Taxi Driver Online

Rotherham again, but this is a bit more meat on the bones, with the headline proposal obviously most interesting.

Of course, that kind of thing's been talked about often enough, but is it actually a requirement anywhere?

Kind of thing that would be abused, I'd guess. I mean, suppose the vehicle booked has to be changed by the operator? Or if it's a traditional verbal/phone booking, I could see operators just ignoring it


Rotherham introduces plans to inform Taxi customers about non-Local registration

https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/n ... _45694.htm

TAXI customers will be informed when booking if the vehicle is not registered in Rotherham, under fresh plans to update the borough’s rules.

The stringent regulations introduced by RMBC following the CSE scandal included mandatory CCTV and audio recording equipment.

This led to an increase in drivers obtaining their licences in other areas — Wolverhampton or Rossendale being popular choices — but operating here.

And under the current set-up, passengers do not have to be informed if the firm they are booking uses out-of-town vehicles.

Cllr Denise Lelliott, pictured, cabinet member for jobs and the local economy, said: “At the minute, if you are not licensed to operate in Rotherham, under our rules, you can come in so you don’t have to have things like CCTV.

“People might think they are getting into a Rotherham taxi when they aren’t.

“This will make sure if someone gets into a taxi that isn’t licensed in Rotherham, they will know.”

Meanwhile, drivers will be allowed slightly older cabs, under RMBC proposals set for public consultation.

Currently, vehicles must be under five years old when the application is made but this is set to be relaxed to allow vehicles registered after August 31, 2015.

This age requirement is also said to be a factor in drivers going elsewhere to get licensed.

A report to RMBC’s cabinet said: “Obtaining a licence in another council area is attractive in these situations as the cost of an older vehicle is much lower than a newer one that would be required in Rotherham, and the installation of taxi cameras is also not required in many other local authority areas.

“It has been suggested that a local driver can save between £2,000 and £3,000 on the cost of a vehicle by opting for a licence elsewhere.”

Cllr Lelliott said: “We have seen a great loss in taxi drivers since the pandemic.

“Hopefully, this change will enable drivers to keep in the trade, and the knock-on effect will be that we don’t necessarily need to have out-of-town drivers coming in and doing it.”

Another proposal is to remove the current limit of 52 Hackney carriages in Rotherham — but only approve new applications where the vehicle is capable of carrying a passenger in a wheelchair. It is hoped this will address the lack of disabled access.

Sam Barstow, RMBC assistant director for community safety and streetscene, said: “The taxi policy is a policy of best practice. It’s been reflected nationally in terms of Department for Transport updates around national guidance.

“That being said, we don’t want to rest on our laurels.

“This looks to push the boundaries potentially further and address these challenging issues that we are seeing in Rotherham and every borough up and down the country.”

The consultation will open in July and run for 12 weeks, including drop-in sessions and a survey.

Sure the DfT's best practice isn't because of CSE in Rotherham rather than reflecting what Rotherham has been doing in its attempt to clean up the mess?

But certainly more of the council spinning the whole thing - I mean, 'pushing the boundaries' etc. Certainly nothing in the article that hasn't been suggested elsewhere and/or that's happened years ago

Think that's a good idea, but not sure how they can require an operator to do that who they don't license.

I think the likes of Uber already do that when they send the details of the driver to the punter but struggle to work out how they can enforce that on non-local operators.

_________________
IDFIMH