Taxi Driver Online

Well this is an interesting article, not just because of what the driver did, but for several other reasons:

- the driver denied having been informed he was suspended;

- the council don't routinely contact the operator when drivers suspended

- high-ranking council official seems more concerned with the driver's privacy than anything else

Then there's the fact that the driver worked for a 'ride-hailing' app. Which presumably means Uber. And one councillor certainly gives the impression that it's an app-only operator.

But could it just be a more mainstream operator doing a lot of app work? I certainly wouldn't have guessed offhand that Uber would have a South Gloucestershire Council operator's licence, but presumably they'd need one to give this driver work...


Taxi driver suspended after 50 complaints continued to pick up 1,000 more passengers

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... 50-9772274

Councillors raised concerns about public safety, although it's unclear what the complaints related to

A taxi driver suspended by South Gloucestershire Council after receiving 50 complaints then continued to pick up 1,000 more passengers via a ride-hailing app. Councillors raised concerns about public safety as the law doesn’t stop drivers from carrying on working, pending an appeal.

The unnamed driver appeared before a recent panel of councillors, who suspended him. He carried on working for a ride-hailing app for “at least a month or so”. Taxi drivers of both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles must apply to their local council for a licence to work.

The problem was raised during a meeting of the regulatory committee on November 14. Councillors called for the complaints process “to be tightened up”. It’s unclear what the 50 complaints related to, as these details are not routinely made available to the public.

Conservative Councillor Keith Cranney said: “If we suspend a driver, then he should be suspended, not out there working. This flags up some very serious issues. There’s not enough liaison between those app providers and our licensing officers. We have a duty of care to our travelling public, that’s why we hold licensing panels and hold our drivers to account.

“But we do need the support of those apps. I think we’re letting down the public. Here at South Glos we try our best to keep the travelling public safe. I really do feel that the complaints process with these apps needs to be tightened up.”

He mentioned the case of Christopher Halliwell, a taxi driver who picked up a passenger in Swindon in 2011 and then murdered her. Last month the family of the victim, Sian O’Callaghan, urged the government to tighten up the law and ban people with violent convictions from driving taxis.

Cllr Cranney added: “We’ve all heard of the serious case of Christopher Halliwell. This has been picked up recently by the media and the public, demanding that licensing authorities and us as councillors who sit on those committees do more to keep the public safe.”

However, once councillors decide to suspend a licence, the law allows them a 28-day appeal period during which drivers can carry on working. One council officer said: “You may disagree with it, and feel it’s unfortunate, but that’s the way the law is written.” Another problem is that the driver claimed he hadn't received letters from the council informing him of his suspension.

Liberal Democrat Cllr Chris Davies said: “The issue was that he was sent a letter, and no more. He denied receiving the letter, which is very difficult to prove. No taxi driver can exist without an address, a mobile phone and an email, and we need all three of those. If we’ve sent a letter, and a PDF by email, and an SMS saying you’ve been sent these, they cannot deny it then.”

Before the pandemic, the council used to send out suspension letters using recorded delivery, although this was stopped “because it was the post person signing the letters”, one council officer said. It’s unclear whether the council has returned back to using recorded delivery, or not. The council doesn’t inform operators if drivers are suspended, but this might happen in future.

Several times a month the council holds licensing sub-committee meetings, where councillors meet in private to discuss individual taxi drivers. These are not open to the public or press to attend. The discussion on the driver who received 50 complaints was eventually halted by a council boss.

Simon Banks, deputy head of legal governance and democratic services, said: “I’m just a little concerned about a fairly extensive public discussion about an individual driver, who has been dealt with in closed and private session. I do think we need to understand the committee’s concerns.

“There are reasons why we do licence suspension work in closed session. Not all drivers are in breach of their licences when they come to sub-committees. There will be occasions when that will not be the case and there are lots of very good reasons why there’s fair and due process.

“In terms of why people might be driving on suspension, the law doesn’t actually in most circumstances close off that right to a driver. So you can in theory drive while suspended, pending the outcome of an appeal. That’s entirely legal and lawful. Further discussion on an individual driver is not helpful.”

