IS NOT ENOUGH
more persuasive than confrontation. The question for the authority is whether reassurance has been provided.
Responding effectively to safeguarding concerns
What tends to assist is a response that engages directly with the safeguarding issue as framed by the authority. That requires an understanding of why the information has been shared, what concern it raises, and what steps, if any, can be taken to mitigate perceived risk.
exculpatory. Licensing authorities do not. Their focus is on what the information discloses about risk, insight, and future conduct.
The question asked is not whether the allegation could be proved, but whether it raises issues that remain unresolved. Where those issues are left unaddressed, the authority may conclude that the risk persists, regardless of the criminal outcome.
In practice, this is often where cases turn. A driver who relies entirely on the absence of criminal proceedings may find that they have failed to engage with the authority’s real concern.
The role of insight, proportionality, and discretion
At this stage, tone and approach become critical. A defensive or dismissive response can be interpreted as a lack of insight, which itself may justify regulatory intervention. Licensing officers and sub- committees are attentive not only to the content of representations, but to the manner in which they are made.
That is not to say that licensing authorities are entitled to disregard proportionality or fairness. They are not. The law still requires a rational connection between the information relied upon and the action taken. But proportionality arguments are rarely effective unless they
are framed within the
safeguarding context in which decisions are now made.
Measured engagement, even in the absence of any admission of wrongdoing, is generally far
PHTM APRIL 2026
This is not an exercise in conceding guilt. It is an exercise in addressing regulatory anxiety. Where that anxiety remains unresolved, licensing authorities are unlikely to be reassured.
A reality taxi and private hire drivers must now confront
None of this is to suggest that licensing authorities are entitled to act without scrutiny. Issues of evidential weight, procedural fairness, and proportionality remain central to lawful decision- making. But those arguments must be advanced within the correct regulatory framework.
The reality is that the protective force once assumed to lie in the absence of a conviction has been significantly eroded. Taxi and private hire drivers now operate in an environment where precaution frequently outweighs proof. Understanding that environment, and responding to it with care and restraint, is increasingly essential to protecting a licence.
Cases involving police disclosures and urgent licensing action require a clear understanding of how safeguarding, risk, and discretion are applied in taxi and private hire licensing.
I advise drivers and operators on responding to these issues, including urgent suspensions and licensing hearings, with a focus on addressing regulatory concerns properly rather than relying on criminal law outcomes alone. Early, advice often makes a material difference.
informed
Please do not hesitate to contact me to discuss your position at an early stage.
13
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
