Dear Sir Nicholas,

Council.Thank you for your recent letter which included a letter and agenda from Cheshire East

I have several problems with the content of the letter from Cheshire East it seems apparentthat there are Committee meetings taking place to discuss licensing fees which are not being held open to thepublic or the trade to which they account for, I was not made aware of the meeting that took place on 'the 19thDecember 08 and likewise the forthcoming one in March of this year, neither was I sent ( in good time) acopy of the proposed fees which I became aware of via a local newspaper.

r'Would also like to refer to the "Charges" made by the Council that discovered were beingmade for a Ucenslng officer based on a per hour rate of £50ph? Based on a 40 hour week that would meanthat the officers income would be £104,000 pa I( apart from wishing to apply for such a position I doubt that any officer is on this income level) which bringsme to the legal element of what Councils are allowed to charge, in the Cheshire East letter they quote section53 of the 1976 act n provides the Authority with the power to charge "such a fee as they consider reasOnablewith a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration" however the bit they left out reads "It does notallow for transferable surpluses of profit".

I give you the case of Manchester City Council V King ( 1991 ) LGR696 (QBD) in which itwas held tl'\at the Act did not aUow'the Council to raise anything other than the costs of the scheme.

Therefore the fees could not subsidise any other Council function and were "ring fenced" forthe purposesof the licensingsection. "

, I would therefore like to see detailsof the "ring fenced income"and the numberof licencesissued for both PH and Hackney ( including plates, licences, testing fees, etc ) so that a gross income figurecan be obtained with which to account for costs versus fees in order to ascertain whether there is an elementof profit being made or foreseen in the licensing section of the Councfl.

I also would like to make a statement about the list of objectors to the Licensing Increase infees that was included in the letter, some 62 representations were received by the Council however they statethat 46 of them were the same letter ( this leaves a possible interpretation that all the letters were from thesame person and -ItIs not clear whether they were the same "Type" of letter from 46 individuals or from "One"person? ) Of course I was not surprised to find that my name was not in the list of objectors they provided,which begs the question as to how many "Actually" have made a complaint to the Council ?

One last point to make about the Licensing section of the Council is that they are not solelydealing with TaxVPH licensing, they are also responsible for Public House, Street Traders, Events, Licensingetc,etc, so calculations as to costings cannot be based on the vehicle licensing section alone, I have yet toseea breakdownfor this. '

..Yours faithfullv

- --- ..

, ~.

\ op

f> r'CJfCS J I~c.r-e...c>.;.$ e. c p\ 1C.a.-r'\.C- 'L- ~es \-0 / :--c-k

"'2-0- 1-09 .I

0\...""-cl \ ¥' - '2- - ,,'7 ",...Q... ~/

c..O r.~o<I!... ~J- p,,,-, va.-ir.e. K...'Y'~

3.rr-o ~~M~

C~'~e....-i--k. <2-,'''V'\.,.

,''S) o~ So

o 1,."\.1A Q./ I0\. r-,' V Q../" c..-v-,- t--k.

i--~ )Ci I~ c~ e- ol '-"'-r t ~o vQJ- '1.-0 ~~.s

J k,,'c. h.. h~~ i

f:--o--- (o..f f ~ >c) \ 0 0 \-0

~CXc. k~"\.~ ~ c.o--, ro'C"-.~ ~ <:>\ CJ...1'2...0p'~e.-Y\j.;- ~~

P I-i V ir~ ~,'"'r~

L- ~.5 ~ e e..- { '2.- ~.-(. A. f -, ;l "20 0 ~ VV' e.. ko..cJ... c e. v 0 1<: r

ro---r-.-ff- ,' \rv-c:;.,-l c::.-.:.c! J V\/~,'C;..k 1'r;.~.-.c...O...sQd.. H Q , d-"c>o..l >-'\,."",' p ".....

fr--o # '2-- '2-0$- (i:>r ~4- p-rs: ir 11"2..<10' ~ ~c..~ i-D 12 '2-- 60 ;:t>-

~~ pv-sl,- 1/4-b6.b~~c rJ...s. ,4-~ P,'rs/r ~lo-, c..G!- I'~ S...f2EL ".s c....-

r--e...o~s C "'"o-.bt ~ .' c.~<G. c) P 3S- f' (C!. v'~ /' f2 rkJ2- ot."';s J..c i.-Va s

e.-)G\r~cle.J. io~ \ 3../:. 21:. "Y:) b ""-~ ~"s. '-'vc.-3 <.':H r~'r ~ O~"'{~~. ~

