Livery Consultation Document for Licensing Committee
Taxi Licensing Consultation
[[Image:]]
Contents Page [#__RefHeading__8239_1163886075 1.0 Executive Summary 3]
[#__RefHeading__8241_1163886075 2.0 Introduction 5]
[#__RefHeading__8243_1163886075 3.0 Methodology and Sample 6]
[#__RefHeading__8245_1163886075 3.1 Local taxi and private hire trade 6]
[#__RefHeading__8247_1163886075 3.2 General Public 6]
[#__RefHeading__8249_1163886075 4.0 Findings 9]
[#__RefHeading__8251_1163886075 4.1 Vehicles 9]
[#__RefHeading__8253_1163886075 4.2 Drivers 24]
[#__RefHeading__8255_1163886075 4.3 Private Hire Operators 30]
[#__RefHeading__8257_1163886075 4.4 Vehicle Conditions 31]
[#__RefHeading__8259_1163886075 4.5 Number of Taxi Vehicles 32]
[#__RefHeading__8261_1163886075 4.6 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles 36]
[#__RefHeading__8263_1163886075 4.7 Driver Training 42]
[#__RefHeading__8265_1163886075 4.8 Additional Comments 46]
[#__RefHeading__8267_1163886075 Conclusion, Recommendations & Guidance 47]
[#__RefHeading__8269_1163886075 Appendices 49]
[#__RefHeading__8271_1163886075 Appendix One Questionnaire 49]
[#__RefHeading__8273_1163886075 Appendix Two Additional Comments (Questionnaire) 57]
[#__RefHeading__8275_1163886075 Appendix Three Workshop Script 64][#_Toc92845 ]
Contents
- 1 1.0 Executive Summary
- 2 2.0 Introduction
- 3 3.0 Methodology and Sample
- 4 4.0 Findings
- 5 Conclusion, Recommendations & Guidance
- 6 Appendices
1.0 Executive Summary
The telephone research highlighted broad backing for the Guildford Borough Council draft taxi and private hire licensing policy [2015] and presents an evidence base of public opinion to support implementation of specific revisions.
The quantitative aspect of the research, consulting approximately 336 Guildford residents elicited that 87% agreed with the proposed vehicle requirements and almost all respondents agreed with the proposed conditions for taxi vehicles (96%). 84% agreed with the concept of liveried taxis [of which 59% supported ‘Guildford branding on the body of the car’].
93% of respondents expressed agreement towards the conditions applicable to private hire operators and 91% of respondents expressed agreement towards the proposed conditions for private hire drivers
Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents felt that it should be compulsory for new applicants to complete an NVQ level 2 prior to becoming a driver [though agreement fell to 55% when considering whether existing drivers should be required to complete this qualification]. Around half (51%) of respondents agreed that a restriction on the number of taxis should be enforced, a further third (32%) said the number should not be limited.
Within the quantitative research exercise, the areas of the draft policy which did not receive the majority of public support were around wheelchair accessibility and the introduction of a standard uniform for drivers. 64% indicated that they did not agree that there should be a requirement for saloon vehicles to be converted into wheelchair accessible vehicles, while 68% disagreed with the requirement of a standard driver uniform to be included in the policy.
All qualitative consultations with taxi and private hire drivers supported some aspects of the policy draft however, challenged a number of inclusions in their entirety. The adoption of a universal livery was unequivocally rejected while stakeholders were able to consider the importance of public confidence and the identity of the industry. Developments and the integration of technology in the industry such as the sending of digital images of the drivers were seen to supplant the value of a livery.
Additionally, the use of a livery was described as an ineffective tool to challenge ‘touting’ and ‘illegal taxis’ which were thought to be of greater priority in the borough.
The need for wheelchair accessibility within the borough was acknowledged as being fundamental by the stakeholders consulted though the value of a ‘mixed fleet’, diversity and passenger choice was seen as greater importance.
Delegates and respondents to the quantitative aspect expressed similar views that wholesale adoption of wheelchair accessibility would create both significant cost implications for divers / firms and be disproportionate to the level of need in the area,
Taxi / private hire drivers and the public were in agreement regarding both the adoption of wheelchair accessible vehicles and the proposed standard uniform for licensed drivers in the borough. Industry stakeholders again reflected on the need for appropriateness in attire given their public facing roles, though generally supported the inclusion of a smart dress code over a standardised uniform. While the liability of associated costs was prevalent in this and the broader consultation the qualitative research reflected on further rationales.
The notion of ‘enforcement’ was a thread running throughout the stakeholder engagement exercises and appeared to be representative of many views towards inclusions in the draft licensing policy from industry representatives. There was a developing argument from with the cohorts that although many of the proposals in the document alluded to integral aspects of the taxi trade – public confidence, safety, and quality assurance, the suggested measures were at times disproportionate to the level of need or felt to substituting the importance of enforcing another approach. Levels of council enforcement was cited as an issue regarding the appropriate clothing for the role, the management of illegal touting [by both Hackney Carriages and Private Hire drivers] and the condition of licensed vehicles.
While feelings towards the adoption of an NVQ qualification into the policy was tested in a separate line of questioning, that too revealed the stakeholder issue of ‘enforcement’ and suggested GBC could re-focus,
2.0 Introduction
Background
Guildford Borough Council’s current taxi licensing policy was introduced in 2011 however, the council has identified that an update to the policy would be beneficial in order to make the policy clearer for operators, drivers and passengers and would align it to recommendations set out by the Law Commission.
A draft policy for taxi and private hire licensing was created in consultation with the local taxi and private hire trade, with key changes being:
- Livery for taxis
- Taxi numbers
- Wheelchair accessibility
- Conditions for private hire drivers, taxi drivers and private hire operators Vehicle specification
The draft taxi and private hire licensing policy is as follows:
[[Image:]]
Guildford Borough Council commissioned SMSR Ltd, an independent research company, to undertake a consultation to enable local residents and those affected by the changes to have their say on the draft policy. The aim of the consultation was to understand opinion of the proposed changes in order to inform and guide the decision making process with regards to the final policy.
Report Structure
This report details findings from the consultation which was undertaken between 10th November 2014 and 9th February 2015.
The feedback has been presented in themes, with feedback being collated and reported under each of the proposed changes. Included in the report is findings from both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the consultation.
3.0 Methodology and Sample
It was important that the methodological approach was robust and wide-reaching and therefore it was decided that a combination of methodologies would be utilised. The overview of the approach was as follows:
3.1 Local taxi and private hire trade
The qualitative phase of the project was fundamental in ensuring a robust sample was achieved, which included a significant number of representatives of taxi and private hire industry representatives. It was also important to gather qualitative information which would complement these findings and provide a more detailed understanding of the topics covered. This part of the consultation was divided into two sections: stakeholder focus groups, facilitated within Guildford Borough Council and ‘on-site’ one-to-one and friendship interviews.
Three focus groups were facilitated with 22 representatives of the borough’s taxi and private hire industry. In addition, a total of 26 further representatives were engaged using the one-to-one and friendship group methodology.
