Taxi Driver Online

But at least Taxi Point is right on one thing - the grift, entitlement and profiteering couldn't take place unless the cross-border thing was sorted


CAPPING NUMBERS: Should licensing authorities be allowed to cap both taxi and private hire vehicle numbers?

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/cappi ... -vehicle-n

The question of whether councils in England should be given powers to limit the number of private hire vehicle (PHV) licences they issue has become one of the most debated topics in the taxi and private hire industry.

With driver earnings under pressure, congestion increasing in many urban areas and concerns over regulatory oversight growing, calls for local authorities to gain the power to cap PHV numbers have become louder.

Yet while the principle of allowing licensing authorities to control vehicle numbers appears attractive to many within the trade, the reality is considerably more complicated. Any system allowing local councils to introduce numerical caps would almost certainly fail unless national cross-border licensing rules are fundamentally reformed first.

TaxiPoint has consistently examined both sides of the debate over the years, with the evidence increasingly pointing towards one conclusion. Licensing authorities should have the option to cap numbers where there is a demonstrable local need, but only alongside legislative changes that prevent operators and drivers simply obtaining licences elsewhere before working predominantly in another authority.

For many drivers, particularly in larger cities, the argument for capping numbers centres on economics and job viability. Private hire vehicle numbers have expanded dramatically over the last decade, largely driven by app-based operators making market entry easier than ever before. As more drivers compete for the same passenger demand, individual earnings inevitably come under pressure.

In London alone, the number of licensed private hire drivers more than doubled over a relatively short period following the rapid expansion of ride-hailing platforms. Similar trends have been seen across other major cities where licensing authorities have experienced sustained growth in both driver and vehicle applications. Critics argue that unrestricted expansion creates diminishing returns for drivers while increasing congestion and reducing profitability across the sector.

However, unlike the hackney carriage trade, where many authorities already have powers to restrict taxi licence numbers under certain circumstances, private hire licensing in England operates within a completely different legal framework.

Current legislation allows a driver, vehicle and operator licensed by one authority to undertake pre-booked work almost anywhere in England and Wales, provided the booking complies with the existing “triple licensing” requirements. This has led to significant numbers of vehicles being licensed in authorities many miles away from where they actually spend most of their working lives.

The growth of cross-border licensing has become one of the defining regulatory issues facing the industry. Licensing authorities have expressed frustration that they have limited influence over vehicles working daily within their boundaries but licensed elsewhere. Equally, enforcement officers often have restricted powers over vehicles that fall outside their own licensing jurisdiction.

This is precisely why Transport for London (TfL), despite acknowledging concerns around the growth of private hire numbers, has consistently argued that vehicle caps cannot be considered in isolation.

Giving evidence to MPs and responding to recommendations from the London Assembly, TfL stated that granting authorities powers to cap vehicle numbers would not deliver “meaningful change” under the current legislative framework because drivers could simply obtain licences from neighbouring authorities and continue working in London.

TfL has repeatedly maintained that reform of cross-border hiring remains its primary legislative priority, and rightly so.

Responding to recommendations that London should receive powers to cap PHV numbers, TfL said addressing cross-border hiring was “more pressing” because “without being addressed, would make any powers to cap private hire vehicle numbers ineffective”.

Instead, TfL continues to advocate for what has become known as a “Journey Start or End Rule”. Under this proposal, every private hire journey would either have to begin or end within the licensing authority where the driver, operator and vehicle are licensed. Such a system would significantly reduce long-term out-of-area working while still allowing genuine cross-border journeys to continue.

TaxiPoint’s own analysis has similarly concluded that introducing local licensing caps without addressing cross-border working would simply shift licensing activity elsewhere rather than reduce the actual number of vehicles operating within an area. Authorities choosing to limit licences could even find themselves with less regulatory control over vehicles working locally as more drivers sought licences from neighbouring councils.

The debate also extends beyond driver numbers alone. Local authorities argue that unrestricted licensing can affect congestion, environmental objectives and transport planning. If councils have responsibility for managing local transport networks, some argue they should also have greater influence over the size of the licensed fleet operating within them.

