Appendix A

No.	Feedback from consultation	Response
1	Vehicles – non Euro 6 The draft states (concerning hackney carriage and private hire vehicles) that "By 1st April 2020 all diesel vehicles must be Euro 6 compliant" (below I only refer to diesel euro 6 vehicles) 1. Could I ask if Lichfield has been designated a clean air zone by HMG? If not, what is the justification in the Euro 6 requirement with such short notice? Expecting vehicle owners/business owners (sole traders) to change their vehicles will place an intolerable and in some cases impossible financial burden on them. Their alternative might simply be to plate cars in other areas (as Hackney) and continue working in Lichfield via a base as a Private Hire vehicle, in which case LDC has no jurisdiction over car or driver. Licensed vehicles account for less than 2% of all traffic, therefore a Euro 6 requirement is out of proportion. Plus it does not take into account that many licensed vehicles are the owners private transport, and therefore euro 6 would not legally be required. I suspect the impending introduction of Birmingham's Clean Air Zone in 2020 has prompted this. It would be prudent of LDC Licensing Department to remember that firstly, Lichfield is considerably smaller and far less dense than Birmingham (Birmingham is the country's 2nd city or capital - Lichfield is tiny in comparison). Secondly, although LDC are the Licensing and Regulatory Authority, it is us, the taxi drivers, who are the vehicle and business owners, and it is US who will be hit the hardest by these imminent changes. "	This has been amended to 1st April 2022 to allow the trader a longer timescale to meet the requirements.
2	The draft states (concerning hackney carriage and private hire vehicles) that “By April 1st 2020 all diesel vehicles must be Euro 6 compliant” (below I only refer to diesel euro 6 vehicles) 1. Could I ask if Lichfield has been designated a clean air zone by HMG? if not what is the justification in the Euro 6 requirement with such short notice?, changing cars will place an intolerable financial burden on owners, or they might simply plate cars in other areas (as Hackney) and continue working in Lichfield via a base as a Private Hire vehicle, in which case LDC has no jurisdiction over car or driver, already there are vehicles plated in Woking, Walsall and Gedling operating in Lichfield via City cars and 255 cars. LDC has no jurisdiction over these vehicles or drivers. Licensed vehicles account for less than 2% of all traffic, therefore a Euro 6 requirement is out of proportion, plus doesn’t take into account many licensed vehicles are the owners private transport when euro 6 would not be required. 2. How will having no non-Euro 6 plated vehicles post 01/04/2020 actually be implemented? If it means taxi/private hire vehicles NOT of euro 6 spec will not have a plate after 01/04/2020,1 assume you will stop plating (or replating) non-E6 vehicles from 01/04/2019, a date only 4 months away. Euro 6 only became a requirement for new cars as of September 1st 2015 on the 65 plate. Is this case? If so you are giving too short a notice to allow the owners of non-Euro 6 vehicles time to obtain Euro 6 compliant vehicles, a quick check of the vehicle with non-E6 engines currently plated reveals of about 150 vehicles less than 15 are E6, only 10 of these are Hackney (rank cars), resulting in an almost total loss of taxi availability for the public and also impacting on Staffordshire county council school contracts, and encouraging vehicles plated elsewhere to ply in Lichfield or for Uber vehicles to be ready to take jobs (again, LDC has no jurisdiction here) If the draft was read “from April 1st 2022 only Euro 6 vehicles will be accepted for plating OR REPLATING” it is a very different case and acceptable, owners would have 3 years to prepare, though 3 years for major changes is the norm, (i.e. Tamworth’s change to WAV only hackneys and Bristol’s change to 1 shade of green only for hackneys) The policy could be seen to place an onerous burden on the trade and would fail the regulators code test as well as the “reasonably necessary” test. However, a longer lead-in to before it comes into force would be reasonable, i.e. three years from next year April (April 2022). As Lichfield District Council has more employees than licensed vehicles will LDC require all employees’ cars and council vehicles be Euro 6 by April 2020 too? Many 2012 registered cars are not Euro 6 but incur no charge to enter the London ULEZ, so the proposed LDC Euro 6 requirement is harsher than the original “outer” LEZ! Where other councils have decided Euro 6 is desirable they have moved over using “natural wastage” plates for new or replacement vehicles must be Euro 6 but existing plates will be renewed i.e. as with Brighton & Hove licensing:- “As long as vehicles pass the compliance and fitness testing they can be licensed for up to 10 years as standard and up to 12 years for the remaining 2 if granted ‘exceptional condition’ by one of the approved garages. Beyond 10 years licences are for 6 months at a time meaning that tests are required twice a year. Wheelchair accessible vehicles can be licensed for up to 12 years as standard without the need for ‘exceptional condition’ but will require 6 monthly testing / licences. 2 examples HY62LCC, 1st registered 17th September 2012 (hackney) First plated August 2018 when it was under 6 years old, and it will be under 7 years old when due for renewal, but this is also a Euro 5 vehicle. FY13 YRJ, 1st registered 28th March 2013 (private hire) First plated 18/12/2018 it was under 6 years old (the then age maximum for first grant) and will be under the new proposed 7 year maximum age limit when the plate expires. There seems to be provision for extra inspections but with details of charges, etc. But as a Euro 5 vehicle when will LDC refuse to replate it? It seems as if LDC wish for the very latest vehicles to be Hackney carriages (or Private Hire) but in fact most of the nicer cars currently plated would have to be replaced and probably with cheaper cars (to Euro 6) like Dacia Logans.	This takes account of the introduction of the clean air zone in Birmingham, Derby (from January 2020) and other cities across the country. The policy has also been amended to make clear that in the interim period, if a vehicle incurs a clean air zone charge this should not be passed onto the customer.