The profile of the qualitative sample ensured the following target groups were included;
Private Hire Drivers
Hackney Carriage Drivers
Private Hire Operators
3.2 General Public
A questionnaire was designed and developed in conjunction with officers at Guildford Borough Council. The process ensured that all draft versions of the questionnaire were piloted and tested. In addition, the questionnaire was sent to all key stakeholders prior to fieldwork being undertaken to ensure they had the opportunity to input and comment on the survey. A copy of the final questionnaire can be found in the appendices.
When the questionnaire was approved an online link was produced. This link was promoted to local residents in various ways, including through the issuing of a press release. The online survey was accessible via a dedicated page on the council’s website from 10th November 2014 to 9th February 2015.
In order to gather views from residents who were representative of the population of Guildford as a whole, the questionnaire was also transferred into a postal format and sent to the 1,000 members of the Guildford Borough Council Citizens’ Panel. Panel members were recruited in 2010 and 2013 using stratified sampling and have agreed to be the test bed of public opinion within the borough.
Included in the report is a set of top-line findings which provides quick reference to all of the questions asked throughout the quantitative survey. In addition all questions have been analysed by respondent type and any significant differences have been presented in this report.
It should be noted that when the results are discussed within the report, often percentages will be rounded up or down to the nearest one per cent. Therefore occasionally figures may add up to 101% or 99%. Data in this report is not weighted. In total 336 residents from across the Guildford Borough took part in the quantitative element of the consultation.
In order to better understand the views which were given respondents were asked to state in what capacity they were completing the questionnaire and the frequency in which they used taxis within the area. The results were as follows:
| A proprietor of Guildford plated hackney carriage vehicle | ||
In addition, a series of demographic questions was asked for equality monitoring purposes. The demographic breakdown of responses was as follows:
4.0 Findings
4.1 Vehicles
4.1.1 Vehicle Requirements (General Public)
[[Image:]]
The majority (87%) of respondents agreed with the vehicle requirements set out in the draft taxi and private hire licensing policy. Although a tenth of respondents indicated that they did not agree with the requirements, a further 3% said that they were unsure.
More than nine-tenths (92%) of female respondents agreed with the proposed vehicle requirements, meaning agreement was around a tenth higher than among male respondents (83%).
Agreement towards the vehicle requirements tended to increase with age, with more than nine-tenths of respondents aged 65 and over expressing agreement compared with around eight-tenths of those aged 44 and under (with agreement being 93% and 81% respectively).
| If no, please say why you do not agree. (Base: 36) | |
Among the 36 respondents who provided a reason as to why they did not agree with the vehicle requirements, 39% (13 respondents) said it was due to the livery being unnecessary or a barrier for drivers / operators.
Disagreement with the vehicle requirements was also a result of the requirement for a specific vehicle type (18%) and engine size (12%) or the implementation costs for drivers (12%).
Some respondents felt that the outlined requirements were not comprehensive, and additional conditions should be added, with these comments being:
4.1.2 Vehicle Requirements (Trade)
There was also support from the trade for the vehicle specification which was proposed in the draft policy, as the majority of stakeholders believed it did not represent a significant departure from existing governance and represented a common sense approach to the industry and public / driver safety.
“It is pretty much what the current spec is anyway so there are no issues with that”.
While the vehicle conditions received support, there was criticism about the council’s commitment to enforcement of the criteria.
There was a counter-view to this belief which suggested that the council were responsive to enforcing vehicle standards while the weakness was perceived to be in their ability to develop a broader or active relationship with industry.
A number of delegates expressed their preference for the service when it was located at the Woking Road site. Primarily they believed this former service offered a greater level of scrutiny of vehicle conditions and it was also representative of a time with greater transparency.
Stakeholders voiced their questions relating to a number of inclusions in the draft policy were they felt the rationale was unclear, though this was not in the context of a rejection of the concept.
4.1.3 Livery (General Public)
[[Image:]]
More than four-fifths (84%) of respondents felt that a standard livery should be introduced for all taxis, meaning only a small minority said that such an introduction should not be made (12%).
Female respondents again expressed greater support than male respondents, with 86% compared with 83% indicating that a livery should be introduced for taxis. Support for the introduction of a livery was also higher among respondents with a disability (89%) when compared with those who did not have a disability (84%).
Younger respondents expressed the greatest opposition towards a standard livery, with more than a quarter (27%) of respondents aged 16 to 34 saying that a livery should not be introduced.
| If no / don’t know, please say why. (Base: 59) | |
The main reason for opposing a standard livery was the associated costs (58%), with some respondents expressing concern that the costs incurred by the driver / operator would be recouped through increased costs for service users.
In addition, more than half (53%) of respondents felt that a livery was unnecessary and offered no benefits to the industry or community.
Respondents who indicated that there should be a livery on taxis, were asked to provide further details on their preferences with regards to type and style of livery.
[[Image:]]
The largest proportion (59%) of respondents felt that a livery should be in the form of Guildford branding on the body of the car, while around a quarter (26%) of respondents said a standard full car colour should be introduced. A little more than a tenth (11%) of respondents said that the livery should be a standard part car colour, while 4% of respondents felt other / alternative options to those listed should instead be considered.
| Number | ||
When describing the preferred livery, it was most common for respondents to opt for it to be located on the side of the vehicle; around a third (34%) said that this should be in the form of the council logo / logo related to Guildford, while a little over a tenth (12%) said the door(s) should be in a set colour.
A fifth of respondents expressed no preference with regards to the style or design of the livery, but instead specified that anything which was hard to imitate or which would clearly distinguish the vehicle.
| Please describe your chosen livery. COLOUR (Base: 127) | |||
| A standard full car colour
|
|||
Respondents provided a variety of colours to be used for the livery, however, the teal used by Guildford Borough Council was popular across all types of livery. Respondents whose preferred livery was a standard full or part colour car also frequently selected yellow as their preferred colour.
[[Image:]]
If a livery is to be introduced, respondents tended to opt for shorter timescales for implementation. Around three-quarters (74%) of respondents felt up to two years was an appropriate timescale, with more than a third (35%) saying the introduction should be complete within a year. More than a tenth (13%) of respondents said a fixed timescale should not be enforced but instead the livery be adopted when the vehicle is replaced.
Timescale for introduction of the livery compared with the livery chosen
|
|||||
| Base number | |||||
| 6 months
– 1 year |
5 years
|
vehicle is replaced | |||
The timescale for introduction of the livery was dependent upon the livery which was chosen, with it being more common for respondents who had opted for Guildford branding to give the shortest timescale (i.e. 6 months to 1 year).
Although 71% of respondents who selected a full car colour as their chosen livery said the introduction should be within 2 years, a further 18% said that the change should not be required until the vehicle is replaced.
Please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 268)
|
||||
Timescale
|
||||
| 6 months –
(Base: 94) |
(Base:102) |
3 – 4 years
(Base: 30) |
(Base: 8) |
(Base: 31) |
Respondents who said the livery should be implemented within six months to a year, most frequently said they had selected this timescale as the change should be made as soon as possible, or they felt there was no reason to wait (49%).
