ROUND THE COUNCILS DERBY:
APOLOGY OVER LICENSING RULE MIX UP
Derby City Council has issued an apology to over 150 taxi drivers after a communication error led to confusion regarding new vehicle age limit rules. The controversy stems from a policy, which came into effect on 1 April, stating that vehicles being licensed for the first time must be five years old or less, a significant change from the previous 15-year limit. The council admitted that the new rule, intended to be implemented from January 1, 2025, was incorrectly communicated to drivers. “The response provided to Person A was repeated in response to a number of those queries. That information was technically inaccurate as a generic response as the circumstances of a number of the subsequent enquirers were different to that of Person A,” the report stated. This error resulted in some drivers purchasing vehicles older than five years, believing they would be compliant. The new regulations have sparked significant concern among drivers, with fears that the “very strict” rule could “drive taxi drivers out of business” due to the high costs of newer vehicles. However, the council maintains that the age limit is necessary “to ensure vehicles are in good condition and more likely to meet current safety and emissions standards.” The communication mishap occurred after a driver, referred to as “Person A,” inquired about the upcoming regulations. The council’s response, which was accurate for that specific driver’s situation, was then mistakenly applied to other drivers with different circumstances. “In repeating the information provided to Person A, officers inadvertently omitted highlighting that requirement (age limit of five years old),” the report explained. As a result of the error, the council suspended the rule’s implementation for three months until April to rectify the situation. “To both the trade and to committee, officers offer an unequivocal apology that the anomaly arose in the first place,” the report stated. The council has also pledged to grant licences to drivers “who have acted in good faith on the
PHTM MAY 2025 YORK: TAXI MARSHAL INITIATIVE RETURNS
York's popular Taxi Marshal programme, aimed at ensuring a safe and orderly nighttime environment, has resumed operations, funded by a collaboration between York BID, City of York Council, and local stakeholders. The programme, which deploys uniformed marshals at key taxi ranks, will run from weekends until the end of the year. Operating from 11pm to 3am on busy Friday and Saturday nights at Duncombe Place and St Savourgate, the marshals provide a visible, reassuring presence, aiding in efficient and safe transportation. Beyond facilitating smooth taxi access, they also play a vital role in curbing anti-social behaviour, managing noise levels, and enhancing the overall sense of security for late-night travellers. Cllr Kate Ravilious, City of York Council Executive Member for Transport, highlighted the programme's long-standing success, stating: “The taxi marshal scheme in York has been in operation since 2017 and has been warmly received by residents, businesses of Duncombe Place and St Saviourgate, and members of the Hackney Carriage Association.” She emphasised the initiative’s multi-faceted benefits, including “curbing anti-social behaviour and control noise levels in the neighbourhood while giving those wishing to travel late at night an increased feeling of safety.” Ravilious also noted the programme's contribution to broader safety goals, adding: "It also supports the aim of reducing violence against women and girls, provides additional securities to the taxi trade and contributes to the city’s Purple Flag status.” York BID stresses that the marshals provide a “warm and reassuring presence,” and have
already
demonstrated a positive impact over eight years, reducing street fights, and public urination. They
encourage anyone needing late-night
transportation to look out for the uniformed marshals, who are there to facilitate a “hassle-free” journey home.
35
miscommunication and purchased replacement vehicles that are older than five years old.” At the date of the report, two vehicles have had this discretion applied.
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