Conversely, national operators have generally favoured maintaining flexible licensing arrangements, arguing that passengers benefit from greater vehicle availability and shorter waiting times. Restricting vehicle numbers could reduce service levels during peak periods unless carefully managed.

The industry has consistently been told that the PHV sector is a free market and market conditions should manage the the number of drivers licensed. That is hugely debatable.

Scotland provides an interesting comparison. Licensing authorities there already possess powers to restrict taxi and private hire licence numbers where justified. However, Scotland operates under a different legislative framework, making direct comparisons with England difficult. However, simply copying Scottish licensing powers into England without changing cross-border rules would create significant unintended consequences because English licensing boundaries function very differently.

There is also the practical challenge of deciding how any cap would be determined. Would authorities base limits on population size, passenger demand, congestion levels, environmental targets or driver earnings? Any methodology would almost certainly become contentious, with regular reviews required as travel patterns changed.

The issue remains prominent as the Government continues work on wider taxi and private hire reform. National minimum standards, changes to cross-border licensing and stronger enforcement powers are all being discussed alongside wider legislative changes.

For many within the industry, these reforms are closely connected rather than separate debates. A licensing cap without cross-border reform risks becoming little more than an administrative exercise. Cross-border reform without stronger local control may still leave authorities struggling to manage transport provision effectively.

The strongest case emerging from both industry analysis and TfL’s own position is not necessarily for mandatory caps everywhere, but for giving licensing authorities the ability to introduce them where local evidence supports doing so. That flexibility could allow councils experiencing genuine oversupply to respond to local conditions, while authorities with stable markets could continue operating without restrictions.

Ultimately, numerical caps alone are unlikely to solve the challenges facing the private hire sector. But combined with meaningful reform of England’s cross-border licensing rules, they could become a valuable regulatory tool for authorities seeking to balance passenger demand, driver livelihoods and effective local oversight. Until that legislative foundation is addressed, however, any attempt to control vehicle numbers is likely to remain vulnerable to being bypassed by the very licensing system it is intended to regulate.

Should local authorities be allowed to cap numbers? Yes. Will the Government ever allow it? Not likely.

I wouldn't be so sure, particularly with people like Andy Burnham, Angela Rayner and Louise Haigh now in charge, who are closer to grifting trade unions and the like than Keir Starmer was

But, of course, there's the whole regional transport authority thing going on just now anyway, which will complicate the situation even for local HC quotas currently in place.

Potentially very messy as it is, even for incumbent HC quota scenarios

Limiting PH and HC has never, IMO, made sense.

Sorting cross-border out makes bundles of sense and would help out the trade no end.

Given that the taxi and PH licensing system is going to change dramatically, with elected regional Mayors taking over, I can't see how restricting PH on a regional basis can be achieved. Or how it would make things better.

Not even sure restricting HC numbers can be achieved in areas that have councils that don't restrict, unless a zoning system is put in place.

_________________
IDFIMH

Good question from the grifters and rent-seekers, faithfully channeled via Taxi Point


London ‘robocab’ cap sparks awkward question: Why can TfL limit autonomous Wayve and Uber PHVs but not the rest?

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/londo ... t-the-rest

Transport for London’s (TfL) decision to approve a maximum of 15 autonomous private hire vehicles for a supervised one-year trial has prompted fresh questions across the taxi industry about how such a limit has been imposed under existing private hire legislation.

For more than a decade, taxi drivers, trade groups and even TfL itself have argued that licensing authorities have no legal power to restrict the number of conventional private hire vehicles entering the market.

Successive governments have also maintained that any cap would require primary legislation and should not be introduced under the current legal framework.

Yet the approval granted to Uber and Wayve appears to do exactly what campaigners have repeatedly been told is impossible. Rather than issuing licences to every qualifying vehicle, TfL has authorised a supervised pilot involving up to 15 vehicles for a fixed period of one year.

