PORTSMOUTH:
ROUND THE COUNCILS DERBY:
WOLVERHAMPTON A ‘DODGY OUTFIT’
Portsmouth’s licensing chief has sparked a row after labelling Wolverhampton Council a “dodgy outfit” over claims that lax safety rules are allowing risky PHVs onto the city’s streets. During a meeting on 23 March, a detailed report was considered which compares the two cities’ rules on driver checks, vehicle standards and enforcement rules for PH/HC drivers and operators licensed by each council. Wolverhampton has a reputation for a “cheaper and simpler application process,” which has led to many drivers operating in Portsmouth under the Midland city’s plates leading Portsmouth City Council leaders to raise the alarm. Under Portsmouth’s rules, drivers must have held a full driving licence for at least two years and be 21 before applying. The council also requires enhanced DBS checks every six months and mandatory safeguarding training, plus written and oral English tests. In Wolverhampton, drivers there must hold a DVLA category B licence for at least 12 months, and there is no minimum age requirement. In Portsmouth, HCs must be no more than six years old when first licensed and can operate until they are 12 years old. In Wolverhampton, new applications are only accepted for new vehicles but renewals are allowed until vehicles are around 15.5 years old. In Portsmouth, all drivers are required to undertake a driving assessment, while in Wolverhampton this is only required for HC drivers. Portsmouth also requires CCTV to be installed in licensed vehicles, with recordings kept for 31 days, while CCTV in Wolverhampton vehicles is voluntary. The lack of mandatory CCTV was a sticking point for Portsmouth’s licensing chair, Cllr Lee Hunt. “I think it’s pretty outrageous that they don’t have CCTV because it protects the customer and the drivers,” he said. “These people up at Wolverhampton seem to be in a dodgy outfit, that’s a view that I’m coming to.” Wolverhampton Council hit back, calling the “dodgy outfit” claims “extremely disappointing and ill informed.” A spokesperson argued they are legally required to accept applications from anywhere in the country and insisted their standards are among the highest in the UK. They pointed out that they check criminal records daily and have called for the government to fix “outdated” laws that allow this cross-border friction to happen.
PHTM APRIL 2026 VICTORY AS PH AGE RULE RELAXED
Derby city bosses have voted to soften a controversial rule regarding the age of PHVs, following a wave of driver protests after Derby City Council bosses ruled that PHVs should be five years old or less when licensed for the first time. They have now agreed to raise the age limit for newly licensed cars to nine years after drivers argued the strict policy was putting their livelihoods at risk, forcing them to seek licences from other cities. The five-year rule was initially introduced to ensure cars were in top condition and met emissions standards. However, drivers claimed the financial pressure was too great, especially since many were already choosing to get licensed in places such as Wolverhampton to avoid Derby’s tougher requirements. Notably, nearly 60% of respondents to a public consultation asked for the age limit to be scrapped entirely to help the trade remain viable. Cllr Martin Repton supported the change, arguing for a “fair and reasonable system” to keep drivers registered locally, stating: “At the present time, drivers can go outside this authority, and can get a badge to work in this city with cars older than 10 years.” Some committee members argued the maintenance of a car is more important than its age. Cllr Stephen Lakin told the meeting: “I don’t think age is any actual limitation – I think it is the condition of the car.” He added that as long as a vehicle passes strict safety tests, the specific mileage or age should not matter. Additionally, councillors struck down a controversial proposal that would have blocked them from attending face-to-face meetings with the taxi trade. Council officers had suggested that future talks should only include senior staff and drivers to avoid “political bias” and “maintain absolute impartiality, fairness, and transparency in the council’s licensing functions.” The plan was sparked by concerns that having elected members in the room could be “perceived as interference” and might disqualify them from making official legal decisions later. However,
Labour
councillors on the licensing committee labelled the idea “ridiculous” during a meeting last month. Despite legal advice that the plan followed national guidelines, the councillors insisted that they must remain part of the conversation to properly represent the city and its drivers.
45
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