"'V", c..~s e.- S i ~ c.-Q I q.- 1 f'V\..~e.-h.. "'2-oo.s:-.I 0 ~ ~ ~ -e..o__.s ~ c. :y I,..o ,~

\-k.o..-Y h~ ~l h.c...s ~c"""<i!..- ~ «.-=.P-v>- t? 3. 9fl/"~ 1-0 i ~ I. "ip

CA.\- \---\ e., YO f8 hcLc._~) bv-\.- ~~kjy-\"~ o~ k,'~k. c.>(2 t'33.~f/('.~

I~ '"3"",,,J~ "2-00 ~ ,' bQ..\--~ ~.~:;. I ~.~ ~l--k.Q '-'Vr~ o,./t ~ C'''J-l..._

~- c...(AS\r c) p- t,' v,,,,,-~"'" I'''''-~/' Q.0\$<2-.3, kc: > s~ ~~..e. ~ f' $...~ ..~Co '~

~t { CJ~ ~..$'"-0 ,.~ '2-0 C"';'q-I as" Irv c:.-,f'r-.,, o 'X>_ I i ?-j 0 () 0 J-h. "'.S, f.- '" Q "" c..." "",I

~ ~_ r . vV kr I.e-I' '" \-ok ~ \ 0.. S \r

~ ~ ~ k,~~..s 'ko.. V'E- ~c "" c.J..o __ 6 ~ 0 v~

r~c.> '~e.s>..r-s (~<:::>'""-IOL. Nc./V ~~..$. I \{ \.<-Q.. ~ '\ 0 \r

I'''''' ~-'<- ~ I 1--0 \-, ~ c cl C ppsQ.-ir s D~__~1035 i I Ve.,.

OV'\ \rop op f-hts,

Ioe.-,'Yt~ ,,"O\ot t:!Jr ~O~

CJ -r ~ )C.- Ve.h ''c-l 0 1-'2..&i--

f r-6 f 0:" e.cL l'Y'\.o./~S e..s 0 f ~

~ t..-'c.-e '.S-€--;r~ -#-'1-(0- -e.e:v-~ J .

2.{) \-to-c.-k V'~~ ~('C>.-0. e- / PI""\I ~lrQ..-

1~c-lvJ.~ ~~ <'-C)~j..- C) p. a..

b\,A\--" """" W f l ~ \r-ke.- Co-oS ~ c; pc. -«. ..£3 \ro-J

0.. C'..-(2.. £"- ' '.~

~01 f'-o f C)4~ I '"" ~ e..8 I

rc-- X-; y---~r Pf2 I ~ Q./'.Q I'~ 1"'1.e>

Q.. V \V"'~ 1.0 <:).-1( ~ C- c) S h;. ol C>

t..v v ",,-lot c- Q...r1 Iv--l~ \0 -€- 0...

'V-~ x: j' ~ I~ I-f, -e.~cc..e. f~c.-i, ~-e.,.

\o~ ~./2..

M ~ 0 IA/ .-'\. C-bS ~.s. vJ' 0 V\..\ol e:> ..-'\.l ~ b.Q... 0. ~>:.J.~

("...:>-'"'le... ""'" ) b"",v Pr>.r- c..v """"-fC\..-""""~ I--h -eAY c o.s. I.r.s, '-"'"c. ..'\.\ J. Io.~

b ~ ~o ~ \..-~V\.-""oV-~ er ~(!)~(;.._""-c1s op- f'D~G

c..~""'-Sj~ ~olsk('f' c--.\- b-e...&IrJ 0 r ~ l oS IA/.e.. 0 P- 6\As{) Q,5

. \-~

6 ~ \-~-"",,- e..:s.

\' V\..~ e cl.

