Taxi Driver Online

There's been several similar articles from the likes of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool about the Wolves issue since the Casey audit last week, and I assumed this one was the same.

Except that the council in question isn't perhaps the most obvious one for a press report like this

But this one's actually a classic of the Wolves genre, but pre-Casey

So maybe the meeting took place before the report was published last week, but that's not clear.

Pretty standard fare otherwise, but a couple of numerical clangers


Concerns raised about loophole that allows taxi drivers registered in Wolverhampton to operate in Lincolnshire

https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news ... i-10286249

Local drivers are facing increasing financial pressure, a council says

Concerns have been raised after a number of taxis licensed in other areas were spotted operating in South Kesteven. The district has around 350 licensed taxi and private hire drivers, compared to ten times as many in Wolverhampton.

Fears were voiced at a recent South Kesteven District Council Licensing Committee and other public meetings that Wolverhampton-licensed vehicles were operating in the area. The issue was raised at the licensing committee hearing when the implementation of the council’s taxi policy was reviewed.

The vehicles are taking advantage of a loophole, which allows drivers and vehicles to avoid SKDC rules by operating under a licence from areas where the bar may be set lower. This means the council's ability to monitor and manage drivers who do not comply with legislation and rules, due to vehicles operating being licensed elsewhere.

Council leader, Councillor Ashley Baxter, has written to the local transport minister, Simon Lightwood MP, about the issue. He said: “Because of this, drivers who would not qualify for a licence from South Kesteven, or might even have had a licence refused or revoked by us, are enabled to trade in our district.

"Wolverhampton City Council has approximately 35,000 licensed taxi and private hire drivers, compared to 350 in South Kesteven. Does Wolverhampton really need 100 times as many licensed drivers as South Kesteven?"

He continued: "The overall number of taxi and private hire drivers in our district has remained relatively constant in recent years. Many survived the significant impact of Covid but now face increasing financial pressure due to unfair competition from drivers licensed by other authorities.”

Councillor Baxter added: “Unfortunately, South Kesteven is suffering a deluge of vehicles licensed by other local authorities. This is having a detrimental effect on local drivers and operators.

"In response to requests from our elected members and officers, I am pushing for anomalies and loopholes to be resolved in the interests of the livelihoods of our hard-working taxi-drivers and operators as well as the safety of passengers.

"I have written to the Under-Secretary to request that either the cross-border licensing loophole is closed, or that a national statutory policy or legislation is considered to enable the provision of safe, accessible, available, and affordable services that meet the wide range of passenger needs by a thriving trade by all licensing authorities.”

TEN times as many? Try one hundred times as many. On what earth does multiplying 350 by ten come to 35,000?


Ah, at least the council leader has got it right as regards the multiplier

Trouble is, his own numbers are also wrong - the 35,000 number is vehicles, not drivers

But who'd have expected an article like this to confuse or conflate drivers and vehicles?


I'd always thought the bar couldn't be set any lower than in SKDC anyway

This is from a different source, and about the same issue, essentially, but more from the trade's angle, and specifically Stamford

Headline is total nonsense, though, obviously


Stamford taxi drivers join South Kesteven District Council’s calls to stop unlicensed firms

https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/stamford/ ... s-9422551/

Taxi drivers say that taxis licensed outside South Kesteven are leaving them with ‘less and less business’.

South Kesteven District Council’s licencing committee said that many taxi drivers were licensed in other areas and were not following its safety recommendations.

SKDC’s licensing committee heard that Wolverhampton-licensed vehicles were operating in South Kesteven.

This has led to SKDC council leader, Coun Ashley Baxter (Ind) to write to Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood, calling on the Government to remove a loophole which allows drivers to avoid SKDC standards by operating under licence from areas which may have lower standards.

Taxi drivers in Stamford have said this has caused ‘unfair’ competition to them and is impacting their businesses.

Skyline taxi driver, Mujahid Iqbal, said: “It’s really bad for us. Every day big taxi firms come in and I’m getting fewer journeys because of it.

“Most people are using Uber instead of my business.”

Local taxi driver, Mahbub Alan Bahlul said he was worried about the safety of the town at the weekends.

He said: “They’re parking everywhere and taking jobs. It’s impacting me personally and is meaning that fewer people are choosing to book with me.

“I’ve lived in Stamford for more than 23 years. In the last few months I’ve seen some taxi drivers who just park anywhere. It’s a really big issue and isn’t fair.”

Another Stamford taxi driver, who did not want to be named, said: “It’s not fair. There are Uber drivers coming in from Peterborough, lurking around the area and taking up our business.”

Another taxi driver said that it was unfair that big taxi forms are allowed to go wherever they want.

Taxi driver, Naveed Mehmood, said: “The firms are coming from everywhere. We’re working in South Kesteven and we’re required by the council to stay in the area.”

“The bigger firms can go anywhere but we have to stay here. I think the council should look at that.”

Coun Baxter said: “Unfortunately, South Kesteven is suffering a deluge of vehicles licensed by other local authorities. This is having a detrimental effect on local drivers and operators.

“In response to requests from our elected members and officers, I am pushing for anomalies and loopholes to be resolved in the interests of the livelihoods of our hard-working taxi-drivers and operators as well as the safety of passengers.

“I have written to the Under-Secretary to request that either the cross-border licensing loophole is closed, or that a national statutory policy or legislation is considered to enable the provision of safe, accessible, available, and affordable services that meet the wide range of passenger needs by a thriving trade by all licensing authorities.”