3	Vehicle age limits The draft states no vehicle over 5 years of age will be (1st grant) plated and at 7 years of age will no longer be plated. This gives only 2 years of service for a vehicle - this is considered unfair and unreasonable, given the costs involved in purchase, plating and meter installation, and that other areas allow plating up to 12 years old. "Licence applications for vehicles in exceptional condition which are outside of the Council's policy, for example by age and type of vehicle, will be subject to additional checks relevant to the type of vehicle. Applicants must provide a council approved independent automobile engineer's report for vehicles outside of the Council's age restrictions. This report is in addition to the Council's mechanical inspection to indicate that the vehicle is in immaculate / exceptional condition. An additional fee will be charged for vehicles outside of the Council's policies to cover additional administration (See Schedule of Fees)" Would the council like to inform us as to who is the "approved engineer" and what admin fees will be levied on such an application? Surely every MOT station is a vehicle engineer? When Tamworth licensing implemented a change to a 100% wheelchair access hackney fleet it gave a notice period of 3 years, enabling owners to change vehicles.	A vehicle may be licensed up to the age of 5 years, the period of service of the vehicle depends on the age when first licensed. A vehicle may still be licensed over this age period if it is in exceptional condition. The approved engineer is the appointed testing station. This is in place to ensure consistency in testing.
4	The draft states no vehicle over 5 years of age will be (1st grant) plated and at 7 years of age will no longer be plated (without engineers report), this gives only 2 years’ service for a vehicle, is this fair given the costs involved in purchase, plating and meter installation and that other areas allow plating till up to 12 years old? Licence applications for vehicles in “exceptional condition” which are outside of the Council’s policy, for example by age and type of vehicle, will be subject to additional checks relevant to the type of vehicle. Applicants must provide an independent automobile engineer’s report for vehicles outside of the Council’s age restrictions to indicate that the vehicle is in immaculate condition. This report is in addition to the Council’s mechanical inspection. An additional fee will be charged for vehicles outside of the Council’s policies to cover additional administration. (There is no indication of what such charges are likely to be) Would the council like to inform us as to who is the “independent automobile engineer” and what admin fees will be levied on such application?, what is an “automobile engineer” if not an MOT test station, or will LDC move testing to the VOSA test station located in the town? Alternatively will a RAC or AA engineers report be accepted? The existing requirements require an “exceptional condition” examination and 2 extra tests per year at circa £85 per test, will this change?	See above It is essential that older vehicles meet all safety requirements and are of the required standard for a taxi or private hire vehicle. The revised fees will be published and the trade will have an opportunity to respond This is the council’s appointed testing station. The revised fees will be published and the trade will have an opportunity to respond
5	Age & Specification of Vehicles Under the new suggestion, the Hackney carriage & Private hire vehicles must be less than 5 year old on initial application. We believe there is no need to reduce this from the current 6 years to 5 years. To buy a new, 5 years old vehicle is very expensive and under the current climate unaffordable for most drivers. We suggest, that the for the new vehicles the age should be increased to 7 years, and then every 6 months plates should be issued after proper inspection for up to 10 years. Reason being, most of the new vehicles are in good condition and unlike older models are fit and proper to drive up to 10 years, also, when council allows the purpose built vehicles 10 years as standard, its only fair that it should be same for other vehicles.as a matter of fact, the purpose built vehicles face more wear and tear compared to a normal vehicle. As the new vehicles are Technologically innovative, efficient and are designed to last for much longer. • The vehicles that falls under exceptional circumstances, would require an independent automobile engineer report that the vehicle is in immaculate condition. With regards to the above, the policy fails to explain what exactly that report would say? Where would the driver acquire that report? How long will the plate will be issued for? As it says cars have to be in an immaculate condition, however this can be inspected by the same company, which is authorized by the council for mechanical inspection. This will save drivers the extra cost and hassle. We do not mind paying for the extra administration cost council has mentioned.	There is not a significant cost differential between a 5 year old car and a six year old vehicle. A purpose built vehicle is designed and built to endure more wear and tear. This is one of the reasons for having an age limit, so passengers benefit from the newly developed safety features of newer vehicles. See point 4
6	Car size You give specific dimensions for a car without taking into consideration to luggage space?	The luggage space is generally in proportion to the vehicle size and is not deemed necessary to specify The seat dimensions have been removed. We didn’t refer to car dimensions.