\ \oe-A ..eve.- 0--\50/ ~\r o.-e- 0 p- I--ke.. r.e.~$c,;...ls )---h,~e. ,o-''''f:JfCS~

~(.s ~ b-'2-,"'n ~ ..-~\-~ollA-<2-e.J ts l o 'y-r-~ ~.J. s1--o..V\.do.41"s-€..- I''':'~

'-"V'-e- S e.J Cl p. c kc r~ ~ Pc... I--h.e... V'- ~--"'-"" oll~ h--,"c-I "(2 E-o...sJr e.ke..sj..,,)~

pc ~ 10 ~ \--k-e.- ""'" ~ e c> p- Mc...cc.l.e..s r-;'.o cJ. I Co '"""'-~i~-i--o ) ~-e....-

~ IV ~v vvtc..k BC;UC::>l''-~h..$ _ ftl J,..tcn'\.~ k. ~ 0 lA- vv v, iol h. Q..,/\,I'~ 0 ""-<.<--

s""if- 0 P. ~S I ~ 0 '-A.. vv~ """,l.J.. h.o--~ H v---~ $ e f' o e-Ir~ Vo...X"1

y--01..r- (f¥s) I~ ~ ",J..e>.-(r~J. ~ J. Q ~ tA..-l o...l--c..cL ~-S 1 J' VI. ~ ~

Se f Q...r"",,\re "L " iA-12-8 ~(, ~- ~v~ ~ c> V\.€:- 0 le-I 'bo."'o:.A.~ k ~

\AI"c; ~-'-\J... ~o ~ 10 ~ oJo [~ h> VV0 r- k ,'"V>.. Ch.-v\... ~ 0 P H r.. 0 r-k~ r v 0, i '"

~ 0 ~ 'f> .r-e> fO $<:>",\ \rl ij So S -;-Y ~~\'Yo ~'" \...V <:>'-"- \ J ~IZ) ""- I t' "'--"'" e.- '-A. V\.L--{'l c

c..-c> ~""-f \~IQ...t_~ \.A--V".~e \.-V" ""c olc;...'ve..- I \r-() b "'-- ol~ J J lA. yo C'J s: C QJ..,.......

1''''''- \--k.4L ~ Y-v.../"e-. s \,A.I'-J~ CC) ''''''''''''''''-0 ~ Se '\.jJ ~ $ \..'-C:I~lJ.. f~Vc ' t~ ~ o..,V G\ C-<) VI""'-~ 0 ~ S-Q..lr c:9P. \--0-.. x r \--c /' (' P- Ps b e....

I' V\. 'rv-o CLA.c ~ c S Q..V\.cl " t ~ vv-~~ \-tA..t2... r-r- .-.J:L€..- cl. fP'Q.-1" '£..VI.lr

"'Z-o "'\..e-6 ) i\--o--.r ( ~ c: J -e.~lA. \ c...\--0r-~ I 0 r J-e...r.Q...~ ~ \ e-\--c /"' ~C.c> .-"\.olth'o""'-S cAJS c p 'f Q...c>-r- o...V"\.ol ~~ ~ \'"\ Vv (!.).~Q... .

\ \~ y- ~ C:A. rr ~ C)~ '\--\~ \"V\. V'~c (l ~

Congieton Borough

Council

16THMARCH 2009

DEAR SIRlMADAM

I AM WRITING TO YOU REGARDING YOUR LETTER ABOUT PROPOSED INCREASES INPRIVATEHIRE& HACKNEYLICENSEFEESFROM1STAPRIL2009.CONSIDERING THE PRESENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE I THINK THE PROPOSED INCREASESARE FAR TO EXCESSIVE

...

@

-- Licen~ingSection,(Cheshire East Council), .

c/o CongletonBorough'Council,Westfields,Middlewich Road,Sandbach,CWll 1HZ.

Re: Proposed Fee Increase

On behalf of the M.H.P .H.A. members we write in response toyour proposed increase in charges for joint hackney/private hiredrivers badge and hackney/private hire vehicle license.

Firstly ;the.present cost for our members for either a hackney or aprivate hire badge is ~75.00 ,very few members have a desire forboth badges therefore the proposal to only offer a joint badge at a" .. ,

cost of £204.00 incurs a massive hike of 172%." .

We feel the proposal speaks for itself in terms of its audaRityas.a '

result of a merger. We strongly oppose the new increases as.o.u~.;,..:.trade has suffered dramatically over the past 12to 24 months Ijke ,.

many other trades. One only has to look at the boarded rippublic. , .

houses and shops in our town centre to ~ee the,decline i~ trade ingeneral. We have no wish to propose an increase in Jarj~fs .as ourcustomers are also blighted by the current economic ,situation.

