Issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles

Written evidence from South Sefton Hackney Driver's Association (TPH 32)

1. Only hire by physically requesting (hailing) a taxi was controlled until 1976. This is also described as hire at once or as soon as possible, - "public hire". Journeys booked in other ways ("private" hire) were uncontrolled until 1976.

2. A journey booked in advance, "Please take Miss Alice Keppel to Windsor Great Park on Thursday afternoon", is now controlled by the 1976 Act. There is no distinction however, between: "Please take Miss Keppel as soon as you get here" and "Please take Miss Keppel tomorrow".

3. A private hire contract is distinguished by its manner of request (by telephone) not it’s functionality. Miss Keppel may wait the same length of time when walking to hail a cab as after telephoning.

4. Public hire has always been licensed by area of operation. The functionality of this being the driver’s local knowledge; and (in the 19th century at least) the then demographics.

5. There has never been any attempt to suggest that a transport journey is limited by a local political boundary; excepting only the making of a contract for the "public hire" by a taxi, the length and direction of the journey being a matter of agreement. In London a driver may expand knowledge and acquire a licence for an enlarged area in which he can ply for hire, why not e.g., on Merseyside? Local authorities should facilitate this.

6. The reason for the starting point of the "private hire" journey not being limited by geography is that there is time to consider a route. Commercial commonsense is that a vehicle should not have to start its journey only in one locality, especially if charged for only from the point at which passengers embark elsewhere.

7. The rationale therefore of limiting a transport business to a local political boundary is one of driver’s knowledge, but only where immediate ‘public hire’ transport is requested and limited by the driver’s local knowledge.

8. In Sefton the 1976 Act has always been understood to allow a public hire vehicle to operate inside its licensed area as a hackney and as a PHV outside its licensed area. Also that a PHV could work anywhere but only through an operator licensed by the same authority as the vehicle. In the early 1990s Liverpool city council prosecuted a Sefton MBC PHV driver for working (through an operator), and waiting for work, while in Liverpool city. Liverpool lost. In Sefton the PHV companies expected this; experience and a reading of the Act supported the outcome. It is elsewhere that the 1976 Act was not understood, or accepted.

9. It was not until the local authority in "Berwick" [2008 EWHC 2368 (Admin)] sought advice to cock a snook at life that the hackney carriage provisions were exploited by a licensing body for wider if uncertain reasons. A resulting court action caused Berwick to publish a new policy. This recognises that a local authority can and should take account of the effects of its policy on other areas. In the case of licensing a taxi and its operation this seems to be regarded as a novel idea? ["Berwick’s" idea exploited the provision that a hackney working as a PHV does not need to work for an operator with the same area licence and that in freely issuing licences they could e.g. therefore be used as a PHV in Penzance.]

10. This action was followed by one brought by ‘Stockton’ [2010 EWHC 2430 (Admin)]; both cases read together confirm the intent of legislation: that a hackney is restricted to its licensed area when carrying out "public hire" functions only; the enforcement lobby seemingly failed to understand the 1976 Act.

11. Is there any rational reason why a PHV firm cannot sub-contract to another firm licensed elsewhere; Miss Keppel can ask her travel agent to arrange a PHV at Ascot, or ask her local hackney firm to so, but she cannot ask her local PHV firm in her home area of Windsor to make the arrangements.

12. The practice of hackneys undertaking pre booked (PHV type) contracts anywhere has been followed by hackney cabs in Sefton in any event.

13. Liverpool City hackney firms have contracts with Sefton MBC, as well as with others in the private sphere in the Sefton borough.

14. Hackney cab firms pass jobs between each other at times.

15. Sefton PHV firms carry out contract work for Liverpool City council.

16. The vehicles from both trades carry out work that is booked other than by public hire in each others licensed area, as envisaged by the legislation; neither "recent" case has altered this practice.

17. Any change in current law and practice requiring PHVs (or hackneys carrying out pre – booked contracts) to work from a political boundary will adversely affect the Sefton hackney trade.

18. Most Liverpool licensed hackneys when returning to Liverpool through Sefton during the evening appear to do so with their "Hire" light on.

