LONDON

The taxi and private hire (PH) industry in London is ‘enduring systemic adverse impacts’ according to one of the country’s major electronic platforms.

London-based Karhoo makes the claim that taxis are likely to dwindle and potentially disappear in its submission to the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) investigation into taxis and PH.

The headline figures of a large increase in PH numbers in London and claims of being the cause of congestion have obscured what is really happening, the company claims.

With drivers’ wages continuing to decline and the number of PH operators reducing, Karhoo says more needs to be done to ensure the system works better for drivers, passengers and operators most of whom are smaller companies. This could include expanding the role of taxis and PH through technology, the firm suggests.

Karhoo, which has connected with over one million licensed taxis and cars worldwide, called on Transport for London (TfL) to develop objective measures for what “good” looks like in the industry and to identify the causes of decline.

The company argues the transport body should also introduce a regular survey to monitor the health of the industry in areas such as driver pay, journey volumes, growth in demand and profitability. This could then be used to identify the root causes of the problems and make interventions, says Karhoo.

Citing statistics from TfL Karhoo warns applications for the Knowledge of London are reducing significantly. The number of PH driver licence renewals has also moved from steady growth to a noticeable decline.

The submission also calls for greater collaboration across the industry from PH fleets, their representative organisations and the taxi industry and the involvement of technology companies, disability representative groups and consumer and safety groups.

Karhoo’s response said: “The inability to thrive appears to be impacting all sizes of business in all geographies across London……Widespread reports from operators in all sectors concerning the difficulty of recruiting PH drivers underlines this notion.”

“The reduction in the number of candidates to the Knowledge of London candidates suggests that the hardly discernible reduction in Licensed London Taxi Drivers over recent times is likely to accelerate as less people enter the industry given the demographics of this sector.”

“In summary, the taxi and private hire industry appears not to be thriving and is in fact enduring systemic adverse impacts.”

Karhoo Co-CEO Boris Pilichowski said: “It’s no secret that there is massive potential for the taxi and PH sectors to grow. However, changes need to be made to ensure the industry as a whole thrives.

“That can only be done by upholding standards and making sure that certain groups aren’t being exploited. Technology will also have an important part to play.

“That’s why we’ve put forward our submission – to help authorities help drivers, passengers, and smaller firms.”

https://goo.gl/zVazWK
----------------------------------------
WAKEFIELD

The High Court has handed down an important ruling relating to the extent to which licensing authorities can include the cost of enforcement activities.

In this case the Wakefield District Private Hire and Hackney Association challenged the fees set by Wakefield City Council in respect of taxi and private hire fees.

Kings Chambers reporting on the case stated: “Mr Rehman brought a claim for Judicial Review against Wakefield’s decision to set licensing fees for the next two years. Following the case of R (on the application of Cummings) v Cardiff City Council [2014] EWHC 2544 (Admin) it is well known that Councils ought to separate out the five streams of taxi licensing (comprising vehicles, drivers and operators), when collecting their licence fees. It is also settled law that there must be no cross subsidy within these streams. Councils must not use the licensing fees as an income generating scheme.

“Against this background, Mr Rehman took issue with the Council’s assignment of enforcement costs relating to drivers to private hire vehicle licence fees which he said did not constitute costs associated with the “control and supervision of vehicles”. This definition is taken from s.70 (2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The difficulty confronting all Councils is that the fees for driver’s licences are set pursuant to s.53 of the Act which allows for “such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration” in relation to the grant of the licence. The conundrum has always been whether the driver’s licence fee covers ongoing driver enforcement.”

The claim for Judicial Review in this case was made in such a way that restricted the Court to an interpretation of s.70(2) only. This approach was resisted by the council seeking a comprehensive resolution to the issue of statutory construction instead however the High Court preferred a narrow approach.

Francis Taylor Building, who represented the taxi association, stated that “His Honour Judge Saffman, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, held that the fees charged by Wakefield were unlawful. In particular, the Council had wrongly interpreted section 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and had erroneously charged the costs of enforcement against drivers (for speeding, bad parking, dressing inappropriately and a miscellany of uncivil or illegal conduct) to the control and supervision of vehicles. Wakefield’s case had been that the costs were properly accounted for against vehicles because the errant drivers were driving vehicles. The learned judge described that as ‘stretching beyond breaking point’ the language of the section.”

As reported, the case is of wider importance as it dispels any suggestion that there is a general principle of law that licensing regimes should be self-financing.

https://goo.gl/gvNZkD