Taxi Driver Online

Just when you think there's been nothing to get the juices flowing for a couple of days, up pops this in Professional Driver magazine

And if anyone's wondering precisely whose interests in the trade this is promoting, it doesn't take much reading between the lines.

But just then, where it's all coming from is made explicit - "the LPHCA’s Platinum Executive Members"

But in essence this is just a distillation of the LPHCA's/Steve Wright's long-standing views, and fleshes out slightly the stuff submitted to the House of Commons TransComm investigation.

Could spend hours on this, but the best bit is the section titled 'Wolverhampton Misinformation and facts'

Oh, the irony

And, oh, my aching sides


Why Wolverhampton?

https://www.prodrivermags.com/opinions/ ... erhampton/

Licensed Private Hire Car Association Chair Steve Wright MBE explains why Wolverhampton licensing is not only a positive thing, but in many cases essential for the private hire industry’s well-being and survival

Many years in the private hire industry have taught me a couple of important things. Firstly, you absolutely cannot please everybody, and secondly, that there is an awful lot of misinformation out there. Once upon a time this was delivered by Chinese Whispers, but nowadays it’s spread via the Internet.

Regarding pleasing everybody, in my view, it’s a fool that tries to do so. CCTV, signage, and now where and when you are able to license, have become the topics with the biggest differing views that LPHCA Members speak to me about.

For this reason, while I have very strong views as a former driver, operator and nowadays elected trade representative, the bottom line is that I will always put forward the majority view of LPHCA members. Currently, that view is that Wolverhampton licensing – and out of area licensing in general – is not only a positive thing, but in many cases essential for the Private Hire Industry’s well-being.

As for my second point about misinformation, in my opinion Wolverhampton Licensing is, by a country mile, subject to the most unprecedented misinformation, usually from persons and organisations with vested interests well outside of the private hire trade.

The primary source of misinformation comes from the hackney carriage trade and their representatives, who I believe for protectionist reasons, wish to preserve their operating areas and traditional sources of income. This of course is out of kilter with the modern world, good environmental policy, fair competition and public safety.

The ABBA proposal

In 2018, a proposal was put forward called the “ABBA rule”, which if introduced would have taken the private hire vehicle industry back to the dark ages via ridiculous, environmentally unfriendly and supply-choking restrictions, that would in my view, compromise public safety and put prices in private hire through the roof.

Fortunately, the LPHCA’s Platinum Executive Members, including Greg Mendoza of Carey, Jimmy Lazarou of Crawfords, Andy Mahoney MBE of 24×7 and the late Eddie Townson of Carlton Cars, joined me over three separate meetings hosted by the Department for Transport (DfT) to help prevent this potty proposal going forward.

The Defeated ABBA rule proposal advocated That every private hire journey must either start or end in the driver/operator’s home licensing authority.

Fortunately, the proposal was rejected. However, that hasn’t stopped vested interests trying to restrict where and when you can be licensed, no matter how inefficient or expensive your local licensing authority may be, or however over-zealous, expensive and often unnecessary local requirements may be.

The prominent advocators of the ABBA proposal regularly cited poor standards of licensing authorities. However, they generally failed to name and shame such authorities and the alleged poor standards. If there was any evidence that there were very poor regulatory standards in a local authority, surely it would be a matter for the Local Government Association (LGA) and others to deal with, and not something that should be wrongly dealt with via restrictive practices and anti-competitive, commercially-founded regulations.

National Licensing

If you are a truck or bus driver, you can obtain a license that is issued by the DVLA and valid throughout the entire United Kingdom. PSV and HGV licensing is not tied to where you live or where your operator is based.

The standards are national, so it does not matter where you meet the requirements. Costs are competitive and widely consistent.

National Licensing with regional enforcement would of course solve many issues. However, the LPHCA is absolutely opposed to minimum national licensing standards, because that is what we have now. And that is the primary cause of inconsistent UK-wide regulation.

Wolverhampton Misinformation and facts

Before answering Why Wolverhampton? I will dispel some of the swathes of misinformation surrounding Wolverhampton Licensing.

It is often wrongly said that Wolverhampton has low standards. However, the requirements are stringent and often far higher than many other Licensing Authorities.

It is also erroneously stated that Wolverhampton compliance and enforcement nationally is poor. But evidence shows that their compliance and enforcement is probably the best in England, with more late-night compliance officers and operations nationally than any other licensing authority.

It is wrongly claimed that Wolverhampton licensed drivers are driving from Wolverhampton daily to all parts of the country, which is not the case.

The biggest piece of misinformation however, is the inaccurate allegation that “out of area licensed” drivers were involved in the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. As this happened before the Deregulation Act was passed in 2015, all taxi drivers involved were licensed locally – the option of going elsewhere was not available to them.

