MISCONCEPTIONS LAID BARE
asked about this, having been under the impression that public liability cover was always issued as standard on a hire and reward policy. He also asked whether any legislation required public liability cover and stipulated the amount required. The answer to both points is No: there is no national legislation pertaining to holding public liability cover or the amount required – if there is any such regulation it would have to come under local authority licensing policy, which – as always – could vary 362 ways.
There was one local authority where a couple of dozen drivers were asked what they would do in the event of a fire breaking out in their taxi/PHV. They went into much detail about their emergency plans in this regard… however, not one suggested that they should make sure their passengers were safely removed and away from the vehicle. Surely this must be the top priority!
F ICTION F ACT
All council officers and committee councillors have to undergo an enhanced DBS criminal record check, the same as for licensed taxi and
PHV drivers.
No, they do not. It was automatically assumed by many in the industry that licensing officers would have to have a DBS in order to undertake
their various enforcement duties; likewise for councillors on licensing committees, whose decisions affect the livelihoods of so many licensed drivers.
This is not the case; we had it confirmed by the Local Gov- ernment Association, whose spokesperson told us: “Council officers working directly with children or vulnerable adults would need to have a DBS check (eg, social workers, occu- pational therapists going into people’s homes). However, those working in an office with other people around wouldn’t need to have a DBS – eg, housing benefit officers, licensing officers etc. There is no requirement for councillors to have a DBS check.”
As always, we would welcome PHTM readers’ views on this matter. Did you know about this? What do you make of it? If Government recommendations based on the Task and Finish report are advocating industry training for officers and councillors, shouldn’t they be DBS checked as well?
F F
ICTION ACT
Every individual taxi/PHV driver must have Public Liability insurance.
That is not the case. This query has arisen as recently as two weeks before our press deadline; a long-standing member contacted us and
JANUARY 2020
Certainly it does not emanate from the insurance companies; one insurer provides this information: “Public liability insur- ance is not to be confused with Passenger Liability insurance, which only covers the occupants of the vehicle while still inside in the event of an accident or crash. Public liability not only covers you for third party accidents where your normal policy does not, but it also allows you to assist your passengers in entering and exiting the vehicle with their baggage, without having to worry about accidental damage caused to their property.” However, public liability insurance is an add-on rather than a standard inclusion with hire and reward policies. Most company operators hold public liability policies, as do a good many independent hackney drivers, for cover levels of between £5-£10 million.
F ICTION F ACT
Nobody does anything about the presence of a certain app-based company in our licensing dis- trict. This has decimated our business, and yet
they are continually getting away with riding roughshod over local licensing conditions, not paying UK tax, not adhering to workers’ rights, and so on.
The recent decision by Transport for London not to renew Uber London Ltd’s private hire opera- tor licence puts a different slant on things, and
will reflect on Uber’s operations outside the capital as well, obviously. We all know that Uber has appealed the London decision and will carry on as normal; however it remains to be seen as to how future court action, for which their coffers have no depth restriction, will turn out.
As PHTM readers will know by now, the Government responded back in February 2019 to the 34 recommen- dations put forward by the Task and Finish group – most of which recommendations were approved for action in one form or another. We now await revised Best Practice, a Statutory Guidance document cover- ing safeguarding, CCTV and other safety-related issues… and of course a nod as to whether legislative reform for this industry will merit Parliamentary time during the new session of Parliament.
In any event there will not be an overnight fix; these things take time. We would just hope and pray that – finally! – some serious consideration is given to the myriad of difficulties facing our industry in these high- tech and pressured times.
43
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96
