Issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles

Written evidence from Allan Anslow (TPH 62)

1. Opening statement

1.1. This document addresses the issue of cross border hiring. In particular the significant negative impact that the dated legislation has on employment and the valuable council officer time wasted in dealing with outdated issues that give no added protection to the public. There is also a considerable adverse impact on the environment.

1.2. It will rebut false assumptions that have already been expressed to the committee both in writing and orally.

1.3. It will give further evidence to the committee gained from a Freedom of Information request and advice from Queens Counsel.

1.4. The conclusion will suggest a licensing model similar to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. This would allow local authorities to cater for local need and at the same time permit an open market. Cross border hiring would not exist as an issue.

1.5. I would be willing to attend to give oral evidence if the committee feels that I can assist further.

2. Rebuttal of false assumptions

2.1. I am a retired licensing officer formerly with Wealden District Council (WDC). I currently have an active role assisting a Private Hire Operator named Road Runners that operates from a base in Horley. This is in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (R&B) licensing area which abutts both Sutton and Croydon in the Greater London Council (GLC) area where different legislation applies. Road Runners holds licences for these premises with both (WDC) and (R&B) councils. (R&B) has submitted written evidence labelled (TPH 43). in which reference is made to (WDC) without naming it at paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6.

2.2. Wealden District Council is also critically referred to in the written evidence of the GMB trade union labelled GMB (TPH 20) at paragraphs 5 and 6. They are further referred to as an example of bad practice, by representatives of the GMB, in the oral evidence taken on 18th January 2011, in particular to a response to question 17. by Mr Iain Stewart .

2.3. I can not speak on behalf of Wealden District Council, however, I was the lead licensing officer with that council when the decision was taken to license operators outside the council area. In coming to that decision the council first took written advice from James T.H. BUTTON BA, Solicitor, MIL, Mclarb. This written advice was consistent with his published view stated at page 450 Chapter 12.146 in his latest publication entitled Button on Taxis Licensing Law and practice, a reference work that is used widely by licensing officers nationally. Whilst this can be no more than an opinion, there being no case law, it is at least one he is prepared to publish. I am not aware of any published peer contradiction to his view which is as follows, Quote: -The Act makes it clear that it 'foresees operators as not only having more than one address, but also those addresses do not necessarily have to be within the area of the council. Provided that the licence accurately reflects the address outside the district'.

2.4. Whilst his view is an important indicator from a solicitor specialising in 'taxi' licensing law, Wealden District Council then briefed a Queens Counsel operating from chambers specialising in licensing law. He gave the stronger advice that it would in fact not be lawful for a council to refuse to grant a private hire operator licence solely on the grounds of where the premises were situated.

2.5. These are two powerfully reasoned views and need to be considered alongside others that are held locally by either licensing officers or the legal team advising them.

2.6. In the light of this compelling advice the council continued to license operators outside of the area but also took steps to ensure that enforcement levels would remain consistently high. Visits to these operators continued to be regular. An example of good practice in the light of this advice, was set up by me with Road Runners, the company that I now support. They were at the time and continue to use the latest computerised vehicle tracking and booking systems and allowed (WDC) unfettered access to their records via secure internet login. Full records can be checked live, at any time, including current locations, driver status, insurance, M.O.T. Etc. by any of the licensing officers at (WDC) either from the office or their laptops. This sensible use of modern technology was offered to and rejected by (R&B) and other local authorities relevant at that time. Other good practices were also established in relation to this and other operators outside the area.

3. Further evidence

3.1. In my current support role, and in order to represent Road Runners against overtures by (R&B) that the company was acting illegally with regard to cross border hiring, I asked a Freedom of Information request of all (328) licensing authorities. The answers to the question established how many licensing authorities were issuing private hire operator licences to premises outside of their area and also had that been their policy for at least three years.

· 328 emails were sent asking if they licensed properties outside their area

· 164 Replied that they do not licence outside of area

· 81 Replied that they do licence outside of area

· 7 Replies were vague and could not be added to either or both of the above

· 75 Failed to reply within the statutory period

· 1 email was returned as failed.

3.2. It is disappointing that so many authorities failed to respond within the legal time frame which requires a response to be prompt and in any case within twenty days. However the figures are statistically significant and can be extrapolated to suggest that one third of all authorities licence premises outside of their area. Nationally this would mean at least 100 authorities.

3.4. I set up a unique email address to deal with this enquiry and catalogued the replies within that email address. I would be willing to make the data available by giving access to this email address if the committee feel that would be helpful. I also had many telephone conversations with licensing officers nationally (not recorded) who were having similar problems with the legislation.

