NPHTA - TACKLING THE
The Deregulation Act changed everything, right?
The Deregulation Act 2015 has changed nothing in respect of waiting to receive bookings in another controlled district. Section 11 only amends Section 55 76 Act (55A and 55B) to allow bookings to be subcontracted by a licensed operator in one area to a second operator in another. It does not expressly permit the second operator to have vehicles already waiting in the area of the first, in anticipation of receiving bookings in that area.
Some, including Philip Kolvin, have argued that “the right to roam,” including waiting in another controlled district to receive bookings, is enshrined in section 75 (2) LGMPA 1976.
75 (2)
(2) Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 46 (1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of a vehicle or to the employment of a driver of a vehicle while the vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle in a controlled district if a licence issued under section 48 of this Act by the council whose area consists of or includes another controlled district is then in force for the vehicle and a driver’s licence issued by such a council is then in force for the driver of the vehicle.
This section effectively permits a driver of a licensed private hire vehicle to pick up, pass through and drop off in another controlled district without having first to obtain a licence in each and every district through which they may pass or enter in the course of undertaking a booking. If this saving clause also permitted a driver to wait in another controlled district to receive further bookings not already dispatched to that driver, this would be in direct contradiction of section 75 (1) (a), which would be a legal absurdity.
Waiting for work would surely also fall outside of the scope of the use of or driving of a vehicle, as the vehicle would not be in use or used at such time. I therefore suggest that the exemption in 75 (2) extends only to fulfilling booking(s) already dispatched to that vehicle and driver. “The right to roam” is thus limited.
Once the vehicle drops off passengers or goods in another controlled district, the exemption from being licensed there, as outlined in 75 (2), ends, and the requirement to be licensed in that district in order to receive further bookings then comes into force. At this
8
point, the driver has the option either to return to the controlled district in which they are licensed in order to receive further bookings, or they are simply off-duty and unavailable.
However, they may undertake additional bookings while out of area provided these were dispatched, or at least allocated to that vehicle and driver, before they left their own and entered another controlled district.
The ‘ABBA’ rule
This was one proposal put forward by a Task and Finish group. It suggests that the most effective way to enforce cross-border working would be to require a booked journey to either start or finish in the controlled district in which the driver and vehicle are licensed.
I disagree, simply because, firstly it is unnecessary.
Secondly, it could leave outlying areas straddling district boundary lines without service. For example, Rugeley Trent Valley railway station, on the West Coast Mainline from Euston, is in Lichfield District. However, it is less than a mile from Rugeley town centre in Cannock Chase District, where there are two booking offices and a taxi rank. The nearest taxi service to Rugeley Trent Valley railway station is therefore in an adjacent district. The nearest private hire operator in Lichfield District is some nine miles away.
Thirdly, passengers mindful of such restrictions, could lie to the operator regarding their destination, in order for their booking to be accepted, when attempting to book a journey from outside the licensing area in question that does not end in that area.
The most effective and fairest solution would be to allow licensed vehicles to pick up, pass through and drop off anywhere, but they must first be allocated all bookings while still inside their own licensing area.
Legislation is in force to allow enforcement of this, but no council has had the courage or the resources to enforce section 75 (1) (a) and inevitably engage in the Mother of All Court Battles, potentially being challenged by the peer-to-peer app suspects and perhaps other large operators, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I find it incredibly disturbing that we cannot enforce the law of this country as enacted by democratically- elected Members of Parliament out of fear of incurring the wrath of the mighty corporations.
APRIL 2025 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86