More and more licensing authorities are doing joint compliance and enforcement with Wolverhampton, which has reduced costs, enabled better outcomes and improved public safety.

Why Wolverhampton?

The majority of the LPHCA’s operator-based membership operates nationally, unlike the hackney carriage trade, which tends to work in locally defined zones, where they are permitted to rank up or ply for hire on the streets where they are licensed.

Private Hire does not work this way, working over a far wider area, unlimited by artificial restrictions that were put in place back when the distance of the last watering trough for horses determined the limit of an operating area.

LPHCA members have always operated in multiple licensing areas, and we have many members who are licensed out of necessity in dozens of licensing areas.

During a trip to Manchester 5 or 6 years ago, I learned first-hand from LPHCA members of the difficulties they were having getting themselves, their drivers and their vehicles licensed.

I learned that in some cases it was taking 10 months to get drivers licensed. Impossible waiting times for vehicle testing and extreme difficulties with renewals, often exacerbated by problems communicating with their licensing authorities and non-responses to their emails and telephone calls.

During the Covid pandemic, Private Hire Vehicle owners, operators and drivers found it increasingly difficult to get licensed, with many licensing authorities simply shutting up shop or providing a much reduced ‘ghost service’.

As an industry which needed to work through the pandemic to keep essential services like the NHS, Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) and ambulance and non-ambulant transportation running, being unable to license was a catastrophe for all concerned.

To stay operational, licensees had no alternative other than to look elsewhere for their licenses. Wolverhampton and other efficient licensing authorities enabled an industry that could have collapsed to be licensed lawfully and efficiently, meeting the highest standards of safety and service, often at very reasonable cost, due to scale of economy.

Most recently Transport for London had a catastrophic cyber security breach, alongside the introduction of new technology for licensing, which to be frank was not fit for purpose.

The TfL system failings brought licensing to a standstill, with licensing on an emergency service basis. There were periods when no new drivers were being licensed and existing PHV drivers were unable to renew. Without out-of-area licensing such as Wolverhampton being lawful and efficient, many drivers would have faced ruin, with operators facing the collapse of their businesses.

Delays were so bad that TfL Taxi and Private Hire (TPH) to their credit have introduced a “goodwill payment” of up to £500 to taxi and PHV drivers affected by the licensing delays. This is very welcome but no substitute for being able to get licensed elsewhere, holding on to your business, vehicle and even home, so Wolverhampton and other out of area licensing authorities provided a much-needed lawful service. So ‘Why Wolverhampton?’ There’s your answer.

The odd daftie driver and councillor, maybe, but in the grand scheme of things if you want to write about misinformation regarding Wolverhampton then I've got a book I could write for you


Either disingenuous, or dangerously ill-informed

For a start, who made that claim about Rotherham, precisely? (And I mean a credible source, as opposed to dafties on social media etc.)

Second, cross-border cars were specifically mentioned in another grooming report (although that might have been HCs working as de facto PHVs).

Third, he's trying to say there was no cross-border working prior to the 2015 Act?

Has he never heard of Berwick, Rossendale or Delta PHVs all over Merseyside, most obviously?

And, as I think was discussed on here a few weeks ago, isn't it the case that Uber could be doing what's it's doing at present without the 2015 legislation ever being enacted?

(And leaving aside his use of the t-word in that paragraph...)


No denying the highlighted part of that paragraph. As for the rest...


Bollocks

That statement would only hold true if Uber was an LPHCA member

And if Uber was the *only* member

At a rough guess I'd guess neither statement is correct

(Only caveat is perhaps 'Andy Mahoney MBE of 24×7', who may be said to operate nationally, but I'm not sure, nor am I sure about other members. But just can't see how his claim that "the majority of the LPHCA’s operator-based membership operates nationally" can be true, correct me if I'm wrong.)

But a few instructive words in that paragraph - namely 'operator-based membership'.

As for the rest of the piece, some fair comments about national licensing, the pandemic stuff and the TfL shambles.

But, I mean, that could happen to any authority. And isn't it the case that not that long ago Wolverhampton was also experiencing licensing backlogs, even a couple of years after the whole lockdown thing was over?

But the bottom line is that the article is just producer interest stuff. And by producer interest in the trade, I mean operators and offices as opposed to grass roots drivers.

(And I'm quite sure Professional Driver magazine's own TransComm submission was banging much the same drum. Professional Operator magazine might be a more appropriate title. Unless, of course, the Professional Driver tag is pitched at those badged and plated by Wolverhampton )

A spiv, elected by spivs.

_________________
IDFIMH

How many other councils allow vehicles to be licensed unseen by that same authority?

A vehicle can be licensed with bumps and dents, with ripped seats, with last week's kebabs tucked under the seat.

Is that what Mr MBE views as being far higher and more stringent?

_________________
IDFIMH

Of course it is he closes his eyes to everything.