Taxi Driver Online

Banned taxi drivers find loophole in Weston

https://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/ne ... le-weston/

Taxi drivers who have been stripped of their licence by North Somerset Council are taking advantage of a loophole and continuing to pick up jobs in Weston-super-Mare.

Taxis need to be licensed by local councils, who require them to pass a “knowledge” test and uphold standards of vehicle and conduct. But councillors have said that taxi drivers who failed North Somerset Council’s test, or who cause problems and are stripped of their licence in, are just getting licensed in Wolverhampton instead and coming back to then work in the town.

Raising the issue at a North Somerset Council meeting November 12, Mike Solomon (Hutton and Locking, Liberal Democrat) said: “We’ve seen a lot of complaints recently that anybody who needs a taxi licence that can’t get one from our council because we are very stringent in our tests can apply to Wolverhampton and very easily get that licence. In fact, they put the answers to their questions on the internet.”

Chair of the council’s licensing committee, Stuart Davies (Wick St Lawrence and St Georges, Independent) said: “We have revoked licences and then these people have gone out to get the licences through the other licensing department — which is nowhere near our geographic area. […] Some of these people that are getting these licences shouldn’t be having them and that’s a real concern.”

James Clayton (Weston-super-Mare South, Labour) added: “I am not going to name the company — but there is one company in Weston that, once the drivers have failed their application for a licence in North Somerset, they are directing them straight to Wolverhampton.”

Wolverhampton is approximately 90 miles away from Weston.

Under the law, taxis can technically be licensed in any local authority — regardless of where the drivers live or plan to work. Although most councils issue a few hundred licences, the City of Wolverhampton Council issued over 8,500 licences in the first five months of this year.

Mr Davies said: “What we have done is try to look at a way of negating this procedure and the way that this can be circumvented. So all I can say is watch this space at the moment and see how we are going to tackle that issue.”

Catherine Gibbons (Weston-super-Mare Milton, Labour) added: “When I was in Liverpool recently at a conference, it was a major complaint amongst taxi drivers there that half their taxis are licensed in Wolverhampton as well.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Interesting piece; of course, it would be a concern if someone revoked or rejected because of sexual misconduct or bad driving (say) in Weston then got badged in Wolverhampton

And there does seem to be some mention of that sort of stuff in the piece. But if it's because of a failure to pass a knowledge test (say) then that's maybe a different matter. The highlighted bit above about drivers 'failing their application' maybe alludes to that sort of thing rather than misconduct.

But, of course, more information would be required to make any proper assessment - language like 'failing their application' is too imprecise in legal and licensing terms to draw any definite conclusions.

Indeed, that's arguably an issue with the whole piece - imprecise, inconsistent and confusing language is often used in articles like this. But in this piece it's *all* about generic 'taxis'.

Even ignoring the usual terminology problems, there's absolutely nothing in this piece to even suggest that there's such a thing as two different codes in the industry

I mean, the above is total bollocks for a start. The highlighted opening sentence is contradicted by the second sentence

(Or at least it is if you know that no knowledge test is required for a Wolves badge, while the opening sentence basically says that all councils require a knowledge test.)

If a driver loses their license aren't they supposed to be put on some sort of baring list that must be checked by any Council before issuing a license?

Correct but Wolverhampton have their own rules cash comes first.

Not sure 'barring list' is the best description for the database of suspensions, revocations etc, or whatever it's called - at the end of the day, one council can't stop another council deeming a driver fit and proper even though the other has deemed the driver unfit

So it seems to be more about providing information between councils, such that if a driver is revoked by Council A he can't withold that fact if applying to Council B. But that's not to say Council B won't grant him a licence. But it prevents drivers applying to other councils without disclosing the full facts to them.

The recent revoked Castle Point driver is an interesting example. I'd bet many councils wouldn't have revoked him. But if he applies to another council then they'll know Castle Point have revoked him, even if he fails to disclose it. (Assuming both councils are part of the database scheme - not sure if all have signed up to it.)

But although I'd guess many other councils wouldn't have revoked him, now that Castle Point has revoked him then they'd be more reluctant to go against that than if it was one of their own drivers, I suspect.

But it's up to individual licensing committees to decide who is fit and proper. And although information from other councils is useful in deciding whether an applicant is fit and proper, they're not bound by what other councils' licensing committees have decided

there is a national list in England and Wales that must be checked. maybe they don't have that in Scotland.

So that's three times now that everyone has read my post (together with excessive quoting).

So if it hasn't gotten through yet, it probably never will

Here's an example - it's from Kirklees Council (which isn't in Scotland...), which is the first relevant result on Google (the full page is a bit longer, but these are the most relevant parts to the above:


NR3 The National register of suspensions, refusals and revocations

https://www.kirklees.gov.uk/beta/licens ... tions.aspx

Why has the register been set up?

