|
I write in answer to your questions emailed to our association on 7th January.
The association can obviously only answer in respect to how we answered similar questions posed by the law commission in their consultation.
The questions themselves and what they may lead to are in our view highly emotive and quite controversial, we are therefore disappointed at the length of time we have been allowed to answer, some within our association find this timescale unacceptable. We have not been able, due to the timescale, to organise any meeting of directors, let alone adequately consult with our membership.
We find it quite amazing the DfT would spend a great deal of money in acquiring the services of the Law Commission to then even consider some piece meal changes to current legislation prior to the law commission being finished with their work. We find the seeming urgency additionally bizarre, as private hire legislation has been around for the better part of 40 years..
We point out that many answers given in respect of the Law Commission were based around the premise of national standards being applied – this patently isn’t the case in respect of what the DfT appear to be asking and is therefore of some concern.
We additionally mention the Law Commission proposals were based upon enforcement across district borders – this does not appear to be the case with DfT proposals.
What appears to be proposed is the worst of both worlds.
Sincerely,
Administration Officer
1. The first proposal is to allow PHV operators licensed in England (outside London) and Wales to sub-contract bookings to an operator licensed in a different district. London PHV operators are allowed to sub-contract to an operator licensed outside London so it would be a case of establishing a more level playing field.
1a - Do you regard this as a measure which would reduce a burden on the PHV trade? If not, what effect do you think it would have, and why?
It is difficult to understand what burden there currently is – the question assumes there is a burden.
The often cited example given by those who want change is the innocent enough scenario of a PHV breaking down outside of its area and the operator needing to obtain another PHV from another area for the customer – current law forbids such practice, although it doesn’t forbid the customer from obtaining another vehicle themselves or indeed the operator obtaining a hackney carriage.
The cited example could be simply overcome with an exemption for such circumstance – however – private hire operators seemingly feel the need for wholesale change.
The association does not see the often-cited example as a burden upon business – unless of course the private hire operator is using a fleet of mechanically defective vehicles.
A private hire company is licensed to operate within a specific area – it may already accept bookings from anywhere in the country, provided the vehicle and driver they supply are licensed by the same local authority.
What the proposal would allow is the creation of national booking companies (although some arguably already exist due to a lack of enforcement by local authorities).
Allowing sub-contracting may create a burden as private hire companies may have to pay outside agencies (or larger PH companies based in other areas) for work.
Proposals could lead to private hire operators sourcing private hire vehicles and drivers licensed in areas with less rigorous licensing regimes and operating entirely outside of their licensing area. The only thing the driver would need would be a operators license. This would take such vehicles outside the control of their home licensing authority.
The question of liability arises. Who is responsible in the event of a complaint? Which local authority would the customer complain to?
1b – Could you provide any evidence about the impact this proposal would have, whether by reference to a single operator in a case-study type way, or by reference to a global figure of how the trade will benefit in financial terms by being able to sub-contract across borders?
The only beneficiary of such change will be large private hire operators as they will be able to recruit from a not only a larger pool, but will be able to cherry pick local authorities with less rigorous licensing regimes.
Current examples would be the mirror image of what has already happened within the Hackney carriage industry where authorities with less rigorous standards have been sourced, Rossendale, Gedling & the area formerly known as Berwick being three examples.
It will undermine the authority of licensing departments as private hire vehicles could operate remotely from their licensing districts.
It will undermine the finances of licensing departments in areas with sterner licensing standards.
As the DfT are very much aware, different local authorities have different standards.
Proposals could lead to private hire operators sourcing private hire vehicles and drivers licensed in areas with more lax licensing regimes operating entirely outside of their licensing area. The only thing the driver would need would be a operators license. This would take such vehicles and drivers outside the grasp of local enforcement.
1c – Do you see any adverse consequences arising from the proposal? If so, please explain.
Answered in 1a & 1b and answered sufficiently.
The dangers of national booking offices can be highlighted in the case of Fraser Eagle that became a national booking agency for companies such as Virgin Rail.
