means that there is one PHV/driver for every six people in the city. So, in reality there must be at least one private hire driver/vehicle waiting in every street and outside every pub in the city. Brilliant service! Well done Wolverhampton Licensing Department!
Although my own personal opinion on Wolver- hampton not making CCTV compulsory is a bit of a let-down, but would probably push up the cost of a taxi/private hire licence due to it having to be the data-controller, I think we can all assess the aspect of safety compared to costs here….in my opinion.
This probably means that other licensing authorities are having to look at their dwindling funding for their Licensing Departments as potential drivers look elsewhere for the lowest costs and speed of getting a licence. With the only solution being that possibly requirements for being licensed are now being looked at with the view to costs savings for applicants to try and get drivers licensed locally. It maybe the case that compulsory CCTV as a condition of licence will be rescinded which would be a lessor cost and responsibility for a Licensing Department.
We have this in Brighton & Hove where it is much easier to get a private hire driver/vehicle licence in Lewes DC next door than it is here in the city. And, Lewes DC is now looking to reduce the private hire driver licence requirements even further!
So, that part of the petition is reasonably accurate but with no real explanation behind it.
But what is very inaccurate is where is states: “People who are being banned from holding a licence with one council are going to other councils where they can easily obtain licences.”
This really backs up where I previously mentioned where some in the trade are very inexperienced. There is now the ‘National Register of Taxi and Private Hire Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3)’ to which 90% of local authorities have signed up. It will then be up to the individual council to assess whether an applicant who has been refused elsewhere would be deemed suitable to be licensed or not.
So, as you can see. The petition was well intended but carries no substance. So, if you signed it, well it really wasn’t worth the effort.
PHTM SEPTEMBER 2023
INTENDED USE POLICY
I’ve always considered that an ‘Intended Use Policy’ should be applied to the vehicle licence in legislation to both a hackney carriage and private hire vehicle. In its simplest term this would mean that natural cross- border hiring would still take place.
A HCV could still carry out private hire work in another area and a PHV could still take and pick-up Mrs Jones at the hospital ten miles out of area. But it would stop those drivers getting a vehicle licence in an area where they have absolutely no intention of working.
This is something that I put to the Labour MP, Wes Streeting, about three or four years ago when I was working under a different role. However, whilst being a very simple solution in its basic intention, I know that this will never be put in place. One reason being that the situation is out of control with so many drivers now reliant on working hundreds of miles out of area that this will never be tamed. And I doubt that those drivers who (legally) do this would make the effort to undertake the requirements needed for being locally licensed to only predominantly work in one area.
LGMPA 1976
All credit for raising this, and such a long time ago, must be given to Lee Ward and Mark Jennings which PHTM extensively covered over three editions and with a great animation that explains all the relevant sections. It can be seen at:
https://tinyurl.com/section75-2
In part of an online discussion Lee wrapped this up very succinctly:
“Legislation already prohibits a PHV from sitting in another area waiting to accept a booking, sub-contracted or not it doesn't matter.
Section 75(2) gives a licensed vehicle the ‘right to roam’ while engaged in a booking but once that booking is fulfilled then the exemption to a licence for the area that it is in ends.”
This is exactly what should be pushed in a petition, enforcing existing and current legislation..... nothing else is needed.
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
