Taxi Driver Online

Dear Council Leader

As advocates for both public safety and the local PHV industry, we write to present a proposal for addressing the persistent and complex issue of Cross Border Hiring (CBH) that impacts all licensing authorities across England and Wales.

Over time, CBH has not only strained the resources of local councils but has also created an environment where locally licensed drivers find themselves at a disadvantage through unfair competition by driver and
Vehicle requirements in other areas being less than those of the local area.

While many councils look to Westminster for a resolution, each authority has a unique role in shaping the solution within its jurisdiction.

The Westminster debate held on Monday the 21st October 2024 that was brought by Chris Vince, MP for Harlow (Labour) was very much welcomed by the trade but the response from the Under Secretary of State for Transport, Simon Lightwood unfortunately left much to be desired and little indication of a time frame for this urgent matter, instead it was focused on the driver standards, which is fine, but without enforcement how do we know that the vehicle is roadworthy at the time of use, or that the driver is in fact licensed to drive the vehicle?

The truth is, we don’t, and this cannot continue, especially within our associated districts.

However, we can take a positive from the undersecretary’s response in that he clearly states “which is why I need your support to work with local authorities in your constituencies to make sure that the authorities are using their existing powers appropriately…”

The full discussion starts at 22:48 on the following link

Parliamentlive.tv - House of Commons

Therefore, we urge you to consider a collaborative local approach, as requested by the undersecretary, as a first essential step in tackling CBH, which would enable you to enhance local enforcement capabilities to check vehicles for roadworthiness and drivers being licensed and more effectively allocate resources to enforcement in the interests of public protection and the obligation made by each authority when adopting the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (the Act).

The current direction of Westminster

Westminster is considering writing new legislation to replace the 76 Act with the aim to resolve CBH by way of minimum standards for both driver and vehicles and the potential ABBA rule which means that any booking must begin or end within the authorities licensing district.

The national minimum standards would allow for each local authority to add its own requirements in addition to the minimum, which would put the situation back to where we are now and is obviously flawed from the beginning.

Another issue with minimum standards can be observed from the below graph for both licensed Hackney’s and Private Hire Vehicles (PHV) because minimum standards for public safety would require the highest standard from any one authority. Without such a criterion then standards in one or more districts would be reduced, which is not want the trade or the authority in that area would wish to see.

The below graph shows authorities that are close to each other, the number of licensed vehicles and the level of vehicle requirements.

Sorry, unable to upload the graph

In the graph, you can see the total amount of vehicles that would be effected by any change to their local policies or conditions through national standards, such as, when the criteria for a vehicle is based on both Emission and Age that authorities such as Rotherham and Sheffield have for PHV then in order to bring the other authorities vehicles up to that requirement would require the renewal of over 4,500 vehicles at the cost of the drivers.

Should the vehicle age be set to 5 years for it to be first licensed, then this would affect a total of 1,930 Hackney and 16,766 PHV when they replace their vehicles, this could be sooner than they planned when a maximum age criterion would be set nationally.

This would decimate the trade within a matter of just a couple of years should national minimum standards be brought in through legislation.

We have not considered how legislation of this nature would work in going forward when new technology or working practices are developed, perhaps another writing of legislation would be required.
The same can be said for drivers’ licenses should any minimum standards be brought into force.

The suggestion of the ABBA ruled as mentioned above would be too ambiguous for legislation to achieve the effect it so desires because there is nothing from a member of the public to book a journey with an operator that states the destination is within the operators licensing district but when the driver collects the person they change their destination to somewhere local that is outside the district that the Operator, driver and vehicle are licensed.

The ABBA rule would also remove the publics choice of supplier within the industry should that supplier be situated just over the boundary of where they are located when booking, such as the customer being at work and requiring a pickup from there to the airport, both pick and destination being outside the district that they live and the preferred supplier of theirs is based, or any member of the public that resides in a small village in one district but a private hire firm being located just a few mile away in another.

The Proposal

In essence, we propose that authorities within specific regions – for example, Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Doncaster, Chesterfield, and North East Derbyshire – unify around a common licensing condition for PHV operators which, by law, control the working practice of all licensed PHV. Without a licensed operator a PHV is simply a vehicle just like any other, albeit a licensed one.

Specifically, this condition would require operators to only dispatch bookings to vehicles that are physically located within their licensed district at the time of booking.

