North Tyne Set for 18% Test Fee Hike!
Pete Cooper | Oct 06, 2009 | Comments 9
North Tyneside Council Regulation and Review Committee
6pm Monday October 12th 2009 Review of Fees and Charges for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Scheme
The table below shows the proposed fees to be put before the Committee. The percentages at the right of the table show increases we will have to bear if these proposed increases are passed by committee. The purpose of the report is for the committee to consider the proposed increases in fees and charges relating to the licensing of Hackney Carriages & private Hire Vehicles,drivers & operators in order that the Licensing service can fully recover all costs of providing a licensing scheme in relation to Hackney Carriage & Private Hire.
All members of the trade have the opportunity to raise objections during the statutory consultation period.
Possibly Related Posts:
- The Law & You: Bilking (or runners)
- Private Hire raised fares to cover costs in snow
- Selby taxi fares to be frozen
- TAXI firm criticised for hiking prices during the bad weather
- North Tyneside H/C Fare Increase?
Filed Under: Fares, Tariffs & Fees • Financial
NEWCASTLE PRIVATE HIRE DRIVERS ASSOCIATION
And they’ll probably get away with it,because you lilly-livered lot out there wont challenge it,or do anything else like protest or show your disgust.It’s time everyone got thereselves licenced in Northumberland!!!!!
Reply
Bob Sneddon attended the meeting of the Regulation & review committee this evening where the unmet demand survey for north tyneside was discussed and it was agreed that their was no significant unmet demand for hackney carriages and that the limit of 204 hackney carriages would stay. The fare increase was agreed and is going out to consultation.
Reply
re:- fees increase, your 18% figure is spot on, typically if your vehicle is under 4 years old you will face an increase of 15% and if your vehicle is over 4 years old you will face an increase of 25%
by the way, did you know us taxi/private hire drivers are paying for the pensions of the council workers who we pay to regulate us…… what planet are they on, beam me up Scotty !!!!!!!!!!
re:- fare increase, times are tough because of the recession, lets do our bit and freeze the fares.
Reply
David Walls Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@Sam Harrington,
Hello Sam,
Not trying to justify the Council Increases, but I asked after the Councillors had decided to approve the rise in principal tonight, why the Vehicle fee was so high and the response was add 8.5% to the old fee for under 4 years old plus the £16 MOT increase and then add £54 for extra 6 month test for vehicles over 4 years.
In relation to the replacement vehicle I was told £38 was for an MOT, but that is now £54 and a Plate is £10 and £5 increase in administration giving £69 figure.
Then the Tranfer of Proprietor is down to an administration charge increase of £15 to the £20 figure, but I do not understand that one as Additional Proprietor is still only £5 Admin Charge and the Amendment to Licence is still £5, therefore to me £15 increse to much in my opinion.
I will never understand how an Operator Licence is so cheap, when you see that a Propritor with a Vehicle can probably only turnover around £300-£700 a week less expenses depending on how they work.
Yet an Operator Licence can generate £100 a week from every vehicle they operate, so you do the maths on that one? as it is not my intention to upset the Operator Licence Proprietors.
Thanks
Dave Walls
Reply
Well done to the councillors at North tyneside voting in this way above inflation rise in fees, no wonder people went to Bewick. The mess is of the councils own making.
Reply
Dear john smith (great name – reminds me of ermmmm beer).
Do not be so defeatist, make sure you object when the rise is notified in the press, it is no good sticking your head in the sand.
Dear Dave Walls, you may be a businessman but i think you lack a grasp of mathematics (as do the councillors who passed the increase). The report submitted to the committee was mis-leading to say the least, it implied an 8.5% rise, which we all know is total bullsh*t. I for one will certainly be objecting.
Reply
David Walls Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 10:50 am
@Sam Harrington,
Hello Sam,
I do not lack a grasp of simple mathematics, as I did not give any mathermatics as such in my post, all I did Sam was give you the responce answer I was given when I asked Joanne Lee how the Council Officers had come to the figures for certain costs and the examples stated was the workings as it was explained to me.
Sam this site asks me not to be secretive and so I was just trying to keep you aware of what the answers were to my questioning of Joanne about how figures were reached.
Sam, I to will be objecting to the proposed costs and that was the basis of my questioning of Joanne, so I understood how certain figures had been reached.
It is also worth pointing out that as we do not get an MOT at the 6 Month inspection for our vehicles over 4 years old, then why do we get charged the MOT price of £54 when there is a simple Certificate of Compliance (COC) that can be issued instead of an MOT that should only involve a cost of £32 according to the Department of Transport who also conduct MOT rules and pricing for products.
Now Sam, if we were to ask the Council to not give us an MOT, but to give us a COC then we could only be charged £32 not £54 according to Department of Transport figure pricing and that would reduce the fee for a vehicle under 4 years, and reduce the fee for over 4 year old vehicle because the fee charged would be only £32 more than the under 4 year old vehicle.
Remember though that £38 should have been deducted from £236 to give figure of £198 for an under 4 year old vehicle then add 8.5% because by simply adding 8.5% to £236 gives you a figure of £256.06p meaning there is an extra £12.94p to get £269 figure stated then the Council just added another £54 for the MOT meaning if £198 plus 8.5% was applied you get a figure of £214.83 plus £32 equals £246.83p for a vehicle under 4 years old, and £278.83p for a vehicle over 4 years old.
Then if you apply that to a replacemen vehicle cost it would read COC £32 plus Plate cost £10 plus Admin Cost £5 meaning £47 not £69 as in report.
Then as I say how can Transfer of Prorietor be increase by £15 to £20, when either the Ammendment to Licence, or the, Additional Proprietor Admin costs remain at £5.
The whole situation has been set out very badly, but one thing is for sure the Council can make Charges to cover the cost of the Department with a 5% profit margin built in for safety measures of balancing the books.
Hope this satisfies you Sam, that I am looking out for both the “Hail and Ride” and the “Prebooked in Advance” Drivers interests, as Stephen Arthur seems to doubt my intentions at the Licensing Form.
Thaks
Dave Walls
Reply
Ollie Beak Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 11:47 am
@Sam Harrington, Does anyone know just exactly what is wrong with this guy David Walls? I suppose if we could dig Sigmund Freud up and clone him he would probably say he falls somewhere between extreme anal retention and ‘post traumatic’ latent homosexuality.
Even an air freshener in the Forum meeting room would be of more use than he could possibly be.
My guess is that he’s trying to take the crown of “The Most Pointless Person Present” from Mr. Fidler. I can’t believe that these people are being allowed to represent a largely intelligent group of drivers whose children could even run circles around them.
Reply
Sam Harrington Reply:
October 16th, 2009 at 1:56 am
@Ollie Beak, well said Ollie, take note Mr Walls, KEEP IT SIMPLE… no need to keep repeating yourself.
I come on here with good intent, but generally miss a lot of the postings because i come across one by Mr Walls or Mr Fiddler and generally fall asleep.
Reply