Those giving a timescale of between one year and four years, most frequently said that this timescale was appropriate / reasonable or allowed enough time for changes to be made (one to two years: 63%, three to four years: 67%).
Respondents who specified the longest timescale (i.e. five years) or introduction when the vehicle was replaced, said they had allowed this timescale due to the costs of making such changes (five years: 38%, when the vehicle is replaced: 58%).
4.1.4 Livery (Trade)
The face to face engagement elicited extensive disapproval to the concept of a universal livery on licensed vehicles in Guildford. There was both confusion and criticism regarding the rationale for its inclusion in the draft policy. Drivers referenced three key themes within the discussion;
- Interloping
- Touting
- Cost
Delegates considered the authorities motivation to include the livery concept as ‘misplaced’ and reflected ‘Guildford Borough Council seems to think Guildford is actually bigger than it really is’. Without an evidenced process underpinning the livery concept, contributors to the consultation made assumptions surrounding its inclusion.
There was further speculation that a degree of consultation had been undertaken and that the response(s) was used as an indicator to include livery in the draft policy. One delegate questioned the legitimacy of this process as not carrying sufficient credence to underpin draft policy revisions,
While the significant majority rejected the suggestion of universal livery they did consider its possible intentions, for example, its role in public confidence.
There were two contributions, in isolation, that acknowledged the possible value in the livery approach, they were specific and one centred on Hackney Carriages only.
The second strand of this support was focussed on the issue of ‘interloping’ licensed vehicles from other boroughs entering Guildford.
While others considered that livery was not an appropriate challenge to the problem of out of area licensed vehicles.
The weakness of livery as a challenge to interloping was extended to the perceived problem of ‘touting’, in the main described as Private Hire vehicles operating as Hackney Carriages and Hackney Carriages collecting pre-booked fares. Stakeholders considered, the less there is to distinguish Private Hire vehicles from Hackney Carriages, the greater the likelihood of collecting one another fares.
As in other domains of the consultation, cost was raised as a key driver for resistance to the draft policy. Within the fiscal debate, questions were raised in the first instance about the liability of any costs as a result of any policy change. This developed into questioning the necessity of additional costs, offset against the value these revisions will add.
There were some peripheral discussions outside of the three primary reactions to the livery concept and they included the impact on different disciples of the licensed vehicle trade. A stakeholder operating a ‘plate-exempt’ service described how discretion was fundamental to his livelihood and a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach would impact negatively on his business. He added,
One delegate described the impact the necessity of a livery may have on the quality of the taxi fleet in the borough.
4.1.5 Age Limitations (General Public)
[[Image:]]
At present, licences are not renewed for vehicles over a certain age, with this age being 10 years old for saloon cars and 15 years old for purpose built hackney carriages. A little over two-thirds (67%) of respondents felt that the regulations which related to the age of the vehicle should remain unchanged, however, a further quarter said that the age limit should be lowered. Only 8% of respondents said that the age restrictions should be increased so that older cars were also included.
Support for increasing the age limit when licensing vehicles was higher among respondents who worked within Guildford (14%), while visitors to the borough most frequently said that the age limits should remain the same (79%).
Three-quarters of female respondents indicated that the age limits should remain unchanged, 13% higher than male respondents who felt that this was the case. Male respondents more frequently said that age limits should be lowered (male: 28%, female: 20%).
Older respondents most frequently said that the age limit for licensing should be lowered (29% of those aged 65 and over), whereas the youngest respondents within the sample most frequently said there should be no change in the age limit applied to vehicle licensing (76% of respondents aged 16 to 44).
(Base: 143) |
|||
Respondents who felt that the age limits set out in the current policy should remain unchanged, said this was due to these age limits being reasonable (24%) or there being no reason to make changes (19%).
Few respondents indicated that the age limits should be increased, however, those who did said this was due to mileage / make / condition of the car being more important than age (48%), or vehicles being usable or in a good working order for a longer period than is currently specified (24%).
The argument for reducing the age limits for licensing vehicles was that newer cars were either safer, more reliable or more fuel efficient (35%); in addition, more than a tenth of respondents felt that newer vehicles promoted a better image and were more modern (13%).
4.2 Drivers
4.2.1 Conditions for Private Hire Drivers (General Public)
[[Image:]]
Around nine-tenths (91%) of respondents expressed agreement towards the proposed conditions for private hire drivers, while only 6% said that they did not agree with these conditions.
Agreement was high across all respondents, with at least nine-tenths of respondents from most demographic groups saying that they agreed with the conditions for private hire drivers. However, despite support generally being high, agreement was lower among respondents aged 16 to 34 (84%) and 45 to 54 (88%) and those with a disability (83%).
| If no, please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 21) | |
| Number | |
Among the minority of respondents who did not agree with the conditions applicable to private hire drivers, the greatest reasons for non-agreement related to the mandated medical check. Around a quarter (5 respondents) felt that the medical check should be undertaken by all applicants, regardless of age, however, a further 19% (4 respondents) said that medical checks should start from a later age than is specified in the draft policy (the draft policy requires drivers aged 45 and over to complete this examination).
4.2.2 Conditions for Private Hire Drivers (Trade)
Aspects of the policy revisions which focussed on driver criteria received muted support throughout the consultation. Examples include expectations of a drivers behaviour and punctuality which although received support, was conditional on a degree of flexibility.
While a significant majority supported the value of licensed drivers undertaking a medical examination, the feedback was indicative of the wider consultation in that there was agreement [only] in part. Industry representatives questioned the motivation to specify 45 years, often reflecting this requirement should be indiscriminate of age.
In addition to questioning the thinking behind the recommended age, the discussion drew responses which focussed on cost – specifically, their liability.
There appeared to be scepticism surrounding the rationale, again, inviting comments focussing on the financial implications to drivers of this policy change. It was suggested that these changes were outside the ‘norm’ and that although it purports to be in the interest of safety, it did not reflect the expectations of other vehicle license criteria.
Revised suggestions were elicited within the consultation that focussed on current physical health of a driver and were less determined by age.
4.2.3 Introduction of a Uniform (General Public)
[[Image:]]
Less than a quarter (22%) of respondents agreed with the proposal to introduce a standard uniform for drivers, with around two-thirds (68%) disagreeing that such a requirement should be included in the licensing policy. A tenth of respondents said they did not know whether a standard uniform should be introduced for private hire drivers.
The opinion that drivers should be required to wear a uniform was significantly higher among female respondents (29%) when compared with their male counterparts (16%). Similarly, respondents with a disability (35%) expressed higher agreement than those who did not have a disability (21%) towards the introduction of a uniform.
Respondents aged 45 to 54 expressed greatest opposition to the introduction of a standard uniform for drivers, with more than three-quarters (78%) of respondents from this age group saying that they did not agree with this proposal.
| If no, please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 271) | |
| Number | |
| It is not needed / this would be excessive / no perceived benefits | |
Around a third of respondents who did not agree with the introduction of a standard uniform felt that a prescribed uniform was unnecessary, would be excessive and / or offered no benefits; in addition, 27% said that a clean / tidy / smart appearance was sufficient and 14% said an ID badge / livery was enough to enable verification.
