Information against Guildford Borough Council for fraud in connection with livery

	Source of text	Text	Fraud Act 2006 Section	Grounds
1	GBC Council 1/12/2015	These are particularly important in light of the findings of the report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.	2	Misleading. GBC never stated that the Casey Rotherham report did not mention taxi livery as a remedy, as the Rotherham taxis were already liveried white at the times of the Rotherhan abuses. The Reports about Rotherham make it quite clear that the victims clearly knew that the sources of the abuse were Rotherham taxi drivers and new they were in danger if they got into a liveried Rotherham taxi and in fact did everything they could to avoid getting into a liveried taxi. The Rotherham report recommended video cameras in taxis, but GBC completely omitted that.
2	GBC Council 1/12/2015	It reinforced the need for safety to be the uppermost concern of any licensing and enforcement regime when determining policy, setting standards and deciding how they are enforced.	2	Misleading as it implies that the wrapping of taxis would make anyone safer.
3	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The inspectors uncovered serious weaknesses and concerns and judged that Rotherham had not taken sufficient steps to ensure that only fit and proper persons were permitted to hold a taxi licence and, therefore, could not provide assurances that the public, including vulnerable people, were safe.	2	Misleading as all Rotherham taxis were already liveried so the cause of the exploitation could not have been lack of livery.
4	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The aim of the changes to this Policy is to strengthen the current policy endorsing the requirement that public safety is paramount, improve standards and help professionalise the trade.	2	Misleading. There is no evidence that livery or NVQ training would improve public safety, standards, or professionalise the trade.
5	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Adoption of the policy will contribute to the delivery of the Council’s strategic objectives of Infrastructure, Economy and Society.	2	Misleading. There is no evidence provided that the changes to this policy would strengthen the current policy endorsing the requirement that public safety is paramount, improve standards and help professionalise the trade.
6	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The Department of Transport endorses the introduction of the qualifications in its ‘Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance’ (March 2010) which states, “there may well be advantage in encouraging drivers to obtain one of the nationally-recognised vocational qualifications for the taxi and PHV trades.” A number of other Local Authorities, as far back as 2004, require drivers to obtain a qualification.	2	Misleading, saying "there may well be advantage" is not the same as "endorsing".
7	GBC Council 1/12/2015	To make a livery distinctive, unique and difficult to replicate, it is suggested that the scheme should be unusual and not a mainstream colour.	2	Misleading as the 20.2% who wanted something hard to imitate or which clearly distinguishes the vehicle did not specify a full body livery. The Council misleadingly asserted that meant livery.
8	GBC Council 1/12/2015	We are proposing the introduction of a uniform livery for all taxis to differentiate them clearly from private hire vehicles, improve public safety and provide a strong local identity.	2	Misleading, as it neglects to mention that most of the public confusion stems from the Council policy of putting large door signs on private hire vehicles.
9	GBC Council 1/12/2015	A large majority of the public are in favour and this support, together with the other benefits set out above, provide strong reasons for adopting a Guildford livery.	2	Untrue. There was no majority for full body livery in the replies to the consultation. The answers that did not include full body livery were: Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on door / side of the vehicle. Anything which would be hard to imitate / clearly distinguishes vehicle. Council logo / logo relating to Guildford. Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on bonnet. Coat of arms. Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on rear. Word ‘taxi’ (or similar) located on door / side of the vehicle. Light on top. Anything to match the Guildford Borough Council branding. Word ‘taxi’ (or similar) (location unspecified). Taxi licence plate / badge to show licensed. Word ‘taxi’ (or similar) located on rear. And they totalled 280.
10	GBC Council 1/12/2015	A full car livery in the Guildford corporate colour Pantone 321 with the Council Logo and the licensed vehicle number in white lettering has been proposed by the group. A full car livery in an unusual colour was the preferred option as it would achieve the aims of increasing public safety, create a clearer distinction between taxi and private hire vehicles plus would be a strong identity for the Borough’s taxi fleet.	2	Misleading, as no evidence that a full car livery in an unusual colour would achieve the aims of increasing public safety, create a clearer distinction between taxi and private hire vehicles plus would be a strong identity for the Borough’s taxi fleet. Untrue as green coloured vehicles are the most likely to have road accidents according to academic research. So not a proper choice for public safety.
11	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Guidance on lettering colour, size and wording was obtained from Surrey Coalition for Disabled People and the Guildford Access Group to ensure the needs of the partially sighted and those with learning difficulties such as dyslexia are met.	2	Untrue, the Deputy Chair of the Surrey Disabled Group told me that they recommended yellow as the best colour for taxis, as it was the most easily visible for the partially sighted. She said it was the Council that chose green.
12	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The vinyl livery has a 10 year life and upon removal does not damage the original paintwork.	2	Both statements are untrue.
13	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Following the introduction there will be an opportunity for the Council to promote the taxi livery, particularly the difference between hiring taxis and private hire vehicles because at the moment there is little obvious difference. The results of the public consultation also demonstrated low public awareness of the differences.	2	Misleading, as it was the Councils policy of putting large signs on the doors of private hire vehicles, that resulted higher visibility leading to the confusion of the public as to what was a vehicle for hire on the street. Previously the private hire had much smaller more discrete signage.
