P1/1: Introduction – Where we are today in 2025
In consideration of where the private-hire trade is today, with the total loss of Local Licensing Control that was granted by Parliament in the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, Part II’, and the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’. The Department of Transport, with its piecemeal approach to its ‘Best Practice Guides’ should now completely takeover the licensing of private-hire vehicles and private-hire drivers.
It is either that or address the major issue, which is the total loss of Local Licensing Control and hand it back to Local Licensing Authorities who are there for the protection of public safety without any grey areas that would be exploited.
Since the 2015 Deregulation Act, ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ as it has been commonly known, has seen a huge increase in mainly private-hire vehicles/drivers predominantly working in areas other than the actual area the vehicle and driver are licensed in. However, it has been misunderstood as to what the 2015 Act was in fact about. This was mainly to clarify what is known as the ‘Triple Lock’ where three specific licences must be in place for a booking to be legal.
These being: The Operator Licence, the Vehicle Licence and the Driver Licence which must all be matching the same local authority issued licences.
Some have mistakenly thought that the 2015 Deregulation Act suddenly made ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ legal. This was not the case; it just defined the legal requirement for ‘Sub-Contracting’ between taxi/cab companies where ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ between different Licensing Authorities may take place.
It must be noted however that ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ has always been in place and is a natural part of transportation between areas and taxi/private-hire companies could not exist without it. In fact, the current Labour government has confirmed this point many times. So, the term ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ has unfortunately been greatly misused and misunderstood and does not describe the current issue correctly.
The 2015 Deregulation Act clarification set in place that where ‘Operator 1’ in one area sub-contracts to another Operator in the same or a different area that the accepting sub-contracting ‘Operator 2’ must only use drivers/vehicles under the same licences that it holds to fulfil that sub-contracted job.
Although very oddly, it was never set in legislation that the company that the customer originally booked with was obliged to inform the customer if and when that booking was sub-contracted to another company. This is much like ordering a MacDonalds burger on a food delivery app and being provided with a Burger King burger. Whilst both being burgers, not being the brand the customer wanted.
P1/2: Cross-Border Hiring is not the issue
The real issue is ‘Predominant Out of Area Working’ or ‘POAW’ which should not be confused with ‘Cross Border Hiring’.
‘POAW’ has had the effect of the total eradication of ‘Local Licensing Control’ that was given to local authorities by Parliament under the ‘1976 Local Government Miscellaneous Act’ after many years of the then unlicensed private-hire trade never being licensed for Operators, drivers or vehicles. Those days have been described as being the ‘Wild West’. Unfortunately, the ‘Wild West’ has returned.
Note that hackney carriage taxis do not need to work under an Operator as the hackney carriage vehicle licence is the Operator licence.
However, with the massive change to the tax/private-hire trade since the 2015 Deregulation Act that has primarily been caused and encouraged by Uber, local councils, as the regulator within a licensing area, can now no longer be relied on to ensure that the safety of passengers is under its power of control. That power of control has been eradicated leaving Local Licensing Authorities disapproving and helpless.
The passengers themselves are mostly oblivious to the situation being that the private-hire vehicle/driver they are provided with is nowadays highly likely not locally licensed in the area that the customer made the booking in.
Whether the customers care or not is subject to the consequences of trying to make a complaint and obtaining CCTV data (where available) if needed. For example, if you have a complaint in Brighton & Hove about a private-hire or hackney carriage driver one would expect to report this to Brighton & Hove Licensing as directed on the council’s website.
However, if you get an Uber in Brighton & Hove for example there is only around a one-in-five chance that you will be sent a Brighton & Hove licensed private-hire driver/vehicle (with B&H council-controlled CCTV) based on the predominance of private-hire drivers/vehicles working in the city from Lewes DC, Southampton, Portsmouth, Chichester, Havant, Fareham far outnumbering the locally licensed drivers/vehicles. Are the public literally being ‘Taken for ride’.
Exactly the same scenario is repeated throughout the country.
This means that such a private-hire vehicle/driver provided is not likely to be under the control of Local Licensing Enforcement in the area that the customer has ordered one in, and could in fact be licensed hundreds of miles away ‘Out-of-Sight & Out-of- Mind’ of the drivers/vehicle own respective Licensing Enforcement.
The ‘Triple Lock’ does make this legal and such a driver/vehicle remotely working hundreds of miles away from respective Local Licensing Enforcement is not currently acting illegally.
But is that beneficial to the customer?
However, with Wolverhampton infamously issuing forty-thousand plus licences under its ever so efficient streamlining licensing service it can clearly be seen that there is a major problem for other local authorities where these Wolverhampton private-hire drivers/cars are predominantly working. As such local authorities have no authority over these vehicles.
