Business

Rick Daniow has surveyed 30 local authorities and found Wokingham charges the most of any of them for an ice cream van licence
advertisement

Ice cream man's fury at borough's high licence fee

By Jon Nurse
February 22, 2013

An ice cream man is fed up of watching his profits melt away after forking out thousands on council fees to sell lollies across the borough.

Rick Daniow, pictured right, has paid more than £13,000 in fees in the last six years but is fuming after discovering some councils don’t charge for a trading licence. He is now calling for an investigation into what is pushing up the charge, which stands at £2,400 this year, after a personal survey of 30 councils found Wokingham to be one of the most expensive.

“It goes up every year with inflation,” Mr Daniow, of Bathurst Road, Winnersh, said. “I’ve compared a list of various councils from Edinburgh right down to the south coast and eight I looked at don’t charge anything at all. In Reading it’s under £800. It won’t take them more than £2,000 of work to sort the licence. It’s ridiculous. It’s more than 10 times what they charge for a taxi licence.”

The 61-year-old has been selling ice creams between Winnersh and Finchampstead for more than 20 years and has been stung by the charge since the council adopted the Local Government and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in 2000.

“It’s most of my profit gone,” he explained. “I’m working for three to four months of the year for practically nothing. I’ve not had a holiday for three years.

“I know a lot of people [across the country] are throwing in the towel and giving up. It’s a terrible shame because it’s a delightful job. You meet some smashing people.”

Mr Daniow said his research found licence charges were especially higher in Berkshire than the rest of the country – with Windsor, Maidenhead and Slough the worst at around £3,000. He added that after six years of asking, the council still refuses to reveal how the amount is calculated.

Trading Standards services is shared between Wokingham Borough Council and West Berkshire Council, with plans to offer a half price six-month trading licence from April.

Brian Leahy, of West Berkshire and Wokingham environmental health and licensing service, said: “Street trading fees are set having taken into consideration all costs associated with the consultation, inspection and grant of the licence as well as monitoring and control of licensed operators and the investigation into allegations of persons trading without consent.

“And in some cases the collection of refuse, street cleansing and other services rendered by the council to the licence holder.”

| Submit Comments | View Comments (19)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 19 of 19

Still the Ice Cream he is holding looks good!

Apocalyptic Horseman, Reading
25/02/2013 at 09:00

It's because he's an independent. Councils don't want them. They want the big stores. It's disgusting.

HK, bracknell
23/02/2013 at 06:31

Small businesses should be supported by councils, not penalised by unnecessary fees. Specially if they won't account for the money.

Operation Northwoods-check it out, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 20:12

This is not just about the actual cost of the licence, it calls into question the integrity of the people in the councils who handle our money. Councils are forbidden by legislation to use licence fees to top up their coffers. Also, who actually benefits ? Certainly not the ice cream man !! Why did the council suddenly bring in this licence 6 years ago ? It can only be because they saw it as a revenue raising exercise, which is illegal. After 6 years of asking, the onus is on the council to come clean on how they arrived at the amount. Ron Paul Tells the Truth

Ron Paul speaks the Truth, Winnersh
22/02/2013 at 19:39

Why is Mr. Daniow pictured in Winnersh Parish Council Car Park when there's a Cafe there that sells ice cream in the Pavilion?

Great job it may be, however if it doesn't pay the bills, it doesn't make much sense to me to continue.

Beef Cake Argh!
22/02/2013 at 13:14

(add to that the fact that some councils don't even charge for this 'licence' and you immediately see an unfairness; 10x the fee for a taxi licence; 3x the fee in neighbouring Reading)

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 13:02

PoneRana, it would be fair if he was paying a comparable fee for a comparable reward. There's no way an ice-cream van can create the same kind of turnover as a shop though, is there? Much smaller, obviously much more limited stock, limited times of the year that he can operate, the costs of travelling to sell as opposed to customers coming through the door... very different business. We might as well compare it to the rates paid by The Ritz.

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 13:00

What he is paying would seem to be comparable probably a lot less than what a small out of town centre shop would be paying in rates. Surely this is fair?

