Issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles

Written evidence from Peterborough City Council (TPH 19)

1. A brief history:

1.1 Peterborough City Council currently licence 204 hackney carriages, 434 private hire vehicles, 48 private hire operators and a total of 909 licensed drivers. In general we have a good working relationship with neighbouring authorities and in the past if it was apparent that a company would be predominately working in a certain licensing area, we would direct them to that licensing authority.

1.2 The current financial climate has resulted in a decline in the amount of journeys undertaken by the travelling public and therefore a drop in driver’s earnings. We are currently undertaking a survey to establish that there is no unmet demand, a necessary precursor to placing a limit on hackney plates in a bid to address the issues currently being experienced as a result of the current imbalance between the number of vehicles and the work available. The situation is exasperated due to actions of a particular private hire company licensed by neighbouring council. Their vehicles are saturating Peterborough, creating unfair competition for legitimate Peterborough companies. The Peterborough trade are regularly alleging incidents of this particular company illegally plying for hire and picking up other company’s legitimately bookings, purporting to represent them.

1.3 The private hire company were previously licensed by Peterborough and operated from a location close to the city centre. The council’s licensing conditions were seen by them to be more robust than neighbouring authorities, who offered cheaper licence fees, allowed older vehicles, offered less stringent driver / vehicle testing and had a more relaxed approach to enforcement (see Para 1.15). In addition in 2008 the authority took steps to increase passenger and driver safety by introducing changes to their licensing conditions such as; NVQ training for drivers, permanently affixed private hire door stickers and proposed mandatory C.C.T.V. in all licensed vehicles. As a result the company approached a neighbouring council for the relevant licenses and moved their operation to a nearby village, which is situated approximately 4 miles from Peterborough City Centre and still has a Peterborough telephone number.

1.4 Their base of operation is a garage and the location does not have sufficient parking spaces (space for approximately 4 vehicles) to accommodate the growing number of vehicles they operate. The council in question do not require planning consent or sufficient space for parking as a condition of an operator’s licence and despite the lack of parking space at the location they place no limits on the number of vehicles the company operate. The company currently operates approximately 50 vehicles. In addition as they were previously licensed by Peterborough and draw their staff from the Peterborough community, all drivers are licensed by the other council from their Peterborough home addresses and allowed to work from their home address. In reality most of their drivers work predominately in Peterborough. The village has a population of 10000 and already had three established private hire operators working in the village before the company’s arrival.

1.5 Given that the company in question were historically a Peterborough Company, advertise that they are a Peterborough company, have a Peterborough phone number and the drivers live in that area, they are for all intent and purposes operating as a Peterborough company. As they are actually licensed by the other authority, they are able to enjoy lower running costs due to cheaper licensing fees and the ability to operate much older vehicles. From inspecting their record of bookings approximately 90% of their work involves a pick up and drop off within the Peterborough licensing area, with very few jobs recorded in their own licensing area.

1.6 We are regularly finding their vehicles parked in great numbers in Peterborough City Centre, predominately outside busy venues and known haunts for those private hire drivers willing to unlawfully ply for hire. (See Para 1.14) Peterborough conditions prevent their drivers from doing this, which has led to a number of occasions where Peterborough’s Enforcement Officers have been dealing with their licensed vehicles for breaching licensing conditions, yet powerless to deal with this company’s vehicle parked next to them. This has obviously increased the level of frustration experienced by Peterborough licensed drivers and officers.

1.7 In essence, the private hire company are knowingly exploiting a loop hole which allows them to work in Peterborough, on neighbouring council’s plates. The Peterborough trade are obviously upset at what they see as unfair competition, i.e. a company with much lower running costs operating in their area and able as a result to undercut local prices. This has led to a number of other Peterborough companies indicating that they are considering a similar move.

1.8 Despite the issues of concern being regularly highlighted with the neighbouring authority, they have been unwilling to take responsibility, carry out little enforcement and appear to be looking at it purely as an income generator, issuing a growing number of licenses, despite the growing problem their actions are causing in Peterborough.

1.9 In order to try and address the issue, local police and council officers have actively canvassed, applied pressure and to all intent and purpose, pleaded with their Huntingdon counterparts to assist and give them the tools necessary to address the issue. As a result we obtained a "Memorandum of Understanding" with Huntingdon, allowing Peterborough Enforcement Officers to check Huntingdon licensed vehicles for breaches of condition and also in addition pressurised Huntingdon to change their licensing conditions, requiring their drivers to return to their licensing district once they have dropped off their customer. However, in reality when our officers have identified issues and licensing breaches Huntingdon’s response has been luke warm to say the least.