7	Testing Station Make the testing station somewhere more accessible Current one has no parking leaving your taxi here is worrying (try a visit during the day see where you can park) The place doing the test needs to be bigger with more capacity to do the tests The station doing the testing should not be the one doing repairs as leaves it open to abuse. As part of the taxi test the vehicles should have been inspected for any body work or paint damage prior to the test also operating the meter and taxi light. Including positioning of door stickers and taxi plate	The testing station location will be considered when the current contract ends Repairs do not have to be carried out at the testing station This will be considered
8	Wheelchair accessible vehicles In both hackney carriage and private hire vehicle sections of the proposed policy the use of “PREFERABLY” (wheelchair accessible) is used, if the council want to impose a “WAV’s only” requirement it must undertake another “unmet demand survey”. Many drivers of WAV’s rarely (if at all) get wheelchair jobs, it is more likely to be a mother with a child in a pushchair requesting a WAV. The Government working group report below has quite a few of my points included, i.e. CCTV and the need for an “unmet demand” survey for requiring ONLY wheelchair access vehicles for Hackney carriage and Private hire vehicles. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment__data/file/745516/taxi-and-phv-working-group-report.pdf	There is no proposal to require solely wheelchair accessible vehicles
9	Executive travel vehicles The £40,000 "when new" price requirement will restrict the age of the vehicles, i.e. a 2014 euro 5 E Class Mercedes was £40,000 new but is not Euro 6 compliant. However, PROVING the cost of a 10 year old car when it was new, is nigh on impossible. I presume this is to replace the current Special Events plate, as no mention of Special events plating is made in the draft.	This is a proposed deletion from the policy
10	Executive travel vehicles There is no Euro 6 requirement for “Executive travel” vehicles, surely it would be desirable for executive travel to be in lower emission vehicles as with Hackney and Private Hire vehicles. The £40,000 “when new” price requirement will restrict the age of the vehicles anyway, i.e. a 2014 euro 5 E250 Mercedes was £40,000 new but is not Euro 6 compliant The £40,000 “when new” price requirement will restrict the age of the vehicles anyway, i.e. a 2014 euro 5 E250 Mercedes was £40,000 new but is not Euro 6 compliant.	This will be reviewed prior to any proposed introduction in 2022 See point 9
11	Executive Cars With regards to the draft taxi policy I have a couple of concerns mainly with executive cars. The figure of £40000 from new was any research done or was the figure just plucked out of the air so to speak. The reason I question this as this figure has a significant consequences to executive car makers such as Mercedes and Bmw as cars of £40 k and above make them liable to higher road tax of £450 from year 2 to 5 so the manufacturers deliberately keep just under that with their best-selling executive cars i.e. the Mercedes E class and the Bmw 5 series, the Mercedes being the most used Chauffer car in the UK. I would like to suggest dropping this to £35k and have sent copies of Mercedes and Bmw current price list and current road fund bands. I look forward to your thoughts	See point 9
12	Special Events Licensing Our primary concern is what are the plans for the current Special Events Licensing? There is no mention of it in the draft proposal and our business has been built on the many conditions of the Special Events Licensing in providing a specialist and executive service to our many delighted clients. The differences in our business model, to that of traditional private hire work, are complex and are both tangible and nontangible. We leave those differences outside the scope of our initial response but maintain that it is essential these differences are recognised by the continuation of a Special Events Licensing policy. We request clarification by Lichfield District Council, by way of consultation, on this point and are more than happy to meet in person to discuss further. We believe it necessary that the council fully understand and recognise the differences that chauffeurs provide to that of the traditional private hire driver - it is much more than simply wearing a suit and turning up in an executive vehicle! Again, we’d be only too happy to assist Lichfield District Council determine these differences so they may be worked into future policy. In previous meetings with Lichfield District Council, we have highlighted the difficulties we face as a growing business in attracting and retaining suitable and desirable drivers. This problem continues, and is the most pressing issue facing our business. For each vehicle, we estimate that we require 3 drivers to be able to provide a seamless and quality service to our clients. Over the last 2 years we have: Spent hundreds of pounds advertising for drivers Interviewed in excess of 30 candidates Narrowed those down to approx. 15 suitable persons O Two of these people continued to gain their combined driver’s licence. One of those is still with us today We only interviewed people who live in or have a reasonable appreciation of the geography of South Staffordshire for the reasons that they had to pass the “knowledge” test. Anyone outside the area would struggle to pass this - and the process can’t really be completed sooner than 3-4 months for somebody who passes on their first attempt! At interview stage, many candidates are discouraged from applying because of the knowledge test. We have also turned away candidates from outside the area because we know they will simply go and drive for an authority that doesn’t require a knowledge test -it is “too hard” for most people to consider. We appreciate that a Hackney Carriage driver or a private hire driver who spends most of their working life driving around Lichfield and the surrounding areas of South Staffordshire require this element of the test - and also that it provides security in drivers from outside the area stripping them of jobs and valuable business. But for a chauffeur company who spends most of the time on the motorways of Britain or has a minimum charge of £70 (yes, we do!) - local work and local road knowledge isn’t what we do, or indeed what we ever wish to do. This view extends to the drivers also. Our drivers are ideally part-time and self-employed. They may have a day job or be semi-retired. They want to earn reasonable money in a flexible nature. They have absolutely no interest in driving hackney carriage or traditional private hire. We note in the draft proposal that there is no specific reference to a “geographical” test element to the practical driving test. We very much hope this is the case moving forward and that this will no longer be a requirement to obtaining a licence. We also add that the existing test format encompasses road safety elements which are simply excellent. All our drivers say this - we all learned a great deal from the existing test. For Special Events drivers, we’d recommend an expansion on the safety elements and more focus on the safe use of satnav, the absolute dangers of mobile phone use and advice on open road driving - rather than the geographical knowledge test. This would be far safer for our drivers, help us recruit and help us expand the business with additional safety education for our drivers.	Meeting to discuss proposed It is not believed that the knowledge test is too hard so as to provide a major barrier.
13	"Special events vehicles" Under the provisions of the draft document, those who operate for weddings and special events only would be able to not display the relevant plates. While I understand the potential reasons for this, it would allow for vehicles which are not eligible to act as part of the private hire fleet to circumvent the plating rules. By allowing some vehicles to operate without a plate, a loophole has been created which could be exploited and undermine public protection. While not part of the formal consultation process on the proposed draft policy, there are a number of other issues which exist within the operation of the private hire and hackney carriage fleet which I feel would be pertinent to raise in this consultation response. Should Lichfield District Council feel that it wished to take a more holistic approach to the way I which it operates the hackney carriage and private hire fleet than consideration of some of the issues below would be welcome.	These vehicles would be required to display the plate number in a sticker displayed in the windscreen. Only such vehicles which are for special events will be given this exemption. An executive Hire Vehicle would have to go through the same licensing process as a private hire vehicle. The exemption would be looked at separately. Weddings are exempt from being licensed.
