Whilst training may have been developed in the private hire sector its purpose wasn’t to prevent people from entering the job (as some in the Hackney carriage trade appear to see it), it was to encourage people to stay. After all, who would go to all the bother to obtain a qualification to drive a PHV, only to cast it aside when a ‘proper’ job came about.

Of course, when mentioning training I should perhaps point out that a private hire driver appears to go through the exact same course as a hackney carriage driver. Fair enough, maybe. But can one of you please tell me, as one simple example of the stupidity, why a private hire (minicab) driver should undergo wheelchair training when loading a wheelchair is perhaps the one task they will almost certainly never have to accomplish?

I don't believe that the training was developed in the private hire sector in an effort to encourage drivers to stay in the trade. I believe it has something to do with the number of drivers there are in the private hire sector, considerably more than that of the hackney trade. The statistical advantage that creates when trying to up the Uks qualifications (which is primarily the reason for the NVQ in all trade sectors) and of course once the finances were sourced the financial advantage it created for the training industry.

If drivers do not do the same qualification then there would be a need for drivers that went from private hire to taxi trade to do a further training scheme and vice versa if a taxi driver decided to join the private hire trade. With regard the wheelchair training for private hire drivers I don't see why they should be excluded. With such a possible array of vehicles allowed within the private hire trade then surely it is a wise person that ensures a driver can load a wheelchair safely just in case a driver buys or operates a WAV for private hire

I think if you check back a dozen years you'll find im right.

I don't think I will. There may well be a reference to your statement as an advantage for the drivers to do the course but it's not primarily the reason they were introduced to it.

?

?

CC I'm not entirely sure what it is you don't understand. I disagreed with your reasoning and still do. If you want to know why I disagree with your reasoning it's quite simply because I believe you to be wrong

you may well have a shocked look....I aint.

How rude Perhaps it's best that we agree to disagree

Good to see you've replaced the Skoda

Is ignorance really a defence

Is it the taxi trades fault for the rise of private hire?



This article does not represent the views of the National Taxi Association

Taxi trade ignorance of private hire is widespread. The cab trade, on the whole, fail to recognise private hire covers such diverse activities as executive hire, minibus hire, limousines, novelty vehicles, firms specialising in airport, ferry terminal type operations and naturally the ‘run of the mill’ private hire or minicab companies. Moreover, Private Hire always has been, and still remains, a choice the public make when they pick up a telephone.

In certain parts of the country Private Hire (minicabs) are subject to the same basic requirements as Hackney Carriages to be licensed, yet one must surely wonder about the usefulness of a knowledge test to a firm and driver doing purely airport work, or indeed specialising in hiring limousines for special occasions.



If a person wished to start up a private-hire business loosely based around a famous ‘Fawlty Towers’ scene, where the vehicle would be a red Austin 1100, which regularly breaks down, complete with a licensed driver, who has a moustache, and who on occasion gets out of the car and beats it with a branch, The chances are, in vast swathes of the country, this idea would be stifled by licensing laws.

Primarily, the local authority may well have an age policy, bearing in mind the car hasn’t been built since 1974. I envisage a potential problem. I also presume getting out of the vehicle in a rage and beating it with a tree branch is contrary to either NVQ assessments or BTEC training.

As already alluded to in this issue, the intention of private hire (minicab) licensing was to ensure people picking up members of the public were legitimate and that the cars were safe and the operators relatively honest. What we have now isn’t quite what parliament imagined. In fact I would contend they never seriously wanted local authorities (at least in my reading of Hansard) to have such control over private businesses.

The Hackney Carriage trade has to a certain degree, at least in the provincial cab trade, very guilty of hectoring and badgering local authorities into bringing in all manner of regulations upon the private hire trade. Local authorities, whose ignorance is personified through councillors (who have little knowledge or interest in taxi and private hire), have been consistently guilty of eagerly adopting over burdensome regulation. You need look no further than the City of Manchester, where the local authority brought in the rather idiotic notion of private hire colour regulation (PHV’s must be white or silver), seemingly ignoring the fact the public would soon see these coloured vehicles as legitimate taxis.



Why the taxi trade in many areas have followed this route is obvious, all regulation, as the taxi trade knows only too well, has the effect of limiting entry, the BTEC and NVQ are merely a newer, more politically correct example of a type of knowledge test. To draw this conclusion you have to consider (for whatever reason), the Hackney carriage trade having always been considered the professionals, private hire was (and to a certain degree still remains) the illegitimate [edited by admin] offspring with a transient workforce.

