only have the magnetic door livery signs been missing but also magnetic rear licence plates. No council should allow these as its asking for trouble. That email was very clear and also quite long, so here is just one paragraph:
“Because of the continued and increasing lack of compliance in relation to the display of livery and now the vehicle licence plate itself, magnetic fixings will no longer be accepted as a secure method of attaching a HC or PH vehicle licence plate. Licence plates must be fixed using a method that ensures they remain securely attached to the vehicle at all times. Failure to do so may constitute a breach of vehicle licence conditions and may result in enforcement action, which may include suspension, or revocation of the vehicle licence where appropriate.”
However, whilst it is good to see Portsmouth licensing take this action, it’s ironic that it’s actually its own failings contributing to the missing door livery. I know this because following one of my complaints I was given quite an honest reply where it was conceded that the PHV in question was recently licensed but there were no door livery signs available because these are:
“…made to order by another company and takes up to 3-4 weeks for the new livery to be made, delivered to the Licensing Service and for the proprietor to then collect etc”.
So, having previously read the warning email sent out by Portsmouth licensing and then reading that it’s failing to provide the door livery signs in the first place, one wonders what the organisation is actually like within Portsmouth licensing itself. It should also be noted that Portsmouth licensing has encouraged me to send in reports of missing livery. So, naturally I followed this up asking some very simple questions:
“Doesn’t the licensing department keep a stock of door livery to provide to the proprietor at the time of licensing and final one-to-one inspection? Do you not have a final one-to-one inspection with a licensing officer as we have in Brighton & Hove where a licence would be refused if the vehicle does not carry the required (permanent) livery signage? Therefore, would you agree that licensing will continue to receive reports of missing livery on the basis that licensing will happily license a vehicle without the required livery being in place due to the lack of provision of livery signage from its suppliers?”
Oh well, I’ll just have to keep sending reports of missing door livery half knowing that it could be the actual fault of Portsmouth licensing itself.
PHTM MAY 2026
New suspension rules – House of Lords
There has been a frenzy of media postings about the government’s most recent cock-up re:future changes for taxi/PH licensing with the mistakenly labelled Cross Border Hiring which should be called Predominant Out of Area Working (POAW). Yes I know, I state this in all my ramblings, but just in case someone misses it, I will continue to repeat this wherever and whenever I can.
So, the government has now, with immediate effect apparently given the right for local licensing officers to have the power to suspend any licensed driver/vehicle (presume it is for both hackneys and private hire). This includes going as far as being able to suspend an operator - so good luck with that because drivers are now encouraged to multi-app, so if such a driver is needed to be suspended then which of the several operators that the driver is working under is also suspended?
From an outsider’s view, that may seem to be a great idea. But hold on, who is going to pay for this? I will again repeat what I have stated many times before, very few local authorities have a dedicated taxi/PH licensing department such as we have here in Brighton & Hove, with five full time licensing officers.
Other areas have combined licensing that includes not only taxi/PH licensing, but also for sex shops, poodle parlours and ice-cream vans. On this basis I doubt that any of those licensing officers have ever even gone and carried licensing enforcement of its own trade unlike ours do at day and night times on ad hoc basis.
Who is going to pay for the time for the extra extended licensing powers in Brighton & Hove then? Us of course, with our fees going up to cover this, whilst licensing areas continue to churn out licensed drivers and vehicles that they absolutely know will never be seen again.
This is the government’s ignorant way of thinking that this will go a long way to lessen the major (wrongly referred to) cross-border hiring issue. Well it won’t! But hold on! Apart from anything else, the trade is effectively being threatened with the removal of local licensing anyway under the utterly ridiculous plans for devolution, with bigger areas and larger borders and being replaced with larger faceless Transport Authority entities.
So, why has the government wasted time and money to give local licensing departments/officers those extra enforcement powers if they are all going to be removed!
Ahhh! The pain! And I am not even filling the taxi up! 67
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