This approach would not infringe on the right to roam of any PHV but would simply ensure that vehicles are in the correct area for enforcement and accountability when they receive work from their home operator ensuring that the authority can effectively enforce their vehicles to ensure that they are road worthy and that the drivers are licensed and insured to drive said vehicles.

This condition has precedent: major operators, such as Uber and Veezu, already adhere to similar conditions in districts like London and Wigan and their decisions to restrict drivers working in every area that they are licensed (self-imposed) and where technology is accused of outdating the current legislation, it in fact secures this intended remedy through geo fencing and access to data logs for enforcement officers should they need to investigate.

If implemented across multiple local authorities in our region, this approach would be challenging for operators to contest, given the unified stance among councils that are ensuring public safety.

It would give Westminster an insight on how serious the issue is for public safety and show that areas are prepared to work together to combat CBH as indeed the secretary of state duly mentioned.

We acknowledge that this would not prevent all CBH from occurring until this condition of license became a national one, but in our estimates, it could stop CBH in a matter of weeks by as much as 90% of what the present figure is and ergo increase public safety by 90% with it.

To support the legality of this condition, we must look to the judgement of Delta v Knowsley (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5 ... 75e7ef87b#) where Mr. Justice Kerr added by way of postscript at para’s 54, 55 & 56 the following:

54. For those reasons, I will quash this policy. I would add by way of postscript that there was some discussion during oral argument to test the limits of the parties’ positions about whether KMBC could lawfully impose a condition on the licenses of PHV drivers or their operators requiring the drivers to work predominantly out of Knowsley, or some similar condition replicating, or largely replicating, the effect of this policy.

55. I need express no view on this, since it is not necessary for the purpose of deciding this case and could become a live issue in future litigation. Mr. Kolvin, for Uber, submitted that any such condition would offend against the Padfield principle because it would be an attempt to curtail the “right to roam” inherent in the 76 Act. Mr. Gouriet for Delta was prepared to accept my suggestion that an appropriately narrow clearly defined and proportionate geographical restriction may be lawful.

56. I refrain from expressing any view on the point, but I am fortified in my conclusion in this case by the consideration that, in principal, a condition on a license could be imposed which, if otherwise lawful, would require a fit and proper person who is a license holder to abide by whatever restrictions are contained within the condition that are considered reasonably necessary to meet any perceived erosion of localism in the governance of PHV licensing.

If authorities truly wish to protect the public, then this is the solution.

Be pro-active and lead by example.

Would this prevent me from taking the job that was requested yesterday from Birmingham airport to Grantham? Neither of these places are within my district and i would not go through my district to complete the job. The car may be in my district when the job is dispatched but not guaranteed because it could have had a job just before this one that say dropped off at a hospital in Leicester. It could quite likely do the next pick up, which is a school run that picks up in Grantham before returning to our home district.

Open letter from whom

If such a condition was attached to licenses there might well be a good case to challenge it through the courts as it could be argued that as other councils don't put such a restriction on then those councils shouldn't

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

The only answer to this mess has to come via Westminster. Local councils will not act independently. They simply don't have the resources to fight the likes of Uber.

_________________
IDFIMH

So a firm based in Southampton would need to send a car up to Heathrow for a pick up even if they have a car there that has just dropped?

Not even this government would legislate for that.

The answer to all our problems is to keep the 'right to roam', but outlaw the 'right to stay'.

_________________
IDFIMH

From Wardy.

_________________
IDFIMH

Absolutley not, you would simply be dispatched any booking before you left your controlled district.

The airport scenario is a bit of a false one, it happens so little that it isn't really worth considering or used as an excuse to against the proposal.

Can't knock a fella for being tenacious...

How many people take a flight and wait till they land to book a PHV back home?

Is there any other legislation that would take this minute percentage into consideration?

What fight?

Uber already have London as a single zone, and the rest of the country in separate zones.

Difficult to argue against when already doing...

A lot of our work is dispatched to the driver when they are out of the district. They can only receive one job at a time. They can't get the next job until they have cleared on the current job.

Wardy, I thought that by definition an open letter wasn't anonymous. Up to you, obviously, but I'd guess they'd give anonymous views less credence...

And who is/are 'we' - royalty?

But.... I AM royalty

The letter will be sent from a licensed driver in each authority to the respective council leader.

What system are you referring to, because I have managed fleets of up to 2k vehicles and every system that we used allowed for follow on jobs to be dispatched to a driver when live on another job.

Why are you dispatching a lot of your work to a driver when they are out of district?

Perhaps you should look at how you are dispatching your work, none of what you have said adds up to a smooth operation in my experience.