Five years ago, a long campaign by taxi driver Dave Humphrey came to an end; as Editor of the Cambs Times and Wisbech Standard I had worked with Dave over many years to highlight illegal behaviour by Fenland Association of Community Transport (FACT), a community transport provider.
Mr Humphrey’s efforts led to the commissioning by the county council of an independent study that confirmed multiple irregularities dating back many years over payments made to the FACT and its Huntingdon and Ely subsidiaries. FACT manager Jo Philpott was sacked.
Cambridgeshire County Council confirmed taxi drivers and private hire companies were being “unfairly disadvantaged” in bidding for transport contracts from the council.
There are few better placed than Mr Humphrey to turn to for a better understanding of the licensing issues in Fenland and the bewildering recommendation of the district council licensing authority to push for an increase in taxi fares to unprecedented levels.
Here are his thoughts:
Objections to FDC proposed taxi tariff increase, politically motivated or legitimate concerns?
For the past three years, I have refrained from engaging in issues concerning the taxi industry or local politics, writes DAVE HUMPHREY.
However, I have now been approached to formally object to the proposed taxi tariff increase by Fenland District Council (FDC).
After reviewing the situation and revisiting local news for the first time in years, I came across John Elworthy’s article—unfortunately, it was no surprise to see examples of the same old petty, immature squabbles that plague our local politics, from both sides of the political spectrum.
How long will local politicians continue to dismiss legitimate concerns and objections by relying on the overused tactic of labelling them as politically motivated?
I first encountered this disingenuous strategy during the early stages of the FACT campaign—a campaign that ultimately exposed the misuse of nearly £1 million in public and charitable funds.
So, are the objections to the proposed taxi tariff increase, politically motivated or legitimate concerns?
If you read the email sent to the taxi industry, you’ll see objections dismissed as ‘misleading.’
One Wisbech councillor, known for his public outbursts and habitual tendency to stray far from the truth, repeats the same old tired allegations of ‘scaremongering,’ ‘outright lies,’ and ‘cheap political points’ he’s been spouting for years. Though to be clear, I’m also no fan of the target of his disingenuous attacks.
Tory run Fenland District Council may agree taxi fare rises up to 50 per cent
The council’s official communication goes on to assure us, following the proposed increase, Fenland’s maximum tariff would rank ‘6th out of 9 neighbouring authorities.’
However, a simple fact-check, by reviewing each council’s tariff rates, suggests otherwise. Below is a comparison of fares from neighbouring councils:
Red = Highest price
Apart from the 2-mile journey, the proposed FDC tariff is significantly higher than all neighbouring councils. Averaging the bordering rates highlights the true extent of this disparity:
This raises a crucial question: why is FDC proposing a tariff increase that averages 42% higher than the maximum fares in neighbouring authorities?
And why are we being misled into believing we would rank only 6th locally?
This becomes even more concerning when we consider the socio-economic challenges facing Fenland. The council’s own ‘Business Plan 2024/25’ acknowledges that Fenland ranks as the 80th most deprived area out of 317 in the country.
Further research from Cambridgeshire Insight[1] underscores the severity of local deprivation, with the darkest areas on the map highlighting the most disadvantaged parts of the county.
[1] (see below)
https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/deprivation/indices-of-multiple-deprivation/
It is therefore fair to question why FDC is pushing for a tariff hike that could disproportionately impact some of the area’s poorest residents, allowing Hackney Carriage (HC) drivers to charge on average 42% more than in wealthier neighbouring districts.
The council’s rationale—that the increase will attract more drivers—also seems to lack any substantive evidence. There is no indication that the trade was consulted on this matter, so where’s the data to show a significant unmet demand?
Therefore, under whose advisement is the council acting on. In the town of March, we’ve faced significant challenges from COVID-19 followed by town regeneration efforts leaving drivers struggling due to market saturation[2].
This has drivers raising concerns about the influx of private hire (PH) drivers operating in the area. However, as we operate in a competitive marketplace, when approached I simply ask: are they breaking any laws?
That said, I’m also aware of a belief within the trade that this unwarranted tariff hike is intended to benefit the expansion of the Private Hire sector. While I cannot verify this claim, I would raise the following points.
Firstly, Cllr Samantha Hoy, the portfolio holder for licensing, has reportedly stated, ‘…if I ever need a taxi, which tends to be occasionally in the evening, they are not available.’ I assume Cllr Hoy doesn’t avoid using Private Hire vehicles, so when she says they’re ‘not available,’ I take it she refers to both taxis and Private Hire vehicles.