14	By allowing “Special events vehicles” no longer having to display a taxi plate or wear a taxi badge makes it easy for any Tom Dick or Ahmed to claim to a special events driver and vehicle when they are not even badged or plated. Not a good idea	See 13
15	Is the special events licence being discontinued? If so, are the supplementary special event conditions being maintained on Executive Hire Vehicles? Although I sold Select Chauffeurs to a third party (namely a Mr Ian Baird) recently as a step toward semi-retirement, I now trade under Burntwood Wedding Cars. In addition to weddings cars, I still provide a corporate travel service to many of my long standing corporate clients as well as sub-contracting to Select Chauffeurs and other local chauffeur companies when required. In light of this and subject to the above, I wish to apply for Executive Hire Status for my current special events licenced vehicle (Chrysler 300C Reg No S8 XEC SEVL S02)	This is being replaced by Executive Hire and the conditions are set out in the revised draft policy.
16	Could I ask if the current Special Events plate is to be withdrawn in favour of the Executive travel plate as no mention of Special events plating is made in the draft? An alternative to a 3rd classification could be a plate EXEMPTION for Private Hire vehicles as used by many authorities https://www.wvchavon.qov.Uk/documents/10586/370556/WDC+PH+plate+exe mption+policv+2014.pdf/4b147c26-ac1e-46ef-acd2-d72235ef00f1	See point 15
17	CCTV The draft states all vehicles must have fitted, an approved CCTV system by 1st April 2020. Is LDC intending to have approved installers we must use? The cost of up to £750 is a huge burden on vehicle owners. There is no justification for CCTV which is "always on" when the car is running (and 15 minutes after) when many taxis are the owners private/family vehicle, this must constitute an invasion of privacy - own use includes holidays and all forms of trips which are nothing to do with LDC, and outside its jurisdiction. Claiming it prevents attacks would require some sort of proof - how many drivers have been attacked in the area in the last 5 years that having CCTV installed in the vehicles would have prevented? How many reported offences by drivers have been investigated that would have justified the installation of CCTV? Tamworth Borough Council only has CCTV as an option for licensed vehicles (subject to encryption and the DPA rules) and has a much larger population and many more licensed vehicles. Cannock licensing removed the CCTV requirement following valid points by representation from the trade. I own my vehicle. I choose to use it as a work tool. It is my only vehicle, therefore it is also used as my own personal vehicle. I do not wish LDC to have access to every journey I make outside of my working hours, nor do LDC have the right to hear every conversation I have in my vehicle when it is being used on MY TIME. Has LDC consulted the public about the use of CCTV in licensed vehicles? I recently spoke to a few of my regular customers regarding this matter, and all of them are against it. Whilst I accept there may be a need for it in Hackney Carriages, and certainly the larger companies' fleet vehicles, I strongly believe that LDC should take the same approach to CCTV as Tamworth (and many other areas). Presumably, if LDC enforce the CCTV issue, then LDC will be footing the cost of supply and installation of such equipment? Also, the equipment will need to have the facility to be manually operated by the vehicle owner - i.e. be able to switch it on whilst working, and switch it off when not working.	This has been moved back to 1st April 2022, unless introduced by the government before that date)
18	There would be a cost burden placed on drivers which does not currently exist and I would question how this would be governed under the new GDPR legislation. As an independent operator, any data captured by this system would not necessarily be available to the council and my passengers would have the right to request that the system is turned off and that anything they say or do was deleted in good time in line with the relevant requirements to retain data. This is an ill thought out proposal.	See point 17
19	CCTV The draft states all vehicles must have fitted an approved CCTV system by April 1st 2020, is LDC intending have approved installers we must use? The cost of up to £750 is a huge burden on vehicle owners, (especially in view of the proposed Euro 6 requirements for the same date) There is no justification for CCTV which is “always on” when the car is running (and 15 minutes after) when many taxis are the owners private/family vehicle, this must constitute an invasion of privacy, own use includes holidays and all forms of trips nothing to do with LOG and outside its jurisdiction. It will also lead to driver disabling the CCTV in any way possible and claiming the CCTV must be faulty, as they can’t view recordings they have no means to know if it’s working or not. From the Governments taxi/PH licensing’s own report 2018,,,, “Only 4% of authorities had a requirement for all licensed taxis to have CCTV fitted (12 out of 291). Of these 12 authorities with the CCTV requirement, 5 had a requirement for the CCTV to have the facility to record audio. The majority of the authorities without the CCTV requirement did ALLOW licensed taxis to have CCTV fitted (94% or 261 out of 279). 3% of authorities had a requirement for all licensed PHVs to have CCTV fitted (10 out of 293). Of these 10 authorities with the CCTV requirement, 4 had a requirement for the CCTV to have the facility to record audio. The majority of the authorities without the CCTV requirement did ALLOW licensed PHVs to have CCTV fitted (95% or 269 out of 283)” This would mean LDC requiring mandatory CCTV fitting would be very much in the minority. Source:- https://www.qov.uk/qovernment/statistics/taxi-and-private-hire- vehicle-statistics-enqland-2018 Claiming it prevents attacks has never been proven, how many drivers have been attacked in the area in the last 5 years that CCTV would have actually prevented? How many reported offences by drivers have been investigated that would have justified the installation of CCTV? And is the requirement for CCTV on these grounds a measured response? Any Act of Parliament requiring CCTV be fitted in licensed vehicles has yet to be proposed, let alone passed, even then there would be considerable time to allow compliance and the Act of parliament could take 3 years to be passed. Tamworth Borough council only has CCTV as an option for licensed vehicles (subject to encryption and the DPA rules) and has a much larger population and many more licensed vehicles. Cannock licensing removed the CCTV requirement following valid points by representation from the trade. Licensed vehicles carrying pupils to school would need permission from county councils and parents to have CCTV potentially recording pupils. The very excellent Taxi lawyer service states thus:- “When a taxi or private hire driver is working, clearly the use of CCTV would be proportionate and arguably necessary in light of its purpose; to combat crime, to protect drivers and vulnerable passengers. However, when a taxi or private hire driver is off duty, the continued use of CCTV recording is likely to be unlawful, unfair and excessive in light of data protection and human rights legislation.” Source:- https://www.taxidefencebarristers.co.uk/2018/09/cctv-in-taxis-what-is-the-law-on-continuous-recording/	See point 17
