HMOs and taxi licences are similar

I READ with interest licensing committee convener Stewart Hunter’s reply to concerns raised by Councillor Fraser Macpherson re a review of the limit on houses of multiple occupancy.

Specifically I noted the concern the committee could be challenged legally if trying to keep the number of HMOs within the 12.5% limit for each sub-postcode.

That being the case, why then did they go ahead with the implementation of a two-tier licensing system of taxis, whereby many operators have been disadvantaged financially by having to provide more expensive wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAV) whilst longerstanding operators can put on much cheaper saloon vehicles.

This was despite legal advice at the time that they may be leaving themselves open to claims for compensation as a result — and which has now led to a test case being brought against them by the GMB union!

Does the money it takes to defend these actions come from council tax revenue?

To further compound this apparent contradiction in rationale they have implemented what amounts to a back-door attempt at limiting private hire car numbers by restricting new operators to a very limited choice of electric vehicles only.

This leaves them open to further challenge as this has the same effect as the WAV restriction — ie newer operators are being disadvantaged financially versus existing operators who have no such restriction.

That being the case I’m interested to know why the difference in rationale between HMO and taxi licensing despite them both appearing to face similar challenges?

Interestei o,server.

Stewart Hunter