@

.

Secondly we object to the proposed increase of 43% in the cost ofan annual hackney/private hire plate on the above mentionedgrounds. To our knowledge we are approaching an era ofredundancies and many people accepting marginal or no increasesin pay. This must apply to local councils also as its not only yourworkforce that you should be protecting but the community as awhole.

Yours Sincerely

To: LICENSING Cheshire East-- -~ent: Wednesday,March18,200912:18AM

Subject: Represention - Proposed Hackney Carriage / Private Hire Licence Fees. ~.

The comments / objections relate to the results of the harmonising exercise rather than the principle ofharmonisation, which is accepted.

(Reference is made to the figures in the attached file, which is a Microsoft Excel worksheet saved in HTMLformat, which should be capable of being read by any Windows (XP and vista) amchine. PLEASE ADVISE IFANY PROBLEM WITH THIS FORMAT AND I WILL SUPPLY ANOTHER FORMAT)

A. GENERAL PREAMBLE.

Whilst there are areas with an increase in revenue and a decrease in others, the preponderance is in the areaof increase. Where a decrease is seen, the figures are relatively minor -10%, -13 % for vehicle licences inCrewe.

The a arent 15 % decrease for a Private Hire 0 erators licence in Con leton is misleadin because it iscalculated on the new 5 year basis when historically it has only been available on a 2 year basis. To be clearuntil now a Congleton operator has paid £163 for 1-4 vehicles for a 2 year licence but will now have to pay£345 for a 5 year licence Le. an actual 112% increase in immediate expenditure.

Similarly the % increase for a Drivers Licence in Macclesfield is misleading because currently a HackneyLicence and Public Hire Licence are available on an individual basis at a cost of £75 for 3 years. This relatesvery well to business needs, where drivers tend to operate as PH drivers, e.g. Corporate/contract work and donot "work the ranks"can be obtained individually The % increase in this case then becomes a staggering172%!)

The remaining percentages are equally frightening an increase of 87% for a Drivers licence in Congleton,74% for a vehicle licence if over 7 years old. In Macclesfield Vehicle licences will increase by 43 % andDrivers at best 36% and at worst 172%.

It is not surprising that no objections come from Crewe as the costs will at best be lower and at worst beneutral. However for Congleton & Macclesfield the opposite is the case, very significant increased. See alsopoint D below,which indicates Crewe have a higher charging tariff. They will be ecstatic!

It is noted that the proposed fees appear incomplete as no mention is made of the fees for vehicleInspection on Vehicle replacement nor the fees for any retest following "Pink Remedial Ticket" on Vehicleinspection nor the fee for less than 7 days notice of test. Can it be assumed that as Committee approval isnot being sought that these fees have been abandoned? ;

B. GENERAL OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS.

1.lf approved, these fees will generate an INCREASEINREVENUEfor East Cheshire Council of at

19/03/2009

Page 2 of3 .

least 19.24% as to that received by the replaced councils, and this without any increase in servicelevelor supportl (Thisfigureis basedon theactualnumberof currentlicences,as informedbythe 3outgoingcouncils,anddoesNOTtake intoconsiderationrevenuefromthe miscellaneousreplacement/transfer fees.) Inthe current economic climate and taking into consideration that anobjective of LGR was a reduction in cost to consumers/customers, this is totally unjustifiable andunsupportable.

Consideration must be given to producing a proposal which is NEUTRAL in terms of revenue to thecouncil. This could be achieved by adopting fees as outlined in the counterproposal document. Thisallows for a small Inflationary Increase.

2. If approved this would leave East Cheshire as one of the most expensive areas in the region e.g. Stoke-on-Trent City Council proposed £240 for vehicle licence fees; Staffordshire Moorlands £171 for Private HireVehicle (PHV) licence and £125 for a Hackney Vehicle Licence; Vale Royal Borough Hackney £220, PHV£200, PHV Operators £220 (up to 9 vehicles). This would suggest that, with the exception of Crewe, theprevious fees were in line with other authorities. It is difficult to accept that ALL these authorities were notcovering their cost base.

