done to address this. It was believed that the Council had a duty of care to customers but also to drivers.  If a system of consultation had not worked then alternatives should be looked at.

·         A ‘scores on the doors’ system for operators had been discussed but not implemented.

·         It was believed that the publicity from the Council was always negative; the recent reports in the press contained information that was five years old.

·         Financial punishment would not address the problems and would take money from the pockets of hard working drivers.

 

In response to questions from Members he said that:

 

·         The biggest concern was the large increase in the fines.

·         The undertaking of checks on staff was not considered to be an issue and the provision of safeguarding information was important.

 

GMB

 

·         As a representative of many drivers across the district it was clear that there was a great strength of feeling about these issues.

·         It was considered that ordinary drivers were not being given the respect they deserved.

·         Safety was a crucial issue but a £100 penalty if a vehicle was pulled over was not considered to be the way to deal with it.

·         Ordinary drivers should be consulted.

·         Only 126 people had responded to the consultation but the numbers of people present at this meeting, having had to re-arrange their work to be here, indicated how important the issue was.  The Committee should defer the matter for further consultation with stakeholders to find a solution.

·         The Council was not talking to the individuals concerned who were doing a fantastic job for the district.

 

In response to a question from a Member of the Committee, he said that it was not considered that consultation had taken place to the level that it should have done. The matter should be deferred to allow for open consultation and to allow work to be undertaken with officers to find a solution.

 

Bradford Hackney Carriage Drivers and Owners Association

 

·         The recent press coverage about the failure of safety checks was considered to be confusing to the public and drivers; it did not include any details such as whether these were annual or random inspections.

·         The proposed increase in fees for faults to vehicles was a large amount for a driver and would place a burden on them.

·         Drivers were generally happy to get CCTV fitted but if a grant was made available it would assist them in installing better quality equipment.

·         There were 225 hackney carriages operating in the district but over 3,500 private hire vehicles. 

·         The numbers of vehicles failing safety checks reflected badly on hackney carriage drivers/operators.

·         Passengers wanted cheap travel and this was a competitive business; private hire drivers were overworked and under pressure which meant that they were running on the cheap and did not have time to check vehicles.

·         Safety was a priority and the Council was doing a good job but the effect of an increase from £20 to £75 (for  a multiple fault failure) had to be considered.

 

Keighley Private Hire Association

 

·         It was considered that the consultation on the proposals had been poor. The recent survey had only received 126 responses. This was a very low turnout and officers should look at different ways to do this.  It should be noted that not all drivers had smartphones.

·         A change from £20 to £75 was quite high and a lot of drivers were unhappy about this proposal.  This should be reconsidered and taken for further consultation.

·         It was questioned what had happened in respect of the suggestion about the provision of free MOTs? There had also been a suggestion that the Service work with selected garages but this had not been progressed.

·         Drivers paid enough in fees, re-tests should be done free.

 

In response to the points raised and additional questions from Members, the Strategic Director said that:

 

·         Driver Training, which had to be repeated every three years, included information on checking the safety of vehicles repeated every three years and all new drivers were briefed on safety and its importance.

·         The fees referred to the annual safety inspection test which a driver would know about in advance rather than a penalty if a vehicle was pulled over by enforcement officers.

·         The figures for failure had been in the region of 40% consistently over the last few years. Exact figures were provided at the meetings with operators. There had certainly been no significant improvement.

·         It was expected that operators communicate information to their drivers.

·         The information would have been accessible through any computer not just a smartphone.

·         The online survey was believed to be a good way to consult although it was accepted that not all drivers would be able to access it. The collation of information from over 7,500 paper forms would be a lot more difficult than via electronic means.

·         The provision of free MOTs this had proved to be administratively impossible and due to a backlog had meant that any vehicle that failed would have had to be taken off the road.

·         There had been a discussion about working with selected garages but no proposals had been put forward by the Trade and the Council did not have the capacity to deal with repairs.

·         Consultation forms had not been made available at Shearbridge Depot but this was a good idea.

·         Where there was a recognised association representing a particular group the Service did engage with them.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

·         Taking a vehicle for an MOT was no guarantee of it being road worthy but a critical fault should be found by undertaking vehicle checks.

·         Up to date figures for the number of failures should be provided and more consultation should be undertaken.

·         There were concerns about the consultation process; 126 responses from in excess of 7,500 drivers was not good enough.  The Council had a duty of care to drivers as it licensed them; consultation should take place directly. It appeared that operators had not passed on the relevant information to drivers.

·         It was the operator’s responsibility to ensure checks were made in respect  of their staff and to ensure drivers were aware of their obligations in respect of safety.

·         If a vehicle was not safe it should not be on the road.

·         Although it was appreciated that the response to the survey had been very low it was not considered that this was the fault of the Council.  It may have been the case that drivers had chosen not to respond.

·         A driver would not incur the fees if a vehicle did not have any serious or multiple faults.

·         The Council had a duty of care to drivers but also to the public in terms of safety.

·         There had been no significant reduction in the numbers of vehicles failing inspections.

·         The number of responses received was incredibly low.

·         A significant number of people had attended this meeting; proper consultation should be undertaken it was not the drivers fault that this had not occurred. The drivers did not earn enough to pay fines.

·         If a vehicle was fit for use no fee would be incurred.  This was a matter of public safety.

·         Officers should work with the Associations to try to ensure that future consultations were effective.

·         It was acknowledged that drivers provided a responsible service for the district’s population and its visitors sometimes under difficult circumstances.

·         The Service had said that it would take a reasonable attitude if a driver had a good maintenance log and had tried their best but experienced a problem with failure of an inspection.

·         In the future an email address should be available for each driver and it should therefore be possible to undertake direct consultation.

 

Further to which it was:

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That the new conditions for private hire driver/operator/proprietor licences and hackney carriage drivers and vehicle licences, as set out in Document “J”, be approved with the conditions set out in Paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.5 being implemented with immediate effect and those in Paragraph 3.4 with effect from 1 September 2017.

 

(2)       That the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Service be requested to notify all drivers directly of any future consultation process, as far as possible, where an email address has been provided to the Service.

 

ACTION:       Strategic Director, Place