to different locations and introducing them to other perpetrators.”
Of course not. We could have all gone through exactly the same course and training, all been made to wear suit and ties, but that would still not stop those criminals that ‘drive amongst us’ from their criminal activity.
Quite simply, under the guise of a licensed cab, be it a hackney or PHV, it is a perfect way of hiding in plain sight for transporting vulnerable children and adults for people trafficking and all that entails.
They don’t have to be working for any company or app, or even taking legitimate bookings. They can freely travel up and down the country getting up to their no good, effectively unnoticed due to cross-border hiring where it has now become the norm to see licensed cabs, and mostly PHVs, many miles away from their respective licensing authority.
So, Baroness Casey, please take note: you can
introduce all the ‘standards’ that you want, but unless you tackle cross-border hiring (as it is commonly known) and stop the ridiculous licensed vehicle ‘predominantly out of area working’ (POAW) then someone else will be writing the same report that you have produced in five years’ time.
But how do you do it? Well, there are three different ways:
1: Enforce existing legislation under the Local Government Misc Provisions Act 1976.
2: ABBA: where the booking/journey must either begin or end in the same licensed area as the vehicle.
3: Enforce an ‘Intended Use Policy.
The issue with number 1 is that this is open to legal interpretation in court and to date no council has used anything in the 1976 Act to stop cross-border hiring. Additionally, what about the London Private Hire Act 1998?
That brings us on to another major point. Are any possible changes going to be made under both Acts? Or is there going to be just one brand new Act?
The issue with number 2 is that it is very, very restricting and is the most likely one that will be fought against by
you know who with their
charismatic barristers and even local operators serving rural areas that have no taxi/PH/bus transportation.
An example being that a PH company takes a job that starts from their own area, ‘Area A’ to go to ‘Area B’ a
PHTM JULY 2025
couple of hundred metres across the border, so far so good. A great service is given and the customer, if impressed, phones the company up and wants to go from ‘Area B’ to Gatwick which is in ‘Area C’. The company cannot do this under ABBA.
Just the same as if a London cab picked up from Heathrow that is in ‘Area A’ and takes the customer just over the border to ‘Area B’. The customer loves the cab and the driver and asks the driver to pick him up the next day to go to Brighton, which is in ‘Area C’. The London cab driver could not do this under ‘ABBA’. So the customer gets an Uber instead. Can you see where I’m going with this?
Let’s look at number 3, the Intended Use Policy applied to a vehicle licence and the operator licence that stops the vehicle from predominantly working out of area. This has got to be the best way to go as it is halfway there already because a local council can currently apply an ‘IUP’ to a hackney and there is absolutely no plausible reason that it cannot be applied to a PHV. Although some would argue about that.
The main question that is always asked about this is, what is ‘predominantly’. That is the easy part. If you take an eight-hour shift and the vehicle has covered more than 50% of the work in another area then that is exactly what ‘predominantly’ is.
An example is what has recently happened here in Brighton. Over the last few weeks we have seen a number of Mid-Sussex hackneys (just above Brighton) appear in the city at the weekend and stay here obviously working under Uber. Knowing that Mid- Sussex has an ‘IUP’ for hackneys, just the same as Brighton does, plate numbers were taken and reported to Mid-Sussex Licensing which acted quickly and reported back that warnings have been given to the proprietors of those hackneys of the consequences of not complying with the policy. So it does work, and it works because the trade here effectively enforces it. The same as the local trades in other areas would. See
iupolicy.co.uk for details.
Interestingly I had an across the table conversation with the Uber rep at the last Trade Forum meeting here and I asked if he knew about my report to Mid Sussex, which he did. I questioned why Uber allowed it to take place when it knew that Mid Sussex had the ‘IUP’ for hackneys and the subsequent consequences. He gave me and others there the impression that it wasn’t their problem.
I can see where he was going with that! 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