The National Register of Taxi and Private Hire Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3) has been developed to improve public safety and confidence in hackney carriage and private hire licensing.

There have been numerous high-profile cases where drivers who have been refused licences or had a licence revoked or suspended in one area have gone to another area and received a licence in that area by failing to disclose their previous history.

This undermines public safety, if there are legitimate reasons why a licence was refused, suspended, or revoked, and damages confidence in the hackney carriage and private hire licensing regime and trade.

This is why the initiative has been widely supported by reputable drivers and firms, as it will provide a mechanism for ensuring information about refusals, suspensions and revocations can be shared between all licensing authorities in a safe and secure way, removing this potential loophole.

Will I automatically be refused a licence if I am on the register?

No. Licensing authorities are legally required to consider each licence application on its own merits, and cannot refuse an application simply because an applicant may be recorded on NR3.

The purpose of NR3 is to ensure that authorities have the full information necessary to help them reach a decision on whether an individual is fit and proper.

If circumstances have materially changed since the decision that has been recorded on NR3, it may be appropriate for another authority to award a licence.

I suspect this is a case of councillors adding 2 and 2 and getting 109.

Maybe drivers have failed the local knowledge test and a greedy operator has suggested they get licensed by the UK's basket case. Councillors have maybe been separately informed that drivers who had their license revoked can get a license elsewhere.

Those councillors need to get their local MPs to support the increasing number of MPs wanting to change the law, to allow councils to have full control over all the taxi/PH that work full time in their areas.

_________________
IDFIMH

Councillora are still not happy.

Taxi licence safety row blows up between councils

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd0g9g50v12o

A row has broken out over taxi passenger safety is being compromised because of the alleged high number of driver licences being issued in Wolverhampton.

A total of 8,563 taxi drivers were awarded a licence in the first five months of this year prompting James Clayton, a member of North Somerset Council, to say this is too many, suggesting income generation was being prioritised over safety.

In the UK, drivers do not need to get their licences from the authority where they aim to operate, but City of Wolverhampton Council said £1m had been invested in licensing and there was no evidence of risks to safety.

"We’ve got the highest standards across the country," leader Stephen Simkins said.

However Mr Clayton, a Labour councillor who represents Weston-super-Mare, said: "We maintain high standards in North Somerset and there’s a reason for that, because we want the public to be safe when they’re using taxis."

That includes testing drivers who have applied for a local licence on their knowledge of the town, but he said many were now appearing with Wolverhampton licences without undergoing the testing.

'One licence revoked'

Also, without directly accusing Wolverhampton, he said he was concerned taxi drivers were being refused a licence in one part of the country and then "shopping around" to be approved elsewhere.

“There is no evidence to suggest any taxi drivers have had their licence revoked by North Somerset Council before applying for a new one with Wolverhampton," Wolverhampton council said.

It said there was one instance, in August 2023, of a driver who held a licence with both councils being found guilty of driving without due care and attention.

He had then had his licence revoked by North Somerset Council when he did not attend a subsequent hearing of its licensing committee.

In response, the Wolverhampton authority said it ordered him to complete a training programme and pass a further test before being re-licensed, but this would have been revoked had he not attended a licensing hearing in the city.

Speaking on BBC WM, Mr Simkins said his authority had brought in new technology to "streamline" its process, but that it was operating to national guidelines.

"We operate the same legislation that Weston-super-Mare operate, so how can we lower the standards?" he asked and said it was "wrong or naughty" to suggest they had.

The Labour councillor said the council's licensing system was bringing in an income of more than £1m a year, but that the council was required to spend that on taxi licensing, so it was not making a profit.

Mr Simkins also said the council had a legal obligation to consider every application it received and asked: "If we’re efficient in that, is that something that’s wrong?"

_________________
IDFIMH

As local licensind can't or wont actually look at who is driving these Wolverhampton plated cars, they have no idea if the person driving is actally the person with the license or any other person.

Indeed.

_________________
IDFIMH

As some of us suggested previously, there's probably not that much to all these revoked drivers and criminal applicants apparently queuing up in Wolverhampton to get badged up there - the one case that's cited here is hardly a John Worboys type

I mean, he may well have kept his North Somerset badge if he'd rolled up for the meeting, but he'd obviously decided to let it go anyway. Which was maybe his intention even before the driving incident, since he was already badged by both authorities.

His decision to move over to Wolverhampton badging was very possibly for other reasons, and of course may have been more influenced by plating than badging anyway...

Anyway, whatever the exact reasons, in the grand scheme of things the one cited case is hardly compelling evidence of the argument that was made previously.

But every grumpy councillor and every grump MP helps the situation a little bit at a time.

Will it be enough, who knows, but it's better that many councillors/MPs have the hump than otherwise.

_________________
IDFIMH