Some respondents did not agree with the introduction of a uniform due to the potential negative impacts, with 16% saying that a uniform would be costly and therefore it may result in an increase in fares and 7% said that a uniform would be too formal and could possibly make either driver or passenger feel less comfortable than they would otherwise be.
Among the 136 respondents who agreed that a uniform should be introduced, 24% felt the driver should be required to wear a standard jumper / shirt / t-shirt / polo-shirt while 13% said the uniform should incorporate a prescribed trouser or skirt.
Around a tenth (11%) of respondents who felt drivers should be required to wear clothing which had a visible logo or, alternatively an ID badge should be worn.
4.2.4 Introduction of a Uniform (Trade)
When considering the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed driver ‘uniform’ the narrative again contained affirmations alongside many challenges to the concept. The support was felt to be much more aligned to the notion of guidelines or a ‘dresscode’ rather than a uniform
Many delegates appeared to already apply this as part of a service to the public and recognised the contribution attire would have in public confidence and expectation.
When the focus groups were offered this question and it was framed specifically as a ‘uniform’, the idea received much criticism. This included.
Given the strength of feeling towards GBC from sections of the local industry, it is difficult to ascertain if some of the motivation for rejecting the idea was in part about rejecting the borough’s authority as much as anything else. When discussing the broader attitudes towards a ‘dress-code’ the dialogue appeared more constructive and progressive.
Within the discussion delegates considered indicative costs and shared their views of enforcement. Both are threads which can be seen throughout the policy consultation.
4.3 Private Hire Operators
4.3.1 Conditions for Private Hire Operators (General Public)
[[Image:]]
More than nine-tenths (93%) of respondents expressed agreement towards the conditions applicable to private hire operators, with agreement being particularly high among female respondents (96%) and respondents aged 65 and over (97%).
Only 3% of respondents did not agree with the outlined conditions for private hire operators, predominantly due to the view that additional conditions were required:
- Geographic parameters for operators should be introduced and enforced (3 respondents)
- More comprehensive information is needed on drivers (e.g. insurance, DBS checks) (2 respondents)
4.4 Vehicle Conditions
4.4.1 Conditions for Taxi Vehicles (General Public)
[[Image:]]
Almost all respondents agreed with the proposed conditions for taxi vehicles (96%), with agreement being particularly high among female respondents (98%) and respondents aged 55 to 64 (99%).
Among the 14 respondents who said they did not agree with the conditions applicable to taxi vehicles, 10 provided an explanation as to why they did not. The responses given were:
| If no, please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 10) | |
4.5 Number of Taxi Vehicles
4.5.1 Number Restrictions (General Public)
[[Image:]]
Opinion was divided in regards to restricting the number of taxis within the borough; although around half (51%) of respondents agreed that such a restriction should be enforced, a further third (32%) said the number should not be limited and 16% said they did not know.
Around three-fifths (57%) of male respondents said that there should be a limit on the number of taxis operating within the borough, however, support for this proposal fell to around two-fifths (44%) among female respondents.
Support for restricting the numbers of taxis was highest among older respondents (54% of respondents aged 65 and over agreed that numbers should be limited); while respondents aged 45 to 54 most frequently expressed opposition towards this proposal (38%).
| If no, please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 92) | |
| Number | |
| The number of taxis will be self-regulated by the market / demand | |
A significant reason why respondents felt that the number of taxi vehicles should not be restricted was the view that this was not necessary as the number of vehicles is, and will continue to be, self-regulated by the market / demand (40%). A further 11% of respondents said that restricting numbers would be excessive and they perceived there to be no benefits in doing so.
A fifth of respondents who said there should be no restriction felt that unlimited numbers would increase competition within the market, which in turn would lead to improved availability and lower fares. Similarly, 12% of respondents said that limiting taxis would reduce competition / availability and increase fares, meaning taxi use would reduce.
4.5.2 Number Restrictions (Trade)
The general view of the stakeholders was there are somewhere between ‘just enough’ and ‘too many’ licensed vehicles in Guildford currently.
The barometer used to identify this appears to be driven by the volume of work across the industry and the availability of rank space [when Hackney Carriages are considered].
The motivation for the perceived saturation of provision was described as a revenue making opportunity, both on the part of GBC and the local Private Hire businesses.
“GBC want people to be taxi drivers because then people will pay them their fees.
They do not care if there is too many cars or drivers and there isn’t enough a work.
Stakeholders recognised that in the first instance that reduced demand for business was fundamental to the problem.
Any reduced demand in trade appears to magnify the concern of current vehicle numbers in the borough and is reported to have prompted drivers to diversify their income.
The supply and demand issue in the context of current licensed vehicle numbers may escalate the perceived issue of ‘touting’ as drivers strive to supplement a diminishing income.
Contributors described a previous view held by GBC relating to the management of vehicle numbers in the borough.
Further to this, delegates reflected on previous intentions by GBC to address the issue of rank space believing tangible solutions had been identified in response to the problem though remained dormant. This included the identification of increased rank space in the borough.
4.6 Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles
4.6.1 Changes to Policy (General Public)
[[Image:]]
At present, taxis must be wheelchair accessible whereas existing saloon taxis do not, however, the council is proposing a change of policy which would require all taxis to be wheelchair accessible.
Around a quarter (26%) of respondents supported the change in policy, however, almost two-thirds (64%) indicated that they did not agree that there should be a requirement for saloon vehicles to be converted into wheelchair accessible vehicles. A tenth of respondents said they did not know whether the policy should change.
Respondents aged 65 and over expressed highest agreement that all vehicles should be required to become wheelchair accessible within a given timeframe (30%), whereas agreement fell to 20% among respondents aged 55 to 64.
Few respondents within the sample reported that they had a disability (28 respondents) however, among those who did, 39% (11 respondents) felt the council should change their policy to make wheelchair accessibility a mandatory requirement for taxi vehicles.
| If no, please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 294) | |
| Number | |
Almost two-fifths (38%) of respondents who did not agree that all vehicles should be required to be wheelchair accessible said that the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles should instead be proportionate to need / demand. In addition, 35% of respondents said that such a requirement was unnecessary or excessive as only a small number of residents require such vehicles.
More than a third (35%) of respondents said the policy should not change due to the associated costs to drivers, with some respondents stating that the cost of adapting the vehicle or (in instances where it was not possible to make such an adaptation) purchasing a new vehicle would impact upon the fares.
[[Image:]]
Around half (51%) of respondents who felt that all vehicles should be wheelchair accessible said that the implementation should occur within three years, with 17% saying that the requirement should be compulsory within a year. However, a further
32% of respondents said that the requirement for a wheelchair accessible vehicle should begin when the current vehicle is replaced.
| Please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 63) | |||
| Timescale | |||
| Less than a year
(Base: 10) |
(Base: 27) |
(Base: 11) |
vehicle is replaced (Base: 22) |
The reason for the timescale was dependent upon the timescale which had been selected.