PoneRana, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 12:42

@DT - no, it is not reasonable. Neither are the rent increases being charged by our private landlords and the council that are forcing shops out of the town, including the likes of Burtons etc. We are trying to encourage shops here, not turn them away, but the rent increases of many tens or hundreds of a percent just fly completely in the face of that policy.

mavdo, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 12:29

Millicent Reeves - I have used that excuse in the past, but the kids have seen through it now!

Megaman - I am not sure of any parent who wants there kids to have an ice cream at that time! There comes a point where common sense and decency should be applied and parents shouldn't even need to be discussing ice creams with kids at 8pm at night. A couple of hours earlier would be more reasonable and I suspect they may get more trade! I am not one for having rules for the sake of it, but some things get quite annoying after a while!

Smiffy, Reading
22/02/2013 at 12:10

@ Smiffy,

"the ice cream vans play the music when they've run out of ice cream"

problem solved

Millicent Reeves, Charvil
22/02/2013 at 11:30

Back to the main point; is charging an individual £2,400 simply to grant a licence to sell ice-cream from a van reasonable? It's clearly more than is paid to other borough councils, if we are to believe the information in this article. And I think it's clear to all of us that the true fee of granting a licence can't possibly be £2.4k, can it? It certainly seems to me to be a heartless, money-grabbing decision that's more likely to put a man at of work than do any good for anyone.

I would question "after six years of asking, the council still refuses to reveal how the amount is calculated" - surely a freedom of information request would answer the question?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 11:09

7pm fits in with not using a car horn in a built up area. You try getting kids to sleep when an ice cream van is outside.

Beef Cake Argh!
22/02/2013 at 10:51

@Megaman - it's just guidelines really so that they don't come around to an estate at 9pm when young kids should be in bed and play their music for 20 minutes every night. That's an extreme example, but they have to have cut-offs otherwise it is subjective and open to challenge over what different people think is obtrusive. The law sets out the boundary between acceptable and anti-social, although it still contains wording in there that says the loudspeaker cannot be used in an anti-social way.

I doubt anyone would be prosecuted over using the chimes at 8:15pm for 5 second blasts, but they might be told to go elsewhere if they did so parked at a country fayre. I would doubt anyone has actually been in court over these rules. At most councils probably just use it as an excuse for revoking licenses, but you never know.

mavdo, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 10:40

What's ridiculous about it, Meagaman? I think having no rules at all would be a bit ridiculous.

I would suppose enforcement is based on complaints; if someone complains, a policeman (at a guess) comes out and has a word. How does any law get enforced?

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 10:37

Someone had to sit down and come up with those ridiculous rules for ice cream salesman, think about that. It's crazy.

Also, how on earth do you ever enforce a law like that? It's completely stupid.

Megaman
22/02/2013 at 10:26

Up until 2012, the law and code of practice limited the chimes to midday to 7pm (Section 62 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974), for no more than 4 seconds every 3 minutes, not played while stationary, within 50m of a school or church, or within sight of another van, or more than once every 2 hours in the same street ("Code of Practice on Noise from Ice-Cream Van Chimes Etc. 1982").

However, these were in line to be scrapped by our current government under the "Red Tape Challenege". I'm not sure if they were; it doesn't look like it.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13704-ice-cream-vans.pdf

mavdo, Wokingham
22/02/2013 at 10:20

Why should there be a curfew? If someone wants an ice cream in the evening they should be able to have one.

It sounds very Soviet to ban someone just cos you don't want your kids to have an ice cream, which of course is your parenting choice.

I personally think the snobs at Wokingham don't like the idea of something as common as an ice cream van and so try to price people out.

Megaman
22/02/2013 at 10:08

Ah - so that is the ice cream van I can hear at about 8pm in Winnersh every night in summer and winter! I have sympathy that there is such inconsistency and it is something where there should just be a standard cost across the country, however, my sympathy is eroded slightly by having to explain to my kids at 8pm or later that they are not going outside for an ice cream! There should be some sort of curfew in residential areas.