Locally
There was a recent public and trade survey on WAVs with various questions being put forward on the WAV service in the city. We have had a ‘Managed Growth’ policy for hackney carriages numbers which has been to issue five new plates per year on the provision that these are restricted to being assigned to WAVs. This means we have unrestricted hackney plates where a saloon or estate can be used and restricted plates were only WAVs can be used. We have around 600 hackneys in the city - the balance of WAVs/saloons is around 50/50.
There has also been a WAV condition of licence for operators, which has been in place since 2015, which was implemented just before Uber landed here. The condition stated any operator with a fleet of 100 cars must have 20% WAV compliant vehicles.
This has worked very well, and the three bigger local fleets had no issue in complying with this. At the special Licensing Panel Meeting in 2018, where the charismatic Uber barrister, Philip Kolvin KC, was pleading for the council to issue an operator licence he made the statement that Uber would have even more than the required 20% if granted the licence. It was actually refused but Uber won in court.
Having gained its operator licence, Uber then found itself having to comply with the 20% requirement and having to pay out a subsidy to drivers to have WAVs on its Brighton & Hove fleet. This also meant that it never exceeded the 100-car fleet. Mind you… it had brought in hundreds of Oots to predominantly work here.
Nevertheless, earlier this year the Uber rep, who attends the local Trade Forum meetings (who rarely if ever contributes to it) questioned the need for the continuance of keeping the 20% WAV requirement. I was very blunt about reminding him and everyone else of Mr Kolvin’s pledge on exceeding the 20% WAV requirement.
The outcome of that meeting was a public and trade survey on WAVs in the city. which is too long and complicated to go into here, but both of which were flawed in my opinion and I provided details on this. However, this resulted in a proposal from licensing to drop the 20% WAV requirement for operators. There were other points raised by the trade in general about the cost of WAVs. My great concern is that if that proposal is passed by the Licensing Committee, then Uber will wash its hands of the responsibility that local companies have undertaken for years and well before
PHTM JANUARY 2025
Uber appeared here. Importantly, Uber does not provide a customer phone number and it only functions via an app. Whereas local companies not only work via a customer app but also by phone. In just providing an app, Uber can ignore undertaking disabled accessibility tailored to meet each individual’s requirements.
So, on this basis I have put forward a replacement condition: ‘‘To safeguard that disabled passengers in wheelchairs receive an equal service, any operator operating 100 or more vehicles must ensure the provision of a wheelchair accessible service to be considered ‘Fit and Proper’ to hold a Brighton & Hove operator licence.”
This does not state a specific number of WAVs to be in place, but ensures that Uber must still provide WAVs and that the provision of WAVs in the city does not just fall on the responsibility of the local companies.
Wolverhampton advance vehicle licensing
Earlier in December there was a photo being shared on the trade social media that showed a Wolverhampton PHV licence plate and certificate displaying the starting date of the licence as being 14 January 2025. Whilst it is appreciated that licensing departments may not be able to carrying out a relicensing exactly on the date of the expiry date of the old one, I question the legitimacy of granting such a licence in excess of a month in advance.
So, being the busy-body that I am I contacted Wolverhampton licensing about this. The reply came back stating the vehicle in question was inspected on December 9 and the licence granted and “…. it isn’t feasible to inspect every vehicle on its exact expiry date.” OK… but in excess of a month in advance?
It could be the case that your council does the same, but I wrote back to Wolverhampton licensing putting to them that this practice is probably down to the fact that it has issued in excess of 29,000 vehicle licences, which works out having to license around 116 vehicles a day on a five-day week, 50 weeks a year.
To date there has not been a reply. However, on the basis that the DfT likes to issue Best Practice Guidance for the taxi and private hire trade, I have written seeking its view on councils issuing vehicle licences in advance and in excess of month of the expiry of its current one.
Anyway, onwards and upwards… and may we all get what we deserve in 2025!
59
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