Note that it has been suggested that all Licensing Authorities should have the power of authority over all private-hire vehicle/drivers with ‘concordat’ arrangement between Licensing Authorities in other areas. However, this is impractical as the efficiency of individual Licensing Departments greatly varies from area to area. Even to the extent that the majority of such Licensing Departments do not even have a dedicated team of Licensing Officers specifically only dealing with taxi and private-hire licensing and with odd interpretations of Legislation.
It is common that many Licensing Departments deal with the numerous various aspects of licensing from sex shops to poodle parlours with private-hire/taxi licensing thrown in and dealt with on a casual part-time basis.
Where Wolverhampton has ‘streamlined’ the licensing process can either be regarded as diminishing Local Licensing Enforcement or being extremely efficient in its processing system. It can be viewed either way depending on one’s view and whether one is directly affected.
A good illustration of where this situation causes a problem, and using Wolverhampton again as a prime example, is where Wolverhampton does not have compulsory CCTV and has left the installation of CCTV to the decision of the proprietor of the vehicle. It should be noted that the proprietor of the vehicle in this case is then the Data Controller and not Wolverhampton council and the driver/proprietor has full access to the recorded data. This is the same where other councils, including London, have not made CCTV a compulsory condition of licence,
In the case of Brighton & Hove and other areas where CCTV is a compulsory condition of licence, the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) has deemed that any council that makes CCTV a condition of licence will be the Data Controller of the CCTV system and not the proprietor of the vehicle. This means that the driver/proprietor has no access to the recorded data.
Licensing Authorities such as Brighton and Hove have had compulsory council-controlled CCTV for many years and in place for the safety of the passengers and the drivers. This in reality means that a Wolverhampton of TfL private-hire vehicle could currently predominantly work in Brighton & Hove without compulsory CCTV.
But is that beneficial to the customer? Is that fair to the locally licensed drivers/proprietors in Licensing Authorities that have CCTV as a compulsory condition of licence who have spent £700 (which is ongoing) for CCTV systems?
So, different licensing authorities have different conditions of licensing which may or may not include a topographical ‘Knowledge Test’ or perhaps a weaker one or where one Licensing Authority has compulsory CCTV, but the LA next door does not as previously explained. Other examples could be where there is a lower standard vehicle requirement or where a specific vehicle livery is in place.
Very certainly there are ‘out of town’ private-hire vehicles predominantly working in Brighton & Hove that the local Licensing Department would refuse to licence based on size and age.
In the example of Brighton & Hove where a private-hire proprietor wants to have a five-seater+ vehicle, the conditions are that this must be a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) and these are very expensive. Yet there are many five-seater+ ‘out-of-town cars’ that predominantly work there that do not have such a condition of licence.
There is also the condition of vehicle licence that a Brighton & Hove private-hire vehicle may not be white so not to be confused with a Brighton & Hove hackney carriage which is also white in colour (albeit with aqua boots and bonnets). Yet there are many ‘out-of-town’ private-hire vehicles working under Uber that are white.
This is the undermining of Local Licensing Control. Is that fair to the local licensed drivers in Brighton & Hove?
The current situation where private-hire drivers/vehicles predominantly, and one could say blatantly, work in an area other than their respective licensing area has not only undermined Local Authorities, but is now having the effect of fewer local licences being applied for in areas of higher licensing requirements based on the principle of ‘Why bother attaining a higher requirement for a licence in Area ‘A’ when I can get a licence elsewhere much easier in Area ‘B’ and then predominantly work in Area ‘A’. There is also the added bonus of not have respective Licensing Enforcement breathing down one’s neck!
In very recent years the Brighton & Hove taxi/private hire trade have submitted nearing two-hundred reports to the Lewes, Chichester, Portsmouth, Southampton & Havant Licensing Departments for breaches of respective licensing conditions. Such infringements as missing rear licence plates/door signs of those private-hire vehicles predominantly working in the city including using taxi ranks. This is an ongoing weekly event of reports as those councils are unable to provide remote Licensing Enforcement on their licensed drivers and vehicles, a situation that will continue until such drivers and vehicles are prohibited from predominantly out of area working. No doubt such breaches of local licensing conditions are the same throughout the country.
P1/3: Gatwick Airport - TfL drivers and the two Acts
The situation at Gatwick Airport is quite ludicrous as private-hire drivers/cars licensed by ‘Transport for London’(TfL) predominantly work there specifically making themselves available for hire within the Uber provided waiting areas, as encouraged by Uber.
This is ludicrous as these TfL private-hire drivers/cars are under the control of the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’ and yet are predominantly working at Gatwick and other areas where the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976’ is in force.
It has also been reported that Wolverhampton private-hire drivers/cars that are controlled under the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976’ are predominantly working in London making themselves available for hire where the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’ is in force.
Is ‘ludicrous’ even adequate to describe this situation?
