Taxi Driver Online

Gosh, who'd have thought that a licensing council WOULDN'T deem something a failure as opposed to a back-slapping success

(And, beyond ridiculing the headline here, if you want to get a bit arsey about it, as well as the usual t-word thing, you don't hail PHVs, so the pun's maybe not a clever as they think it is )

Potentially lots of interesting talking points here, though, apart from the whole PR angle.

Reading between the lines it gives the impression that the council wants to say that Wolverhampton Council is a menace, but unlikely to say that explicitly in an official news release, particularly when both sides will want to push the 'working closely' with 'partners', 'safety is paramount' etc.

(Although this doesn't explicitly use those phrases, except for 'partners' and 'partnered with' - but it's the usual vibe as regards stuff like this.)

And reads like the checks were quite thorough, for spotchecks at least. But I wonder how much time they were given to attend the depot for testing?

Anyway, prior to this the only thing I knew about Blaby was that it was in Leicestershire. And that for years and years, Nigel Lawson was the MP for Blaby


Taxi checks hailed a success

https://www.blaby.gov.uk/your-council/n ... a-success/

A debut taxi check initiative with City of Wolverhampton Council has been hailed a huge success.

Blaby District Council licensing officers teamed up with Wolverhampton colleagues, Leicestershire Police and the DVSA (Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency) to carry out the surprise inspections.

Taxis were stopped, drivers given a time to attend the Council’s Whetstone depot and the cars then rigorously checked on at least 40 items, from seatbelts and switches to braking and suspension systems.

The aim was to ensure all vehicles were safe and suitable for use. In total 15 taxis were inspected, all of which were licensed by Wolverhampton City Council.

Four taxis were given advice on slight defects and three were found to have no issues. Actions were taken on the rest which failed the checks.

Under Blaby District’s taxi licensing conditions cars have to be inspected every six months to ensure taxis operating in the area are kept legal, safe and in good condition for customers and other road users.

However, with the rise of ride apps and more demand for taxi services, increasing numbers of taxis not licensed by Blaby District Council operate across the area.

City of Wolverhampton Council are a significant licensing authority for around 2,700 ride app drivers who live in Leicestershire alone. They were keen to work with Blaby District to improve the quality and safety of taxis operating in the area.

Involving Wolverhampton colleagues in our enforcement action meant they had a broader picture of how their licensed drivers were faring locally and were able to take immediate action on vehicles not meeting the required compliance and safety standards.

Councillor Les Phillimore, Blaby District Council Portfolio Holder for Community and Environmental Services, said: "Christmas is always a tremendously busy period for taxi use so it’s the perfect time to carry out compliance checks with so many on the road. Our priority is to ensure vehicles are safe for everyone and if they’re not then they are taken out of action.

"This is the first time we have partnered with Wolverhampton for such an initiative but I’m sure it won’t be the last. We hope to commit to a joint licensing agreement so we can easily share information. This means more vehicles on our streets can be checked to ensure they are safe. This has got to be good for everyone."

A City of Wolverhampton Council spokesperson said: "We take our licensing responsibilities seriously and our officers work proactively across the country, wherever our drivers work, carrying out regular operations with partners to protect the public and ensure they travel in safety.

"We will continue to support Blaby District Council and others to carry out further compliance operations such as this to make sure vehicles meet the requirements to carry members of the public. This includes cracking down on taxis using 'ghost plates' which are illegal."

Now there's a classic example of spin and framing. Presumably that means a majority (eight) were either suspended or given delayed prohibition notices, or whatever? (Presumably the slight defects on four cars were less than delayed prohibition, or whatever, but it could be that all eight were actually suspended? So a majority might have been suspended?

If sure they were 'keen'

So does that mean 2,700 Wolves-badged drivers living in Leicestershire are working for Uber or Bolt, or similar - why not mention the rest?

Usual boilerplate from Wolves Council there - which was questionable enough a couple of years ago, but now they're actually claiming they can't do enforcement properly because they're victims of the national licensing legislation?

Great official photo with the press release as well



And although it's often possible to fiddle with photo widths and the like with images like that on third party websites, I think that's the most obvious and easy one I've ever seen

Problem is, you can't adjust the image quality like you can with some, so as you enlarge it the quality degrades

https://www.blaby.gov.uk/media/1cfng3x1 ... ?width=100

https://www.blaby.gov.uk/media/1cfng3x1 ... ?width=800

https://www.blaby.gov.uk/media/1cfng3x1 ... width=2000

Interesting (well, I found it interesting ) that PHTM has changed the Blaby Council reference to 2,700 'ride app' drivers to simply 'private hire'

So presumably the PHTM reference is slightly more accurate, but of course maybe Blaby Council somehow extracted figures specifically for Uber and/or Bolt drivers, so the PHTM figures could be wrong, because they don't include all PHDs?

But, strictly speaking, either PHTM or the council must have got it wrong here...


But PHTM seems to have changed most of the 'taxi' references to private hire or PHV.

But they haven't changed all of them, so the terminology in the piece is inconsistent - they use the Blaby Council generic 'taxi', but then refer specifically to PHVs.

https://www.phtm.co.uk/news/8419/phtm-n ... t-success-

Meanwhile, Taxi Point has changed the reference in the headline to private hire rather than taxis (PHTM headlines with the t-word, then goes mostly PHV, with the odd taxi reference), but then mainly uses just the generic t-word, thus misleading for any reader who doesn't know the score. Then adds a reference to Wolves being a large 'taxi and private hire' licensing authority, but then veers off with a 'ride-hailing' reference, which they've changed from Blaby's 'ride app'


https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/blaby ... -enforceme

Great thread, this

They might have to use a better AI.

_________________
IDFIMH

I am surprised there are 2700 WOlves plated cars in leicestershire , I wonder if Leicester has lost that many over recent years or if the likes of Charnwood,Blaby, Hincley or Harborough have recorded similar falls

PS am feeling too lazy to bother researching that but you can if you're bored Stuart

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

Can't be bothered, Edders

But another hole I thought about picking yesterday was that the official Blaby Council press release (and the press rehashes) refers to 2,700 *drivers*, while I wondered whether in fact the numbers could refer to *vehicles*?

Which, of course, is always one source of conflation and confusion in press reports about numbers in the trade

Couldn't be bothered trying to find out.

But your reference to *cars/vehicles* rather than *drivers* ably demonstrates why the Blaby press release could well have got it wrong

Anyway, Happy New 2026 to one and all

(Can't remember the exact figures, but last time I looked I think it was about 50,000 Wolves-badged PH drivers, but around 34,000 Wolves-plated PH vehicles.)