Agenda item

Members received a report, for noting, on the Deregulations Act 2015 and the effect on taxi and private hire licensing.

The Principal Officer, Licensing, Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) presented the report and in doing so, informed the Committee; that at a meeting in mid-2024 with the Taxi Representatives in Bromsgrove, concerns were raised by Bromsgrove’s hackney carriage trade members regarding the rising number of Uber vehicles which were entering and working inand around the district. Concerns were also raised in relation to the regulations which were implemented that allowed Uber to operate in other local authority areas, under its current business model.

Since the majority of these Uber private hire vehicles were licensed by Wolverhampton City Council (WCC) Licensing Officers wrote to WCC asking for support and had since carried out joint enforcement activity in Bromsgrove’s Nighttime Economy with WCC officers. The enforcement activity was to ensure that any vehicles licensed by WCC entering and working in the district, were meeting the requirements as set out in this report and working within the regulations.

Licensing Committee Members had requested a reminder of the legislation that was introduced that enabled Uber’s operating model.

Members’ attention was drawn to paragraphs 3.7 and 3.8 (page 57 of the main agenda pack), which detailed that:-

‘It has always been the case that a taxi or private hire vehicle had the “right to roam” meaning that they are not limited or restricted to simply working within their controlled district, this meant that a driver and vehicle licensed by a Local Authority could work anywhere in the country on a pre-booked basis. It has also always been the case that a resident of one area could make a booking with a private hire operator licensed in a totally different area and that an operator could lawfully accept the job and dispatch a driver and vehicle licensed by their local authority into the local authority area where the passenger wanted to be picked up.

The Deregulation Act 2015 however, further enabled a private hire operator licensed by one Local Authority to accept a booking and then sub-contract it to another operator licensed by a different Local Authority (previously they could only sub-contract to an operator licensed by the same Council as them).’

Since its implementation in 2015, many private hire operators had taken advantage of the freedoms which the Deregulation Act 2015 had introduced. Companies had set up satellite offices in other cities and neighbouring districts and were now sub-contracting private hire bookings to themselves and dispatching a vehicle and driver licensed by that local authority.

The Government’s intention when implementing the Deregulation Act 2015 was to encourage free trade across district council borders, which inevitably had led to the current situation within the UK. The Governmentdid not see this as problematic, as it had achieved what it intended to with the introduction of the Act, so it was not a loophole as many people seemed to state, hence within Bromsgrove District Council it was now commonplace to see vehicles and drivers licensed by other local authorities undertaking pre-booked journeys in the District.

Concerns had been raised by Bromsgrove’s taxi drivers that vehicles and drivers licensed by other local authorities were plying for hire in Bromsgrove. As detailed in the preamble above, provided that a private hire vehicle and driver (and operator) were properly licensed by a local authority they could wait in any location for a booking to be dispatched to them quite legally. A recent legal case taken by Reading Borough Council against Uber drivers licensed by Transport for London (TfL) who were waiting in Reading for bookings had confirmed that, as long as they were not actively “plying for hire,” a private hire or hackney carriage vehicle could wait anywhere for a booking, provided that they were parked lawfully.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Officer, Licensing, WRS highlighted that WRS Licensing Officers worked closely with WCC Licensing Officers. With regards to Uber drivers plying for hire, some information and complaints had been received from passengers.

(It was noted that at this stage in the meeting Councillors B. Kumar and C. A. Hotham left the meeting room, having notified the Vice-Chairman at the commencement of the meeting, that they both had prior commitments).

Uber vehicles and drivers, could now regularly be found working in and around Worcestershire, including Bromsgrove. Officers had and would continue to engage with WCC if any further issues were identified by intelligence or enforcement operations.

Members referred to the National Taxi Standards, as detailed in paragraph 3.15 (page 58 of the main agenda pack(, which stated that

‘The National Taxi Standards introduced in September 2022 created a National Register of Taxi Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3). NR3 contains information relating to any refusal to grant, or revocation of a hackney carriage/private hire driver licence. This information is important in the context of a subsequent application to anotherAuthority for a drivers' licence by a person who has had their licence refused or revoked in the past. All of the licensing authorities within Worcestershire, include Bromsgrove have signed up to and are utilising NR3’.

The Principal Officer, Licensing, WRS, explained that Licensing Officers referred to the NR3, which was not just for criminal convictions, but also detailed poor customer service and overcharging. Licensing Officers would liaise with the relevant local authority in order to ascertain as to why a driver / individual was included on the NR3.

Members were reassured that taxi drivers were included under the governments ‘The Notifiable Occupations Scheme.’ Whereby  professions or occupations which carried special trust or responsibility, in which the public interest in the disclosure of conviction and other information by the police generally outweighed the normal duty of confidentiality owed to the individual.

The police would therefore notify Licensing Officers in relation to all recordable convictions, cautions, reprimands and final warnings, for the purpose of the prevention and detection of crime and for the protection of the vulnerable and children.

Some Members commented that it was not a level playing field if Uber drivers were waiting in the district for bookings. Also members of the travelling public may not always be aware as to whether a licensed vehicle was a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle. Some local authorities used the same livery / branding for hackney carriages licensed by them, in order to make people aware and to raise their profile.

Members further referred to Geofencing (page 60 of the main agenda pack), and the possibility of Uber limiting their operations in the UK’s districts. The Principal Officer, Licensing, WRS, stated that Officers had contacted Uber and that Uber were not interested in Geofencing or limiting their operations anywhere in the UK.

Members further referred to app based private hire taxi bookings and that younger people preferred this way of booking a taxi.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report on the Deregulation Act 2015 and its effect of taxi and private hire licensing, be noted.