20	CCTV The council needs to consider the cost to the owner of the taxis installing a system 30 days recording? Also having one is an invasion of the drivers privacy who my use the taxi when not working to transport his wife and children around. Also the council needs to be aware of guidelines for the use of CCTV in a taxi.	See point 17
21	Tariffs LDC's last table of meter rates is dated 2012 - will there be any review in the near future, and will LDC re-introduce the waiting time charge? LDC is currently the only area in England and Wales without waiting time in its tariffs. LDC has also increased its charges to cover its increasing costs since 2012 - taxi drivers have not had that privilege due to the non-increase in meter rates	The taxi trade may request an increase of tariffs and the response to this consultation has been logged as such a request and this is acknowledged in the committee report.
22	While there is a need for metered fares to be regulated and protected, there needs to be some flexibility in the system which reflects the current conditions in the district regarding waiting times. It also seems to be unnecessary to require receipts to be issues from a Lichfield District Council receipt book rather than the current system used.	Waiting times will be considered as part of the review of tariffs The draft policy simply specifies what information is required on the receipt
23	Taxi fares You need to consider putting waiting time back on the meters, the traffic in Lichfield is horrendous and costing us a great deal of time. Also allowing us to wait for customers while getting paid for it.	See point 22
24	Fares Hackney carriage is not allowed to charge more than the metered fare With regards to above, I understand we have to use the meter in all journeys commenced. But as our meter has no WAITING TIME, we would you to know a real issue that most of us has come across regularly. For instance on weekend nights passengers want to go to McDonalds, say 4:00a.m after the club shuts, they want drive through and then proceed to their destination of choice. On most occasions, the waiting for food is 15-20 minutes on average (due to less staff working at night, every one trying to get food at the same time, as it’s the only place open i.e.) Now in the above scenario, our meters has NO Waiting time, BUT the passengers are Happy to pay us for the Wait, as they do not wish to leave the car and book another one after they get the food. So we believe, council should allow drivers to negotiate with the passengers in advance regarding the cost of any extra waiting time, that they are happy to pay. If we refuse to take them to McDonalds they get rowdy, if we reset the meter once we get there (as suggested by council in the past) they pick a fight with us. Please either suggest a real solution that is not just applicable on paper but in real life, or allow us to charge for waiting, as No drivers want to wait without getting paid. Honestly, people are happy to pay extra for the wait, as they understand, drivers will be held for long periods. On several occasions the Council officials have assured us to review waiting time policy. We hope this will also	See point 22
25	LDC last table of meter rates is dated 2012, will there be any review in the near future (in anticipation of vastly increasing costs regarding CCTV and Euro 6) and will LDC add a waiting time charge as LDC is the only area in England and Wales without waiting time in its tariffs. Fares (private hire) “Drivers of Private Hire Vehicles are not permitted to set fares, all journeys must be calculated on the taximeter (if applicable), or by way of agreement with the Private Hire Operator at the time that the journey is booked.” Surely where a journey is altered post-pick up the fare alters? i.e. extra mileage...or if the job is reduced the passenger will expect a reduction.	See point 21 & 22
26	Fare Review We believe this draft mention nothing regarding an increase in our taxi fares. The last time fares were reviewed is over 6 years ago, since then council has put the FEE tariff up for drivers couple of times. Insurance prices, Road tax, Mot cost, Tyres cost, mechanical cost has gone up considerably since then and overall inflation and minimum wage has Increased. Our Council tariff says: Soiling Charge - £50, Honestly .there is no Car wash that does a Valet for less than £60 and mostly its £80 if you go to a proper place. So, we believe, our Fare Tariff is Out dated and it’s only fair that the Fare should be Reviewed and increased accordingly.	See point 21
27	Fares (Private Hire) "Drivers of Private Hire Vehicles are not permitted to set fares, all journeys must be calculated on the taximeter (if applicable), or by way of agreement with the Private Hire Operator at the time that the journey is booked." Surely where a journey is altered once passengers have been picked up, the fare alters? I.e. extra mileage/extra drops...	The fare agreed when booked is for the agreed journey, this can be amended if the journey is then amended during the journey
28	Receipts Current system of writing receipts on the rear of our business cards is fine By making us use council supplied one further increases our costs.	See point 22
29	Fair and reasonable service for Taxi Trade It is my understanding that LDC and its Licensing Department must adhere to the "Local Government Association (LGA) Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing - Councillors' Handbook (England and Wales). Page 7 - Council Role in Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing in England and Wales This clearly states that:"Local Councils (Licensing Authorities) have the responsibility for ensuring the public travel in safe, well maintained vehicles driven by competent drivers, as well as providing a fair and reasonable service for the Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle trade" So far, although much of the draft policy incorporates existing regulations, requirements and guidelines, it is clear there are certain additions/changes which do not adhere to the above statement in the Councillors' Handbook - i.e. it does NOT provide a fair and reasonable service for the Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle trade. LDC and its Licensing Department may be interested to know that the cost of insuring, licensing, maintaining and fuelling a vehicle to be used for public transportation, amounts to roughly two thirds of each drivers' annual takings - leaving each driver with a relatively low income. Whilst most of us strive to provide a service to the public, that is of a standard above what is expected and laid out in the policy, LDC and its Licensing Department absolutely MUST work a lot more ALONGSIDE their licensed drivers, instead of against them which is effectively what this draft policy will do should it be enforced on 1st April 2019. Whilst passenger and public safety should always be of high importance in this area, please remember it is OUR businesses and livelihoods that are directly affected by these changes - some of which are fine but need to have a longer implementation period, and others that are not. I do sincerely hope and trust that LDC and the Licensing Department will take ALL comments made from ALL responses into very serious consideration, BEFORE implementing and enforcing this Policy. If the Policy is enforced with little or no consideration given to our responses, some of us will purely and simply be put out of business.	A number of changes have been made in response to feedback from the trade.
