Taxi Driver Online

Best they complain to their MPs then.

Leicester taxi drivers 'losing trade to cabbies who operate in city but are licensed elsewhere'

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news ... de-9424192



Leicester taxi drivers have said they are "angry" that operators licensed in other parts of the country are encroaching on their patch and taking trade away from them. In particular, they raised concerns about drivers with Wolverhampton licences, which they claimed were easier to obtain and less expensive to maintain than those provided by Leicester City Council.

Speaking to LeicestershireLive, Harinder Mann, who has been working as a taxi driver in Leicester for 15 years with a Leicester City Council licence, said "all" local Hackney cab drivers were “angry” about the large number of vehicles licensed by Wolverhampton operating on Leicester's streets.

He added: “It's bad. The council here gives out a limited number of licences based on the size of the city, but there's a long waiting list, so people go to Wolverhampton instead. I think they're people living in Leicester who want to drive taxis and go to Wolverhampton council because they'll get a licence."

Taxi driver Mr Dosanja, who did not want to give his full name, said he believed there were more Wolverhampton cabs in Leicester than those licenced by Leicester City Council. He said: "The last government made it legal for them to work across borders, so anyone can get a licence from Wolverhampton and work here.

"Ashfield District Council in Nottinghamshire also have a lot of taxis they've licensed working here. There are probably more than 400 taxis from other councils regularly working here."

He claimed the rules for Wolverhampton taxis were less strict and cost less than in Leicester, allowing them to charge customers less. "We have to pay £60 every six months for a taxi MOT from Leicester City Council, on top of the cost of any work that needs doing. In Wolverhampton it's only £40 and it's only once a year.”

Mr Dosanja added: “They take our trade because they can charge less while for Hackney drivers like me there's no control over what we can charge – it's set by the city council. It's a big problem and it's undermining the whole system.”

Kulwant Singh, who has been driving black cabs in Leicester for 11 years, said the problem was not specific to Leicester. He said: "Everywhere has taxis from Wolverhampton - it's not just Leicester. [As a result] we have no work here so it's very bad for us,” he added.

It is not just the drivers who have raised concerns. A city resident, who asked not to be named, told LeicestershireLive she had been charged extra after her Wolverhampton-licensed driver appeared to get lost.

She said: “I got an Uber from Hinckley Road to the far end of Granby Street, near the train station, to meet friends. The driver didn't seem to have a clue how to get to Granby Street, driving in and out of back streets and not taking a route anyone who drives regularly in the city would take.

“I even commented that his sat nav seemed to have gone haywire. The journey took ages, and he eventually dropped me off in a dead end near the crown court.

“It wasn't a miles away from where I needed to be so I wasn't too bothered, although I did arrive late. I noticed as I walked away that the car had been registered in Wolverhampton, so thought he'd probably just got lost. Again, I wasn't that fussed.

"But I noticed later that I'd been charged an extra £2.50 for the journey because it had taken 'longer than expected'! I felt like I'd been penalised for his errors, and that was really pretty annoying. Maybe his sat nav had gone haywire, but I'm sure that I wouldn't have had any issues if the driver knew their way around Leicester."

A spokeswoman for the City of Wolverhampton Council told LeicestershireLive the authority did not set the price for MOTs, with drivers expected to have them carried out at "any DVSA (Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency) MOT station, as per the government guidance", at whatever price the garage charged.

She added that the West Midlands authority did not "believe it proportionate to require vehicles below 10 years of age [to undergo] two tests per year". The spokeswoman said: “As stated in government guidance, 'the legal requirement is that private hire vehicles which are at least three years old, and all taxis, must be subject to an MOT test or its equivalent at least once a year'. The guidance also states 'an annual test for licensed vehicles of whatever age (including vehicles that are less than three years old) seems appropriate in most cases, unless local conditions suggest that more frequent tests are necessary'.

“City of Wolverhampton Council does not believe it proportionate to require vehicles below 10 years of age require two tests per year, as this can cause a barrier of entry to the local trade."

LeicestershireLive asked Leicester City Council why so many drivers were working in the city who were not licensed here, and what the authority was doing to ensure people were kept safe and that drivers met local standards.

A council spokeswoman said “regulatory frameworks” currently allowed “cross-border hiring” of drivers. She added: “This practice is legal under the Deregulation Act 2015, which allows private hire drivers to undertake bookings anywhere in the country, provided the booking is made through an operator licensed by the same council that licensed the vehicle and driver.

"The prevalence of outside-of-Leicester licensed vehicles presents some challenges, including less direct control over the licensing standards and enforcement of vehicles licensed by other authorities, which may have different standards.

“Leicester sets specific vehicle and driver standards that go beyond the legislative minimum, aimed at ensuring high quality and safety for passengers.” However, there are still steps the council can, and does, take to ensure local passengers are safe when using vehicles licensed elsewhere, the spokeswoman said. “Despite the challenges, Leicester City Council has robust mechanisms in place to ensure all taxis, including those licensed by other authorities, meet acceptable standards by conducting regular and thorough inspections in partnership with agencies such as the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) and the police,” she said. “This includes spot checks and scheduled inspections to verify the roadworthiness and compliance of vehicles.

“Any concerns identified during inspections of Wolverhampton or any other out-of-town-licensed vehicles are reported back to the relevant licence issuing authority. Additionally, immediate action is taken by the DVSA and police when necessary to address serious issues.