P1/4: What about using existing legislation?
Absolutely! The issue however is that whilst there is legislation in place that ultimately protects localism, being the right for local authorities to have full control over the activities of licensed drivers and vehicles, to date…no local authority has had the courage, and indeed the pockets deep enough to go to court to protect their residents… and quite frankly shame on all two-hundred & sixty-odd of them… including my own LA Brighton & Hove.
Gerrard Gouriet KC is a leading barrister advising and appearing in court for applicant and objectors, resident associations, local authorities and the police stated in a 2018 interview:
“Even in circumstances that are otherwise lawful, a PHV operator who knowingly sends drivers in his fleet to work in remote areas exclusively or predominantly, is vulnerable to having his licence revoked or refused renewal under section 62(1)(d) of the 1976 Act, on the ground that he undermines local licensing control. The threat to public safety (let alone the affront to local control) in the use of drivers who ‘shop’ to be licensed by authorities that demand only the lowest standards, so that they can work in an area where standards are higher but licences more difficult to obtain, is ample demonstration of “reasonable cause”. At least one PHV operator has been known to steer potential drivers to licensing authorities with minimal licensing criteria and low licensing fees.”
Gerrard Gouriet KC profile
https://tinyurl.com/gerrard-gouriet-kc
Gerrard Gouriet 2018 interview
https://tinyurl.com/gerrard-gouriet-kc-interview
See Reference
P1/5: Depriving Local Licensing Authorities of Licence Fee Income
A major issue is that the dominance of ‘POAW’ deprives a local authority of the licensing fees that are needed to sustain an efficient Licensing Department. That is unless the local licence fees paid by the local licensed trade are increased to make up the loss.
Is that fair to the local licence trade?
It should be noted that all Licence Fees are ‘Ring Fenced’ and must not be used for any other purpose.
It has been questioned as to why current legislation has not been used to prohibit licensed drivers/vehicles not working in the areas they are licensed in from predominantly making themselves available for hire in other areas?
The issue here is down to interpretation of Legislation where one side of the trade is (quite rightly) convinced that there is clear and adequate provision within existing legislation, but where to date this has not been challenged in court. That would be down to the costs involved.
Unfortunately, local councils do not have deep enough pockets or quite likely do not consider it in the public interest to prosecute a driver/operator under current Legislation that would need time and money to establish the written meaning or even possibly the fear of taking on a multi-billion-dollar global entity.
So, where the battle continues with local Licensing Authorities to take action under current legislation that is not happening..... isn’t it time to now to ‘Think out of the box?
P1/6: Knowsley V Delta 2018 – A missed opportunity
In 2018 Knowsley Council made an error in applying an 'Intended Use Policy'‟ to the driver Licence and not the vehicle Licence and infamously lost the case on this basis with the defending barrister famously quoting the ‘Right to Roam‟.
Summary by Gerald Gouriet QC
“However Although Delta and Uber were ad idem with regards to their primary contention that Knowsley‟s intended use policy was ultravires, the two firms parted company on one potentially important issue – which, although it was academic in the instant case, the judge said might arise for decision in future litigation. The issue surfaced in oral argument, which tested the limits of whether it would be lawful to import geographical considerations into PHV Licence conditions. Delta accepted that an appropriately worded condition which promotes the principle of local PHV licensing (as identified by the courts) is capable of being lawful; Uber, on the other hand, argued that such a condition would in all cases offend the principle in Padfield because it would curtail the ‘right to roam‟– which, it was Uber‟s contention, is fundamental to the legislative scheme for private hire vehicles given by the 1976 Act.
Mr. Justice Kerr expressly demurred from deciding the point, but towards the end of his judgment he commented that he was ‘fortified’ by what he had heard in thinking that a fit and proper person might, in principle, be required to abide by a condition (otherwise lawful) imposed in order to meet any perceived erosion of localism.’
The interpretation of this was that an 'Intended Use Condition of Licence‟ could be applied to the vehicle which was conceded by Delta.
This would not affect any perceived ‘Right to Roam’ as a private-hire vehicle can still ‘Roam’ by functioning via dropping-off and picking-up, but still not predominantly working outside its respective licensing area whilst eroding local licensing control.
Keep in mind that only a very well paid Barrister would use ‘Right to Roam’ as a justification against Local Licensing Authorities having the right to Local Licensing Control.
It is not known as to why Knowsley did not take this avenue later after the case after being given this hint and in effect did not do the national trade any favours in not only getting it wrong but for not correcting this error and taking it forward again.
However, as shown the LGMP Act 1976 clearly states a clause that applies to a condition that may be applied to the actual vehicle licence:
48 - (2)A district council may attach to the grant of a Licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary:
So, a condition of ‘Intended Use’ is there waiting to be enforced and attached to a private-hire vehicle licence in exactly the same way as has always been available for hackney carriage vehicles.
