Andy Peters Brighton & Hove Cab Trade Association info@bhcta.co.uk www.bhcta.co.uk


In plain sight


A rogue ‘cab driver’ was convicted for the second time recently (original conviction sentenced to 23 years over-turned on appeal for a retrial). The rapist had travelled from Pevensey to Brighton pretending to be an Uber driver. (See page 32 for full story) At the time he was using a silver Mercedes saloon with no door signs, effectively using a plain vehicle. This is an example that takes us back to before the 76 Act where private hire was unregulated with unlicensed vehicles used without any door markings or rear plates.


So, isn’t it ironic that the DfT considers it best practice for PHVs not to have company door signs, with Wolverhampton agreeing on this on the basis that ‘… anyone could put on a fake door sign and pretend that the vehicle is a cab’. I know, there is no logic in that? A few years ago when Uber landed here in the city it actually sent out a message to the PHVs that were working here under Uber to remove all door signs, but it was very quickly retracted!


Isn’t it actually best practice for all licensed vehicles to have door livery/company identification to avoid people getting into unmarked rogue cars? Please don’t give me the old excuses that ‘…my cab is also my private car…’ and ‘…door signs make a cab a target…’ rubbish! My taxi is white with aqua boot and bonnet and stands out a mile like the 600 here in the city, and only on the very odd occasion has there been such an issue, and random at that.


Yes, I know TfL PHVs don’t have company door signs, and even worse, miniscule, hard to read roundel licences in the front and rear screens, but does that make it right?


Official door signs are there for public safety, end of.


The Casey Report We recently had the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse report from Baroness Casey, where ‘Taxi Licensing’ (not a good start getting the terminology wrong) was included under Chapter 7.


This hit the headlines with statements such as ‘Cross- border loophole must be ended!’ and so on. Then, if


62


you read the report there is no actual specific reference to this, only really a hint. The main reference is where it stated some licensing authorities “…go above and beyond statutory guidance…of combating child sexual exploitation…where others are less stringent… where legal loopholes mean drivers can apply for licences anywhere in the country…”


So, I read the report as concentrating on ‘standards’. These standards being specific training with awareness courses for safeguarding vulnerable passengers and so on. Especially when you read; “However, several areas we visited which were imposing rigorous standards were left frustrated by seeing taxi drivers freely operating in their areas having been licensed by other authorities who were perceived to operate less rigorous processes.” Can you see where I am going on this?


In Brighton & Hove we have had this for a few years now and a refresher is needed every three years via the Blue Lamp online course as and when the driver licence is renewed. I’m sure this is similar in the majority of local authorities.


There is the reference to Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, where again ‘standards’ are mentioned, where he was quoted to have stated in 2023 “…that other authorities’ checks were not as stringent.”


So, what is the loop-hole that needs to be closed? Is it where a national minimum standard is set so that all local authorities adhere to one set of standards for driving training requirements with exactly the same course throughout the 300 or so authorites?


If that is the case then the government will never take action on cross-border hiring because every single driver will be of the exactly the same standard, so boo-hoo to you and carry on working alongside all those out-of- town cars. Can you see where I am going with this?


It will be exactly the same now with local conditions of licensing beyond any ‘national standard’, such as for vehicle age requirements, specific livery, compulsory WAV etc. Can you see where I am going with this?


However, would a ‘national standard’ actually stop those criminals in the trade from the heinous crimes as quoted from the report;


“As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified in a minority of cases as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation, both as a potential way for perpetrators to meet their victims, as well as a means of trafficking victims


JULY 2025 PHTM


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