Ironically, the Best Practice Guidance that Mr Pattison has quoted is used for setting standards also has this:
“6.12 Intended use policies in respect of taxi drivers
“We are aware that a number of licensing authorities have introduced a taxi ‘intended use’ policy when considering licence applications aimed at reducing the number of taxis working predominantly to carry prebooked fares in other areas rather than plying for hire in their licensed area.
Licensing authorities should require an applicant for a taxi driver licence to declare that they intend to work predominately within the licensing authority’s area.”
I know Wolverhampton does not have an Intended Use Policy for its hackneys, so Mr Pattison has clearly picked and chosen what guidance to follow to suit.
When questioned if he would support a ‘Triple Lock’ mechanism where the driver, vehicle and operator had to be registered locally, Mr Pattison looked a bit flustered replying: “As to what the answer is to the current situation…I’m not sure it is necessarily reinforcing…. I think something needs to change fundamentally…” Very certainly he did not say: “Yes”, probably because the Wolverhampton Licensing department would collapse, in my opinion. Yet the Best Practice Guidance also states when referring to taxi licensing: “The residential address provided by the application should be considered in assessing the likelihood of this declaration being adhered to when assessing an application for a taxi driver licence.”
So, I put it to you Mr Pattison that Wolverhampton Licensing is relying on the Guidance for its own means as it can very easily include a Knowledge Test and CCTV as a condition of licensing. I also question the need to have engaged external lawyers if you really wanted to “..dissuade..” outsider applicants as there is no black and white statutory requirement to adhere to what the DfT suggests.
When questioned further on the “Incredible amount of money that was coming in” (to Wolverhampton), Mr Pattison stated: “And that is the challenge…” and that “..fees have gone up this year..”. He emphasised the importance of “…public safety and enforcement throughout the country…” which is where such money is being spent and that they are “…looking at other ways that they can spend money on public safety and that they are looking at the same technology as UK Border Force...” Ironically though he clearly does not support compulsory CCTV.
PHTM NOVEMBER 2025
Another panel member also made quite a point about fees when addressing Mr Pattison, and whilst making it clear to the room that a profit is not allowed to be made on fees, also clarified that in 2023 Wolver- hampton Council had a ‘reserve’ account of £2 million, asking if that went towards the authority’s overall balance sheet, suggesting that there could be “…some advantage derived from that…”. Mr Pattison denied that was the case and was keen to state that this figure has come down significantly since then. He made it clear that they have to demonstrate that fees are used for licensing matters, otherwise the fees have to be reduced, and that they are subject to transparency and scrutiny. Mr Pattison made it clear that they can have a certain amount of money in ‘reserve’ but it never goes into the council’s general funds, dismissing rumours that they were using to money to “…balance the books..”
A further question asked for clarification on when the council’s annual statement of accounts was published, as to whether the sum net balance would include the ‘reserve’. Mr Pattison replied by stating it would be an ‘earmarked reserve’. Is that what is known as creative accounting?
There then followed a discussion on the lack of WAV provision for Wolverhampton PHVs. So, I thoroughly enjoyed the comment from another panel member stating that: “…I do find it incredible that you talk about providing accessible vehicles being a barrier to the trade, I’m sure that there will be people in Wolverhampton who would not be happy with that phraseology..” There was again emphasis that there could have been the option of a Knowledge Test and a higher standard of age limits (as other authorities do thus countering the ‘our hands are tied’ excuse) not just instead settling on the minimum standard suggested by the DfT.
All in all, I was very pleased about the questioning the panel members gave to Mr Pattison and it is very clear to me that where we are today with Wolverhampton PHVs working the whole of the country is the result of Wolverhampton Licensing taking advantage over selective sections picked from the DfT Best Practice Guidance.
I could write plenty more on the grilling given by panel members to Mr Pattison but the best thing to do is to listen to it yourself from the time frame of 10:47:30 at:
www.tiny.cc/transport-committee-p1
I look forward to the next session…. *Best Practice Guidance:
www.bhcta.co.uk/dftbpg
71
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