Does anyone want to tell him?

To be fair, maybe he's an HCD, and SKDC has an intended use policy, but who knows? But it's not really a big firm/little firm thing as he portrays it...


Maybe the council leader is a bit more switched on about it all than the article portrays.

But it reads like one of those soldiers stuck in the jungle for years after the war is over, but they think it's still going on

Anyway, not clear whether the cars are plated in Peterborough or Wolverhampton, or both, but same difference, I suppose.

And, by coincidence, I was looking at the Wolves figures yesterday, and I think it's about 50,000 PHDs, but the licensing register also includes HC badges and dual badges in the total figure of almost 51,000 badges, and it's not easy to work out the individual totals of each badge...

So these totals below are ball park figures, but the odd thing is what are labelled 'wheelchair exemptions'

Total HC badges - 70
Total wheelchair exemptions - 1

Total dual badges - 150
Total wheelchair exemptions - 1

Total PHD badges - 50,000
Total wheelchair exemptions - 1

So that's three 'wheelchair exemptions' in total, and precisely one for each type of badge

What are the chances of that?

a few years ago many local drivers were plated SKDC but worked on peterborough PH firms during the week and then Stamford on a weekend night. PCC complained to SKDC and then all drivers received a letter saying that licensing conditions meant that this was not acceptable.

for the last 20 years we have had problems with Peterborough licensed PH ranking up in areas of town trying to grab customers but SKDC licensing weren't interested in enforcement and as those drivers were relatives of the local drivers it was mostly the non muslim drivers parking in those areas (illegally) to try and stop it

Once the two non muslim owned boards were finally persuaded to sell up (last one was myself) prices doubled within two years but now Ubers peterborough office is basing two cars in the Stamford area which means the muslim community have lost their monopoly

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

We have a new chair of licensing and she has asked me to be her trade advisor because she thinks, quite rightly, that our officers are turning a blind eye to the local issues with Uber licensed drivers. She rang me last night to say that she had read this article and a few others and wants me to collect evidence of their wrongdoing here and make a report for her and she is going to ensure that our licensing team take the matter seriously.
She also want to make the cost of our licenses a bit cheaper. Our licensing team have told her that they are set nationally and not locally, which she knows is not true. Could be some interesting times ahead.

At 17.30 yesterday there were 7 Uber cars showing on the app here. the chair of licensing was not happy.

How many councils have actively welcomed cross-border cars generally, and Uber cars in particular?

I can only really remember one, in recent years at least - Harlow, where Labour were kicking up a stink, but the Tory chair of the licensing committee didn't seem to think it was much of a problem

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39808&p=430182

Well that's good to hear.

_________________
IDFIMH

Has anyone read or mentioned this piece in TaxiPoint about enforcement and stuff in Melton? It's all going swimmingly according to Melton Borough Council. And, in particular, good to see that they're providing 'modern slavery awareness' training

And that's for the staff, not the drivers, by the looks of it

But looks to me like TaxiPoint doing the council's PR for them - and also a bit of their own PR

There's a link to the council's official document in the article below, but it's a deadlink on the council's website. No obvious errors in the link, so don't know if the document has been removed or moved, or what, but I can't be bothered looking for it:

https://democracy.melton.gov.uk/documen ... eneral.pdf


Melton Borough Council licensing committee reviews performance of taxi and private hire regime

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/melto ... ire-regime

Melton Borough Council’s Licensing Committee has reviewed the Licensing Team’s performance during the 2024/25 year, highlighting workload levels, enforcement action and service development across taxi and private hire licensing.

The performance report, presented to the committee on 4 September 2025, shows that a total of 313 licences were issued or renewed. This included 45 dual driver licences, 46 vehicle licences and 6 operator licences. In addition, 28 knowledge tests were administered and 21 new DBS checks were processed.

Enforcement remained a key focus, with 21 penalty point notices issued and 16 complaints investigated. Two cases required formal action under the council’s convictions policy. The Licensing Team also completed three evening spot check operations alongside Leicestershire Police, targeting vehicle safety and driver compliance.

TaxiPlus, the council’s external partner for compliance and data management, conducted more than 200 checks on driver documentation. This included biannual DBS and DVLA licence status checks as well as medical certifications. All drivers on the authority’s books are now subscribed to regular update services to ensure real-time risk monitoring.

Training was provided to Licensing Committee members, covering best practice in hearings and decision making. Further staff training is planned for safeguarding, modern slavery awareness and complaint handling.

The Licensing Team also led on policy updates, including the planned 2026 Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy. Key proposals in the policy were discussed, such as the continued requirement for wheelchair accessible vehicles among operators with larger fleets. A full eight-week public consultation will begin shortly.

And don't know if it's well known, but one thing I noticed when looking at the NR3S database stuff was that Melton issues the lowest number of badges in the whole of England's 260 or so licensing authorities

So to that extent they could maybe be excused for not having as much in-house, er, expertise as other councils

is this actually lawful?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

CC, there was some debate about it in this thread, and I think Grandad has been expressing disquiet about it, and was going to investigate with his council, but not sure if he actually got very far

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40601

I believe a number of councils use them. Their repertoire incluse DBS checks and update, DVLA checks and updates and safeguarding training but it is all administrative work not actual on the ground compliance.

it might well be the journos ignorance has conveyed a different meaning

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