Taxi drivers have overwhelmingly rejected proposals by Fenland District Council for a massive increase in fares that they argue ‘will kill the Hackney carriage trade’. A fresh consultation by Fenland District Council attracted 62 responses, with 44 opposed to the increase, 17 in agreement and one described in council reports as “unclear”.
The council has 133 licensed vehicles which are split into 76 Hackney carriage and 57 private hire.
The outcome of the consultation will be considered by Cabinet on November 15 after a decision was postponed at their September meeting when it considered a recommendation by its licensing committee to implement increased charges.
“The current review was instigated following a request with support by others from the taxi trade for an increase to the table of fares,” says licensing manager Michelle Bishop in her latest report to Cabinet.
“The last table of fares were amended in 2022.
“To be clear the taxi trade can charge less than this amount if they would like to do so as the proposed charges are discretionary.
Fenland councillors – both taxi drivers – clash over massive fares hike of up to 46 per cent
“The table of fares applies only to Hackney carriage vehicles. Private hire operators can agree their hiring charges in advance with their customers at the time of booking the journey
“It is at the discretion of the council as the licensing authority to set a table of fares for licensed Hackney carriages operating within the district if it chooses to do so.”
Cabinet will be asked whether to support the licensing committee recommendation and implement the previously proposed fee increase or to take no action at this time and to instead determine whether and when a further review should take place as a result of this process.
She says that following Cabinet in September a further consultation was held with the taxi trade only and “the purpose of this consultation was to ensure all queries were clear on the proposed tariff and subsequent % increase”.
In a league table produced by the council she says that Fenland’s current fare tariff, for a 2-mile journey, sits in 283rd place out of 341 licencing authorities listed.
“The standard measure for the purpose of making comparisons is a 2-mile journey and this is why that measure has been used for the purpose of compiling this and previous reports,” says Ms Bishop.
“Any decision to increase taxi fares would have a positive impact on the taxi trade, primarily economically.”
She says the council has “identified the balance that is required to be struck by supporting our taxi trade and not exposing users of taxis to such an increase in fares that would lead to journeys becoming too expensive, thus having social implications linked to a lack of social mobility, and economic implications by additional money having to be spent on transport.
“Members should note that the tariff is the maximum permitted fare that can be charged, and that vehicle proprietors can choose to charge less should they wish”.
One taxi driver told the council that “if you change the mileage rate by such a huge amount it will kill the Hackney carriage trade when we are already struggling due to the private hires.,
“Perhaps if you made private hires operate from installed meters and are on the same footing and tariff as Hackney carriages then there wouldn’t be such an issue with these proposed changes.
“If you clamped down on the amount of private hires that aren’t licensed in Fenland from operating in this area working for certain companies with their app system that might be a good place to start before bringing in any change.”
The driver added: “Whilst I agree Hackney carriages should have a rise in fares perhaps in line with inflation – the 45 per cent mileage increase is ludicrous.
“When I was licensed in Poole, Dorset all the taxis and private hires operated from the same rates. It was all done via meters and all set to the same tariff.
“Why can’t it be the same here?
“Also, surely a mainly private hire company with a meter on its app is surely against the current legislation or aren’t we supposed to state this?
A second driver said: “I do not think the price increases are viable. Putting the prices up to the proposed rates would kill the trade.
“Business is hard enough without losing the regular customers we already have.
“I am not adverse to a slight increase as people paying by card cost the drivers money with card machine charges but to increase by the amount proposed would simply force drivers out of the trade because we would have no work.
“It certainly would not encourage new drivers, and the public already complain about the lack of taxis.
“The problem isn’t the fares it is that people looking into getting into the trade cannot afford it and the amount of hoops they have to jump though are unrealistic to the job.
“Maybe making getting into the trade easier would increase custom and then a price increase wouldn’t be such an issue.
“The cost of living has risen so a slight increase is realistic but not to the point the public cannot afford it and kills the trade. We pay a lot every year with the charges associated with being in the trade so I feel we should have some sort of input in these decisions that will be acknowledged.”
And a third wrote: “I completely disagree to the proposed new rates.
“I do agree there should be a slight increase as most customers pay by card and so the card reader companies take a percentage. The customers are struggling to afford taxis and to increase by that much would kill the taxi trade.”
Background to the debate on taxi fare increases
On October 11, the council sent out a letter to all licensed drivers explaining that Fenland ranked 289 out of 341 local authority areas, making it currently among the lowest in the country.