However, as yet it is not known if any council has applied this legal right to apply such a reasonable condition for a vehicle licence, but with the chaos and ever increasing erosion of local licensing control, licensing authorities should now look at imposing a condition of licensing for an 'Intended Use Policy' for private hire vehicles using Section 48-2.
Could the proprietor of a private-hire vehicle challenge a condition of ‘Intended Use’ in court and succeed?
Well, it would be interesting to see what a magistrate would consider where the proprietor of licensed vehicle would be trying to support their reasons for obtaining a vehicle licence in one area with no intention of predominantly working within that area, and far away from respective Local Licensing Control.
P1/7: Hire & Reward Insurance
When a proprietor of a licensed vehicle seeks insurance cover it is usually the case that the broker or insurance company will ask where that vehicle is licensed. The purpose of this is to ascertain the premium based on local algorithms or crime/accidents and so on.
However, if that licensed vehicle then predominantly works in a completely different area then surely this should be regarded as fraud and an insurance company would have every right not to cover an insurance claim? This is much the same as someone insuring a privately used car and giving the location of where the vehicle is registered in an area assessed with less crime/accidents.
A further benefit for an 'Intended Use Policy' would also ensure that proprietors of private hire vehicles were clearly aware that licensing in one area and predominantly working in another area would invalidate the vehicles ‘Hire & Reward‟ policy.
P1/8: Other types of businesses requiring locally issued licences - I'll have a 99 please...
Other types of businesses requiring local licensing with local conditions of licensing such as pubs, clubs, restaurants, off-licences and such like are subject to Local Licensing Enforcement. Enforcement Officers can at any time carry out checks to ensure that such businesses are conforming to trading requirements.
This is an example to illustrate the major issue of where such static businesses are easily checked via Enforcement for compliance compared to licensed vehicles that predominantly work many miles away out of reach of respective Local Licensing Enforcement.
The only comparable similarity of a licensed vehicle as that of an ice-cream van and ironically there appears to be more control over ice-cream vans under a local council issued ‘Street Trading’ licence than licensed vehicles with regards to remote working. This is in-as-much that an ice-cream van vendor/ licensed to trade in Brighton & Hove for example could not trade in Eastbourne under the Brighton & Hove issued licence. The proprietor would have to gain an Eastbourne ‘Street Trading’ licence. Both licences could have very different conditions of licensing. However, both Brighton & Hove Council and Eastbourne Council would each receive a licensing fee.
P1/9: Are MP’s even aware? They should be...
MPs should be fully aware of how the Licensing Authorities in the areas they served are being undermined through licensed vehicles Predominantly Out Of Area Working (POAW)
MPs should be fully aware that under ‘POAW’ Local Licensing Control and the Enforcement that comes with it, granted by two the Acts of Parliament has been destroyed.
MP's should be fully aware that it is not actually an Uber issue pe se, but the general Predominant Ot of Area Working (POAW) of private-hire vehicles, although factually encouraged by Uber.
P1/10: Summary
It is not the intention to have an 'Intended Use Policy' as proposed to act as a restraint of trade since anyone can apply to any local authority for a private-hire vehicle/driver licence, or an Operator licence, in whichever area they intend to predominantly undertake work under whatever conditions may be applied in that area.
It is not the intention to bring to the end the natural transportation of cross-border hiring in its purest form.
It is not the intention to stop the perceived ‘Right to Roam’ as dropping-off and picking-up pre-booked jobs in other areas will continue.
It is the intention to stop a vehicle licensed in one area predominantly and intently working in a completely different area out-of-sight and out-of-mind of its respective Local Licensing Enforcement with the driver and Operator of the vehicle then making provision for the vehicle to then be available to be hired.
It is the intention to give back Local Licensing Control to Licensing Authorities and their Officers as granted via Parliament in the two Acts.
It is the intention to stop predominant working out-of-area for private-hire vehicles and hackney carriages.
It is the intention to ensure that Local Licensing Authorities maintain the required level of income of (ring-fenced) licensing fees to finance their Licensing Departments. Such licensing fees that have been taken away with drivers, proprietors and Operators seeking easier licenses elsewhere but then returning to predominantly work in such areas without needing to worry about respective Local Licensing Enforcement.
.
Lastly…..
Can there really be any argument about giving back Local Licensing Authorities the right to fully control the activities of licensed vehicles and drivers that predominantly work in their areas as granted to them under the two Acts of Parliament?
If there is no such argument….. then who is that the government would then be protecting?
AP - April 2025
*ABBA System
Where either the start or the end of the journey must be within the driver, vehicle and Operators licensing authority
Part 2
.