19. Mode of hire apart the difference between the trades is that a PHV operator is licensed; that was not thought necessary for hackneys in 1976, this remains the case except that simply by requiring a hackney working as a PHV to have an operator whose licensor is that of the vehicle will avoid the "Berwick" scenario. The practice of a hackney being able to return for a fare on its own account should remain, to protect the small one / two person firm or husband and wife team.

20. Locally there may be pressure on the Liverpool regulators who have to pay for failed litigation to restrict the choice of hackney vehicle. It is believed that local licence fees will have to pay for that (hundreds of thousands).

21. In short there is no reason to organise transport so as to follow a local political boundary; it is tried in Scotland by PHV regulation, where anecdotal reports indicate unenforceability in any event.

22. It is quite clear that local authorities can co-operate if they need to. It could be made easier for this by establishment of local areas of interest where demographics require. There are existing "taxi zones" but these are primarily based on historic political boundaries and are of regulatory (in) convenience only, they could sensibly be directed toward areas where cross border activity is significant and as in the case of Sefton where the demographics (and demand) show a clear affinity with its neighbour. .

23. It is of economic interest for Sefton hackneys to have fewer PHVs to compete with; it is not logical to achieve this by local electoral boundaries, the licence holders very often don’t live in the licensed area in any event.

24. Individual drivers suffer because fleets depend mainly on fixed income from vehicles - "rental" for working for the firm or operator. Oversupply is not controlled by availability of trade; drivers are squeezed by reduction in takings – unacceptable elsewhere.

25. This reference to the select committee primarily arose through "Unite" protesting at the level of private hire work undertaken by Sefton MBC PHV licensed vehicles in Liverpool city; the firm to which its primary ire is directed admits to exercising a monopoly (appropriate consideration could be given to this?); see Appendix 5 at page 68 paragraphs 11.97 to 11.105 of:

http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/CeListDocuments.aspx?CommitteeId=124&MeetingId=2966&DF=04%2f09%2f2006&Ver=2

This is a four year old document; however, the firm mentioned now has 1700 vehicles, the majority working / operated outside the borough of Sefton, predominately in Liverpool city.

26. There are 271 Sefton MBC licensed hackneys of which about 120 almost exclusively work in the Southport area of north Sefton, 150 remaining near the border with Liverpool city.

27. Areas that maintain a limit on hackney numbers do so by undertaking a statistical study, or survey, periodically. In Sefton it was recently found that on a scale (devised by the survey company) of 1 to 80, the Sefton fleet was at 2; 80 being at the end of the scale requiring more vehicles.

28. These studies are paid for by a small levy on licence fees (Sefton MBC operates a large surplus); the studies could extend to PHVs. These could be monitored across the local political boundary into areas which include actual operation. A mechanism to monitor the statistical and factual validity of such studies would be similarly self funding. Presently only the "public hire" function of a hackney is measured.

29. At least any over supply, and other methods of hire could then be quantified. It is with the use of these mechanisms that a simple statistical check could become available to measure supply and stability for individual drivers, and the public, preventing oversupply, and possibly facilitating numerical control.

Section B, pages 4-6

Other areas of concern

30. Bad law:

a. A long lead time is essential, this consultation is too short, and one that has just ended on the conversion of vehicles was too short. Consultation will carry the trade and get a better result. Do not draft proposals as presumptions.….we then get something that may work?

b. Any change recommended following this exercise should similarly be given time for consideration; many trade groups have no secretariat or funding.

31. Rank provision

a. Presently ranks may be appointed, S 63 of the 1976 Act. This should be amended to read "shall be appointed where reasonably required, having regard to the use of a locality, and maybe appointed for certain periods of the day only, commensurate with commercial usage and activity".

b. Authorities issuing licences will thereby take responsibility to facilitate their use.

c. Power should be taken to require retail and leisure developments to provide statutory ranks. Developers locally kindly provide facilities, these are better when statutory; they can be moved on request, or removed on a change or modification of planning consent.

d. S110 (5) of the County of Merseyside Act provides that "for the purpose of S 53 of the 1847 Act "street" shall include any air or sea terminus, and approaches thereto, any car park, any hotel forecourt and any unenclosed land within 6 metres of a street" – with a saving against a hackney "standing for hire" in a local authority metered spot!

e. This provision of S 110 (5) the County of Merseyside Act 1980 should be adopted universally, to avoid PHVs forming ranks as public hire vehicles.

