OUR INDUSTRY
condition to vehicle, driver or operator’s licences. Such processes should be undertaken by elected members arriving at informed decisions. This is how democracy, local or otherwise, is meant to work. Consultations with the trade and other interested parties are an integral part of this process of informing elected members. They should never just be a PR stunt with a predeter- mined outcome, as this would actually be unlawful (Sardar and others v Watford 2006).
We also have Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice Guidance 2010, 2023, and Statutory Guidance - Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards July 2020. Let us not forget the Safe and Suitable guidance document written by Philip Kolvin KC and James Button in 2018 on behalf of The IoL.
Whilst these are ‘only’ guidance, local authorities may not simply ignore them on that basis. They may depart from recommended practice if they have good reason to do so, in which case they would need to explain why. As a school maths teacher would say: “You need to show your working and how you arrived at your answer.”
All of the above guidance attempts to shine some light on how councils may pass the reasonably necessary test in their own areas regarding conditions they may attach to licences in accordance with sections 47 (1), 48 (2), 51 (2) and 55 (3) of the Local Government (Miscel- laneous Provisions) Act 1976, where in each of these sections it is stated:
A district council may attach to the grant of a licence ... such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary.
WHAT IS MEANT BY ‘REASONABLY NECESSARY?
Essentially, any financial burden, barrier or inconven- ience placed upon the trade needs to be outweighed by the public interest, especially public safety in that particular licensing authority’s area. In accordance with The Regulators’ Code, councils would need to take an evidence-based approach in this regard. This brings me to the word ‘consider,’ as in ‘consider reasonable necessary.’ To consider is not just to think, or to have an opinion, it is a process of weighing up the pros and cons and examining the evidence before reaching a conclusion regarding attaching any licensing
PHTM JULY 2024
Government guidance, primary legislation and case law above play a significant part in establishing the regulatory playing field on which we all trade. Unfor- tunately, in a number of areas, the latest Best Practice Guidance issued by the DfT, dated last year, and following a draft consultation document issued in 2022, seems, in some respects, to tilt the playing field decidedly in favour of the interests of large national operators, in particular the p2p apps, and against the interests of smaller operators, start-ups, the wider public interest and even public safety. David Lawrie, NPHTA director, and I submitted a detailed response to that consultation in 2022 on behalf of the NPHTA, which was also published in PHTM. A number of our key recommendations were largely disregarded.
DRIVERS WORKING FOR MORE THAN ONE OPERATOR
There should be some flexibility in this regard, for example: a driver could undertake a daily home-to- school contract with one operator during the week, and perhaps work for another at weekends. If the computerised dispatch system of one operator were to crash, drivers could then work for another, either temporarily or indefinitely. However, the DfT has proposed that there be no restrictions whatsoever placed on the number of operators from whom a driver may accept bookings, and that any such restrictions currently in place should be removed.
This does not serve the public interest at all, because it completely undermines traditional telephone-based operators’ unique selling point of being able to accept advance bookings. Whilst drivers are free to start and finish working when they choose, patterns usually emerge which allow operators to know approximately how many drivers they will have available to undertake any advanced bookings at a given time. When drivers are working for multiple operators simultaneously, including the p2p apps with their dynamic pricing structure, this becomes an impossibility.
63
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