Almost half (46%) of respondents who said the requirement for all vehicles to be wheelchair accessible should be enforced in four to six years or when the vehicle was next replaced felt that their chosen timescale was appropriate / reasonable or allowed sufficient time for changes to be made.
Respondents who said all vehicles should be wheelchair accessible within one year said this was to ensure that all residents had equal access to the service.
4.6.2 Changes to Policy (General Public)
Discussions exploring the area of wheelchair accessibility in licensed vehicles appeared divisive. This was driven in the main by 2 key points of discussion;
- Market demand
- Cost
While there was unanimous support for the provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the borough there was a clear concession that this should be present as part of a mixed fleet.
The rationale from the delegates was that ‘the provision should be market driven and not led by the policy’, while believing the proposal would indicate the latter. A piece of anecdotal research undertaken by a contributor to the consultation explained.
There were mixed views recorded regarding the management of the current wheelchair provision in the borough, a number of operators/ drivers described an appropriate offer in Guildford currently while others suggested reticence on the part of some drivers to accommodate wheelchair users.
A small number of the cohort described an unwillingness to collect patrons in wheelchairs because of the cost implications as drivers encountered longer embark / disembark times which was not reflected in the rate of the fares. Although many delegates dismissed and distanced themselves from the anecdotal evidence there were further claims of;
There was balance to these conflicting views as drivers sought to contextualise further the impact of operating wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Delegates were divided in opinion on the current practices of licensed vehicles with wheelchair users in the borough with one stating, ‘I wouldn’t want to be disabled in Guildford’. This was challenged as not being representative of all attitudes in the borough.
“The view of the person saying drivers don’t take disabled passengers is their own.
Significantly, there was consideration that ‘the issue isn’t necessarily the council; some of this is a problem with the drivers’ with a further contributor describing, ‘there are clearly issues with the service to wheelchair users among the drivers so it is unfair to shoot down the council completely. They have tried to respond to an issue, it might not be the best solution, but at least they have reacted’.
The discussion offered an opportunity for delegates to reflect on the policy proposal and verbalise further revisions that were considered a more appropriate ‘fit’ to the industries and public’s needs.
Cost was central to the debate, in part when considering the cost of operating a wheelchair accessible vehicle but primarily the cost of purchasing a wheelchair accessible vehicle. The majority of those consulted criticised the cost implication of the proposal, off-set against perceived demand.
Within the challenges to this idea was what appeared to be the wider belief that GBC impose unnecessary costs to the industry, identifying a ‘borough wide’ approach to wheelchair accessibility as another example of this. One motivation explored by the stakeholders was the borough’s standing in the local area [against other boroughs].
to be like leading authorities in Surrey. I think it is the same regarding car emissions”.
The delegates highlighted arguments against the fleet-wide suggestion that were aligned to passenger/ public choice and need, as well as legislative references about passenger safety. This suggested that vehicles deemed to be wheelchair accessible are not always the preference of wheelchair users.
4.7 Driver Training
4.7.1 Introduction of Driver Training (General Public)
[[Image:]]
Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents felt that it should be compulsory for new applicants to complete an NVQ level 2 prior to becoming a driver. Around a fifth (19%) of respondents said new drivers should not have to complete this additional qualification, and a further 8% were unsure.
Younger respondents demonstrated the greatest support for new drivers undertaking an NVQ, with 77% of respondents aged 16 to 44 agreeing that an NVQ should be completed prior to becoming a driver. In contrast, opposition towards this proposal was highest among respondents aged 55 to 64 (26%).
[[Image:]]
Although 73% of respondents felt there should be a requirement for new drivers to complete an NVQ prior to becoming a driver, agreement fell to 55% when considering whether existing drivers should be required to complete this qualification. A little under a third (31%) of respondents thought that existing drivers should not be made to complete this additional training, and a further 14% said they did not know.
Male respondents (33%) and respondents aged 55 to 64 (33%) most frequently said that existing drivers should not have to complete additional training in the form of an NVQ. In contrast, support for the NVQ being a requirement for existing drivers was highest among female respondents (57%) and respondents aged 35 to 54 (56%).
| Please give reasons for your answer. (Base: 241) | |
| Number | |
| Current policy / test is sufficient / no reason to change current system | |
Respondents provided a variety of reasons for why new and existing drivers either should or should not be required to undertake an NVQ.
The perceived benefits of drivers undertaking additional training was that it would ensure high levels of service / standards / professionalism (36%) or would ensure consistency of service / standards / professionalism (15%). However, in opposition to the introduction of such training, 11% of respondents said the current policy / system was sufficient / there was no reason to change the current system, while a tenth said the additional training was not needed, would be excessive or did not feel it would bring any benefits.
More than a tenth of respondents explained how the training should not be enforced for existing drivers either because experience and / or reputation was more important than qualifications (6%) or the decision to undertake the training should be at the discretion of the driver (7%).
4.7.2 Introduction of Driver Training (Trade)
When discussing the proposal of a work based qualification in the form of an NVQ, the licensed drivers consulted shared strong views. In the context of ‘new’ drivers having to undertake the industry specific qualification there was nominal support for the concept.
In the context of existing / current drivers having to undertake the qualification there was overwhelming rejection of the concept.
“If you made existing drivers take this test / qualification, the ranks would be empty”.
There appeared to be no singular line of thinking in the response to this idea but rather a range of concerns, questions and challenges; while some respondents explained its possible impact on recruitment within the industry.
A number of delegates used the proposal to challenge the existing criteria and expectations of drivers by Guildford Borough Council.
Discussion surrounding the proposed introduction of the qualification created debate which led to a suggestion of a phased introduction of the requirement. This was challenged while providing an insight into driver perceptions of GBC’s administration of the borough’s knowledge test.
There was some concern voiced regarding the ‘testing’ of the proposed qualification with the wider Guildford public. This appeared to be symptomatic of the delegates’ view of the public consultation insomuch as it may represent uninformed support of the council’s views.
4.8 Additional Comments
| Do you have any additional comments you would like to make regarding the taxi and private hire policy? (Base: 105) | ||
| Stricter rules / regulations / governance is needed | ||
| Changes in locations of ranks is / would be a positive change | ||
| Witnessed / experienced issues in the past | ||
| There are too many taxis operating in the area | ||
In conclusion, respondents were asked to provide any additional comments they had regarding the taxi and private hire policy. The summary of responses given is shown in the table above and a list of all comments can be found in the appendices.
The most common responses given were that stricter rules / regulations / governance is required (23%) and more is needed to help improve safety / prevent unlicensed drivers / vehicles being used (16%).
Conclusion, Recommendations & Guidance
In the face of strong opposition from industry stakeholders and at times conflict between industry and public views, Guildford Borough Council may choose to act with caution prior to implementing changes and consider revising its communication channels with the local taxi and private hire trade. An interim solution may be to offer further rationale or evidence motivating the inclusions in the draft policy revision.