Whilst training may have been developed in the private hire sector its purpose wasn’t to prevent people from entering the job (as some in the Hackney carriage trade appear to see it), it was to encourage people to stay. After all, who would go to all the bother to obtain a qualification to drive a PHV, only to cast it aside when a ‘proper’ job came about.

Of course, when mentioning training I should perhaps point out that a private hire driver appears to go through the exact same course as a hackney carriage driver. Fair enough, maybe. But can one of you please tell me, as one simple example of the stupidity, why a private hire (minicab) driver should undergo wheelchair training when loading a wheelchair is perhaps the one task they will almost certainly never have to accomplish?

The taxi trade often complain (and quite rightly) about the public being confused between private hire and hackney carriages, the press are a useful scapegoat very often branding both incorrectly as ‘taxis’. Yet for the most part a private hire driver must jump through the exact same hoops as a ‘proper’ taxi driver to obtain a license. Furthermore, in many areas a single ‘taxi’ driver license is issued, it’s called a dual license. The sad fact, in certain cases the dual license has been at the suggestion of taxi companies. In others it’s a local authority case of conditions being easier to attach to a license than byelaws. If a single license for two different trades doesn’t add to the confusion of local authority committees, the law commission and wider public, can you tell me what will?

When I hear calls from elements of the Hackney carriage trade to further regulate the private hire trade I really do despair. Once again, it not only shows a total ignorance of what private hire encompass, it’s a case of the taxi trade pontificating as to what is best for an industry they should be, now more than ever before, distancing themselves.

It would be negligent of me not to mention ‘out of town’ hackney carriages when writing this article, because although I have wrote about the phenomenon for more years than I care to remember, it clearly needs a few more words in the light of what I’ve written above.

Without going into the actual law (because there’s nothing more nauseating) we need to consider why it happened. Yes. I have heard the arguments about it being cheaper to license a hackney carriage in one area than a private hire in another. Whilst to be honest, I don’t see that as an entirely legitimate argument, especially if the authority which is merely a ‘flag of convenience’ ensures the vehicle must be tested within its own district, there can be little doubt costs do play at least a small part.



Milton Keynes was one, very obvious example. Those of you who have photographic memories will remember the now former leader of Milton Keynes council (the strange looking chap with a beard) tell the transport select committee he would never allow Milton Keynes to regulate taxi numbers. What he didn’t tell, for whatever reason, was the cost to become a private hire or hackney driver in his borough. Bearing in mind the extortion, there can be little wonder many private hire drivers simply chose to license themselves as hackney carriages in neighbouring South Northants.

South Northants seem to have developed a knowledge test and more stringent criteria during 2011, so it will be interesting to find out in the future if the numbers of applications have been reduced as a result.

Incidentally, the first application fee in Milton Keynes is £354.00 for a driver induction course.

As previously stated, costs of licensing are merely part of the equation, the next obvious issue revolve around the vehicle, to a degree and if a local authority has in place an overly arduous vehicle age policy, particularly on first license, this again will play a part in a driver looking for alternative licensing arrangements. For example, a local authority may have a condition where they will only license a vehicle (on first application) if it is under a certain age.

If I was asked why a driver from one area chooses to license himself in another I would suggest it’s all about the ease of obtaining a license.

I am no particular fan of James TH Button, particularly his notion of a single tier system comprising of three internal tiers, yet I must acknowledge he does have a point.

Private Hire has elements which are only there because they were dragged kicking and screaming into taxi and private hire licensing – this element – as previously mentioned is the limousine / executive hire, novelty vehicle and minibus part of the private hire business.

These businesses, whilst still performing a service to the wider public are certainly not the ‘run of the mill’ minicab type outfits. Yes they need some type of minimal regulation of both driver and vehicle – but do they need the same type of regulation and stringency as normal minicab outfits – I’m not so sure.

By minimal I mean minimal driver regulations – full CRB but no knowledge test etc – minimal vehicle regulations – no age policy on vehicles – minimal testing arrangements etc.

However, and again as alluded to in the context of this article. If and when the executive hire, limousines, novelty vehicles and minibuses are removed (but not removed entirely) from the private hire regime, this leaves us with private hire minicabs. The shades of grey which are left are increasingly blurred, now whose fault is that?
.

.