Not clear if he's blaming the 'app provider' here, or licensing officers, or both.

But if the council didn't inform the operator(s) about the driver's suspension, then how can they take action?

On the other hand, seems unlikely that the council could have received 50 complaints, but the operator unaware that the driver is dodgy

All seems very odd...

Is that how it normally works?

And do local authorities always know which operator a driver is attached to at any one time (so that they can liase about complaints and suspensions etc), in theory at least. And particularly in the days of multi-operator working?

And funny the way the councillor zeroes in on app providers - how do the council's procedures differ between app-only operators and those who also do telephone bookings?

Clearly those councillors don't agree with the 'innocent until proven guilty' principle.

_________________
IDFIMH

As I hope it has become apparent over the years on TDO, I'm not a fan of Uber.

However I'm told, by someone who knows, that they are the best operator they deal with when it comes to dealing with queries and complaints.

_________________
IDFIMH

Says a councillor from a council that licenses hundreds and hundreds of vehicles that never work in their licensing area.

_________________
IDFIMH

Ah, Sussex - so South Glocs is a kind of regional/mini-me Wolverhampton?

Not sure if I knew that (but had certainly forgotten), but it explains a lot in the article

For a start, LOs more interested in churning out licences than enforcement and compliance

And maybe councillors wondering why all this is going on (as perhaps now happening in Wolverhampton).

But another good example for the anti-cross-border case when it comes to be discussed in Parliament.

...and the DfT figures certainly underline that cross-bordering no doubt a big part of South Gloc's licensing

Bristol population - 472,000
HCs 336
PHVs 758

South Glocs population - 295,000
HCs 65
PHVs 3,287

So Bristol's total licensed vehicles is tiny for a city of near half a million people.

While South Glocs licenses a disproportionately huge number of PHVs.

What's the betting most of the latter are actually working up in the City of Bristol area

that to me is a BIG RF it demonstrates a mindset of someone who is clearly a chancer with a couldn't care less attitude. So I might venture an opinion that maybe the council was being a little too lenient only suspending.

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

Forgot to look at the number of PH operator's licences in South Glocs, but it's a biggie - 275, compared to only 20 in the more populous Bristol City area. Which might suggest that all the South Glocs-plated PHVs aren't just working for the likes of Uber in the Bristol.

Although, to be fair, less urban areas tend to have more one-man bands and smaller operators, as compared to a handful of big players who tend to dominate the big cities, so that's definitely a factor to be considered when comparing the figures.

But, by the same token, spot the very odd number of PH operators in another area that I noticed when comparing Bristol and South Glocs

(I should have omitted the middle column below for an easier comparison, but just ignore it - it's total vehicles, thus includes HC numbers...)

Not sure I agree with the Torbay stats from the above list.

351 PH operators, yet only 348 PH vehicles.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yes, that's the one, Sussex

I suppose it's possible in theory to have more PH op's licences than PHVs, but unlikely in practice...

Funny thing, too - in the previous year's stats (2023), there's 313 PH op's licences to 310 PHVs - so in both years there's three more op's licences than vehicles.

(And periodic reminder for readers north of the border - a PH operator's licence down south is what's called a booking office licence in Scotland. And there's no third tier licence required for despatching HCs down south )

Anyway, there's clearly something up with the numbers there. But interesting that in many of those more rural areas there's often something like an average of three or so PHVs to each operator's licence, which is consistent with lots of one-man bands and small scale offices, as opposed to the bigger players in the cities and conurbations.

Down at that end of the spreadsheet, for example are:

Portsmouth - 1,006 PHVs, 33 op's licences
Southampton - 1,219 PHVs, 104 op's licences
Plymouth - 733 PHVs, 51 op's licences

So that's 30:1, 12:1 and 14:1 respectively (rounding to whole numbers).

I think there might be a couple of mini buses regestered as PHV for school runs only not 100% sure .
All PH drivers with cars need an opps license.