people in the city. There must be a licensed car waiting on most street corners in Wolverhampton. Yeah right! In Brighton & Hove there are 600 hackney carriages with around 50% of these being compulsory WAVs and if you want a five-seater hackney or PHV it has to be WAV compliant.
Back to CCTV. When Wolverhampton replied, I was provided with a list of everything that Wolves licensing felt it considered it excelled in. Eventually at the bottom of that list my question was answered and it basically stated that they don’t have mandatory CCTV because… wait for it… drivers can turn it off. Yes, we all know that, and this was down to the ICO deeming that drivers of licensed vehicles do not need to have CCTV activated when they are not actually working but driving privately. Every LA knows this, but has not stopped many of them still requiring mandatory CCTV as a condition of licensing, and that includes my own LA, where we have had mandatory CCTV for many years, and it works.
Knowing that CCTV is already approved by Wolver- hampton to provide CCTV to drivers who want to have it on a voluntary basis, I contacted my trade colleague, Dave Lawrie of Safe Systems, to provide some details of the on/off system he uses. He outlined the provision of a remote switch and how it works which is very straight forward and covers the provision for mandatory CCTV of a remote switch with a time delay. Full details of the information Dave supplied to me that I passed onto Wolverhampton licensing can be found at:
tinyurl.com/safe-cctv
Additionally, compelling drivers to ensure that the CCTV is active when working can be included in the conditions of licensing with the consequences fully explained, just as Brighton & Hove does and also in many other areas.
So, I sent this back to Wolverhampton licensing, effectively providing them with no real reason as to why mandatory CCTV should not be imposed because their excuse not to have it was really feeble. I again suggested that the real reason was having to be the data controller for all those thousands of cars. To date I have not had a reply.
More interesting is the recent statement from a Wolverhampton Councillor:
“Councillor Simon Bennett, PHTM AUGUST 2025 leader of the
opposition Conservative group on Wolverhampton Council, said Baroness Casey’s
report had highlighted weaknesses in the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles as a factor in the sexual exploitation of children.”
Spot the irony, not only with the lack of
Wolverhampton mandatory CCTV, but also the very possibility of such PHV drivers hiding in plain sight hundreds of miles away
from respective local
enforcement with the perfect disguise for getting up to no good. The vehicle doesn’t even have to be working as a licensed vehicle, as Philip Kolvin KC stated with the ‘right to roam’, it can go anywhere the driver wants it to go, free to do whatever it wants! Cheers Phil!
This is especially relevant as it is now the norm for ‘alien’ PHVs everywhere, which would be a rare sight a few years ago. I would like to make it clear that there is absolutely no accusations being made against any Wolverhampton drivers, just making a point. Incidentally, Wolverhampton cars have been seen here in Brighton recently. Were they actually working? Or dipping their toes in the sea exercising their ‘right to paddle’.
The irony here being that the government wants national standards, but has made it extremely clear that it has no interest in stopping cross-border hiring because, wait for it, it doesn’t want to hinder the availability for taxi/private hire services: “…which could disproportionately impact women and girls and disabled people…” So, carry on issuing licences Wolverhampton, the government fully supports you.
Going back the Portsmouth incident. Portsmouth Councillor George Madgwick was rightly quick enough to make a media post demanding that CCTV be made mandatory in all PHVs, like Portsmouth has. He was also complaining about Wolverhampton- plated ‘taxis’ flooding the city. Annoyingly he referred to ‘taxis’ and not PHVs which really frustrates me when people do that and being the pedantic me, I emailed him explaining the difference.
I also informed him that we have many Portsmouth PHVs predominantly working here in Brighton, out-of- sight and out-of-mind of Portsmouth licensing enforcement, which is ironic, offering to send him further information. To date there has not been any reply.
Here’s a thought, maybe Portsmouth Cllr George Madgwick and Wolverhampton Cllr Simon Bennet should get together…
..you’re welcome.
67
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