1.10 It is also very apparent that that the neighbouring council employ a lower set of standards than Peterborough when determining whether a person is fit and proper to hold a licence. Given our primary role is to ensure that the public are safe when they travel in a licensed vehicle, licensing officers need to take all reasonable steps to ensure those granted a licence do not behave in such a manner that would impact on the safety of our residents. We are regularly finding ourselves in a position where we have revoked or refused a license due to a criminal conviction only to find that person later working in Peterborough, conveying the Peterborough public on a licence issued by the neighbouring council. In order to evidence the scale of the problem two examples are:

1.11 Driver A: This driver was previously licensed with Peterborough. Whilst driving during the early hours of the morning they hit something substantial in the road. The impact was sufficient to smash a headlight and side mirror. The driver failed to stop and investigate what they may have hit, did not contact Police and returned to Peterborough attempting to have the vehicle repaired. The driver had in fact hit a 19 year old soldier returning to barracks after a night out. The young soldier’s dead body was discovered in the morning. The driver was convicted of failing to stop following a road traffic collision and failing to report a road traffic accident. The driver received two six month sentences, was disqualified from two years and given 300 hours community service. Peterborough no longer licence the person deeming them not to be fit and proper. Despite disclosure from our authority, the other council deemed the driver to be fit and proper, granting him a licence which effectively allows him to convey the Peterborough public.

1.12 Driver B: We initially contacted this driver after receiving information that they had been charged with grievous bodily harm & harassment. On attending the office they played down the incident stating it was a family domestic dispute, the matter had got out of hand and the story was predominately fabricated and he was confident the matter wouldn’t even get to court. On investigating it transpires the other party was the fiancée. The driver had got into an argument with her and slammed a car door into her face, fracturing her nose and cheek bones. She required facial reconstruction surgery to repair the damage. During the trial, sentencing had to be adjourned after the driver lost his temper, threatening, abusing and intimidating witnesses. They were found guilty and received an 8 month sentence. We took the decision not to re-licence the driver and despite objections from Peterborough, the other council deemed the driver was fit and proper, granting a licence, allowing them to convey the Peterborough public.

1.13 These are by no means isolated incidents, we have discovered a number of their drivers were previously licensed by Peterborough and had lost their licence following convictions for such offences as unlawfully plying for hire, drink driving, drugs possession and violence. Despite our authority taking steps to protect the public from these people we find them conveying the Peterborough public in other council’s licensed vehicles.

1.14 We are in the process of prosecuting and have successfully prosecuted a number of licensed private hire drivers from the other council, for unlawfully plying for hire in Peterborough. These drivers were parked, plying for hire outside Peterborough venues. In addition we have reported a number of their vehicles found to be in breach of the condition requiring them to return to their licensing district on dropping off their customer.

1.15 It also appears that these licensed vehicles fall below the standard required in Peterborough. Over the last 12 months we have carried out a number of operations with Police and VOSA, where licensed vehicles were stopped in Peterborough by Police and escorted to the VOSA Test Station, where they were inspected by VOSA and Licensing Officers. During these operations it was commonplace for at least a quarter of all vehicle stopped to belong to the private hire company, many of which were issued with VOSA Prohibition Notices for numerous mechanical faults such as illegal tyres, steering and brake faults. On these occasions we have even found drivers did not hold the appropriate private hire driver’s licence and on one occasion the driver’s DVLA licence had actually been revoked.

2. Possible solutions:

2.1 There is a real and definite need to revamp taxi and private hire legislation. We work with legislation dating back to 1847 and 1976. In addition, licensing conditions differ from authority to authority. As in this case, two companies on either side of a licensing boundary, despite working in the same area, can be subjected to totally different conditions, charges and to differing levels of enforcement and monitoring, leading to unfair competition, placing one at a definite disadvantage. Most authorities would welcome a national standard of licensing conditions, so all companies operate to the same set of conditions, no matter where they are geographically operating.

2.2 If a driver or private hire company is generating the majority of work in one particular licensing area, as in this case where we have established that 90% of this company’s bookings involve a pick up and drop off in Peterborough, I feel that guidance should be in place to direct the company / driver to the particular licensing authority where they will predominately work.

2.3 Instead of relying on licensing conditions to return to licensing district on dropping off customers, it would be more appropriate to deal with this by way of legislation. As in this case, we have identified a number of their vehicles breaching this condition and when reported, the other authority finds it extremely difficulty to deal with the issue. If it was covered by legislation then the authority affected by the breach could deal with the issue themselves.

2.4 There should be a national standard when dealing with applicants with convictions that all authorities should work to. As it stands, despite taking steps to ensure the Peterborough public are protected from drivers we deem are unfit, on revoking licences we find them driving in Peterborough on other council’s plates, as they work to standards which fall below that of our authority.

December 2010