Taxi Driver Online

Another utterly crazy article

Seriously, though, odd for stuff like this to mention the 'quasi-judicial' aspect, but after reading the whole piece, it looks like that's sourced via one of the councillors rather than the journalist.

And none of the 'ride-hailing' pish, but arguably even worse because it's a 'taxi' application

But useful photo of the quoted driver beside a helicopter


Southend Uber taxis application to be decided next week

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/256822 ... next-week/

AN application by Uber to operate taxis in Southend is set to be decided by an independent quasi-judicial licensing committee next week.

Permission for the cab service to operate in the city has proved controversial, with Southend taxi drivers raising concerns it would "kill" local firms before degrading its services after competition was swept aside.

Uber's new application will be debated at a Licencing Sub Committee meeting on Monday after a bid by the operator was submitted in August this year.

A detailed report has been prepared for the committee, setting out the legal framework, Uber’s evidence, and public representations. The Licensing Sub-Committee operates separately from the council’s political administration and must base its decision solely on the evidence and licensing law.

If approved, any Uber driver licensed in Southend would need to meet the same standards as all local private hire drivers. This includes passing the Southend knowledge test, completing safeguarding training, undergoing Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and medical checks, and displaying Southend PHV door stickers.



Simon Shepherd, a Southend cab driver of 41 years, said: "My view is they will flood the area with cars in the first couple of months and kill local firms, when the competition is swept aside they will start to hike prices and move on to the next city.

"These concerns aren't new, their drivers are not regulated in the way local firms are with the council who set the metres and check who's driving; if you have a complaint with Uber then you have to email California.

"It's the customers I feel sorry for, the situation will be drivers will come from places like Wiltshire because Uber will encourage them so the quality of service will slip."

Uber have said they hoped their application would be accepted by the city, with the arrival of their system "boosting opportunities" for local drivers, provide "greater transport options" across the city and support the local economy.

The tech giant also confirmed drivers would earn the national living wage and have access to worker rights including pensions, holidays and representation through the GMB union.

A report issued ahead of the meeting highlights that Uber must be deemed as "trustworthy and reliable" as a driver is required to be, given their access to information which would be "extremely valuable" in "dishonest hands".

Matt Dent, Southend labour councillor for business said: "Uber is a fairly contentious proposition. Whilst it does offer convenience for customers, the worry is that that comes at the cost of security for the drivers.

"I fully understand the concerns of the taxi driver community, and have every confidence that my colleagues on the Licensing Committee will be diligent in the exercise of their duties and take into account all facts and perspectives."

Uber has also volunteered an additional licence condition requiring them to notify the council within 72 hours of any serious complaint, including allegations of sexual misconduct, violence, discrimination, breaches of equality duties, wrong-driver incidents or suspected substance misuse.

The report addresses concerns about “out-of-area” drivers. National legislation allows private hire drivers licensed in one authority to carry out pre-booked journeys elsewhere, and case law confirms councils cannot prohibit this. Southend will continue to use the national NR3S register to ensure drivers who are refused, suspended or revoked anywhere in the country cannot bypass safety checks.

Daniel Cowan, leader of the council, said: “Uber has applied for a licence to operate in Southend, and it is for the Council’s independent, quasi-judicial Licensing Sub-Committee to assess whether the company is fit and proper to do so.

"This process involves detailed scrutiny of safety, safeguarding and operating arrangements. Public safety is always our priority, and any operator licensed in Southend must meet the same high standards as every other PHV operator. We will publish the committee’s decision once the process is complete.”

Except that the reason they're applying for a licence is so that Uber drivers will be regulated in the way local firms are

And the council set the metres for HC, not PHV

And it's 'meters' not 'metres'





Aye, they'll be making a round trip of 300 miles a day so they can do runs in Southend

Usual PR blather from Uber, though, and legalese from the council, and a bit of anti-Uber posturing from councillors playing to the gallery. But I'd guess it'll be rubber-stamped, but the council has to make it sound like they're doing everything by the book, as does Uber.

Anyway, keep meaning to look back, but wasn't it in this neck of the woods where a Labour MP claimed a few years ago he was going to sort out the whole Uber thing?

And didn't Uber have a Southend licence before, or the council knocked them back, and there were quite a few political machinations going on? Anyway, I suspect it'll all be very different this time round

They can do that now.

They can do that now.

_________________
IDFIMH

Unusual for a council to issue a press release for this kind of thing, even when the applicant is Uber

But I suspect that's why it why it was issued - they're portraying all the legal nitty-gritty in the hope it'll deflect any flak from the council generally, and from individual councillors in particular.

So to that end it's unusual in respect of the legal minutiae portrayed for public consumption for this kind of stuff, as opposed to in committee agenda papers and the like.

And as well as the legalisms and suchlike, plenty of PR and self-congratulation from councillors, as is usually more befitting of this kind of thing


Uber granted licence to operate in Southend after unanimous Licensing Sub-Committee approval

https://www.southend.gov.uk/news/articl ... e-approval

Southend-on-Sea City Council’s independent, quasi-judicial Licensing Sub-Committee has unanimously approved Uber Britannia Limited’s application for a Private Hire Vehicle Operator’s Licence.