30	Allocation of rank space Now that the District Council has adopted a delimited approach to hackney carriage plates, it needs to consider the number of taxi rank spaces available in Lichfield and consider. It is not unreason to presume that sufficient rank space across the district would be available to mirror the increase in plated vehicles. There also should be greater enforcement against the private hire vehicles that park on the hackney carriage taxi ranks and illegally collect passengers who haven't pre-booked with them. Currently there appears to be little appetite for traffic wardens to move them on and the ranks require clearer markings with proper signage to prevent plying for trade by the private hire fleet. Particular places where plying for trade appears common place is by the Bus Station and behind McDonald's. Action on this would be welcome by the Council.	The Council is aware of issues re rank space but this is a responsibility of Staffordshire County Council, the Council has requested the adoption of ranks but has been advised this is not a highways priority Enforcement will take place to address the issues raised and the proposed penalty point scheme will also act as a deterrent.
31	The taxi rank provided in town has got an issue of public parking and people leaving their vehicle after the permitted hours at the rank. Although the sign says it’s a taxi rank and £1000 fine for parking here, no one pays any attention and ignores it completely, due to no enforcement or fines been issued. Council has been made aware of this on several occasions previously. Secondly, on the days, when a festival or Fair is held in town, private security guards block the access, and do not allow us to proceed to the rank. They without any permission or notifying the council restrict our access for hours and cause us a great hassle. If the Council wishes to restrict taxi movement in town for any event we should be made aware in writing in advance and an alternative rank should be provided. Thirdly, Drivers from other councils are plying for hire in Lichfield streets on a regular basis. We have got photographic and video evidence of Private Hire Drivers from other councils, waiting sometimes for hours parked at the taxi rank opposite the library. On several occasions the Council officials have been notified. We believe council should really step up and stop these firms from picking up passengers illegally from Lichfield streets.	See point 30 Where road closures are in place the rank is not accessible This will be looked into This will be addressed through greater enforcement
32	The council needs to look into the number of taxi rank spaces in Lichfield and consider the amount of Hackney taxis ( does not compute) Also private cars parked on taxi ranks currently the traffic wardens/ police do nothing about them, instruct them to do so. Ranks need to be clearly marked with proper signage. Also enforcing that Private hire vehicles return to their bases when not on a run. Not parking up around town to be in a position to intercept customers before they get to Licensed ranks, i.e. the Bus Station ,Back of Me Donald’s etc	See point 30
33	Dress Code The requirement of a dress code for drivers is unnecessarily over prescriptive and, I would suggest, almost unenforceable due to the subjective nature of the respectability of clothing. A simple statement that requires drivers to look smart would achieve the same desired effect as this new regulation without being overly burdensome on both drivers and the licensing authority .	Wording to be revised
34	Dress code All it needs to say is drivers in the opinion of the Licensing officers needs to be smartly dressed at all times. Not segregating certain individuals who like to dress differently i.e. Muslins on prayer day.	See point 33
35	Drivers Hours This section of the proposed policy is also overly prescriptive and outside of the competence of the District Council. A driver who has been granted a licence to drive a hackney carriage will have had to pass the fit and proper persons test and this should be sufficient to have confidence that they are able to regulate their working hours sufficiently to not endanger the public. It is wholly unacceptable for the District Council to attempt to regulate working hours of self-employed individuals.	The council is not seeking to regulate the working hours of drivers but is seeking to ensure that the safety of the public is not compromised by drivers working excessive hours.
36	Drivers Hours This is not enforceable so why include it further complicates this document	See point 35
37	Food and drink The car is our workplace and it is unreasonable to expect drivers to sit in silence without access to food and drink. If this was not the intention of the policy, it demonstrates the fact the policy needs further work to give greater clarity.	These requirements refer to when the vehicle is hired. Music and food are allowed in the vehicle when not hired and water is allowed at all times, provided it is not drunk contrary to the highway code.