“These measures ensure that all operating taxis, regardless of their licensing authority, adhere to safety and quality standards to protect public safety in Leicester. While the use of Wolverhampton licences in Leicester is a consequence of current national legislation, Leicester City Council remains vigilant.

“Through cooperative enforcement and rigorous inspection protocols, we strive to maintain high standards for all private hire vehicles operating in our area, safeguarding the interests of both the public and local drivers.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Since when has that basket case of a council cared about 'local trade'?

_________________
IDFIMH

Would take days to go through all that and sort out the myriad confusing stuff and inaccuracies etc.

For example, the likes of this:


Oh, really? I thought Wolves had a network of designated garages, thus drivers can't go to ANY DVSA garage, surely?

But, of course, part of the confusion in the whole piece relates to the continued use of the term MoT, which conflates and confuses the standard DVSA thing with council inspection regimes for the trade (and any crossover with compliance certificates, or whatever).

And the reference to the Government's best practice guidance also adds to the confusion in that regard.

Then there's the usual jumble of terminology, and particularly the use of the t-word throughout the piece to refer to both the Wolves PHVs and the Leicester HCs...

...and to that extent, the piece gives the impression that drivers are just getting Wolves 'taxi' plates to get round the Leicester 'taxi' plate quota.

Which in turn points to another huge hole in the article - you'd be forgiven for thinking that there are no Leicester-plated PHVs at all, and that all there are working in the city are Leicester-plated HCs and Wolves-plated PHVs

Anyway, that's the broad brush stuff, but the detail would take too long...

Maybe it's just me and my personal experience of testing regimes (ours is totally separate from the DVSA MoT requirement), but I don't think the Government's best practice guidance is a clear and lucid explanation about how it all works, particularly in terms of frequency:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... #frequency

Funnily enough, the long-standing links below on the Wolves Council website about the nationwide testing stations have disappeared - the first link was the one with the map, and the second was the page through which garages could apply to become an approved garage for Wolves-plated PHV testing.

Can't see anything obvious on their website now, but I wonder if Wolves actually now just requires a standard MoT from anywhere?

After all, they do have a thing about vehicle testing causing a barrier to entry - I'm surprised they even bother with any kind of standards at all


https://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/licenc ... ng-station

https://www.wolverhampton.gov.uk/licenc ... tion/apply

And, of course, funny that the Blackburn article just a day or two previously was largely about Wolves cars being tested at designated garages...

Best this mob also complain to their MP.

Safety concerns raised about out-of-town Uber drivers

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... n-29614005

Safety concerns have been raised about the increase of out-of-town private hire taxi drivers operating in the region. The law permits private hire drivers to apply for licenses in one local authority area and work anywhere they want around the country.

Although this is a longstanding issue, Knowsley Council has said it is now exacerbated by an increase in licensing applications which means more drivers work 'cross-border'. A council official went on record to indicate the ramifications of this including the inability of councils to provide the appropriate level of enforcement oversight.

During a licensing committee meeting last week at Huyton's Municipal Building, the council's Head of Safety, Resilience and Community Protection, Brian Toolan answered questions on licensing issues relating to Uber and private hire drivers more generally. Responding to one query put forth by Cllr Frances Wynn about Knowsley licensed Uber drivers operating in other parts of the country such as Bury, Mr Toolan said: "There's a public protection issue because we don't have the enforcement staff in Bury."

Mr Toolan added there was a lack of enforcement oversight for licensed private hire drivers around the country which was not unique to Knowsley and prevented local authorities from monitoring the safety and service of these drivers "if they do something wrong...".

The council cannot refuse an application for a private hire driver’s licence based on an applicant’s address being outside of the borough or city region. As far as the law is concerned, as long as the private hire driver’s licence is issued by the same council that issued the private hire vehicle and operator licence, it doesn’t matter where they live or work.

Councillor Terry Powell, the Chairman of Knowsley Council’s Licensing Committee said: “The concern raised is not unique to Knowsley Council or the Liverpool City Region. It is an issue often referred to as cross-border working and it affects all Licensing Authorities in Great Britain.

"Knowsley Council’s licensing Enforcement Officers can inspect Knowsley licensed vehicles operating outside Knowsley but the practical challenges that presents when the vehicles might be operating many miles away and in unfamiliar places are obvious and significant. The council does engage with enforcement colleagues in other licensing authorities but clearly this is not an ideal situation.

"The relevant legislation dates back to 1976 and simply doesn’t cater for the digital age. It was for this reason that Knowsley Council attempted to introduce a policy to control or limit applications for licences from drivers living or working outside of the borough in 2018.

"This decision was challenged by elements of the private hire trade and unfortunately the council’s approach was deemed unlawful in the High Court. As a result, as matters stand, the law is clear that cross-border working is legal and cannot be limited by the Council.

"We hope that the new Government will address this issue by introducing new legislation and giving Councils powers to regulate the taxi and private hire industry appropriately for the 21st Century.”

An Uber spokesperson said: “Uber operates according to the high standards set across the industry and abides by the same regulations as all other private hire operators. We engage closely with council's across the country and are happy to discuss any issues with them.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Knowsley certainly taking very different attitude to their cross-border cars compared to Wolverhampton...

Or nearby Sefton, for that matter - didn't Sefton regard themselves as effectively a regional Wolves, but as far back as the 1990s?

Wonder what the particular attraction of Knowsley is in terms of licensing?