Issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles

Written evidence from Norwich Hackney Trade Association (TPH 38)

1. My Association has asked me to respond on its behalf to the inquiry you are just beginning.

2. There are two issues that we would wish to comment on at this time. The first is that of "cross border hiring"; and the second to the lack of a general review of legislation relating to the carriage of paying passengers.

Cross Border Hiring

3. The experience of the Norwich hackney carriage and private hire trades has shown that the current legal framework, as established by statute and subsequent case law, fails to work efficiently or equitably.

4. Norwich is a compact city with a suburban fringe. Norwich City Council administers the city, whilst the fringe falls within the remits either of Broadland District Council or South Norfolk Council.

5. The public record shows that the licensing framework adopted by the city was, and remains, stricter and slightly more expensive than that used by either of the two more rural districts.

6. About twenty years ago an individual applied to the city council for a private hire operator’s licence. The council investigated and the application was rejected, on the basis of personal history making that person not a fit and proper one for the purpose. That person then negotiated with and applied to Broadland, and was accepted as a private hire operator. The person then set up shop in premises twenty yards outside the city boundary. Wherever the office and legal authority was situated, the purpose all along was to serve customers from the "greater-Norwich" area. (The person in question, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer involved in the hackney or private hire trades.)

7. We have been advised that there is no legal restriction on the private hire or hackney trades that prevents them from accepting and executing a pre-booked job anywhere, even outside its own district. (The only restriction seems to be that the operator’s licence, the vehicle licence and the driver’s licence must be issued by the same licensing authority.)

8. One consequence of this situation concerns the role of licensing and enforcement officers. If a private hire vehicle and its driver engages in illegal activity in a district other than his or her own, which council’s officers have the supervisory role? I have been told by a senior city licensing officer that, if he approaches an out-of-town driver, that driver is under no obligation to answer questions. It follows that to achieve adequate supervision licensing officers from Broadland, for example, would have to routinely appear in the city’s and South Norfolk’s area.

9. Those private hire operators (and vehicle owners and drivers) who licence themselves in Norwich, accepting the stricter regime and higher supervision, find themselves competing with companies and individuals enjoying advantages. This cannot be equitable.

10. Over the years a plethora of companies, some private hire and some hackney, have set themselves up outside the city in order to take advantage of this legal laxity.

11. The general public, of course, cannot be expected to understand the complexity of taxi and private hire law. But with this confused state of enforcement, there must be unacceptable risks to individuals.

12. The legal position needs clarification and amendment, along lines that can be effectively policed.

13. My Association’s considered solution is that a pre-booked job, whether executed by a hackney or private hire vehicle, must, in a bona fide fashion, either begin or finish (or both) within the district that the operator, vehicle and driver are licensed. This would mean that that the operation could be supervised either wholly or in part by the relevant licensing officers. Exceptions might be appropriate, such as for transport contracted to a local authority, where the supervision is adequately undertaken by the authority’s own staff.

14. In addition, we should like to see the competence of licensing officers, and their prosecuting colleagues, expanded to allow action against out-of-town operations. An example might be where a South Norfolk vehicle was observed picking up in the city and then dropping off elsewhere within the city boundary.

Legislative framework

15. The statutory framework of taxi law is in two parts – for London and for the rest of the county. My Association accepts that, despite the public and even trade confusion this creates, the nature and scale of the trades is so different as to justify the separation.

16. The trade in the rest of the country is based upon the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as variously amended. Other acts have come along: the Public Health Act 1875; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts 1953, 1976 and 1982; amongst many others.

17. In addition there has been much case law, some of which, though it may have resolved particular legal situations, frankly has served to create great confusion and inequity within the trades.

18. During the Major government years, a consultation was started aimed at a review of the whole field of taxi law. This initiative petered out. Then near the start of the Blair government another consultation was held with a similar purpose. Again, this disappeared into the ether.

19. The current, basic legal framework is necessarily silent on many of the factors and technical developments that have had hugely substantial effects on the hackney carriage trade and other trades with which we compete. Examples are computerisation, mobile ‘phones and "limousines".

20. My Association therefore agues that another attempt should be made at reviewing the law governing transport available for paying passengers, which would obviously include taxis (perhaps moving away from the legal term "hackney carriage"), general private hire cars, mini buses with hired drivers, specialist vehicles supplied with drivers, and so on.

Conclusion

21. We thank you for beginning this inquiry and making provision for us to send our comments. We look forward to further developments.