search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
ALL THINGS LICENSING


specialist compliance operations more effectively. This is obviously an area where committee inquiries have flagged inconsistencies and gaps.


However, as previously discussed, unless there is legislative change, moving licensing responsibility to LTAs would not prevent out-of-area working which remains a principle concern.


There are of course potential implications for both licensing authorities and licence holders:


Implications for licensing authorities


1. A larger statutory role and a bigger operational footprint.


LTAs would see a substantial expansion of responsibilities, inheriting end to end licensing operations (policy,


processing, compliance enforcement) and needing to and build capacity,


particularly for intelligence led enforcement across wider geographies.


2. Transition from district/borough councils.


Current licensing authorities may lose direct control of taxi/PHV policy and operations, a change the government acknowledges is “significant” and wants feedback on, especially around governance, staffing transfers, and cost recovery models. Many local authorities currently run small teams which administer all of the authority’s licensing functions, including taxi and PHV, and there is a concern that there could be resilience challenges if resources from these teams are reduced.


3. Toward consistency and best practice.


While this consultation focuses on an administrative level, it sits alongside long-running efforts to standardise expectations, such as the DfT’s Best Practice and Statutory Standards Guidance work to strengthen areas such as safeguarding, disability awareness, and enforcement toolkits. Guidance has previously emphasised a more


consistent and


strategic approach through justification of standards, inclusive service planning, joint enforcement and information sharing. This is obviously easier to deal with on a larger scale.


4. Stronger, area wide enforcement.


With a larger footprint, LTAs could coordinate proactive checks, share intelligence, and resource


PHTM FEBRUARY 2026 Implications for the licensed trade


1. More consistent requirements. Drivers and operators should expect clearer and more uniform standards across broader areas, making it easier to understand expectations on the “fit and proper” test, training, vehicle specifications, and accessibility. This could lower uncertainty but also reduce the scope to choose a more permissive authority.


2. A shift in licensing behaviour.


If LTAs align standards and improve enforcement, out- of-area licensing may become less attractive or viable, affecting some business models that rely on cross- boundary work patterns.


3. More professionalised service from the LTA


On a larger scale, economies of scale, shared expertise and good practice will hopefully improve the service licence holders receive from the licensing teams. In addition the trade may experience more frequent, more uniform compliance activity, standards but increasing scrutiny.


raising overall


4. Strategic integration with local transport Expect taxis/PHVs to be more deliberately woven into local transport strategies, for example, as part of first/last mile solutions or provision of service to more rural communities where bus services are limited, accessibility commitments, school transport routes or night time economy plans, potentially creating new opportunities but also clearer obligations to support wider public policy outcomes.


5. Looking ahead to automation


Separate work on automated passenger services (APS) indicates authorities will likely have a role in permitting and shaping driverless taxi/PHV services. While not part of this consultation, the direction of travel suggests future licensing frameworks will need to accommodate automation.


61


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