In consideration of where the private-hire trade is today, with the total loss of Local Licensing Control that was granted by Parliament in the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976, Part II’, and the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’. The Department of Transport, with its piecemeal approach to its ‘Best Practice Guides’ should now completely takeover the licensing of private-hire vehicles and private-hire drivers.
It is either that or address the major issue, which is the total loss of Local Licensing Control and hand it back to Local Licensing Authorities who are there for the protection of public safety without any grey areas that would be exploited.
Since the 2015 Deregulation Act, ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ as it has been commonly known, has seen a huge increase in mainly private-hire vehicles/drivers predominantly working in areas other than the actual area the vehicle and driver are licensed in. However, it has been misunderstood as to what the 2015 Act was in fact about. This was mainly to clarify what is known as the ‘Triple Lock’ where three specific licences must be in place for a booking to be legal.
These being: The Operator Licence, the Vehicle Licence and the Driver Licence which must all be matching the same local authority issued licences.
Some have mistakenly thought that the 2015 Deregulation Act suddenly made ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ legal. This was not the case; it just defined the legal requirement for ‘Sub-Contracting’ between taxi/cab companies where ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ between different Licensing Authorities may take place.
It must be noted however that ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ has always been in place and is a natural part of transportation between areas and taxi/private-hire companies could not exist without it. In fact, the current Labour government has confirmed this point many times. So, the term ‘Cross-Border Hiring’ has unfortunately been greatly misused and misunderstood and does not describe the current issue correctly.
The 2015 Deregulation Act clarification set in place that where ‘Operator 1’ in one area sub-contracts to another Operator in the same or a different area that the accepting sub-contracting ‘Operator 2’ must only use drivers/vehicles under the same licences that it holds to fulfil that sub-contracted job.
Although very oddly, it was never set in legislation that the company that the customer originally booked with was obliged to inform the customer if and when that booking was sub-contracted to another company. This is much like ordering a MacDonalds burger on a food delivery app and being provided with a Burger King burger. Whilst both being burgers, not being the brand the customer wanted.
P1/2: Cross-Border Hiring is not the issue
The real issue is ‘Predominant Out of Area Working’ or ‘POAW’ which should not be confused with ‘Cross Border Hiring’.
‘POAW’ has had the effect of the total eradication of ‘Local Licensing Control’ that was given to local authorities by Parliament under the ‘1976 Local Government Miscellaneous Act’ after many years of the then unlicensed private-hire trade never being licensed for Operators, drivers or vehicles. Those days have been described as being the ‘Wild West’. Unfortunately, the ‘Wild West’ has returned.
Note that hackney carriage taxis do not need to work under an Operator as the hackney carriage vehicle licence is the Operator licence.
However, with the massive change to the tax/private-hire trade since the 2015 Deregulation Act that has primarily been caused and encouraged by Uber, local councils, as the regulator within a licensing area, can now no longer be relied on to ensure that the safety of passengers is under its power of control. That power of control has been eradicated leaving Local Licensing Authorities disapproving and helpless.
The passengers themselves are mostly oblivious to the situation being that the private-hire vehicle/driver they are provided with is nowadays highly likely not locally licensed in the area that the customer made the booking in.
Whether the customers care or not is subject to the consequences of trying to make a complaint and obtaining CCTV data (where available) if needed. For example, if you have a complaint in Brighton & Hove about a private-hire or hackney carriage driver one would expect to report this to Brighton & Hove Licensing as directed on the council’s website.
However, if you get an Uber in Brighton & Hove for example there is only around a one-in-five chance that you will be sent a Brighton & Hove licensed private-hire driver/vehicle (with B&H council-controlled CCTV) based on the predominance of private-hire drivers/vehicles working in the city from Lewes DC, Southampton, Portsmouth, Chichester, Havant, Fareham far outnumbering the locally licensed drivers/vehicles. Are the public literally being ‘Taken for ride’.
Exactly the same scenario is repeated throughout the country.
This means that such a private-hire vehicle/driver provided is not likely to be under the control of Local Licensing Enforcement in the area that the customer has ordered one in, and could in fact be licensed hundreds of miles away ‘Out-of-Sight & Out-of- Mind’ of the drivers/vehicle own respective Licensing Enforcement.
The ‘Triple Lock’ does make this legal and such a driver/vehicle remotely working hundreds of miles away from respective Local Licensing Enforcement is not currently acting illegally.
But is that beneficial to the customer?
However, with Wolverhampton infamously issuing forty-thousand plus licences under its ever so efficient streamlining licensing service it can clearly be seen that there is a major problem for other local authorities where these Wolverhampton private-hire drivers/cars are predominantly working. As such local authorities have no authority over these vehicles.