32. Travel Interchanges

a. Ranks should be provided at all travel interchanges, rail, bus, coach, port, and air, for all local hackneys, if there are none or too few in the area of the facility then licensing authorities should be required to stipulate / cooperate and decide which authorities’ vehicles should be licensed for that facility; this problem occurs primarily at provincial airports.

b. There should be no toll or charge, for any rank. Any existing contractual monopoly should cease at the expiration of the current period.

33. Two trades?

a. It seems the suggestion of a one tier system is to be brought up again. Objection has been successful in the past to merging PHV and hackney trades, with the "public hire" aspect limited to areas of tested knowledge. The trades’ opinion of this proposal is known.

b. In this scenario one vehicle performs "public hire" (without re-defining the phrase) functions in areas for which the driver is licensed and PHV functions anywhere, through an operator

c. However, a purpose built vehicle was developed to protect the driver. There have been about 40 "taxi/PHV" driver murders in the last 15 years, but only 1 of a driver in a vehicle with a separate compartment – this was a firearm offence which a compartment would not prevent. The purpose built vehicle has many other attributes which we support, it should remain, we need a basic vehicle, the TX1 engine, for example, was ideal, it is reliable, replacement has proved costly. We need no more expense, particularly in the present climate.

d. If there were a change to one regime the purpose built vehicle should be mandatory. Additionally the practice of holding periodic, statistically valid, studies, or surveys, for numerical control should be universal, at least provincially. Results should bind the licensing authority. This control should apply to both trades if they remain separate.

34. Equality Act:

a. We all want disabled custom. Criminalising the manner of carriage is totally unacceptable however.

b. DfT has admitted that there are no figures to show which, if any, wheelchairs are at a disadvantage carried in existing vehicles and none to show which wheelchairs can be restrained. Nevertheless there are proposals to compel the redesign of purpose built cabs at a time when the cost to the trade is unacceptable.

c. The purpose built vehicle familiar to all is described in 29 (c) above and has developed as safety protection for the driver; it is co-incidental that it could have differently opening doors to facilitate a wheelchair. But for this chance evolution it would not occur to regulators that, in the UK alone, a hackney is wheelchair friendly.

d. Incurring large expense to use converted vans whose parts and converters will not last the required vehicle lifetime is called into question. These vehicles should remain purely optional only.

35. Enforcement

a. Officers recently opined that contesting an action risks punitive "costs", that these are now relevant to achieving justice is objectionable especially at this level. That an authority should use counsel at the defendant’s expense in a magistrate’s court matter is unacceptable, particularly in a licensing matter which may be of no significant criminality to the wider public. Local authorities may appear by authorised officers in these matters in any event.

b. The use of fixed penalty tickets would be unacceptable, affordable adjudications are the priority. We need to revert to an affordable remit to concerned magistrates, and less offences being enacted!

c. Issuing fixed penalties is a ‘tick box’ exercise for an enforcement officer. Presently even if there is an ‘exercise’ to catch out of area cabs plying for hire each prosecution must be specifically authorised. It is difficult to see why the criteria in S 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 should not apply, which would approximate to local policy in Sefton.

d. A fixed penalty system would transform enforcement from a co-operative to a combatative regime.

36. Section 61 of the 1976 Act (as amended by S 52 of the Road Safety Act 2006).

Misuse of this section causes concern, driver licence suspension before appeal for a parking matter does not need elaboration?

37. Advertisements;

Section 31 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows use of the word "taxi" in reference to a hackney carriage only; the section should be of national application.

34 Safety:

Safety is best achieved by use of the purpose built vehicle. Universality, may be prohibitively expensive, in relation to PHV capital costs, note the volume of saloon (PHV) incidents however. Paragraphs 29 (c) & 30 (c) above refer.

35 Local authority governance:

a. Sefton MBC has a joint trade committee; it meets regularly with officials and has minuted discussion. There is an annual formal meeting with elected members.

b. Councillors are anxious to discharge their statutory functions under the legislation, are open minded and conscientious, an exchange of views is welcomed. This model is commended.

December 2010