That distinction has not gone unnoticed by London’s taxi trade. For years, drivers have pointed to the rapid expansion of London’s private hire fleet as a major contributor to falling earnings, increased congestion and longer waiting times between jobs. During that period, the consistent response from regulators has been that licensing authorities are legally obliged to issue licences where applicants satisfy the statutory requirements, leaving no scope for numerical limits.

TfL has itself repeatedly argued for changes to legislation. The regulator has previously stated that it does not have the power to cap or restrict private hire vehicle numbers and has called on the Government to grant those powers alongside reforms to cross-border hiring rules. The Mayor has also previously said primary legislation would be needed before such a system could operate effectively.

Recent analysis explained that licensing authorities in England currently have no legal mechanism to refuse private hire vehicle licences simply because an area is considered oversupplied, despite increasing concern around congestion and driver incomes. It also noted that any meaningful cap would require changes to legislation, particularly around cross-border hiring, to prevent drivers simply licensing elsewhere and continuing to work in the same market.

The autonomous vehicle trial now introduces an interesting legal and regulatory question. Is the 15-vehicle ceiling simply a condition attached to a time-limited trial involving a single operator, or has TfL demonstrated that it already possesses a mechanism to limit vehicle numbers under certain circumstances?

If the restriction is based on the trial approval rather than on general vehicle licensing powers, TfL may argue that no wider precedent has been created. However, if regulators can legally authorise only a specified number of autonomous private hire vehicles, some within the taxi industry are likely to ask why similar discretion has never been available when licensing conventional fleets.

That question becomes even more relevant given the London Assembly Transport Committee’s recent calls for greater oversight of autonomous passenger services. The Committee has already indicated that passenger safeguarding and regulatory controls remain central concerns before any fully autonomous operation is permitted.

The debate is also likely to extend beyond autonomous technology. For years, campaigners seeking caps on private hire numbers have frequently been told that market forces should determine fleet size rather than regulatory intervention. The free market argument has been central to Government policy, despite repeated requests from TfL and industry representatives for licensing authorities to receive powers to manage supply.

Whether the robocab pilot represents an exceptional regulatory arrangement or the first example of TfL successfully limiting the size of a private hire fleet remains to be answered. Either way, calls for a trial PHV fleet cap on vehicles are likely to follow given the new power exercised in PHV regulation.

...and slightly tangentially, missed this on the GMB's 'Uber noticeboard' a few months ago (although 'missed this' maybe implies I have a fair idea what's going on there, whereas I've never actually heard of it before )


GMB SUPPORTS CALL FOR CAPPING PHV NUMBERS

https://www.gmb.org.uk/private-sector/t ... oticeboard

Posted on: 11 November 2025


Dear members,

We hope you are well.

Earlier this year GMB members supported calls for capping of PHV numbers.

As Drivers you are the Cinderellas of the transport industry, with almost no rights and standards to support your welfare.

For PHV drivers competition to provide more ‘choice to consumers’ means you lose out on earnings.

GMB supports calls to cap PHV numbers so that local transport networks are sustainable and provide decent earnings opportunities as well as ensuring national standards can be enforced.

We are disappointed with the Minister’s remarks overall but as acknowledged in the reply, cross-bordering rules will require some capping, what else is Wolverhampton going to do with 60,000 drivers licensed over two years?

Finally, any power to limit the number of PHVs an authority licenses would be ineffective without a means to prevent PHVs licensed elsewhere carrying passengers in that authority's area.

From GMB’s point of view this reinforces the need to devolve national powers to transport authorities to make these assessments locally, so that Drivers welfare and standards can be taken into account as part of an integrated and sustainable transport network.

This will also provide a foundation for our call for the measured introduction of autonomous vehicles in the future.

We made these exact points to the recent Transport Select Committee evidence session and will continue to campaign to support Drivers across the UK.

Yours in union,

GMB National Driver Reps GMB National Officer

So let's turn the Cinderellas into serfs, without even the right to run their own vehicle

And create a grifting, rent-seeking, and entitled rentier overclass

('Grifting' and 'entitled' were two words I was barely aware of when I first started thinking about this stuff [or at least not in the way they're commonly used today]. But they describe a lot of the people involved to a tee.)