14	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Improves Identification: Vehicles are clearly identifiable as a taxi	2	Misleading, as Guildford taxis were already clearly marked by their topsigns, which said taxi on them. There has never been a problem with public identification of a taxi in Guildford.
15	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Safety and security: Customers can be confident that the taxi is properly licensed and meets the necessary safety standards. This is particularly important to women and to vulnerable clients.	2	Misleading. There has never been a safety problem for anyone with improperly licensed taxis in Guildford.
16	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Increases trade: It can improve customer confidence and customers are happier to hail a liveried taxi rather than take a chance on an un-liveried one.	2	Misleading, there is no evidence that livery increases taxi trade or that people "take a chance" on an unliveried taxi.
17	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Creates local identity: A local livery creates a strong local identity, which in the case of cities like London and New York becomes one that is recognised across the world.	2	Misleading. There is no evidence that green livery would make Guildford or its taxis recognisable across the world.
18	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Helps professionalise the service: A local livery coupled with clear driver training and vehicle standards helps to create a more professional service.	2	Misleading. There is no evidence that green livery coupled with driver training and vehicle standards does help to create a more professional service.
19	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Enables easier enforcement: Taxi drivers raise regular concern about the loss of trade to alleged touting by private hire vehicles and to taxi vehicles licensed by other Boroughs. A clear and identifiable livery makes enforcement much easier.	2	Misleading, as it omits to mention that most of the public confusion stems from the Council policy of putting large door signs on private hire vehicles.
20	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The livery …... will last the effective life of the vehicle.	2	Untrue, a supplier stated in an open Taxi Advisory Group that the lifetime of the livery was 2 years. It was also stated that the livery wrap material was never intended to be a long term solution, it was intended for temporary advertising material.
21	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The livery …... cost for this is around £750 to £1,250, ….	2	Untrue, the cost range started at £1200, not £750.
22	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The livery ... cost divided by the number of years for a vehicle with a ten year life...	2	Untrue. The lifetime of the livery is reported by a supplier to be two years, not ten.
23	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The livery is best achieved by ‘wrapping’ the car with the new colour and logos.	2	There is no evidence for the claim that livery is "best achieved" by ‘wrapping’ the car with the new colour and logos.
24	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The wrap ….. protects the paintwork of the vehicle in the interim.	2	Untrue, the livery does not protect the paintwork against scratches and stone chips, and the livery can adhere to the paintwork leading to damage on its removal.
25	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The wrap can be removed which then enables the car to be sold or used in its original colour scheme and protects the paintwork of the vehicle in the interim.	2	Untrue, the livery does not protect the paintwork against scratches and stone chips, and the livery can adhere to the paintwork leading to damage on its removal.
26	GBC Council 1/12/2015	There are three issues for consideration, namely, whether a Guildford livery should be adopted, over what period should it be introduced and should the Council contribute towards the costs for existing vehicles.	2	Misleading as it encouraged Members to accept the recommendations of officers without proper scrutiny of the other options.
27	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The primary reason for adopting a livery is to protect public safety.	2	Untrue. There is no evidence that livery protects public safety.
28	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The public are strongly in favour of adopting a Guildford livery (84%),	2	Untrue, and deliberately misleading. The consultants executive summary says: 84% agreed with the CONCEPT of liveried taxis [of which 59% supported ‘Guildford branding on the body of the car’]. But on page 88 they specify: "More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents felt that a standard livery should be introduced for all taxis." On page 90 when FORCED by the predesign of the survey (which of its own volition mentions a standard full car colour for the first time, to choose what sort of livery", around a quarter (26%) of respondents said a standard full car colour should be introduced." NOT ONE of the 280 people surveyed answers listed on page 91 specified a full body livery, or wrap, or Guildford green colour. The most popular choice by 67 respondes (33.8%) was for a "Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on door / side ofthe vehicle".Untrue, and deliberately misleading. The consultants executive summary says: 84% agreed with the CONCEPT of liveried taxis [of which 59% supported ‘Guildford branding on the body of the car’]. But on page 88 they specify: "More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents felt that a standard livery should be introduced for all taxis." On page 90 when FORCED by the predesign of the survey (which of its own volition mentions a standard full car colour for the first time, to choose what sort of livery", around a quarter (26%) of respondents said a standard full car colour should be introduced." NOT ONE of the 280 people surveyed answers listed on page 91 specified a full body livery, or wrap, or Guildford green colour. The most popular choice by 67 respondes (33.8%) was for a "Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on door / side ofthe vehicle".Untrue, and deliberately misleading. The consultants executive summary says: 84% agreed with the CONCEPT of liveried taxis [of which 59% supported ‘Guildford branding on the body of the car’]. But on page 88 they specify: "More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents felt that a standard livery should be introduced for all taxis." On page 90 when FORCED by the predesign of the survey (which of its own volition mentions a standard full car colour for the first time, to choose what sort of livery", around a quarter (26%) of respondents said a standard full car colour should be introduced." NOT ONE of the 280 people surveyed answers listed on page 91 specified a full body livery, or wrap, or Guildford green colour. The most popular choice by 67 respondes (33.8%) was for a "Council logo / logo relating to Guildford located on door / side ofthe vehicle".
