I need to point out that we have had a mixed ability policy for many years here with 300 of the 600 hackneys being compulsory WAVs. We also have 75 PHV WAVs out of the 370 PHV fleet as well. This means established local companies that all run mixed fleets of hackneys and PHVs have a good number of WAVs available to serve those with such disability needs. The company I am with, which is an association/ cooperative, averages 100+ WAV jobs a week. Crucially, there are local company phone numbers that can be called to ensure that the correct WAV can be provided, a service that no app can deliver.
There are also three established WAV/disability training schools run by the local companies. This fully endorses how the local trade/companies serve the city on a truly great local level. But, how long will that last with the determination of Uber to dominate the city?
The local trade here can also boast of a very good and long relationship with disability groups over many years and it is very clear that such a local service is not and cannot be provided by a global apps. However, the danger is that these local companies are under threat of being wiped out because of the app dominance which includes being drowned by out-of-town drivers/cars predominantly working here under ‘predominantly out of area working’ (POAW) more commonly and mistakenly known as cross-border hiring.
It is important to note that 95% of the 300 local WAV hackneys are restricted to only being WAVs, the rest are voluntary WAVs as these are multi-seaters, as we have condition of licence that if you want to run a multi-seater then it has to be WAV compliant. This also applies to PHVs as well. So, this is something that Uber can do to increase their WAV availability. If a driver wants to have a multi-seater then Uber should make it a requirement that it must be a WAV. There you go, an easy solution for Uber without Uber executives needing to call a meeting to resolve their problem of not knowing, or even being able to guess how many WAVs work on their platform.
When the Uber rep was questioned about cross- border hiring, she completely and utterly showed no understanding whatsoever:
“We believe the travelling public wouldn’t expect… that they wouldn’t be limited to not travel across licensing authority boundaries. The reality of having controls like that would mean lots of trips that happen today that people do, wouldn’t take place…”
Yep, you couldn’t make this ignorance up and the Bolt rep was also just as bad when the actual question
PHTM DECEMBER 2025
related to drivers predominantly working out of area and not about restricting the public from travelling from one area to another crossing borders. Based on this I have to touch on the contribution made by the Bolt rep, Kimberly Hurd, who in my personal opinion, didn’t seem to understand some of the points raised. She also quite freely offered the fact that some drivers work two apps at a time, but then seems to not consider this as a safety issue when safety was raised later.
I could very easily counter pretty much 90% of what the Uber and Bolt reps waffled on about in their effort to try and convince the panel that their business models must remain. Also, quite worrying were the chair and others, including surprisingly Mark the independent rep, believing that ‘ABBA’ was in force prior to the Deregulation Act 2015, where this is absolutely not the case. Nowhere in the LGMP ACT 1976 states anything that resembles the journey either having to begin or end in the same respective licence as held by the driver/vehicle. The only slight resemblance would be Section 75 (1) (a) that has been ignored by every single licensing authority. See
bhcta.co.uk/section-75
An annoying point for me was the emphasis by the chair and others on ‘National Minimum Standards’ being the golden answer to cross-border hiring and where she seemed to think if that was in place then it would only be the price of the licences that would be the determining factor of licence shopping. Absolutely not! Licence shopping will continue all the time local councils are able to set their own local conditions of licensing (and quite rightly so) such as in B&H where for example the local knowledge test is held in high esteem by locally licensed drivers who hold a Dual Badge to drive both a hackney and PHV and our conditions that a PHV multi-seater has to be WAV compliant.
My last point refers to where Bolt and Uber were effectively asked: ‘Who are you competing with?’ The Uber rep was very enthusiastic in saying: “Competition is important… with thousands of operators across the UK which is a good thing….” This was strongly and rightly countered by Mark who highlighted how Uber had recently been licensed nearby in Tunbridge Wells and was offering the public heavily subsidised fares where a £7 job would be paid to the driver, but offered at £2.50 to the public, in a deliberate strategy of making life very difficult for the local taxi companies to compete with global apps seeking domination. This happens everywhere that Uber gets licensed.
Mark, the term you are looking for is ‘predatory pricing’.
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