This means Uber is now able to operate in the city. The licence will be granted for a period of five years, after which Uber will need to reapply.

All Uber drivers licensed in Southend must meet the same standards as other local private hire drivers. This includes passing the Southend knowledge test, completing safeguarding training, undergoing enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, medical checks, and displaying Southend PHV door stickers.

Cllr Donna Richardson, Chair of the Licensing Sub-Committee, said: "I would like to thank everyone involved for their professionalism and commitment throughout this process. The committee has worked through all the details carefully, and I am pleased we’ve reached a decision in a courteous and respectful manner.”

Cllr Martin Terry, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Regulatory Services, added: "This licence approval demonstrates our commitment to maintaining the highest safety and safeguarding standards for private hire services in Southend. Residents and visitors can have confidence that any Uber driver operating in the city meets the same rigorous checks and requirements as all other licensed operators."

Cllr Daniel Cowan, Leader of the Council, said: "I acknowledge the Licensing Sub-Committee’s decision, which allows Southend residents and visitors to benefit from a regulated Uber service. It is reassuring to see the process concluded thoroughly and professionally. I know this was especially important to business owners in the nightlife economy and I hope it supports the growth we all want to see."

Notes to editors

• Agenda and reports pack available here: Agenda for Licensing Sub-Committee C on Monday, 15th December, 2025, 10.00 am

• In addition, the Sub-Committee attached the following licence condition (Appendix 4), with an updated amendment: Uber must notify the council within 72 hours of any serious complaint, including: Allegations of sexual misconduct, violence, discrimination, breaches of equality duties, wrong-driver incidents, suspected substance misuse. The amendment makes clear this rule applies even when incidents involve non-Southend licensed vehicles operating within city limits.

• National law allows private hire drivers licensed in one authority to carry out pre-booked journeys elsewhere. Southend will continue to use the national NR3S register to ensure drivers refused, suspended, or revoked anywhere in the country cannot bypass safety checks. NR3S is the national register used by councils to record and check taxi/private hire driver refusals, suspensions, and revocations, helping authorities prevent unsafe drivers from reapplying elsewhere.

• The Licensing Sub-Committee is an independent, quasi-judicial body operating separately from the council’s political administration. Its decisions must be based solely on evidence and relevant licensing law.

• The application was determined under Section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which requires councils to grant a licence where an operator is assessed as “fit and proper.”

• Licensing decisions cannot take into account commercial competition or popularity. The Sub-Committee’s role is solely to assess whether the applicant meets the legal “fit and proper” test.

• National legislation allows private hire drivers licensed in one authority to undertake pre-booked journeys in other areas. Councils cannot prohibit this.

• Following the Baroness Casey report, the Government is seeking to amend cross-border hiring rules via the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which would allow the Transport Secretary to set national minimum standards for taxi and private hire licensing across England.

• Any Uber driver licensed by Southend must meet local requirements, including the knowledge test, safeguarding training, enhanced DBS checks and medical checks, and displaying Southend private hire vehicle door stickers.

Not really, as indeed is made clear at least twice in this news release

(And, even more pedantically, the statement is logically incorrect, because a driver isn't an operator, which is the comparison being made here.)


But there's more than a sniff of defensive politicking about this statement. Maybe not party politics, but you get the distinct impression that this is partly about councillors being able to deflect any negative publicity. And basically shift any blame towards the process. (Which in turn kind of reminds me of Wolverhampton now trying to shift the blame there on to the legislation, as opposed to their own policies )

And, in particular, if they wanted to avoid the impression of politicking, it might have been better to avoid the self-congratulatory statements from councillors in the press release.

More pish in the local press rehash. They should have stuck to a straight bat rehash rather than this, er, hallucination

An interesting amendment.

The question I ask is for what aim? The council can't do anything about it.

_________________
IDFIMH

Worth recalling the slightly odd official council press release about the Uber application, fourth post up, which unusually went into the nitty gritty about the legal position, conditions imposed, and the quasi-judicial dimension etc.

Maybe that's not unrelated to today's announcement

As Sussex said at the time, that looks a bit odd...

Maybe a bit difficult for Uber to comply with this.

I mean, it's probably mainly TfL and other cross-border cars working for Uber in Southend as things stand.

You'd think it wouldn't be too difficult to comply with, but I suppose it's all a bit vague as regards what complaints need notified. And maybe difficult to say when and where any complaint relates to, especially if the trip involved is cross-border, and to that extent whether it was within city limits...

And if a driver is suspected of 'substance misuse', or there's a 'wrong-driver' incident, might that apply to any TfL driver who's ever been within Southend, for example? That could potentially mean a huge number of drivers, and difficult in terms of pinning it all down, and notifying within 72 hours

So maybe Uber think it's not worth the potential legal and publicity flak and bad headlines that could be thrown up, particularly when if there's not much sign of interest from locally-badged drivers anyway.