29	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Respondents were asked to provide their preferences for a livery. The highest preferences were 59% for Guildford branding on the vehicle and 26.2% for a standard full car colour. The consultation feedback shows support for a full car colour and Guildford branding	2	Misleading. Neither of the these percentages were about full car livery. 59% was for a Guildford branding and 26.2% for a standard colour car
30	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The basis for key changes within the policy is to protect public safety pursuant to statutory requirements and in light of the Casey report and to encourage a more professional service within the Borough.	2	Misleading. There is no mention of taxi livery in the Casey Report. There is no evidence that livery makes the public safer. There is no evidence that anyone has come to any harm in Guildford or elsewhere due to the lack of livery.
31	GBC Council 1/12/2015	A wide range of consultation took place between October 2014 and 6 February 2015 and included: · Independently facilitated consultation groups attended by the taxi and private hire trade	3	Omitted that GBC did not meet with or seek the views, or take into account or give proper weight or consideration of the views of Guildford Hackney Association, the representative group for over 100 taxi drivers and nearly 200 who signed a petition against the livery proposal.
32	GBC Council 1/12/2015	We received responses from 488 individuals including 336 residents. Feedback from the consultation is summarised in a report from Social and Market Strategic Research (SMSR) set out at Appendix 3.	3	Omitted to mention the petition from around 200 Guildford taxi drivers and others.
33	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The Licensing Committee first considered the draft policy on the 18 March 2015 and made a number of recommendations to Council. Council did not consider the draft policy pending further consultation and the completion of a full equalities impact assessment, which are now completed.	3	Omitted to mention that the policy was not approved at that meeting because the Manager concerned, John Martin falsely claimed that the Surrey Disabled Group had approved the removal of the requirement for wheelchair accessible vehicles.
34	GBC Council 1/12/2015	The disadvantages are primarily:	3	Error of omission. Council left out many disadvantages, set out in this document.
35	GBC Council 1/12/2015	Legal implications	3	Omission. There is no mention of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, or the the Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007, or the Regulator's Code 2014, or the Explanatory Memorandum, or the Regulators’ Compliance Code which was first published in 2008, all of which should have had explicit regard by GBC. The aim of the Order is to minimise business costs due to unecessary regulations that do not address a real risk, like taxi livery.
36	Omissions	Didn't mention that if the taxi were put off the road for any reason a replacement temporary vehicle had to be liveried, something that the claims companies won't keep on hand.	3	Omission about something that can put drivers out of work for weeks, at great cost, if no spare liveried taxi is available.
37	Omissions	Because the taxis are in Guildford green colours, some customers think drivers are employed by GBC.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
38	Omissions	Didn't mention that because the livery colour is similar to the local Aviva bus company, some customers think taxis are part of the local bus company.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
39	Omissions	Didn't mention that drivers can't do wedding or chauffer work in Guildford green liveried taxis as customers don't like the colour.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
40	Omissions	Council didn't mention that the wrap is easily damaged and when damage occurs the wrap for whole panels has to be replaced at significant cost.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
41	Omissions	GBC didn't mention that the wrap can damage paintwork when removed, at significant cost to the drivers.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
42	Omissions	GBC didn't mention that the livery fitters do damage the cars with screwdrivers etc, when light and other car fittings are removed and refitted to enable wraps to be done.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
43	Omissions	Didn't mention that for example, one driver had his taxi roof lining and interior mirror damaged at a cost of £1700. The livery fitter had no insurance, and had CCJ's making compensation impossible.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
44	Omissions	Didn't mention that the Council had done no risk assessment on any companys suitability to disassemble the cars for the livery fitting.	3	Omission of potential costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
45	Omissions	The Council secretly disposed of their proof of concept livery demonstrator car. After it had been unwrapped, so that drivers could not inspect it. Council would not say who the new owners were, or where the car had gone to.	3	Omission of information, by the Council hiding evidence that the livery installation and removal damaged the demonstrator car paintwork and did not protect it.
46	Omissions	Council did not refer to the damage which had occurred to Guildford paintwork when advertising wrap was removed.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
47	Omissions	The Council said that the livery wrap material colour would not vary. But in fact livery wrap material from same company has different shades making colour matching of repaired panels impossible.	3	Omission of costs that were known or should have been known by the Council.
48	Interested parties statement 29th November 2017	Omits to mention that on 29th September 2016 in Guildford Crown Court, HH Judge Black gave permission for Guildford taxi proprietor Benn Simmonds to appeal against the license livery condition on his hackney carriage. That matter is now with the Court of Appeal.	3	Omitted that Mr Simmonds had already been given permission to appeal by Judge Black at Guildford Crown Court, and that decision was unlawfully changed.