Note that it has been suggested that all Licensing Authorities should have the power of authority over all private-hire vehicle/drivers with ‘concordat’ arrangement between Licensing Authorities in other areas. However, this is impractical as the efficiency of individual Licensing Departments greatly varies from area to area. Even to the extent that the majority of such Licensing Departments do not even have a dedicated team of Licensing Officers specifically only dealing with taxi and private-hire licensing and with odd interpretations of Legislation.
It is common that many Licensing Departments deal with the numerous various aspects of licensing from sex shops to poodle parlours with private-hire/taxi licensing thrown in and dealt with on a casual part-time basis.
Where Wolverhampton has ‘streamlined’ the licensing process can either be regarded as diminishing Local Licensing Enforcement or being extremely efficient in its processing system. It can be viewed either way depending on one’s view and whether one is directly affected.
A good illustration of where this situation causes a problem, and using Wolverhampton again as a prime example, is where Wolverhampton does not have compulsory CCTV and has left the installation of CCTV to the decision of the proprietor of the vehicle. It should be noted that the proprietor of the vehicle in this case is then the Data Controller and not Wolverhampton council and the driver/proprietor has full access to the recorded data. This is the same where other councils, including London, have not made CCTV a compulsory condition of licence,
In the case of Brighton & Hove and other areas where CCTV is a compulsory condition of licence, the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) has deemed that any council that makes CCTV a condition of licence will be the Data Controller of the CCTV system and not the proprietor of the vehicle. This means that the driver/proprietor has no access to the recorded data.
Licensing Authorities such as Brighton and Hove have had compulsory council-controlled CCTV for many years and in place for the safety of the passengers and the drivers. This in reality means that a Wolverhampton of TfL private-hire vehicle could currently predominantly work in Brighton & Hove without compulsory CCTV.
But is that beneficial to the customer? Is that fair to the locally licensed drivers/proprietors in Licensing Authorities that have CCTV as a compulsory condition of licence who have spent £700 (which is ongoing) for CCTV systems?
So, different licensing authorities have different conditions of licensing which may or may not include a topographical ‘Knowledge Test’ or perhaps a weaker one or where one Licensing Authority has compulsory CCTV, but the LA next door does not as previously explained. Other examples could be where there is a lower standard vehicle requirement or where a specific vehicle livery is in place.
Very certainly there are ‘out of town’ private-hire vehicles predominantly working in Brighton & Hove that the local Licensing Department would refuse to licence based on size and age.
In the example of Brighton & Hove where a private-hire proprietor wants to have a five-seater+ vehicle, the conditions are that this must be a wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) and these are very expensive. Yet there are many five-seater+ ‘out-of-town cars’ that predominantly work there that do not have such a condition of licence.
There is also the condition of vehicle licence that a Brighton & Hove private-hire vehicle may not be white so not to be confused with a Brighton & Hove hackney carriage which is also white in colour (albeit with aqua boots and bonnets). Yet there are many ‘out-of-town’ private-hire vehicles working under Uber that are white.
This is the undermining of Local Licensing Control. Is that fair to the local licensed drivers in Brighton & Hove?
The current situation where private-hire drivers/vehicles predominantly, and one could say blatantly, work in an area other than their respective licensing area has not only undermined Local Authorities, but is now having the effect of fewer local licences being applied for in areas of higher licensing requirements based on the principle of ‘Why bother attaining a higher requirement for a licence in Area ‘A’ when I can get a licence elsewhere much easier in Area ‘B’ and then predominantly work in Area ‘A’. There is also the added bonus of not have respective Licensing Enforcement breathing down one’s neck!
In very recent years the Brighton & Hove taxi/private hire trade have submitted nearing two-hundred reports to the Lewes, Chichester, Portsmouth, Southampton & Havant Licensing Departments for breaches of respective licensing conditions. Such infringements as missing rear licence plates/door signs of those private-hire vehicles predominantly working in the city including using taxi ranks. This is an ongoing weekly event of reports as those councils are unable to provide remote Licensing Enforcement on their licensed drivers and vehicles, a situation that will continue until such drivers and vehicles are prohibited from predominantly out of area working. No doubt such breaches of local licensing conditions are the same throughout the country.
P1/3: Gatwick Airport - TfL drivers and the two Acts
The situation at Gatwick Airport is quite ludicrous as private-hire drivers/cars licensed by ‘Transport for London’(TfL) predominantly work there specifically making themselves available for hire within the Uber provided waiting areas, as encouraged by Uber.
This is ludicrous as these TfL private-hire drivers/cars are under the control of the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’ and yet are predominantly working at Gatwick and other areas where the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976’ is in force.
It has also been reported that Wolverhampton private-hire drivers/cars that are controlled under the ‘Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976’ are predominantly working in London making themselves available for hire where the ‘Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998’ is in force.
Is ‘ludicrous’ even adequate to describe this situation?
P1/4: What about using existing legislation?