The relationship between the two parties is evidently strained, though not beyond repair. The criticisms of the draft licensing policy were not always baseless and resistance to change may in part be rooted in the historic and fractured relationship between the trade and the council.
As the public consultation identified a shared view with industry stakeholders relating to aspects of the revised policy draft, there remain several areas where the industry disagrees with the public. Notably the concept of liveried vehicles which received vehement rejection from the industry yet received strong support from the wider public research exercise. The council may consider the value of interim measures to support narrowing the distance between public and industry stances. While the level of industry engagement in the consultation piece was in part expected, it may also be taken as an indicator of the willingness of the industry in general to engage with the local authority and contribute to the narrative of its own regulation [and possible reform].
The consequence of implementing publicly supported yet industry challenged policy revisions is unknown. It is likely that this will impact negatively on an already vulnerable relationship between local taxi and private hire drivers and Guildford Borough Council. A combination of concessions and increased understanding between stakeholders, residents and the local authority is likely to be an effective measure to remedy any unhealthy relationship and expedite positive change, while practical measures could be implemented to facilitate this. By its own admission the local taxi and private hire industry is in itself fragmented, with no distinct singular voice that sufficiently represents the industry. It recognised the need to collaborate with the local authority and the importance of public perceptions yet there appear no pronounced pathways to effectively and efficiently share information. While the modernisation of the Taxi Advisory Group is acknowledged, this too is an arena where significant populations of the trade have negative past experiences which appears to impact on their ability to engage with its newest iteration.
Building on the consultation exercise and restoring effective dialogue with the industry may offer an appropriate opportunity to challenge what appears to have become the status quo between the parties. It is fundamental to the relationship yet divisive. It invites local resident buy-in and opinion and sits against a back-drop of what has become a historic and volatile relationship. While the challenges are tangible the focus of the initial consultation exercise may proffer an opportunity to engage industry representatives whose voices are seldom heard, though are well placed to link Guildford Borough Council and the industry once more and so begin the reparatory process and the effective and supported introduction of a revised taxi license policy.
In terms of shared support for the policy from both the public / local residents and the industry, there was agreement on three key areas which are recommended to be actioned;
- The need to restrict taxi vehicle numbers in the borough.
- Disagreement to implementing a standard uniform for drivers.
- Disagreement to implementing a fleet-wide wheelchair accessibility service.
Appendices
Appendix One Questionnaire
[[Image:]]
Page 112
Appendix Two Additional Comments (Questionnaire)
| 1. I believe in equal opportunities. Why is it that there is none!!! E.g. saloon and hackney- I should have the right to buy any car 2. Why is it that we need more than one license e.g. one person, one car, one license we are all self-employed so why is there that e.g. private hire taxi company owners or individual who have more than one licence as they can get better credit because of their companies and by cars and put on rent etc when they don't even drive them self. Again one car one driver one license whorls eliminate extra cars. 3. If we are keeping hackney cars we should have the right to go and buy any vehicle and convert it to Guildford hackney license instead we are being forced into buy cars that are only cab direct converted! This is monopolisation to one company! Because on all euro cap safety is lost any way once car is converted. So why can't we buy a car and get it disabled converted from and not approved garage. 4. Why is it that council cannot stick to certain requirements e.g.. When a rule was made that all new taxis have to be disabled access cars then why is it that they have given 4/5 people before the plate number 99 the right to go and buy a saloon car and those drivers are still driver their existing cars and selling council plates for high fees when these are issued for free! This is discrimination where I feel need of action is urgent because you have just given them a £10k bonus. Where are the equal opportunities. I think a legal action is required!!!! 5. These simple problems that can be fixed by one car one person one license |
| A common sense approach should be adopted to support drivers, the industry and passengers. Onerous policies and over regulation are not in my opinion in the public interest. |
| A customer of GBC licenced taxis should know how and where they can complain in the event of poor or unprofessional service. |
| A review and complaint system to ensure companies / individuals that fail to meet standards can be controlled and if required have licences removed. |
| A welcome survey - much needed upgrading of taxi scheme. |
| Alcohol and drugs test |
| All drivers should display a borough ID showing they have gone through and have achieved all things required by the borough. |
| All drivers should have on display in the windscreen a copy of licence number along with a photo so you can check the driver is who they say they are and not sub-let plate. |
| All hackney drivers should follow the same policy, there should be no discrimination one rule for all |
| All taxis should be fitted with auto/traffic cameras, front and rear. This would benefit everyone and provide a good source of local traffic information for road improvement schemes - taxi drivers know the local rat-runs. |
| ANY HACKNEY CAN WORK AS PRIVATE HIRE LAW: Above law will have an immense pressure for PHDs and they specially will bear the financial loss if hackney drivers from neighbouring boroughs start coming in significant numbers. Especially when it’s extremely hard for PHD to pass Guildford hackney knowledge test. PHDs who now hold their license for more than 3-5 years should be preferably encouraged to pass on Guildford hackney to strike the right balance rather than squeezed from all corners |
| Anything that can be done to reduce the fares would be appreciated. Judging by the huge numbers of taxis waiting at Guildford station one fare is enough to fund hours of hanging about. Fewer lurking taxis doing more work at lower fares would be preferable. Why not do shared, stop-anywhere-along-the-route taxi back and forth shuttles say Guildford-to-Carleigh or Godalming as you get in many other countries; sort of half bus / half taxi. Many taxis are |
| now small buses anyway. |
| Appendix 8 ,11.1, point 9. I think the proposal for taxis to publish their current fare chart is an excellent idea as I never know whether I am being charged correctly or not!! |
| As residents of a village within Guildford borough it is not cost effective to call a licenced taxi unless the journey is into the town, they are all based in the town centre and start charging when leaving the town. We are reliant on private hire vehicles many of which do not display licence plates so unless there is a way in which these drivers are getting around the regulations it is assumed that these vehicles are not licensed and if so the council needs to enforce the policies. |
| As with many businesses nowadays we must be careful not to limit access to the trade through over qualification requirements or too stringent testing - whilst maintaining good high standards. |
| Bear in mind we are in a recession and people are very tight on money for things like training and upgrading which can require large initial outlays. |
| Black cabs would be better. |
| Complaints need to be investigated more rigorously. I am aware of various cases of sharp practice and little or no action was the result. |
| Could we build in some customer service/local knowledge training so that drivers were more aware of their local area and provided a commentary if required on local places to visit - this has been done in Woking with success - makes the welcome for incoming visitors so much better |
| Could you specify that at least 1 Wheelchair accessible vehicle is available per company at all times....with immediate effect. This would also include the weekends. |
| Cut out unnecessary bureaucracy. |
| Dedicated training should overtime produce a professional approach to all aspects of the service and this in turn will manifest itself in caring approach by the operator to the clients, the vehicles and to the legal framework in which the service is provided. |
| Drivers should be assessed on their knowledge of the locality in which they are Plying their trade. |
| Driving behaviour of some taxis is appalling! All taxis should show an "Am I driving safely and professionally?" with a telephone number shown to ring if not. |
| Electronic cigarettes must be banned for drivers and passengers. |
| Guildford police should license / approve taxi drivers from outside of Guildford to stop 'fly by night' operators from other areas working in Guildford. |
| Having every taxi wheelchair accessible ignores the difficulty of boarding and disembarking such taxis. I have a slight disability with one leg. I find it much easier to board a standard saloon vehicle. Moreover, the wheelchair accessible taxis are far less comfortable in which to travel. They appear to be "converted" freight vehicles. With the onset of mobile phone apps, or simply the use of voice calling, a wheelchair accessible taxi can be summoned. My overriding concern is the discomfort and difficulty of using wheelchair accessible taxis. |
| I am not sure how to enforce this - but I think it is unacceptable for taxi drivers not to be able to speak at least a basic level of English. |
| I believe all drivers should be able to drive what vehicle they choose. I feel there should be a restriction on the amount of hackney carriage vehicles. |
| I do not know if the current arrangements are working satisfactorily. I myself am mildly disabled and have no difficulty finding satisfactory transport |
| I do think the new rule for taxis to be in the bus station is a good idea. This is in the early hours to pick up passengers it is much safer and less isolating than the rank. I know from personal |
Page 116
| experience. |
| I feel that there are certain issues as there are far more private services, taxis have a bad reputation for the private ones. Yes the need a logo so people know they are safe, just a recognisable large badge (backside window) for all known cars public and private, |
| I feel the current restrictions should be upheld and enforced but In difficult time no additional costs should be expected of drivers who already work very long hours to make a living |
| I find it strange that a Private Hire company (fives & 6's) can employ Woking Hackney cars to operate on their circuit as private hire cars with very little local knowledge. Should they not have to sit the same tests for their local knowledge and surely their cars need to pass the same test to operate in Guildford. I also believe that ordering a car and having a Woking plated car and driver turn up does not give off the continuity that you are trying to achieve. |
| I have never had any problems with any taxis that I have used but I have been very surprised by some of the driving that I have seen. |
| I have never noticed a current fare chart in a taxi. Maybe something about driving safely!
