ALL THINGS LICENSING
Article by Mike Smith, Senior Specialist for Licensing and Community Safety at Guildford Borough Council and Vice-Chair of the Institute of Licensing South East Region.
Please note that this article represents my own views which are not presented as the views of the Institute of Licensing or Guildford BC.
The new year of 2026 is very much starting in the same vein as we have had since mid-2025, with yet again significant consultations being launched on moving licensing responsibility to local transport authorities and further potential legislative changes through devolution on the horizon. In this month’s article I will explore both frameworks and their implications for licence holders as well as local authorities.
DfT Consultation: local transport authorities to oversee taxi/PHV licensing?
Firstly, following the Government response to the Casey report which recommended closing the ‘loophole’ practice of out of area working, the Department for Transport (DfT) has launched a consultation proposing a significant restructuring of taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing in England: transferring statutory licensing respon- sibilities to local transport authorities (LTAs).
The consultation opened on 8 January 2026 and closes at 11:59pm on 1 April 2026.
This move follows the English Devolution White Paper’s direction of travel, which signalled govern- ment intent to tackle persistent inconsistencies in standards and the enforcement difficulties created by cross-boundary working, as identified in the Casey report discussed in previous editions of PHTM. The idea is that administering licensing across a larger, transport-led footprint could deliver more consistent rules, stronger compliance, and fewer incentives for “out of area” licensing.
Why change the system?
As we know, at present, taxi/PHV licensing is largely handled by district councils (with Transport for London responsible for the capital). This has produced a patchwork of approaches to driver vetting, vehicle specifications, accessibility requirements, compliance
60
activity and fees; differences that many stakeholders say confuse the public and the trade alike. The DfT’s consultation explicitly seeks views on whether LTAs should become the single, accountable bodies for licensing in their areas, while noting that London would remain unchanged.
Parliamentary scrutiny has highlighted the issue of cross-border licensing, where drivers obtain licences in one authority but primarily work elsewhere; Wolverhampton has often been cited as an outlier receiving applications from across England. The Transport Committee has queried whether a more standardised, rational regime could better protect passengers and provide clarity for drivers and operators.
What does this consultation propose? 1. Make LTAs the taxi/PHV licensing authorities
All LTAs in England, including combined authorities, would assume the statutory functions currently exercised by district councils, bringing licensing into the same strategic space as buses, highways and local transport planning. London’s existing TfL model would continue as is.
What this could achieve:
l Consistency of standards across wider geographies l In theory, the potential for effective enforcement across wider areas, with the scale to coordinate operations. However, it is important to note that moving licensing to LTAs would not prevent out-of- area working.
l Administrative efficiencies, leveraging economies of scale in application handling, policy develop- ment, and compliance teams.
2. Address cross-border working and raise standards
By aligning policies and enforcement at LTA level, government believes it can reduce the incentive to “shop around” for the least onerous licensing regime and, in turn, improve confidence.
passenger safety and
3. Integrate licensing with wider transport objectives Bringing taxis/PHVs into broader network planning could support accessibility,
decarbonisation goals, positioning the sector as a more deliberately managed part of local transport systems.
FEBRUARY 2026 PHTM
congestion and
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
