IoL - ALL THINGS LICENSING LICENSING IN A POST COVID WORLD
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.
HAPPY NEW YEAR?
The arrival of a New Year is traditionally the opportunity to consider the past 12 months and set resolutions. I am sure that many would have set a resolution at the begin- ning of the year for 2021 to be better than a Covid impacted 2020; however with the emergence of a new variant just in time for Christmas and New Year there is perhaps a sense of déjà vu once again as the country gets to grips with increasing cases at a time when we want to see friends and family, particularly after restrictions being imposed at short notice for Christmas in 2020.
January is also the traditional time of ‘the sales’ where retailers seek to boost demand following the post festive lull. Although, at the time of writing with fears about the impact of Omicron already having a devastating impact on Christmas celebrations, it is unquestionably going to be a difficult period for the licensed trade and hospitality sectors which rely on a busy festive turnover.
CCTV
Away from the uncertainties of Covid, there is undoubt- edly still a lot going on in the sector. Hopefully there will still have been some party goers out at Christmas for the taxi trade to give a lift home to, although Dave Lawrie’s excellent feature in December’s edition is a stark reminder of the potential risks to drivers in a ‘high risk profession’.
Certainly I am looking forward to being able to call upon CCTV evidence as more and more Guildford licensed vehicles become fitted following our policy update in April 2021. As a licensing officer, investigating complaints is difficult enough and CCTV can provide an invaluable tool in dealing with complaints. Too often officers find themselves in a position where it is the driver’s word against the complainant. On one hand there may be a complaint about a driver who otherwise has a good record; and on the other a member of the public has
64
made a potentially serious complaint of their own volition. This is a difficult balance.
The balance has been made more difficult with the precautionary approach required in the National Standards which advises that Councils must not to give drivers ‘the benefit of the doubt’. This could potentially mean more finely balanced decisions going against drivers and it is without a doubt that CCTV is a vital tool in protecting both passengers and drivers. However before you rush off to the January sales to fit out your vehicle, there are a number of things to consider.
Firstly, if your Council mandates CCTV, make sure that any system you are buying meets this criteria. Council’s who mandate CCTV should have a list of suppliers which will steer you in the right direction.
However, if your Council doesn’t mandate CCTV, this is where there are more potential pitfalls. Many Councils will issue vehicle licences with a condition to the effect that any changes to the vehicle need approval, and the installation of CCTV will be included within this. Council’s shouldn’t take issue with the reasons for drivers wanting CCTV, however their use of the system will need to be managed correctly. Where Councils mandate CCTV, the current position is that they will be the ‘data controller’. If a Council doesn’t mandate CCTV and it is installed by the driver, then the driver will need to consider data security and is likely to be considered the ‘data controller’, with the many responsibilities this entails and many sanctions available if data is not managed correctly. The best course of action would be to seek advice from your Council.
HIGH COURT DECISION IN FREE NOW CASE
December also saw the High Court give judgment in a case about the role of London private hire vehicle operators and the contracts that they enter into with passengers; and once more as to whether the appearance of a vehicle on an app constitutes ‘plying for hire’.
The first part of case concerned the Supreme Court’s judgment in Uber v. Aslam of February 2021 and the High Court’s decision has now confirmed that operators accepting bookings are required to enter into contractual obligation with that passenger in order to operate lawfully under the 1998 London Act.
JANUARY 2022
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