Taxis good at getting away quickly at lights, nipping in and out of traffic |
| I have taken number of taxi's home however the only thing that gets me as why do I am asked if I need a taxi as I am walking to the taxi rank. There are so many car's with NO taxi signs which I take it that there are Private hire, are asking random people if there need a taxi or not. This is the biggest issue I see which the council is not resolving. I want to go to a taxi rank and know that I am getting in a license cab rather them someone approving me and shouting out of their windows with, do you need taxi. If the council can resolve this matter. Thank you |
| I have used taxis frequently in and around Guildford and Woking for many years either as private hire or at the stations / town taxi ranks. Generally the experience has always been satisfactory. |
| I honestly think that it would benefit everyone if both the vehicle and driver were instantly recognisable as a completely legal service and the drivers having complete knowledge of how to serve the public. |
| I like the idea of all night ranks in protected places. Can you give drivers an app to tell them how many taxis are waiting at official ranks so that they have a better idea where to wait?
Guildford seems out of date in using computer booking methods compared with other places. The taxi queues at Guildford station are a waste of resources. |
| I mainly use station taxis - they are badly dressed, rude and intimidating in behaviour. They generally look like beery slobs on a building site of the 1970's. There are always far too many just hanging around. I know many young women, who walk and get a bus rather than get a taxi - even and especially late at night because they just don't trust the look of them. They certainly behave and look far worse than they did 5 years ago. |
| I think it would be good for the town if all Guildford taxis were painted the same colour. |
| I think taxi drivers face big hurdles already in getting into the industry. I do hope GBC will be careful not to make it too hard to become and stay a taxi driver. |
| I think that a good standard of spoken English should be a requirement. Customer service should be an important consideration. I think a liveried taxi service would be an excellent idea to eradicate illegal drivers. Photo ID displayed in taxi cabs essential. |
| I think the most important criteria is making sure the operators of vehicles are safe for the public to use, especially for vulnerable / single people to travel. |
| I think the proposed livery colour scheme system is a very good idea. This would soon stop unlicensed taxis operating. |
| I would like to see taxi firms having to supply the name and car registration of the car that will arrive when booked in advance. Provide an app to book a taxi (on the move) that will only use registered and licenced taxis and again will tell you name of driver and registration number of car - this is preferable to flagging down a taxi passing by. |
| If there any oversight / quality control by a third party on the taxis and / or drivers and / or taxi companies? If so, who is paying for it - passengers or rate payers? |
| Immediate stop on issuing any more taxi vehicle licences. all vehicle licences to be surrendered when proprietor leaves trade. All proprietors to hold a taxi driving license. One driver allowed to drive on each plate (vehicle license). This mess would not have happened if my advice had been taken. I advised issuing ten new vehicle licenses per year, then review impact this had. After consultation with drivers, passengers and the police decide whether to issue another ten, or less, or none. |
| In Woking there is a private hire company which has a yard with an office near the station. People ask at the office and are directed to a car. This presumably is just within the law for private hire vehicles but many people believe they are hiring a licensed taxi, I think that such practices are starting in Guildford. This is to be approved as it is confusing for passengers and its unfair corruption for licensed cabs on a nearby rank |
| Is there a special driving test that taxi drivers are required to take? If not, I think it would be a good idea to implement one. Or the police provide special safety driving courses including videos to show the result of our actions on the road this maybe a good thing for all taxi drivers to be included in. |
| It has not been mentioned but I believe a criminal records check should be carried out on all cab drivers. |
| It should be fair trade and everyone should be given a choice rather then been forced for wheelchair or saloon. Guildford borough council will not force there staff to do things which there will not like or do. so it should apply to taxi trade as well |
| It would be a mistake to be too restrictive on rules for taxis, drivers and qualifications. |
| Keep private hire out of town when waiting for jobs. No Woking taxis working in the borough , the whole point of licensing is to make money so I can't understand you allowing them to work in Guildford. Let existing hackney plates change to salon Thanks |
| Knowledge test needs to be more stringent many current drivers do not know Guildford road names and landmarks / buildings well enough. |
| Main concerns are to do with the split policy currently in place for saloon and wheelchair access vehicles which is not really tackled in the draft policy. A decision needs to be made to allow for a choice by drivers on the vehicle type they want to licence. If not then we should make a uniform vehicle policy where all drivers require a specific type of vehicle |
| Most of your ideas would put taxi fares up. Many people rely on taxis e.g. - hospital visits for elderly patients. I was shocked at the cost last time I used a taxi for less than a miles journey and I can afford to pay. |
| Most taxi drivers park on footways and block pedestrians. They drive aggressively, often tailgating. Personally I would rather walk then take a taxi or private hire vehicle. |
| My business has been severely restricted in recruiting of drivers because you make us go through the same knowledge etc which in my view is unacceptable. Part time drivers take about 10-12 weeks to get their badge--in the meantime they have lost interest. |
| My opinion is that the council have produced an interesting and viable policy. |
| My personal complaint is that as an elderly woman who uses taxis often, I am not treated with respect by the majority of Asian taxi drivers whose taxis I have hired. Other drivers are friendly and helpful. |
Page 118
| No, seems good policy overall. |
| Only that there are currently far too many taxis at Guildford station. |
| Perhaps that some form of driver training should be renewed every 5-10 years and that if drivers ae found to have driven dangerously for example their licence can be suspended for a set time. I have seen a couple of times last year taxis reversing back out the friary taxi rank into oncoming traffic on the one way system to avoid them having to go around the friary via commercial road. If that taxi rank is full the last taxi in will sit with its back end sticking out into left hand lane of the one way system forcing 2 lances into 1 in order to get past. |
| Please license less taxi's in the borough as there are well too many taxi on the road at present time |
| Politeness and conversy go a long way. |
| Private hire company should not at and around station and cars are not allowed to put magnet advert on side doors so advert of company should be on window. Taxi all should be same whatever they are saloon or wheel chair |