Absolutely! The issue however is that whilst there is legislation in place that ultimately protects localism, being the right for local authorities to have full control over the activities of licensed drivers and vehicles, to date…no local authority has had the courage, and indeed the pockets deep enough to go to court to protect their residents… and quite frankly shame on all two-hundred & sixty-odd of them… including my own LA Brighton & Hove.
Gerrard Gouriet KC is a leading barrister advising and appearing in court for applicant and objectors, resident associations, local authorities and the police stated in a 2018 interview:
“Even in circumstances that are otherwise lawful, a PHV operator who knowingly sends drivers in his fleet to work in remote areas exclusively or predominantly, is vulnerable to having his licence revoked or refused renewal under section 62(1)(d) of the 1976 Act, on the ground that he undermines local licensing control. The threat to public safety (let alone the affront to local control) in the use of drivers who ‘shop’ to be licensed by authorities that demand only the lowest standards, so that they can work in an area where standards are higher but licences more difficult to obtain, is ample demonstration of “reasonable cause”. At least one PHV operator has been known to steer potential drivers to licensing authorities with minimal licensing criteria and low licensing fees.”
Gerrard Gouriet KC profile
https://tinyurl.com/gerrard-gouriet-kc
Gerrard Gouriet 2018 interview
https://tinyurl.com/gerrard-gouriet-kc-interview
See Reference
P1/5: Depriving Local Licensing Authorities of Licence Fee Income
A major issue is that the dominance of ‘POAW’ deprives a local authority of the licensing fees that are needed to sustain an efficient Licensing Department. That is unless the local licence fees paid by the local licensed trade are increased to make up the loss.
Is that fair to the local licence trade?
It should be noted that all Licence Fees are ‘Ring Fenced’ and must not be used for any other purpose.
It has been questioned as to why current legislation has not been used to prohibit licensed drivers/vehicles not working in the areas they are licensed in from predominantly making themselves available for hire in other areas?
The issue here is down to interpretation of Legislation where one side of the trade is (quite rightly) convinced that there is clear and adequate provision within existing legislation, but where to date this has not been challenged in court. That would be down to the costs involved.
Unfortunately, local councils do not have deep enough pockets or quite likely do not consider it in the public interest to prosecute a driver/operator under current Legislation that would need time and money to establish the written meaning or even possibly the fear of taking on a multi-billion-dollar global entity.
So, where the battle continues with local Licensing Authorities to take action under current legislation that is not happening..... isn’t it time to now to ‘Think out of the box?
P1/6: Knowsley V Delta 2018 – A missed opportunity
In 2018 Knowsley Council made an error in applying an 'Intended Use Policy'‟ to the driver Licence and not the vehicle Licence and infamously lost the case on this basis with the defending barrister famously quoting the ‘Right to Roam‟.
Summary by Gerald Gouriet QC
“However Although Delta and Uber were ad idem with regards to their primary contention that Knowsley‟s intended use policy was ultravires, the two firms parted company on one potentially important issue – which, although it was academic in the instant case, the judge said might arise for decision in future litigation. The issue surfaced in oral argument, which tested the limits of whether it would be lawful to import geographical considerations into PHV Licence conditions. Delta accepted that an appropriately worded condition which promotes the principle of local PHV licensing (as identified by the courts) is capable of being lawful; Uber, on the other hand, argued that such a condition would in all cases offend the principle in Padfield because it would curtail the ‘right to roam‟– which, it was Uber‟s contention, is fundamental to the legislative scheme for private hire vehicles given by the 1976 Act.
Mr. Justice Kerr expressly demurred from deciding the point, but towards the end of his judgment he commented that he was ‘fortified’ by what he had heard in thinking that a fit and proper person might, in principle, be required to abide by a condition (otherwise lawful) imposed in order to meet any perceived erosion of localism.’
The interpretation of this was that an 'Intended Use Condition of Licence‟ could be applied to the vehicle which was conceded by Delta.
This would not affect any perceived ‘Right to Roam’ as a private-hire vehicle can still ‘Roam’ by functioning via dropping-off and picking-up, but still not predominantly working outside its respective licensing area whilst eroding local licensing control.
Keep in mind that only a very well paid Barrister would use ‘Right to Roam’ as a justification against Local Licensing Authorities having the right to Local Licensing Control.
It is not known as to why Knowsley did not take this avenue later after the case after being given this hint and in effect did not do the national trade any favours in not only getting it wrong but for not correcting this error and taking it forward again.
However, as shown the LGMP Act 1976 clearly states a clause that applies to a condition that may be applied to the actual vehicle licence:
48 - (2)A district council may attach to the grant of a Licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary:
So, a condition of ‘Intended Use’ is there waiting to be enforced and attached to a private-hire vehicle licence in exactly the same way as has always been available for hackney carriage vehicles.