If so, this raises the question: why is there a shortage of Private Hire drivers available to her? They face no restrictions and can set their own fares. So how is increasing the maximum Hackney Carriage tariff going to attract more drivers, when an unrestricted Private Hire system has already failed to do so?
Cllr Gurninder Singh Gill, owner of Swift Travel, was quoted as saying, ‘From a personal business point of view, I hope the fares don’t increase because it’s going to benefit me and my company a hell of a lot more by restricting levels of competition.’
But is that accurate? Let’s examine this from a Private Hire versus Hackney Carriage perspective. It’s well-known that Private Hire companies often charge more than Hackney Carriage drivers are legally allowed.
A simple example, if a Private Hire company charges £6.00 for the first mile and £2.50 per mile thereafter, a five-mile trip would cost the customer £16.00 (some Private Hire drivers start at £8). In contrast, with the current restricted tariff, a Hackney Carriage driver can’t charge more than £4.00 for the initial mile and £2.00 per additional mile, so the same journey would cost £12.00.
[1] Except for evenings
Clearly, under the current system, Hackney Carriage fares are more competitive. But along comes Fenland District Council, who for some mysterious reason, suddenly decides to increase the taxi industries maximum tariff by an unprecedented level.
Consequently, under the new Hackney Carriage rates, the initial charge would be £4.20, with each additional mile costing £3.30, bringing the total for the same trip to £17.40.
And yes, we know taxi drivers don’t need to charge the full rate; however, this still allows private hire companies to market themselves as the cheaper option compared to taxis.
How can that not be a benefit to private hire firms?
And as for the argument that ‘drivers don’t have to charge the maximum,’ I doubt any private hire company will include an asterisk in their advertising to notify customers of that. The reality is many customers will simply assume a private hire journey is more competitive than using a taxi.
Even more troubling, however, is the council’s apparent disregard for the level of deprivation that exists in Fenland.
How irresponsible for elected officials to repeatedly sing the mantra “drivers don’t have to charge the full tariff” while simultaneously endorsing the driver’s ability to impose excessively high fares on individuals within the county who can least afford it.
The taxi drivers’ concerns are therefore exacerbated by the following issues:
- The excessive nature of the proposed increase.
- The lack of data to support its claimed purpose.
- The council’s misleading assertion that locally we would rank “6th” highest.
- The absence of a more balanced third option, such as a moderate increase.
- The decision being diverted from a full council vote to a more limited cabinet decision.
- The council’s apparent refusal to disclose who proposed such a significant increase and the rationale behind it.
The claim we would rank ‘6th out of 9 neighbouring authorities’ is clearly itself misleading and certainly appears designed to persuade drivers that the increase is necessary and reasonable.
Therefore, the only appropriate course of action is to immediately halt this flawed process.
As for the belief this increase may have been designed to disadvantage the Hackney Carriage industry, and support those who hold the council’s favour.
Well certainly the council’s handling of the FACT investigation exposed a blatant disregard for the Hackney Carriage industry.
For years, the council failed to act on clear and unequivocal evidence of misconduct, unlawful practices, the abuse of public funds, even the police confirming “on the balance of probability” fraud had taken place.
For which we still all await an apology from Fenland District Council!
This clearly raises serious concerns about the council’s apparent willingness to jeopardise the livelihoods of those in the Hackney Carriage industry by shielding and supporting even unlawful and potentially criminal behaviour within organisations it favours.
Whittlesey taxi firm drops fares by 15 per cent for next 3 months
So, you decide: are taxi drivers pursuing a political agenda, or are they simply concerned, once again, for their families’ livelihoods against further unethical behaviour from Fenland District Council?
I’ll leave you with this: Cllr Samantha Hoy stated, “we obviously do have a conduct process.” Yet, in 2021, FOI request 7574 revealed over a five-year period 174 conduct complaints against councillors and officers—with none upheld[3].
This raises serious concerns about the council’s governance and ethical standards, reinforcing the belief that Fenland is controlled by a few senior officers and councillors, without meaningful public oversight—possibly confirmed further by this decision being removed from full council. Hence my 2022 YouTube report being titled “Community Gagged.”
Dave Humphrey
PS: In John Elworthy’s article, Cllr Alex Miscandlon suggested some drivers prefer to round figures over exact meter readings, he claims “…ignoring of course the licensing laws”. Can he provide evidence for these accusations?
(see below)
https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/deprivation/indices-of-multiple-deprivation/
[2] Except for evenings
[3] With the exception of one believed to have been entered by the council’s own monitoring officer.