3. The approach of establishing a "scientific" method to establish the costs is most welcome andshould be applauded. However, the number of hours estimates used to support the fees would appear to beinflated. For example, experience of the vehicle testing function, including the test itself and the administrationaspects of copying documentation,etc is that 1 hour is about correct and not 1.5. VOSA recommendations foran M.O.T test, which is no more and no less stringent that the council test is 45 mins. It is also difficult tounderstand, when considering the content of the applications forms how the estimates are justified. There isnothing in any of the forms which would require lengthy investigation. It should be a matter of following asimple checklist, e,g, Has the vehicle been tested by the council, is it insured, valid MOT, Operators licence inForce, CRB report O.K.Controversial and even cynical though it may be, perhaps an external work studyengineer could help to ratify the work estimates and establish appropriate "check lists".Extreme care must be take also to ensure that" management" overheads are not included as anapportionment unless they are relevant to the item in question and have not also been included in the "LabourRate" calculation already. Le. the £50 per hour.

4. Other authorities recognise that a renewal of a licence is less costly that an application for a new licence.I.e. licence renewals less costly than new licences. This is not reflected anywhere in the proposal. Howeverthe logic is sound a renewal takes less work that a new application, fewer new records to create on systems.

C. 6 MONTH TEST PROPOSED FEE.

1. The proposed fee £75 is excessive. This is 1.5 times as expensive as a VOSA M.O.T., and the council testis quite rightly no more and no less rigorous than a VOSA MOT. It would be less costly to use an outsideagency, where a fee of £50 is the average payable. A VOSA M.O.T is very rigorous nowadays with computercontrolled testing for most safety items, Le. brakes, emissions and lighting. (The only major safety item notcomputer controlled is the seat belts.)

D. HACKNEY CARRIAGE VEHICLE LICENCE FEE.

IT IS TOTALLY AND ABSOLUTELY INEQUITABLE AND UNFAIR THAT THE HACKNEY FEES ARE NOTBEING "ZONED" IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE FARE STRUCTURE.This proposal will lead to a totally indefensible situation where by "cabbies" in Congleton andMacclesfield will pay the same fees as their colleagues in Crewe&Nantwich, yet will have theirearnings controlled AT A LOWER LEVEL than their colleagues in Crewe & Nantwich. Reminder; theAuthority controls the Fare Tariffs, which sets the maximum amount which can be lawfully charged byHackney carriages. It is these Tariffs which are automatically implemented in the Taximeters, whichare legally obliged to be fitted to Hackneys. Whilst the current tariff 1's are stated in different ways thebottom line is Congleton £2.60 for first mile and £1.80 each subsequent mile; Macclesfield £2.80 forfirst mile and £1.70 each subsequent mile and Crewe £3.80 for first mile £1.80 each subsequent mile.

TO BE EQUITABLE, FOR BOTH PUBLIC. WHO PAY THE FARES, AND THECABBIES, HARMONISATION SHOULD TAKE PLACE AT THE SAME TIME. THE HACKNEY LICENCEFEE PROPOSAL SHOULD BE ABANDONED AND INCLUDED AS PART OF THE "ZONING" STUDY.

As a point of interest in a "De-regulation Study" commissioned for Ellesmere Port & Neston in August 2007,from a total population of 377 authorities, Crewe & Nantwich ranked 84, Macclesfield ranked 224 andCongleton ranked 278 in terms offares.I.E. Crewe & Nantwich ABOVE AVERAGE FOR WHAT IS TYPICALELSEWHERE ACROSS THE U.K. whilst Congleton & Macclesfield BELOW AVERAGE.

19/03/2009

-

Page 3 of3

E. DRIVER LICENCE FEE.

It is accepted that IF THE FEE CAN BE SHOWN TO BE AN ACCURATE RECOVERY OF ACTUAL COSTSINCURRED, then grounds for a "cheaper" 1 year licence or a separate PHV licence for Corporate I Contractdrivers, will be difficult to justify, ALBEIT that any cheaper option would be of benefit to the trade at the currenttime.

F. PRIVATE HIRE OPERATOR FEE.

Similar to (E) above, it is accepted that IF THE FEE CAN BE SHOWN TO BE AN ACCURATE RECOVERYOF ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED, then grounds for a "tiered licence, tiered either by number of vehicles orfor annual, biannual, 5 year tiers, will be difficult to justify.

Best Regards

19/03/2009- - ~ --