However, as yet it is not known if any council has applied this legal right to apply such a reasonable condition for a vehicle licence, but with the chaos and ever increasing erosion of local licensing control, licensing authorities should now look at imposing a condition of licensing for an 'Intended Use Policy' for private hire vehicles using Section 48-2.
Could the proprietor of a private-hire vehicle challenge a condition of ‘Intended Use’ in court and succeed?
Well, it would be interesting to see what a magistrate would consider where the proprietor of licensed vehicle would be trying to support their reasons for obtaining a vehicle licence in one area with no intention of predominantly working within that area, and far away from respective Local Licensing Control.
P1/7: Hire & Reward Insurance
When a proprietor of a licensed vehicle seeks insurance cover it is usually the case that the broker or insurance company will ask where that vehicle is licensed. The purpose of this is to ascertain the premium based on local algorithms or crime/accidents and so on.
However, if that licensed vehicle then predominantly works in a completely different area then surely this should be regarded as fraud and an insurance company would have every right not to cover an insurance claim? This is much the same as someone insuring a privately used car and giving the location of where the vehicle is registered in an area assessed with less crime/accidents.
A further benefit for an 'Intended Use Policy' would also ensure that proprietors of private hire vehicles were clearly aware that licensing in one area and predominantly working in another area would invalidate the vehicles ‘Hire & Reward‟ policy.
P1/8: Other types of businesses requiring locally issued licences - I'll have a 99 please...
Other types of businesses requiring local licensing with local conditions of licensing such as pubs, clubs, restaurants, off-licences and such like are subject to Local Licensing Enforcement. Enforcement Officers can at any time carry out checks to ensure that such businesses are conforming to trading requirements.
This is an example to illustrate the major issue of where such static businesses are easily checked via Enforcement for compliance compared to licensed vehicles that predominantly work many miles away out of reach of respective Local Licensing Enforcement.
The only comparable similarity of a licensed vehicle as that of an ice-cream van and ironically there appears to be more control over ice-cream vans under a local council issued ‘Street Trading’ licence than licensed vehicles with regards to remote working. This is in-as-much that an ice-cream van vendor/ licensed to trade in Brighton & Hove for example could not trade in Eastbourne under the Brighton & Hove issued licence. The proprietor would have to gain an Eastbourne ‘Street Trading’ licence. Both licences could have very different conditions of licensing. However, both Brighton & Hove Council and Eastbourne Council would each receive a licensing fee.
P1/9: Are MP’s even aware? They should be...
MPs should be fully aware of how the Licensing Authorities in the areas they served are being undermined through licensed vehicles Predominantly Out Of Area Working (POAW)
MPs should be fully aware that under ‘POAW’ Local Licensing Control and the Enforcement that comes with it, granted by two the Acts of Parliament has been destroyed.
MP's should be fully aware that it is not actually an Uber issue pe se, but the general Predominant Ot of Area Working (POAW) of private-hire vehicles, although factually encouraged by Uber.
P1/10: Summary
It is not the intention to have an 'Intended Use Policy' as proposed to act as a restraint of trade since anyone can apply to any local authority for a private-hire vehicle/driver licence, or an Operator licence, in whichever area they intend to predominantly undertake work under whatever conditions may be applied in that area.
It is not the intention to bring to the end the natural transportation of cross-border hiring in its purest form.
It is not the intention to stop the perceived ‘Right to Roam’ as dropping-off and picking-up pre-booked jobs in other areas will continue.
It is the intention to stop a vehicle licensed in one area predominantly and intently working in a completely different area out-of-sight and out-of-mind of its respective Local Licensing Enforcement with the driver and Operator of the vehicle then making provision for the vehicle to then be available to be hired.
It is the intention to give back Local Licensing Control to Licensing Authorities and their Officers as granted via Parliament in the two Acts.
It is the intention to stop predominant working out-of-area for private-hire vehicles and hackney carriages.
It is the intention to ensure that Local Licensing Authorities maintain the required level of income of (ring-fenced) licensing fees to finance their Licensing Departments. Such licensing fees that have been taken away with drivers, proprietors and Operators seeking easier licenses elsewhere but then returning to predominantly work in such areas without needing to worry about respective Local Licensing Enforcement.
.
Lastly…..
Can there really be any argument about giving back Local Licensing Authorities the right to fully control the activities of licensed vehicles and drivers that predominantly work in their areas as granted to them under the two Acts of Parliament?
If there is no such argument….. then who is that the government would then be protecting?
AP - April 2025
*ABBA System
Where either the start or the end of the journey must be within the driver, vehicle and Operators licensing authority
Part 2
.
Updated 24/04/2025
Part 1- Hackney Carriage & Private-Hire Vehicles - Cross-Border Hiring is not the issue