Agenda item

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submits a report.

The Committee is recommended to approve the LEVC TX, which is not fully compliant with the conditions of fitness, to be licensed as a hackney carriage provided that Members accept that the benefits of licensing outweigh the disadvantages outlined in paragraph 5 of the report.

The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services submitted a report seeking approval of the LEVC TX to be licensed as a hackney carriage.

The Committee was recommended to approve the LEVC TX, which was not fully compliant with the conditions of fitness to be licensed as a hackney carriage, provided that they accepted that the benefits of licensing the vehicle outweighed the disadvantages outlined in paragraph 5 of the report.

The Licensing Team Manager presented the report. Members were asked to note the age policy on the licensing of Hackney Carriages was temporarily relaxed from September 2016 and had been extended to 30^th June 2018, after which anybody with an overage vehicle could only extend a licence if they could prove they had ordered a ULEV vehicle. Members were informed that other vehicles would be brought before the Committee in the future, and the 30^th June date would be reviewed nearer to the time.

The Licensing Team Manager drew attention to the two areas where the vehicle was not fully compliant with the existing conditions of fitness. These were:

a)    The overall width of the vehicle was 1874mm, which exceeded the maximum width of 1845mm specified in Appendix 1 by 29mm.

b)    The seat spacing was 0.448 m with adequate foot room. The minimum width specified in Appendix 1 was 0.48 m, although it may be reduced to 0.435 m provided adequate foot room was maintained at floor level.

c)    The manufacturers had been asked to address those deviations from the conditions of fitness and their response would be reported verbally at the meeting.

In addition a certificate of European Whole Vehicle type approval had been provided for the vehicle.

It was reported the vehicle was checked by Licensing Enforcement Officers prior to the meeting on 5 March 2018. It was noted that there was a third area of non-compliance in that the sliding window between compartments was wider than the condition of fitness at 17cm, although the window was curved.

At 5.51pm the Chair adjourned the meeting to enable Members to inspect the vehicle, which was parked outside of City Hall, At this point the RMT Union representative joined members.

Members inspected the vehicle and observed the operation of the wheelchair ramp and forward facing anchorage points for wheelchairs, the panoramic roof, wi-fi capabilities and charging sockets. Members also received information on the fitted radar and auto-braking system and information on the Volvo engine, battery operation and CO₂ emissions.

At 6.25pm the meeting was reconvened with all Members present who were present when the meeting was adjourned.

Following the inspection of the vehicle, the Chair then invited Alistair Fairgreave, representative of LEVC (formerly known as the London Taxi Company), to provide information on the vehicle, and answer questions from Members and a RMT Union Representative:

·         A driver could choose different options, for example, heated seat, extra storage, reversing camera;

·         Card payment systems – regulations differed in every city, and LEVC were not involved with the installations of such systems. There were, however, brackets to support card payment machines hidden behind the trim, and did not interfere with air bags;

·         The vehicle was launched the second week of January 2018;

·         The vehicle had been approved in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Paisley, Liverpool and Manchester. Approval was still pending in Nottingham and Birmingham as a vehicle charging infrastructure needed to be put in place;

·         There was a 14-week lead time for delivery (3½ months);

·         The aperture in the dividing panel had been made smaller to prevent people putting their arm through;

·         The styling of the vehicle made it look more imposing than current hackney carriages, and although the body was wider the overall width including the mirrors was the same as the previous non-ULEV model;

·         There was an extra seat in the back (six instead of five), with no seat in the front;

·         All materials in the vehicle had passed stringent testing, the flooring was stain resistant, and there was a vinyl option for the seat and floor;

·         The cost of £55k was a big factor to consider for drivers, but could save £100 a week with the low running costs. The manufacturers had to build a vehicle that met all the requirements (low fuel usages, wheelchair friendly), and LEVC’s approach was to make a really good taxi that justified the prices charged by a taxi. The organisation could have made a cheaper vehicle but it would have been difficult to meet requirements;

·         The vehicle had a five-year battery warranty, 3-year vehicle warranty and roadside assistance. Ball joints as a taxi were included in the warranty for semi-wear parts. Services were included for three years, with the first service undertaken at 25,000 miles;

·         All parts were stocked for maintenance and repair. LEVC were in discussions with a dealer in Leicester to cover repairs under warranty. The deal had not yet been confirmed, but the dealer had been asked to meet new standards to come on board. Currently the nearest point for drivers was in Coventry, but the list of dealers was growing all the time.

Members discussed the merits of the application and,

RESOLVED:

That the application for the LEVC TX to be approved for licensing as a hackney carriage vehicle be approved, with the proviso that the company get some form of servicing for them locally.

The reasons for the Members making their decision were that the three areas where the vehicle was not compliant with the Council’s Conditions for Fitness for a Hackney Carriage were considered to be minimal differences, and the benefits of licensing outweighed these areas of non-compliance. The vehicle met the needs of passengers and drivers and had some extra features which were beneficial.

It was noted there would be other opportunities to view competitors’ vehicles in the future to provide further choice for drivers.