38	Food and drink in vehicles This is unrealistic as we spend a lot of hrs in our taxis so food and drinks are required (Tell me you don’t have a drink in your office)	See point 37
39	Practical Driving Assessment “Staffordshire County Council Road Safety and Staffordshire Safer Roads Partnership have been employed to carry out the driving assessment. Applicants are required to pass a 2 hour assessment before a licence is issued. The assessment fee is included in the application fee .Any additional assessment will be charged separately, before the assessment can be booked.” Is this for first time applicants or all drivers upon renewing badges? Staffordshire CC (and others) have formulated the tests as the DSA have stopped doing them, it raises the question why, and if a driver fails does LDC intend seizing his taxi badge rendering him/her unemployed as of that moment?	This is for first time applicants and where drivers are required to re-sit a practical driving assessment
40	Location of working Will LDC add an “Intended usage” policy to prevent cars+drivers working elsewhere?	This is not permitted and legally unenforceable although Government have indicated that they will look to amend the law in this area. In relation to Hackney Carriages – this is in legislation – where the hackney carriage will primarily work in it’s ‘home’ authority. It is deemed unlawful to have an intended use policy in relation to private hire vehicles.
41	Penalty Points Scheme The establishment of a new points system seems to be overly bureaucratic and complicated with no immediately obvious reasoning for the points allocated to each infringement. There also exists within the new system penalties for evidence of food and drink, playing the radio when the car is empty etc...	Experience from other authorities that have implemented a penalty point scheme that this has been effective in improving driver and vehicle standards. It is proposed to introduce the penalty point scheme with a review after 12 months to see if it is meeting its objectives .
42	Penalty Points The introduction of this New Policy especially the Penalty point system is a 'final nail in the coffin' for us drivers, who really thought that at some point we will get some appreciation from council . Especially when we risk our lives and work till late hours of mornings to make sure town is clear of all clubbers, and in the process get all the abuse and physical attacks.	See point 41
43	Penalty Points Points scheme for taxi drivers Licence The awarding of the amount of points needs re looking at. This is too harsh there needs to be a scoring system where a driver is suspended for a number of offences i.e. one weeks suspension 2weeks 1 month etc As in other areas Not just taking a drivers badge away	See point 41 The licence of any driver who reaches 12 points will be considered by the Regulatory and licensing sub-committee who will determine the most appropriate course of action to take based on the merits of each case.
44	Driver Penalty Point scheme: As mentioned above, we are strongly against the implementation of this policy and do not believe it will have any effect, or will make any difference with regards to public safety. We have always served this Prestige city of Lichfield, with a great commitment and made sure we make it safe for general public to travel and provide a quality service. We feel like a big family, and previously one thing we all loved about Lichfield council was the consideration to the drivers and council has been kind to us in ail regards. We do not believe that we deserve a Hard Handed Approach, probably copied from other councils in Big cities. As a Cultural city, the people of Lichfield have always Preserved their cultural legacy, opposed new changes to town and kept a balance of connecting the present generation to its past. In the same way, we oppose any Big city policies enforced on us, especially when the current system does not appear to be broken. To make Errors is natural, and we believe as human beings we all make mistakes, as the people working in council offices do as well, that doesn’t mean you start giving them points for minor offences ( i.e. some forgetting their badge, fuse light and so on). Where there is a serious breach, the council already has got a system in place to deal with the driver in question. Council is aware themselves that there is a minority that ever breaches rules, they can be individually penalized, why the rest of us have to have the same sword hanging over our heads. The point system suggested is unfair in its nature, we will give the example of Europe’s biggest council of Birmingham, their point based system states : If a driver has 12 points in 12 months they will be hauled before officers and could be suspended for a week. If they get another 12 points in a subsequent 12-month period they could face a two-week suspension. If 24 points are obtained in 12 months they will be brought before a licensing sub-committee which will be minded to suspend their license for an entire month. Taxi drivers in these circumstances are at great risk of losing their only source of income due to misunderstandings or unjust evaluations by those enforcing the regulations. There are also examples of other Councils, who have introduced the scheme and have abolished it within first year of review, as they felt it does more bad then good for the drivers and has zero effect on Public safety. We believe the Table Tariff is just not practical, it looks good on paper, but on job, it is not applicable. Below are a few examples just to elaborate, how it is just not possible to enforce such a policy: Table of Tariff - point 60: Failure to assist with loading/unloading luggage to or from any building, vehicle or place. How can you ask a Taxi driver to assist with loading from a building? Firstly, we are not insured to do that. We are taxi drivers not porters. When a customer brings his luggage to the taxi or out of a building all drivers help with the loading and unloading, but no one will take the bags to their rooms, that’s simply not our job and council can’t force drivers to do it. Table of Tariff - point 32: Failure to search the vehicle for lost property or return lost property - 3 to 6 points. We all have come across situations where people believe they have dropped something in TAXI, but really, they lost it in the clubs or never had it on them. So, any one accusing a driver, ‘He didn’t look for my lost phone’, can get him 6 points. Honestly, does that sound realistic to the Council? Table of Tariff - point 3: Refusal to accept hiring without a reason- 6 points. Apart from being drunk and rude, there could be numerous other reasons for refusing a customer. For example: The customer got less money then what a driver knows the fare would be or the hirer wants you to wait when they get home, until they get ready and bring them back. The hirer has not paid you on several occasions previously, and he is asking for a taxi again and so on. So if a customer from any of the above examples, complaints to the Council, the driver will be issued with 6 points. We do not believe council can ever enforce something like this, as its Driver’s word against the Customer’s. Without any independent person present at the time of incident it is just not beyond a reasonable doubt, hence can’t be enforced. It should be a Drivers personal decision to accept or refuse a customer, based on what has been asked from him and who is asking. Especially, when the Council says that the Driver’s safety is their own responsibility, then we should be allowed to choose, who we want to provide our service to.	See point 41 & 43