| Reduce the amount of taxis in Guildford as they discourage walking and cycling Ensure a percentage are fuel efficient/hybrid there are too many fuel inefficient cars and not enough hybrids etc Introduce a penalty for taxis loitering in parking places e.g. near stoke park |
| Regarding hackney carriage vehicle driver should have choice to drive saloon or wheelchair accessible. Either they all should have choice or either they all should be driving wheelchair accessible. Driver who own saloon cars they buying and selling hackney plates for well over 10k the plate which belongs to council that should be stopped. |
| Safety for passengers should be paramount in any policy, followed by price and transparency and courteousness. |
| Smoker rules about taxi drivers smoking in their vehicles. |
| Sometimes smelly themselves. |
| Surely there are better things to spend public money on - making the roads safe to drive on (i.e. free of potholes and with good drainage) would be a good start and make a major difference to all road users. |
| Taxi / private hire drivers must realise they are in a position of responsibility / trust with their customers and I worry some don’t respect this. |
| Taxi drivers would show pride in their job if a professional image is in place. Brighton for example has taxi ranks with blue and white and blue cabs in place for hire. |
| Taxi firms in Guildford are not very helpful. Often when you phone them, they are impolite and just say "no taxis available for at least one hour". not good. Wheelchair taxis in Guildford are definitely not available at all late evening, which is an absolute disgrace. Disabled people deserve a social life ,just the same as everyone else and if the firms you currently licence cannot provide this, then you should open up the competition to those willing to provide this Service. |
| Taxis and private hire firm need a definite ruling on where and how many signs are placed on the vehicles so that member of the public can be sure that the vehicle is genuinely covered by this policy. |
| Taxis are far too expensive in Guildford. The prices should be regulated and they should be an asset for Guildford town. The taxi's in Guildford could make Guildford innovative and really stand out if they are all standardised like in Brighton. Far more people would use the taxis if they could trust them and they were reasonably priced. |
| The affordable use of taxis, etc should be encouraged. |
| The council does not understand the needs of the trade you let people drive taxis they have no idea where they are going because you don't ask the right questions all the driver ask post |
Page 119
| code please that is wrong you should have a retest on some of these. bet you won’t. The age limit on cars is a joke it just a magnet for more drivers to come into the town. |
| The Council should look at the vehicles that are in a poor state. They should also look into how the general public are being ripped off by taxi drivers and refused to be taken somewhere as its a short distance or taken an excessively long way to their destination. |
| The current mix of vehicle type and shape reflects the diversity of the passengers/users. Vehicles are rigorously tested which would continue and allow older vehicles to be licensed for longer. Uniform is applicable for a chauffeur not a taxi driver there is a distinct difference.
Livery is unnecessary for ID purposes Taxis are conspicuous. |
| The front of the taxi queue at the station should be at the entrance where passengers emerge. It seems silly that the policy of not limiting the number of licensed taxis should have led to higher prices because they don’t get enough custom to cover costs. It also makes it very difficult to drop off passengers at the station during the day. |
| The introduction of taxi livery and / or uniforms for drivers etc, will need to be paid for. This will result in taxi fares increasing. Taxis tend to be used by people on lower incomes who could not afford this, and the knock on effect will be less people using taxis and less often. There is nothing wrong with the current system. |
| The new ideas will make a professional service for Guildford to be applauded. |
| The standard of some (a few) taxis in the borough has fallen lamentably low. I thus would only ever use a Hackney cab. As a lone female off to station, I once got in a car where extreme pornography was on display! It was an "authorised" and licenced local taxi. |
| The taxi drivers in Guildford are very variable. Some excellent, others off-hand with unacceptable cars. Really important that this essential service is provided. |
| There appears no restriction to length of driving experience a driver must have. I would imagine at least three years being insured and driving regularly should be the minimum in order for a licence to drive a vehicle for hire. |
| There are far too many taxis licenced in Guildford. The taxi ranks have too many vehicles waiting for fares much of the time. Ranks in other areas of the town i.e. upper park would be servicing the community better. |
| there is not enough visible enforcement of the taxi and private hire business in Guildford |
| There must be proper ENFORCEMENT of the regulations regarding the manner in which they are allowed to operate. |
| There should be a cap on the number of licences issued by the council as at the moment there are so many taxis that drivers have to work unreasonable number of hours to make a decent income. |
| There should be a photograph / identification showing driver details and related vehicle details to align each. It would take a lot of trouble to forge details. |
| There should be more ranks in Guildford for drivers. There should be a cap on a number of taxis in Guildford due to many taxis already on the rank. |
| This consultation needs to be equality impact assessed and therefore needs to be covered by focus groups with taxi drivers and needs to take into considering the literacy and differing language needs of the taxi drivers. If you are also looking into accessibility of the taxi service an engagement plan needs to be put together to work with disability groups. |
| To further ensure taxi drivers are above board and honest they should produce annual accounts to the council to show what they are earning. This would help the council determine how many taxi drivers can make a reasonable living and assist in the issue of licences. |
| Training - good knowledge of the area is essential regarding short cuts, etc. as Guildford can become extremely congested. Drivers - female drivers for more nervous passengers, especially |
Page 120
| young girls late at night. Female pool of drivers that could be specified at point of call out. |
| We don't want a plethora of under used taxis requiring public subsidies to bring up their income to a living wage. |
| We need mix fleet either given choice to all drivers or all wheelchair we can't discriminate by giving some drivers choice of driving saloon cars and others stuck on wheel chair accessible. |
| What is the demand for wheelchair accessible vehicles? |
| When booking a taxi, if wheelchair accessibility is required then this should be stated therefore appropriate car will be sent. |
| While I don't support 'uniforms' per se, there needs to be a general requirement that drivers are clean and tidy (all types of hire). The cars need to be clean and should not be used as smoking shelters. There should be a rigorous driving test that looks at attitudes / behaviour in driving as well as mere technical skill. The driver must be able to speak clearly and understandably in English and be able to understand English speakers. |
| Whilst agreeing with some of the items, I think the costs could be very demanding on both the companies and the drivers. |
