Andy Peters Brighton & Hove Cab Trade Association
info@bhcta.co.uk www.bhcta.co.uk
AND SO IT BEGINS…
Good to see David Lawrie from the NPHTA kicking off the first of the Transport Select Committee Evidence Sessions on the Call for Evidence – Taxis and Private Hire and pointing out that the LGMPA 1976 was indeed still fit for purpose, when the question about its suitability due to being ‘old legislation’ was put by the panel. David also made it clear that that Section 76 (1) (a) of the 76 Act had been put in place by “…someone who had incredible foresight when including it…’” See:
bhcta.co.uk/section-75.
I’m also, very pleased that David was able to put across the importance of having an Intended Use Policy to be applied to all licences in the same way that it can currently be applied to hackney carriages as per the *Best Practice Guidance, along with also stating the additional importance of Geo Fencing. I was especially pleased that David really emphasised, and fully clarified that the issue of ‘cross-border hiring’ was in reality ‘predominant out of area working’ (POAW). This is something that I’ve been banging on about for several years that should be separated from cross-border hiring.
It would be impossible to go through all what was said by the reps there, but I do feel that I need to state: “Oh dear, never mind” on the input by Andy Mahoney of 24/7, who has a multimillion pound school contract business and wants to abolish the ‘Triple Lock’ which for all intents and purposes is a recorded legal paper trail, as he made a point of stating he has to deal with the forty plus different licensing authorities where his company has gone into areas with part-time drivers doing the school runs. Of course, there is nothing wrong in him making the point that existing legislation doesn’t suit his own business model, but I also found it extraordinary that he was against CCTV which is there for the protection of passengers. Under his business model, these are children as he specialises in school transportation. Maybe the real reason is down to cost v profit?
I will also dwell on some of points made by David Pattison of Wolverhampton Licensing, the main suppliers of drivers to Uber, who, as we all know predominantly work outside of Wolverhampton.
70
A panel member asked Mr Pattison: “What steps have you taken to discourage so many applications in Wolverhampton?”
I watched the crocodile tears that Mr Pattison let flow trying to defend their position of “hands being tied…” adding under the law they cannot refuse PH driver licence applications, saying: “we never asked for this” and had asked external lawyers: “What can we do to dissuade this, to put barriers in place...”.However, one panel member astutely asked about the lack of a Wolverhampton Knowledge Test requirement for PH licensing. Other panel members mentioned this, probably because they’re very aware of the effect of the number of Wolves drivers working in their own respective areas, and/or that drivers are not getting licensed locally but in Wolverhampton instead.
Mr Pattison’s defence of the (massive) issuing of Wolverhampton licences without the extra require- ment of a Knowledge Test was claimed to be based on the DfT Best Practice Guidance that states that such a test is not good practice for PH drivers.
Well, Mr Pattison, guidance is just a guidance. In fact, the DfT specifically states that it is not statutory guidance. So, it is not set in stone or in legislation. It also specifically states: “Individual licensing authorities are still responsible for deciding their own policies and making decisions on individual licensing matters applying the relevant law and any other relevant considerations. This guidance is primarily intended to assist licensing authorities, but it is only guidance and does not intend to give a definitive statement of the law; any decision is made by an authority remain a matter for that authority.”
The guidance also states the merits of CCTV for driver and public safety, yet Wolverhampton does not have compulsory CCTV, probably because it would have to be the data controller of 50k+ vehicles. Yet Mr Pattison stressed their desire to protect the public and claims they are ‘strong on standards’. I find that hypocritical.
In Brighton & Hove, a Dual Licence is issued by default to be able to drive both a PHV and a hackney carriage meaning the requirements are exactly the same for both. This includes an extensive Knowledge Test that ensures professionalism without being a satnav jockey.
So, the simple solution Mr Pattison is to change to a dual licensing system if you’re really genuinely con- cerned about having ‘tied hands’. There you go, you can have that for free and maybe ask for the money spent on external lawyers to be paid back.
NOVEMBER 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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