3.5. I arranged for the proprietor of Road Runners to brief the same Queens Counsel used by Wealden District Council at para 2.4. above and asked essentially the same question with, as expected, exactly the same response i.e. a local authority could not lawfully refuse applications solely on the issue of where the company was in fact operating. Again he gave compelling argument and added more recent case law in support of his view. I am willing to be questioned orally on this advice or indeed make it available to be read at such a hearing but do not wish for it to be publicly available in written form as it was purchased at conventional costs. Officers from Reigate and Banstead Council were made aware of the name of the barrister and his chambers together with the generality of the advice.

3.6. The situation with Reigate and Banstead Council has stabilised on this issue at great time and expense to both parties.

4. Impact on employment, the environment and wasted officer time

4.1. Road Runners is a progressive company that utilises the latest technology and communication methods and would like to expand. In doing so it would create more jobs and of course increase revenue to the benefit of themselves and local economies. To expand into new areas is currently not viable because work could not be passed from one office to the other even if they were potentially only hundreds of yards apart. I am currently advising that they should consider premises within London so that they would fall within the scope of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. where ,Section 5. 1. (b). brushes aside all of these cross border concerns. In principle that can not be right.

4.2. The issues highlighted in para 3. above demonstrates the inestimable time spent, both by officers of the council and businesses, in trying to adapt this dated legislation to the twenty first century. I have personal experience of the time I spent as a licensing officer on this issue, together with the time spent since retirement with officers from other licensing authorities. This is repeated in almost every one of the 300 plus authorities when they spend time supporting or defending their particular stance. In the current financial climate local authorities and businesses can not afford so much wasted time especially as it results in inconsistencies that offer no benefit to the travelling public who, in the main are unaware of these differences. It benefits no one to explore or exploit these inadequacies.

4.3. Many of the larger companies now utilise tracking technology with their fleet and will try to send the nearest appropriate vehicle to the customer. This has obvious benefits to the customer, who will get a faster response time but it also helps to reduce operating costs. This results in lower prices and reduced mileage with the consequent substantially decreased carbon footprint. Currently this often can not be done. For an example I will use the one offered in the GMB document(TPH 20) para.5. Where amongst other things false statements are made regarding standards.

Road Runners holds operator licenses at Haywards Heath railway station office with both Wealden District Council and the local geographical authority Mid Sussex Council. ALL vehicles of the company are sign written, with some licensed to Mid Sussex, some to Reigate and Banstead and some to Wealden. A customer chooses to walk into the company's Haywards Heath office because they prefer the service of the company. At the time they walk in, all Mid Sussex licensed vehicles used by the company are engaged and not free for some time. However there is a Road Runners Reigate and Banstead licensed vehicle dropping off a customer at the station and the customer can see it. That 'job' can not be passed from the Haywards Heath office to the Horley office because to do so would constitute cross border hiring. The customer has to either ring the Horley office or find another provider. He or she can not ask the vehicle that has just arrived because it can not accept as to do so would be considered as plying for hire. How does that best serve the customer?

5. Conclusion

5.1. There is general agreement nationally that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is now out of touch with modern practices and communication methods. Two simple examples are the Internet and Mobile phones, neither of which existed in 1976. It would be another eleven years before Motorola launched the first mobile phone approved network and a further eight years until Microsoft introduced the first universal computer operating system. SMS or texting as it is commonly known, was launched in Finland in 1993. Even the word address has new meanings with web address and email address as two examples. The mobile phone, texts and the computer are the major communication methods in use today, not just in the UK but across the world. A booking can as easily be made from a beach in South Africa, a mountain in Nepal or the house next door, with video if desired. Much has changed since 1976 when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and Concorde made its maiden flight. Recognition needs to be given to those changes.

5.2. Hackney carriages in general provide an essential, immediate, standard, non personal and anonymous service on a first come first served basis. I acknowledge that there has been some controversy about their use for private hire.

5.3. By contrast and by definition the use of private hire vehicles involves pre booking. This gives the operator and or driver ample time to research routes and destinations. The customer is given a quote for the journey and has the opportunity to 'shop around'. A substantial amount of the work is on a repeat basis and is achieved through brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Comprehensive customer data bases ensures a personal service from the outset. Smaller operators achieve the same objective albeit with pencil and paper. Sub contracting work has not been an issue in London. In the case of Road Runners, a company operating across more than one licensing area, the customer would actually be using the same brand service that they chose and would get the nearest available appropriate vehicle. The company already complies with all of the conditions imposed by each local authority and this could continue.

5.4. I recommend the inclusion of a subsection into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 similar to that at Section 5. 1. b. Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. This simple short term measure could be added reasonably quickly and would regularise the position Nationally. This would save considerable council officer time and expense and at the same allow legitimate entrepreneurial opportunities to be taken that at the moment are only available in London. The environmental benefits have already been stated. The general overhaul of the legislation should continue but with the acknowledgement that this will take some considerable time, given the need to fit it into a legislative programme.

February 2011