Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the report and appendices (at pages 6 - 9) as delivered by the Interim Licensing Team Leader which should be read together with these minutes as a composite document.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader stated that at a meeting of this Committee on 22 July 2015, it was resolved by Members, in accordance with Section 12 of the Taxi Licensing Policy (as adopted), that only 12-month motor insurance certificates (“certificates”) were to be accepted henceforth. It was reported that in response, it was the insurance companies’ intention to instigate judicial review proceedings challenging the resolution on the grounds that, amongst other things, the Council did not consult upon the same. Members were advised that it was this Council’s formal counter-response to therefore undertake a full consultation upon the subject-matter for a six-week period (as recommended at 2 at page 6). With reference to the draft consultation document at appendix 1 (at pages 8 - 9), it was stated that the document sought to invite comments from primarily three consultee-groups (viz. current hackney carriage/private hire vehicle licence holders, the police and insurance companies/brokers), the results of which would be brought back to the next meeting of this Committee on 07 April 2016. It was reiterated that it remained the position of the Council to seek to end operating a 7-day certificate arrangement for the reasons outlined in the draft consultation document at (a)-(c) (at page 8).

With reference to the draft consultation document at (a) and the heading marked ‘The Trade; respectively, the Chair proposed two amendments, namely that: (i) the added cost implication of the “administrative work” be itemised; and (ii) the practice of accepting 7-day certificates be so-described as creating an “extra administrative workload” due to the additional provision of time and personnel. The Chair further raised a concern regarding, and enquired as to, whether this Council, its licence holders and, or, Private Hire Operators (PHO) would be jointly-responsible in ensuring licensed vehicles are fully-compliant in respect to insurance.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader stated that the added cost implication would ultimately, and necessarily, have to be subsidised by the licence holder and that licence holders ought to be made aware of the same. He advised that although there was a duty incumbent upon this Council, as the Licensing Authority, to ensure its licensed vehicles are appropriately-insured, that responsibly is equally borne primarily by individual licence holders (as policyholders) and secondarily by PHO’s.

Councillor J Kaufman enquired as to what the adopted practice was by other local Licensing Authorities in Leicester/shire and, as such, whether a six-month motor insurance certificate option could be offered by way of compromise.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised that, as far to his knowledge, the majority of other local Licensing Authorities in Leicester/shire (including North West Leicester District Council) do accept a temporary cover note upon the understanding that a 12-month motor insurance certifies shall be provided. It was, however, reported that a small number of Licensing Authorities in Leicester/shire did accept 7-day certificates.

The Member stated that he was in favour of ceasing the practice of accepting 7-day certificates for the reasons outlined. He further enquired as to whether the insurance companies’ intention to instigate judicial review proceedings had hitherto incurred any cost to this Council in responding to the same.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised that a cost had been incurred.

Councillor G A Boulter proposed that those licence holders who were minded to opt for 7-day certificate ought to be charged a commensurately-higher rate inasmuch to reflect the extra administrative workload and added cost implication thereof. He emphasised that this additional financial burden should not fall on the taxpayers of this Borough for the effective purpose of subsidising the voluntary business activities of other individuals.

The Chair stated that approximately 10% of all current licence holders licensed by this Council were affected by the subject-matter in question and that, although the Member’s aforementioned proposal could only be considered once the consultation had concluded, an itemised reference to the added cost implication would be nevertheless be explicitly made in the consultation document.

Councillor B Fahey enquired as to how long 7-day certificates have hitherto been accepted by this Council.

The Chair advised that the subject-matter in question came to her attention approximately 18-24 months ago to whom she had raised concerns (as similarly outlined in the draft consultation document at (a)-(c)) to the Licensing Officer in-post at that time. It was said that she had been assured by the then Officer that an approximate one or two licensed vehicles were affected and that an informal working-arrangement existed in respect of the licence holders. The Chair stated that the subject-matter again materialised upon that Officer’s departure from this Council and that item was now before Members of this Committee for resolution.

The Licensing Officer sought to clarify that a vehicle licence is strictly issued upon the presentation to the Licensing Authority of a valid certificate of motor insurance (or temporary cover note) by the licence holder and, or, his chosen insurance provider.

Councillor B Fahey disagreed with the 7-day insurance operating practice of licence holders insofar as it is not an accepted practice afforded to ordinary policyholders.

Councillor M H Charlesworth reiterated that any licensing-regime should operate on a cost-recovery vis-a-vis a punitive basis. He further questioned the motives upon which insurance companies’ intention to instigate judicial review proceedings was founded, suggesting that insurance brokers had a possible long-term financial interest in continuing to renew motor insurance certificates every seven days. If such was the case, the Member disapproved of motives and industry practices in terms of the unnecessary financial burden being placed on this Council to respond.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised that the insurance companies’ intention to instigate judicial review proceedings was taken on its face value.

The Member enquired as to whether the consultation exercise would serve to mitigate against the prospect of judicial review proceedings being instigated.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised that such would be the anticipated outcome. He further reported that if all 153 current licence holders opted for a 7-day certificate, an approximate five minute data-entry exercise per licensed vehicle would amount to an additional administrative burden of approximately 13 hours per week.

Councillor K J Loydall expressed his discontent insofar the ongoing operational impact this subject-matter was having upon this Licensing Authority despite this Council’s full compliance with the regulatory governance aspect(s) of the same most notable in respect of the scale of fees and charges. With reference to the draft consultation document, the Member sought to substitute the word ‘accepts’ with ‘operates’ so to more accurately denote the Licensing Authority’s current practice.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised Members that although the scale of fees and charges pursuant to inter alia the Licensing Act 2003 is prescribed, the scale of fees and charges in respect of the hackney carriage/private hire vehicle regime are variable.

The Chair sought to clarify that the antecedents obtaining to the subject-matter in question did not involve or otherwise implicate any Officer in-post at neither the current time nor any Officer in attendance at this meeting of this Committee.

The Interim Licensing Team Leader advised that if Members were minded to approve the six-week consultation exercise, that the draft consultation document would in addition be considered by the Council’s department ahead of its circulation.

The Chair stated that the consultation period would be held within the six-weeks between the time elapsing between this meeting and the next meeting of this Committee on 07 April 2016.

UNANAIMOUSLY RESOLVED THAT:

(i)        A six-week consultation period take place; and

(ii)       The Committee support the consultation.