GMB PERSPECTIVE IUPs NEED TO BE ENFORCED
Just as I started to write this month’s piece the DfT released the long
awaited ‘Statutory Taxi & Private Hire Vehicle Standards’ documents. I will only make a few observations on this because there are people who are far better quali- fied than me who will go through it with a fine toothcomb.
The main essence of the document seems to concentrate on ‘Pubic Safety’ (which of course is an important factor). But very clearly absent is the matter of ‘Driver Safety’ and the way that the police and the courts should treat the ever growing num- ber of attacks on drivers where the dregs of our society treat us in the trade as third- class citizens. The remit of the DfT in relation to these appalling incidents may not be its concern, but come on.. let’s have a bit of ‘Yin and Yang’, otherwise we feel ignored!
Under ‘Joint authorisation of enforcement officers’ it states: “Licensing authorities should, where the need arises, jointly authorise officers from other authorities so that compliance and enforcement action can be taken against licensees from outside their area.”
This really sticks in my throat.. and I hope it does the same to you as well because if you have read the 40-page document there is absolutely no reference to the chaos of ‘cross-border hiring’.
Now CBH has gone on for years and is a natural occurrence, but as we all know this has been totally abused by some compa- nies to the extent that places such as Wolverhampton have issued PHV/PHD licences like confetti (what was the last count? 11,000?) I’m convinced this is pure- ly for self preservation of job retention within the Wolverhampton licensing department. “Hey.. let’s issue thousands of PHV/PHD licences and we have got a job for life!” What do you think?
So what this section of the DfT document effectively states is: “PHVs can continue to get soft licences and predominantly work hundreds of miles away in another area out of sight and mind of their respective licensing enforcement because it will then be the job of those licensing officers in those areas where these OOTs (out of towners) head for to ensure that these vehicles and drivers are kept in check.”
56
That really is what this is all about... and at what cost to the local trades will this be!
Who is going to pay for the enforcement of those PHVs/PHDs who get licensed in ‘Sleepy Town’ and go and work in ‘Busy Town’! Well of course it will be the licence holders of ‘Busy Town’ who will pay for this via their licensing fees!
As I am writing from Brighton & Hove, I will use what would be an example which I am absolutely sure is typical throughout the country.
If you have read any of my previous arti- cles then you will know that down here we have been swamped with Southampton, Portsmouth, Havant and Chichester PHVs and others predominantly working here. But the biggest threat has been the hun- dreds of Lewes DC (next door) PHVs and even Lewes hackneys (shame on those hacks for doing so as well). So not only are these drivers predominantly working here and literally sticking two fingers up at the local trade but they absolutely take the Pi55 out of their own local conditions of licensing.
Two years or so ago we pushed for a con- cordant arrangement between BHCC and Lewes DC which was implemented. But any powers that BHCC has over Lewes DC licensed vehicles is very limited. And if I recall correctly - other areas gave no response or turned down the same request.
For example, and what is typical, is the blatant removal of rear licence plates and LDC door livery. It’s either a case of hav- ing a rear licence plate and no LDC door livery or having door livery and no licence plate, so goodness knows how many are working here without either a rear licence plate or any LDC door livery and totally invisible to even our own Licensing Offi- cers!
Lewes DC Licensing itself has been com- pletely chaotic and has recently been taken over by its shared resources of Eastbourne Licensing so that itself speaks volumes. The chaos was probably con- tributed to by us, with so many complaints about Lewes DC PHVs and hackneys breaking their own conditions of licensing!
Sadly since the slow return of business these dreaded LDC PHVs have been returning to our city like bees to a honey pot. The barefaced cheek of the removal of licence identification has dramatically increased and it is just like a vicious circle going around and around. And I know this is being repeated throughout the country. I have to state that not all LDC PHDs are doing this. Many are keeping to their con- ditions of licensing - but there are also many that are not.
We have the DfT banging on about ‘public safety’ and ‘CSE’ (which for some reason has been renamed as ‘CSAE’). And yet the DfT does not give a damn that under the abuse of ‘cross-border’ hiring that PH drivers and even hackney drivers can be working some hundreds of miles away from their respective licensing enforce- ment and break their own local conditions of licensing by removing plates and local council identification and effectively work incognito!
How can any local licensing officer ensure that these OOT’s from hundreds of miles away have a genuine licensed driver at the wheel?
The only way forward is for councils to be obliged by legislation to have an ‘Intended Use Policy’ (IUP) for hackney carriages, PHVs and operators. Local authorities can implement such a policy on hackney carriages immediately under current legislation but it should automat- ically be applied to all three licences. I have been banging on about this for a long time!
AUGUST 2020
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 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
