House of Commons committee announces trade licensing inquiry

Sussex · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2025 12:45 pm

My understanding, via the horses mouth, is that there are a number of submissions that have not yet been published. But will be.

So that’s cleared that up then.

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

In the Liverpool response it states a Hackney Carriage has to carry a bale of hay, can anyone point me in the right direction to access where this is stated in the 1847 TPCA.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:30 pm

heathcote wrote:

In the Liverpool response it states a Hackney Carriage has to carry a bale of hay, can anyone point me in the right direction to access where this is stated in the 1847 TPCA.

AI says:

No, a Hackney carriage does not currently have to carry a bale of hay in the UK, as this is a myth that originated from a misinterpretation of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831. The law regulated how drivers fed their horses, requiring them to do so by hand and prohibiting feeding from the ground, but it never mandated carrying hay. The relevant part of the law was abolished in 1976.

Chris the Fish · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:44 pm

Your friend AI is wrong Captain.

In London, Hackney Carriage Drivers had to carry straw. Obviously not to feed the Horses, it was to put on the Road to cover the 5h1T (everything was Horse drawn), so that the gentry could get to and from the Hackney (wasn't called a Taxi until meter fitted about 1902) without getting the 5h1T on their shoes.

In Victorian times, no Authorities cared about Animals.

captain cab · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:10 pm

Chris the Fish wrote:

Your friend AI is wrong Captain.

In London, Hackney Carriage Drivers had to carry straw. Obviously not to feed the Horses, it was to put on the Road to cover the 5h1T (everything was Horse drawn), so that the gentry could get to and from the Hackney (wasn't called a Taxi until meter fitted about 1902) without getting the 5h1T on their shoes.

In Victorian times, no Authorities cared about Animals.

https://www.southamptontaxis.org/blog/9 ... oot-by-law

https://www.mylondon.news/news/nostalgi ... s-18523965

https://www.insurancerevolution.co.uk/b ... h-or-myth/

https://howellgriffiths.co.uk/weird-and ... e-today-4/

https://londonist.com/london/transport/ ... y-carriage

and finally one from TDO;

https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/vi ... f=1&t=4643

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

Liverpool authorities claiming in their response that we have to carry a bale of hay shows their ignorance of the 1847 TPCA, Laws do not require changing regarding Hackney Carriages but what does require changing is that all local authority licensing officers should hold as a condition of their employment a qualification on Hackney Carriage licensing law (1847 TPCA).

StuartW · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am **Posts:** 18359

Sussex wrote:

My understanding, via the horses mouth, is that there are a number of submissions that have not yet been published. But will be.

Wondered why this thread had veered onto horses and bales of hay, but obviously Sussex kicked it off :lol:

More seriously, congratulations to Heathcote for actually reading one of the papers in some detail :-o

But, whatever the precise history of the provision and what precisely it said, what seems clear that it was only in the London legislation, and not the 1847 Act.

So, yes, Heathcote, despite the Liverpool response encompassing several of the most high profile licensing authorities in the land, none of them seem to be aware of the contents of the 1847 Act.

Up there with Stockton BC confusing driver and vehicle numbers :-o

StuartW · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am **Posts:** 18359

In the few I've looked at, only really read the stuff about cross-bordering.

This is a bit strange from Veezu - I mean, who in the trade (particularly a business with Veezu's resources) refers to a 'number plate' in terms of trade licensing. A reader without knowledge of the trade would assume it's a reference to the car's DVLA number plate

Veezu wrote:

It is regulated by the licensing triple lock,
which requires that a private hire driver’s badge, the vehicle’s number
plate, and the operator’s licence all be issued by the same licensing
authority before a booking is accepted.

And obviously the likes of Veezu and Uber are trying to uphold the principle of cross-bordering.

But, a bit like Uber's stuff, this is largely complete garbage. MOST journeys cross local authority boundaries? :-s

And banning cross-border working would mean people couldn't travel to airports etc? ](*,)

Either they don't have the slightest clue about the issue, or they're being disingenuous to support their business model [-(

Veezu wrote:

There are 263 licensing authorities across England and most journeys
will cross local authority boundaries. Any considerations to ban this
practice without restructuring licensing structures would result in
passengers being left stranded and unable to move in the manner they
are used to and the choice of operators that are currently available to
them. Cross-border enables longer journeys, such as airport journeys.
While some stakeholders have claimed that cross-border hiring poses a
safety risk, there is no evidence or data to support this. Economic
protectionism should not be the basis for a ban on cross border hiring.

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2025 8:37 am

Quote:

There are 263 licensing authorities across England and most journeys will cross local authority boundaries.

They know about unitary authorities right?

It's difficult to comprehend such idiocy.

I can distinctly remember a large PH association pushing the narrative of a scenario where a PH breaks down in another district and the operator wasn't able to get the passenger a replacement vehicle because that was classed as cross border.

Within a matter of months that same association was crying about the likes of Uber's business model taking off.

StuartW · **Joined:** Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am **Posts:** 18359

CaptainCab wrote:

Within a matter of months that same association was crying about the likes of Uber's business model taking off.

Well indeed the whole Uber thing has changed the representation dynamic fundamentally - suddenly the sworn enemies in the HC v PH thing had a common enemy.

"Your enemy's enemy is your friend", as the ancient proverb goes

captain cab · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2025 5:57 pm

StuartW wrote:

Well indeed the whole Uber thing has changed the representation dynamic fundamentally - suddenly the sworn enemies in the HC v PH thing had a common enemy.

"Your enemy's enemy is your friend", as the ancient proverb goes

In the debates prior to the deregulation act the HC trade were called luddites by the unnamed association - 'modern technology doesn't see borders' and suchlike - Uber were already here, but that particular association didn't realise the monster they were about to unleash - they were the first ones crying about PH cross border.

(iv) In a modern Britain there should be no "invisible borders" or "barriers to free trade", as protectionism and outdated thinking belongs to yesterday. In London for environmental and safety reasons "Licensed Operators" in Private Hire are not constrained by "quotas and artificial operating borders", etc., and rightly can pick up and drop anywhere with a previously made booking.