Taxi Ply for Hire tariff

Summary

The request sought minutes regarding taxi tariff reviews from 2017 and 2021, as well as consultation details; the authority disclosed minutes from a February 2017 meeting outlining tariff adjustments and fee abolitions but indicated not all requested information was held.

Key Facts

• The Road Transport Licensing Committee held a private meeting on February 15, 2017, to review annual fare tariffs.
• The Committee decided to apply Tariff 2 to all Bank Holidays on the Isle of Man, not just specific ones.
• A proposal for a third tariff was deferred pending research into other jurisdictions.
• The Committee decided to abolish the £1 booking fee for private hire journeys.
• The Secretary noted that only five responses were received to the consultation request, which surprised the Committee.

Data Disclosed

• 2022-02-15
• 2022-03-14
• 2017-02-15
• 2013-03
• 2017-03-24
• 2021-12-22
• 14.26%
• 14%
• £20
• £25
• 20p
• 1.5 times
• 1.4 times
• 10:00
• 12:00
• 06:00
• 08:00
• 203 yards
• 170 yards
• 243 yards
• £1

Original Request

Minutes of the meeting(s) of the committee at which the review of meter tariffs was considered and which led to the decision published in AD&N 472 dated March 24th 2017. Minutes of the meeting(s) of the committee or other information which led to the alteration of this decision communicated to operators on or about December 22nd 2021. Otherwise the status of the person or persons who made this decision. Details of any consultation and responses to same of taxi operators prior to this latter decision being taken.

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

ROAD TRANSPORT LICENSING COMMITTEE Committee Meeting Minutes of a private meeting of the Road Transport Licensing Committee (“the Committee”) held at 09:30 on Wednesday 15th February 2017 at Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St John’s.

Annual Fare Tariff Review The Secretary circulated the five responses received so to the request made in an all-operator AD&N Circular on January 19th which asked for responses by February 10th. The Committee expressed their surprise that so few responses had been received. The Secretary noted that;  There had not been a rise in the tariff since March 2013.  Using the Retail Price Index (“RPI”) as a measure, inflation is running at 14.26% since then. RPI was used to calculate the proposed rise in the licensing fees although, in future, the Secretary will use CPI to be consistent with the rest of Government. He circulated his calculations of estimated tariff increase using the RPI figure of 14%.  Any change in the tariff will result in every operator have to pay £20 to £25 to have their meter adjusted by a meter agent. The Secretary highlighted a very detailed response from the Manx Taxi Federation (“MTF”) which proposed an increase of 20p at the flag drop of both tariff 1 and tariff 2 combined with a shortening of distance at which the meter would add an increment of 20p. While it varied from mile to mile, using the MTF’s calculations, tariff 2 was approximately 1.5 times greater than tariff 1 apart from at the flag drop where it was 1.4 times tariff one. The Committee noted a response from an operator which suggested that tariff 2 be applied to all rather than just some of them. He argued that he could not understand why Easter Monday was currently tariff 2 and the May Bank Holidays were tariff 1. The Committee considered this suggestion and found themselves persuaded by the argument put forward by the respondent. They decided that tariff 2 should apply to all Bank Holidays on the Isle of Man (or their replacement days) in addition to Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Good Friday and Easter Monday. Another response requested that there should be a third tariff which would occur between 10:00 and 12:00 as well as between 06:00 and 08:00. The cost of this tariff would be 1.5 times tariff 1 while the existing tariff 2 (12:00 to 06:00) should be 2 times tariff 1. The Committee discussed this suggestion and decided that, while it had merit, they would like to conduct some research into other jurisdictions which had three tariffs before implementing it in the Isle of Man. The Committee considered the issues surrounding the tariffs. They were impressed by the calculations supplied by the MTF and, on this occasion, decided to use the MTF’s figures for the new tariff 1. They also recognised that a number of respondents had suggested that tariff 2 be 1.5 times tariff 1. The Secretary stated that, currently, tariff 2 was not a standard multiple of tariff 1. This was because of the various distances at which the meter would add an increment of 20p which not only differed between the two tariffs but also differed three times within each tariff. For example for tariff 1:
 Up to approximately five miles, 20p was added every 203 yards.
 Between roughly five miles and roughly ten miles, 20p was added every 170 yards.  Above roughly ten miles, 20p was added every 243 yards. For tariff 2, both the yardage and the distances which they apply to were different than tariff 1. All in all, it was extremely confusing. The Committee stated that they would like to simplify the tariff so that it could be understood by members of the public. However they realised that it would take a great deal of work to “standardise” the tariffs so that they could be easily understood. As a result, this would be an aim for future years rather than trying to achieve this during this tariff review. The Secretary summarised the Committee’s decisions as follows;  They would use the MTF’s calculations for tariff 1.  Tariff 2 would become 1.5 times tariff 1 – although the Secretary stated that this would not be exact given the irregular nature that tariff 2 was calculated. The Committee asked the Secretary to consult with the MTF about the proposed new tariff 2 and come back to them once he had done so. This should also be done before any decisions were publicised. The Secretary said that he might need to consult with the MTF regardless given the complicated nature of the calculations. The Committee moved onto the extra items that drivers were permitted to charge, but did not have to if they did not want to. The Committee decided to abolish the booking fee of £1 that could currently be charged on all private hire journeys (this was because they should all be pre-booked).
The Committee also considered abolishing the £1 that drivers could charge for picking up from the Airport. However, they asked the Secretary to investigate why this charge existed and find out what previous Committee’s had said about it. They indicated that they would like to abolish it but wanted to wait for the Secretary to conduct his research first. They noted that, if they decided to abolish it, they should probably give advance notice of their intention. This meant that the Airport fee would most probably be abolished from April 2018 but would remain in place for this year. The Committee noted that one respondent had suggested that the extra fee for each suitcase stored in the boot (currently 50p) should be changed so that each passenger would be allowed to put one suitcase (or large box, pram, etc) in the boot with no charge. The Committee decided that this suggestion should be adopted with a slight adjustment in that any additional large items stored by a passenger after one may incur an extra charge of 50p per large item.
For example, for two passengers with two large bags there would not be any extra charge, but if they had three bags 50p extra could be charged. Any items that passengers did not have to stow (e.g. a handbag or a laptop) would not result in any extra charge. This was because they were not considered to be large items.
The Committee considered the contamination fee which was currently £100 and had been such for many years. The Committee decided to increase this fee to £200 but noted that this was a maximum charge and could only be charged if the vehicle was caused to go out of service.

Thie Slieau Whallian, Foxdale Road, St John's, Isle of Man, IM4 3AS Tel: (01624) 651564 Email: rtlc@gov.im Website: www.gov.im/rtlc

Our ref: 2267790 14th March 2022

Dear ###

We write further to your request which was received on 15th February 2022 and which states:

"Minutes of the meeting(s) of the committee at which the review of meter tariffs was considered and which led to the decision published in AD&N 472 dated March 24th 2017. Minutes of the meeting(s) of the committee or other information which led to the alteration of this decision communicated to operators on or about December 22nd 2021. Otherwise the status of the person or persons who made this decision. Details of any consultation and responses to same of taxi operators prior to this latter decision being taken."

Response The minutes of the committee meeting, at which the review of meter tariffs was considered and lead to the decision that was published in the AD&N 472, are attached. In reference to the second and third parts of your request, there is no further information held, as there was no alteration to this decision published on March 24th 2017. The Secretary of the RTLC sent an email to all operators on the 22nd of December 2021 clarifying the tariff, as nothing has changed since the decision made in the attached minutes.

Please quote the reference number 2267790 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.