FIT AND PROPER TEST THE FIT AND PROPER PERSON TEST EXPLAINED
Article by Talal Malik, Solicitor Transit Legal
www.transitlegal.co.uk
The statutory foundation and the absence of definition
Few expressions are more deeply embedded in taxi and private hire licensing than the requirement that an applicant or licence holder be a “fit and proper person”. It is found in the principal statutory frameworks governing hackney carriage and private hire licensing, including the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. It is repeated in virtually every licensing policy adopted by local authorities across England and Wales, and it features routinely in committee reports, delegated officer decisions, and appellate judgments.
Despite its ubiquity, the phrase is deliberately undefined. The statutory language confers a discretion upon the licensing authority to determine whether it is satisfied that an individual is fit and proper to hold a licence. The courts have consistently recognised that this is an evaluative judgment rooted in public protection rather than punishment.
The absence of statutory definition is not a weakness in the framework. It reflects the breadth of circumstances that may arise and the need for local authorities to exercise informed judgment. The test operates less as a rigid rule and more as a structured assessment of regulatory risk.
Public protection as the governing principle
Taxi and private hire licensing is, at its core, a protective regime. Drivers operate in close proximity to members of the public, often in confined spaces and frequently with passengers who are vulnerable by reason of age, disability, intoxication, or unfamiliarity with their surroundings. Safeguarding concerns are not theoretical; they are grounded in lived regulatory experience.
It is against that background that the authority must decide whether it can entrust an individual with a licence. The DfT’s Statutory Taxi and Private Hire
6
Vehicle Standards reinforce the centrality of safeguarding within the decision-making process. Authorities are directed to prioritise public safety and to act where doubt exists.
When a sub-committee considers whether an applicant or existing driver is fit and proper, it is not conducting a moral inquiry. Nor is it replicating the criminal courts. It is asking whether it can be positively satisfied that the travelling public will be safe in that individual’s care. That is a forward-looking assessment.
Risk, not retribution
A recurring misconception is that licensing action requires proof of criminal wrongdoing. The evidential threshold in licensing is the civil standard: the balance of probabilities. Committees are entitled to consider a broad range of material, including complaints, police information, safeguarding referrals, and intelligence, provided it is approached with appropriate caution.
The authority is not imposing punishment. It is not revisiting criminal liability. It is evaluating risk. The distinction is significant. An allegation which did not result in charge may still be capable of consideration. The proper question is what the material reveals about judgment, reliability, professional standards.
honesty, or respect for
From the regulator’s perspective, it is an assessment of future confidence. The passage of time, evidence of rehabilitation, and sustained compliance are all relevant. They may carry considerable weight. They are not, however, automatically decisive.
The confidence question
Although not expressed in statute, many committees adopt a formulation approved in case law: would members of the public feel safe if a close friend or family member travelled alone with this driver?
Confidence is central. The authority must have positive assurance that the individual can be trusted with the responsibilities of licensure. Where doubt persists, the consequence frequently falls on the licence holder rather than the public.
In practice, that confidence is shaped not only by the underlying conduct but by the manner in which it is addressed. Committees routinely assess credibility,
MARCH 2026 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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