Fraser Eagle centrally accepted bookings from across the UK – they then sub-contracted this work to both taxi and private hire companies across the country.
Fraser Eagle supplied their clients with a centralised invoice – they then paid (or more correctly should have paid) the various taxi and private hire companies they sub-contracted the work to.
Fraser Eagle went bankrupt owing the taxi and private hire trade millions of pounds – although they did manage to start a phoenix company called Connect Point UK Ltd.
There have been numerous other examples of National booking agencies defrauding the taxi and private hire trades out of money.
2. The second proposal seeks to address the law as stated in the case of Benson v Boyce. It is to allow private hire vehicles licensed by a local authority outside London to be driven by a person (e.g. a family member) who does not hold a PHV driver licence when the vehicle is not being used for private hire work i.e. when it is “off-duty”. This is the position in London so again, it would be a case of establishing a more level playing field as between London and the rest of England and Wales.
2a - Do you regard this as a measure which would reduce a burden on the PHV trade? If not, what effect do you think it would have, and why?
Given the widely reported instances of touting and illegal plying for hire in London – perhaps the DfT should consider bringing London in line with the rest of the country?
The law outside of London is clear, only licensed persons should be driving licensed vehicles (save for the exemptions cited in the act).
What the DfT appear to be suggesting is the creation of a loophole where the burden is placed upon local authorities to prove the unlicensed person was using the vehicle for work purposes – and affording a legitimate excuse as the driver could doubtless claim they were “off duty”.
2b – Could you provide any evidence about the impact this proposal would have, whether by reference to a single owner-driver who, for example, had to acquire a second vehicle as the family car or by reference to a global figure of how the trade will benefit in financial terms by being able allow others to use their vehicle when it is “off-duty”?
The association are sceptical in respect of instances where this has become an issue.
2c – Do you see any adverse consequences arising from the proposal? If so, please explain.
As previously stated – the burden would be upon the local authority to prove the driver was using the vehicle for work purposes.
A change in legislation could increase the instances of work being carried out by unlicensed drivers in licensed vehicles – thus putting the public at greater risk.
2d – Do you have any feel for what proportion of PHV owners currently own second cars? If the legislation was changed in this way, how many would no longer want to have a second car – i.e. how many would use the PHV as the “family car”?
There is little evidence to say what impact this change could have – indeed any evidence would be anecdotal. It is reasonably obvious if the vehicle is being used for work purposes it cannot be used simultaneously for private usage by another driver. In such circumstances a second vehicle would be a requirement anyway.
3. The third proposal is to make it explicit in the legislation applying to taxis and PHVs outside London that taxi and PHV driver licences should be issued for a standard period of three years (and PHV operator licences five years) and licences should only be granted for shorter periods in the circumstances of an individual case (eg probation/monitoring or where the driver asks for a short-term seasonal licence).
3a - Do you regard this as a measure which would reduce a burden on the taxi and PHV trades? If not, what effect do you think it would have, and why?
A local authority already has the ability to license drivers for longer periods, indeed, many already do. We see this as an area where local authorities are best placed to decide.
3b – Could you provide any evidence about the impact this proposal would have, particularly in terms of cost-savings for drivers and operators?
According to legislation a local authority can only charge for the cost of issue of the driver licence – the effect of a three year license will obviously mean a driver will in effect purchase one license and get three years worth of usage – thus saving two years worth of fees.
The cost benefits are therefore negligible.
3c – Do you see any adverse consequences arising from the proposal? If so, please explain.
It is reasonably obvious that not all drivers report offences – if a driver is convicted of an offence they may not be found for a considerable period.
3d – If you are in a position to offer any information about licence durations and licence fees, it would be helpful if you could fill out the following table
If proposal 3 was brought in, what proportion of licences do you anticipate would be of short term duration?
If a local authority worked strictly according to legislation the cost would be no different between a 3 year license and a 1 year license – the cost of issue remains the same.
Offering a 1 year license for the same cost as a 3 year license would presumably lead to no 1 year licenses being issued.
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