The letter claimed it was ‘inaccurate’ to say the proposed increases amounted to a rate per mile of £3.30, an increase of 50 per cent mile, and that Fenland tariff rate per mile would exceed almost all other councils in the country..
Instead, says the letter, the increased tariff would be mean:
1: 2 mile journey now £6.20 would rise to £7.50, a 20.9 per cent rise.
2: 5 mile journey, now £12.80. would rise to £17.40, a rise of 35.9 per cent
3: 20 mile journey, now £45.80 would rise to £74.90, a rise of 41.7 per cent
4: 30 mile journey, now £67.80 would rise to £99.99, a rise of 47.3 per cent
If the rise is approved, and the council offers a reminder this is a maximum charge “and not what you have to charge”, Fenland would rank 112th highest out of 338, rather than 289th, and 6th out of 9 neighbouring authorities.
“Having regard to the new information and potential inaccuracies upon which the objections were based, it was considered appropriate, before making a final decision, to ensure that the proposed changes would have the level of support that was previously indicated,” said the letter.
Or, it added, “if upon further reflection, an increase in tariff is not something that the trade wishes to be pursued at this time”.
Cllr Dave Patrick and a long standing unofficial spokesperson for the taxi trade, believes the council is not reflecting the true rates.
“Every district has a flag,” he said. “This is the start charge at the initial hiring.
“In Fenland it is £4.00 for the first mile. In Cambridge for the first 90 metres, it costs £3.65 and then the mileage rate kicks in.”
Cllr Patrick said: “Presently in Fenland once the flag distance of 1 mile has been reached the rate per mile is £2.20 which is charged in 1/11th increments at 20p.
“Fenland’s proposal increases the mile rate to £3.30 in 1/10th increments of 33p, with a flag of £4.20 as the starting point.
“So, while the first mile has only increased by 5% (the flag mile) every mile thereafter has increased by 50 per cent.”
He added: “In addition, when the vehicle happens to hit traffic or is stuck in a queue or waiting at traffic lights waiting time is also added to the fare.
“I cannot state enough that once you have travelled the first mile every mile thereafter has seen an increase of 50 per cent. Something Cllr Sam Hoy, as portfolio holder for licensing, fails to acknowledge.”
When it came to Cabinet in September the portfolio holder for licensing, Cllr Sam Hoy, was disinclined to speculate on the reasons for the challenge to the proposed increases.
“I won’t want to say my full reasons for that, but I do think it is politically motivated but obviously I will be careful because we do have a conduct process and I would not like to find myself falling foul of that,” she said.
“I don’t have any skin in the game,” she said. “I am not a taxi driver. I very rarely use taxis and the reason I very rarely use taxis is because if I ever need a taxi which tends to be occasionally in an evening they are not available”.
She felt an increased rate would incentivise more people to enter the trade.
“If a taxi driver right now wants to go and pick someone up and bring them to from Wisbech to March for a pound they can obviously do that.
“They wouldn’t because you know it’s too cheap, but they legally could do that.”
She said the fare set by the council “is just the maximum amount they are allowed to charge so I think that when people say Fenland District Council are increasing the fares that is obviously done to make a political point and to try and stir up ammunition.”
She opponents had made it seem “like Fenland District Council will put those taxi fares up and the taxi driver has no choice”.
Cllr Hoy said she felt the truth was that “there is some sort of anti-competitive nature in that if the increase is allowed, some drivers will want to increase it and if they want to remain competitive they will have to hold their prices down.
She was worried for the impact for Fenland residents if they can’t get a taxi when they want one and what happens when current drivers leave the trade and retire
Cllr Hoy said the late submission of comments had prompted her to recommend postponing a decision which was agreed.
She concluded by insisting she was “on the drivers’ side” but also on the residents’ side “to a degree it doesn’t matter how much the taxi fee is if there’s no taxis available taxis could be a pound or a million pounds but if there’s no taxis available you can’t get one.
“It’s really important to me that we get this right and I would like to defer this paper to the next cabinet meeting”.
Cllr Gurninder Singh Gill of Whittlesey has commented on social media extensively about the proposed fares increase.
In one posted the Conservative councillor wrote: “If they wanted to do it for political gain then they would have been looking to reduce the tariffs to make it cheaper for the general public to get taxis which would obviously favour them for elections.
“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.”
He runs a growing private hire fleet, but also Hackney carriages, out of Whittlesey but has recently run a recruitment drive at Tesco in Wisbech.
