This should really be in the previous thread. But some interesting new stuff in here, such as the comparisons about drugs screening, driving assessments, driver discipline and the CCTV data controller stuff (think I'll body swerve that particular issue...)
And also the specific comments about Wolverhampton, and Wolverhampton's prissy response
‘Dodgy outfit’: Portsmouth raises concerns over Wolverhampton taxi ruleshttps://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/polit ... es-6216518The new licensing chairman in Portsmouth City Council described Wolverhampton council as a “dodgy outfit” regarding taxi safety standards.Portsmouth City Council’s licensing committee met recently to note a report on the differences between taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in Wolverhampton.
The issue of taxis licensed by City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) has raised fears in Portsmouth due to differing safety standards. It is argued that CWC’s cheaper and simpler application process is attractive to local drivers, resulting in cross-border licensing.
To apply for a taxi licence in Portsmouth, drivers must be a minimum of 21 years old and have held a full driving licence for at least two years.
The council mandates several ongoing requirements: enhanced DBS checks every six months, compulsory safeguarding training, and both written and spoken English proficiency tests.
A driving assessment is mandatory for all drivers in Portsmouth, unlike in Wolverhampton where it is only required for hackney carriage drivers.
Furthermore, licensed vehicles in Portsmouth must have CCTV systems installed, with footage retained for 31 days. In contrast, CCTV is optional for vehicles in Wolverhampton.
In response to questions asked by Cllr Emily Strudwick, the former chair of the committee, the council’s licensing manager Nickii Humphreys clarified that Portsmouth makes vehicle proprietors the data controller for CCTV footage.
There was initial guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Department for Transport suggesting local authorities be the data controller, a view that the council “didn’t take”.
The council’s legal adviser said PCC “has strongly held its ground in relation to requiring proprietors to be data controllers”.
Differences in drug screening were also outlined, as Portsmouth drivers are screened on application and then after three years, while in Wolverhampton no screening takes place.
Cllr Strudwick also raised concerns over the absence of a point system, stating it “doesn’t appear to have any repercussions” for bad driving.
Ms Humphreys clarified Wolverhampton “may have disciplinary panels” but could not find policies that enforce “low level offences”.
Cllr George Madgwick recounted seeing: “a Peugeot 206 that was around 12 years old running round Portsmouth as a taxi, “which is “completely unacceptable”.
Ms Humphreys clarified that Portsmouth has requirements for the size of the vehicle and the size of the rear seats.
Cllr Madgwick said the lack of CCTV among Wolverhampton-licensed drivers “leads me to wonder why people would travel 200 miles away, lose days of work, to save £100 on their licence – they only do it for reasons that are not in the best interest of their business.”
Cllr Lee Hunt, the chair of the committee added: “I think it’s pretty outrageous that they don’t have CCTV because it protects the customer and the drivers.
“These people up at Wolverhampton seem to be in a dodgy outfit, that’s a view that I’m coming to.”
A full breakdown of the comparisons can be found on the council website.
A City of Wolverhampton Council spokesperson said: “As Portsmouth City Council will know, under the current law applicants can apply to any licensing authority.
“We stress that it is illegal for the council to refuse applicants a taxi licence on the basis of where they live. It is also illegal for us to impose a limit on the number of private hire licences issued, or implement an ‘intended use’ policy to prevent cross-bordering.
“If true, the councillor’s ‘dodgy outfit’ claims are extremely disappointing and ill informed.
“Wolverhampton has some of the highest standards in the country and follows all Government guidelines.
“Government rules do not require CCTV in taxis, and we do not see it as the best solution, as drivers can switch it off. However, we do allow panic‑button audio CCTV that passengers can activate if they feel unsafe.
“Safeguarding is a top priority for us and we are the only council in the country that checks every driver’s criminal record every single day through the DBS Update Service.
“Passengers can also use their phone to check a driver’s licence and identity before getting into the car – another national first for Wolverhampton licensed taxis.
“Every driver has to attend in person for training and strict assessments before they can be licensed. We also take enforcement seriously, with officers working across the country every Friday and Saturday night, side by side with other local authorities and partners to help protect the public.
“We recently gave evidence to the Government’s Transport Select Committee stating that the law needs urgent reform and have called for the introduction of uniform standards, uniform fees and improved cross border enforcement powers.”
Login
Register
FAQ