45	Driver penalty points scheme 1 think that points allocated to some of the rule breaches are harsh such as failure to display no smoker stickers (no 22) is 3 points per missing sticker which could be In effect 9 points out of 12 points especially when smoking in public vehicles is known to be illegal. In my view this a minor breach which should carry a minor penalty. There is evidence of food and drink left in the vehicle (no 38). I keep bottled water for personal use and this is four points, Considering drivers should be kept hydrated on long journeys I think this is draconian. No 43 failure to wear driver's badge so visible to public carries four points which again seems very severe. Please advise as to whether points will be issued immediately or whether you will have a verbal warning procedure so that drivers can correct failures without being penalised? This is the first time in 12 years of running a taxi business that I have been made aware of full rules apart from a 2 page list at the time of renewing my plate and badge. No 6 - with reference to using a mobile phone I have hands free facility, blue toothed throughout the vehicle. However this requires touching an on screen display on the dash board or headset. Please can you clarify if this is permissible as I am aware it is classed as hands free? I currently record all my bookings in a large desk diary so I assume that I do not need to number the pages as the diary is by virtue of being a calendar is numbered anyway. I would like to have a one to one meeting to discuss my personal business and situation.	See point 41 & 43 A meeting will be agreed
46	Luggage The suggestion that the driver should be responsible for loading and unloading luggage on behalf of passengers. Our role as drivers in the transporting of those who use our service. Obviously, if assistance is needed, it would be offered but as a default requirement this is wholly unworkable and unnecessary. Furthermore, to require such a service to be undertaken to and from a building opens up, I believe, as a series of questions over liability for damage of luggage and opens up drivers to potential problems should accidental damage occur. Once more this is a wholly unenforceable requirement and would add additional time on to each journey but time for which drivers would not be able to charge	The policy refers to reasonable assistance
47	Luggage The driver is responsible for loading /unloading luggage not for transporting it to and from a building We collect from the curb side and drop at the curb side We are drivers not porters.	See point 46
48	Medicals and Testing Stations As we live and work in Lichfield, these should take place in Lichfield. Accessibility to the testing site is very difficult and therefore improving this would be welcome.	These issues will be considered when the contracts are renewed.
49	Medicals We work in Lichfield bring the medicals back to the area we work in.	See point 48
50	NVQ for Drivers Lichfield District Council previously started a scheme of NVQs for drivers. This is a welcome acknowledgement of the important role we play in the public transport offer and I would encourage the Council to restart this process.	This will be further explored
51	NVQs The council started a scheme of NVQs for drivers what happened to that?	See point 50
52	Refresher training for child exploitation Every 3 years sounds a bit much this cost us time when we should be working or at home with our families	This is a Staffordshire Safeguarding Board requirement. The option to undertake refresher training via e learning will be looked into.
53	Error Ref engine size and power outputs ’’Engines less than 1400cc will be conside3red provided that they are at least 95bhp or 125ps or greater’’ 95bhp is actually 97PS	Deleted from the policy
54	General Overall, the document is very complex and provides an unnecessary level of bureaucracy which could be simplified.	A number of changes have been made across the policy to simplify where possible and remove any necessary duplication.
55	Having read the proposed policy I have reached the conclusion the proposed policy is to complicated and long winded. It makes it easy for people to use the get out I don’t understand!	See point 54
56	A lot of the items mentioned in the proposed policy are DVLA regulations by inclusion in this document you further complicate it. Please simply make this document easier to understand and less complicated don’t give people the excuse I didn’t understand.	It is proposed to remove conditions that are covered by licensing legislation and the Highway code.
57	We were expecting council response with regards to the Police Presence in town, as it works as a visual deterrent, After 3:00a.m on the weekends, we have Zero police presence and that’s when Walkabout and Scales shut, drivers are just left to their own to deal with the drunks and rowdy. To our surprise draft document, mention nothing about driver safety or any comfort or guidance for the victims of crime during work.	This feedback will be passed onto the police. Driver safety is referred to in the Safeguarding training and the introduction of CCTV is in part to improve driver safety.
58	Walkabout and Scales shut, drivers are just left to their own to deal with the drunks and rowdy. To our surprise draft document, mention nothing about driver safety or any comfort or guidance for the victims of crime during work.	See point 57
59	Period of Consultation and procedures The period of consultation on such a wide ranging and in-depth licensing policy change is far too short, and possibly breaches Government guidelines when it affects the livelihood of over 150 people, and possibly the provision of a taxi service for the public. If this were an employer situation, 12 weeks would be the norm. Considering your letter of notification was dated 15th November 2018, and it arrived through my letter box on 2nd December 2018, (even though I live just over 4 miles away from Frog Lane offices), I have already lost 2 very valuable weeks of this already short consultation period. Stating Staffordshire Road Safety Unit have "already been booked" infers the whole draft has already been passed and accepted PRIOR to the ending of the consultation period, in fact before the draft was made public. I refer LDC to the court case "Sardar and others vs Watford 2006" where it was decided the council had acted illegally in proceeding with legislation without allowing due time for consultation. Details may be found at http://www.mondaq.com From the draft "The policy has been developed by Lichfield District Council in consultation with other Statutory Agencies, the Public and the Licensing Trade." Can reference be made as to exactly who has been consulted? Where was the draft advertised/displayed other than by a letter with a web link sent to licensed owners? Was a notice placed in the local newspapers? Have members of the public/regular taxi users been consulted in this matter?	The consultation took place over a 9 week period and was in line with the guidance issued by the Better Regulation Office 2018. The draft proposes no changes to the knowledge test and practical driving assessment arrangements. However the policy has been revised to allow for a potential different provider in the future. The list of consultees is set out in paragraph 3.9 of the report. The consultation was promoted via the Council’s website . There is no requirement to place a notice in the local newspaper.