Taxi Driver Online

Regarding various threads and comments on here about enforcement and prosecutions etc, came across this by chance at the weekend.

It's a mass FOI request sent about six months ago to 313 local authorities (including Scotland) about trade-related 'prosecutions'

Which is potentially very interesting, and the kind of thing I often think about doing, apart from the fact it could turn out to be the rabbit hole from hell

Which I think is borne out by some of the replies. And, of course, all this FOI stuff is usually pretty messy, even considering a single request, not to mention the 300+ in this case.

And looking at a few of the responses, it just demonstrates how difficult it would be to collate it all into some kind of national picture, say. I'd guess that like, for example, the NR3S database, a lot of the stuff would be compiled by individual local authorities on a very varied basis, so difficult to precisely compare the figures. (But, of course, the object of the exercise might be to compare compliance and enforcement stuff in the first place, but if even the information in the FOI responses in complied inconsistently...)

On the other hand, it might be useful to look at a few individual councils...

And another slightly strange thing is that almost all the Scottish councils have returned a response along the lines of 'information not held', and I'm not quite sure why that would be. One problem might be that the question is asked under the English FOI legislation, while we have different legislation up here. Not that that should really matter, and the only one I looked at (Dundee) simply says that it's done under different legislation, but then the question is answered anyway. And it just says the information isn't held.

But, thinking about it, I'm not sure if Scottish councils have the same powers of prosecution for plying for hire, say, as councils down south. Which could explain the answers from the Scottish councils. But you'd think they'd point that out in the answer (maybe some do, if I looked at them) rather than the more legalistic 'information not held' response.

Come to think of it, I find it difficult to recall reading about any *prosecutions* for any trade stuff up here. And I'd guess it's actually up to police rather than councils.

Anyway, not sure if the questioner has actually done anything with the responses. The name specified is Matt Thomson - not sure who that is, but could that be Driver Matty of DM News?

Link to the whole batch at the bottom of this:


Dear Luton Borough Council,

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I would like to obtain data regarding taxi licensing prosecutions within your local authority.

Please could you provide me with the following data:

- The number of prosecutions initiated.
- The type of offense (e.g., illegal plying for hire, driving without a license, vehicle defects, etc.).
- The outcome of each prosecution (e.g., conviction, fine, license suspension, license revocation).
- The number of licenses suspended or revoked as a result of an investigation.

I would like this data for the following time periods:
- 1st January 2024 - 31st December 2024
- 1st January 2025 -31st July 2025

If it is not possible to provide more recent data, please could you prioritise the full 12 months of 2024 data.

I would prefer to receive the information in electronic format, preferably as a CSV or Excel spreadsheet. If this is not possible, please provide the information in the most accessible format available.

I understand that you are required to respond to this request within 20 working days. If you need any clarification regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Matt Thompson

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/info_request_batch/6489

Here's the Luton response, for example, which demonstrates how it could be interesting for anoraks, but also the potential for a huge rabbit hole

And then the response asks if the questioner would prefer stuff on 'investigations and outcomes'...

Which demonstrates how even comparing two different authorities would be difficult in terms of the simple stats.

But, on the other hand, even looking at two different authorities demonstrates very different approaches to compliance and enforcement

On the other hand, this is the Reading response, which obviously features quite a lot in terms of prosecutions and related press releases etc.

And this also demonstrates the slightly mess nature of it all. Although it's maybe not as messy as I thought it was at first glance, because basically it should all be on the same page, I'd guess, but the columns are spread over two pages on this pdf

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... sthrough=1

I had a look at the first Scottish council on the list, and even that one (West Lothian) demonstrates the potential minefield it could all be.

Of course, it's always difficult to compare councils regarding stuff like this, but even more so when it comes to comparing English and Scottish councils.

Anyway, the first point is that the response states that the council doesn't hold the info requested, because they're not bound by the English FOI legislation. But they answer in terms of the Scottish FOI legislation anyway

Which is fair enough, but the way it's answered and presented (look at the splurge of stuff on the response page you have to wade through until getting to the brief answer - below is just the bare bones of the question and response, basically).

On the other hand, I'm not sure if the answer to 1, 2 and 3 is because it's under the English FOI legislation, or because council prosecutions aren't possible under the Scottish licensing legislation

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... utions_309

But note that the council's answer to question 4 basically answers a different question to the one (I think) was asked. It answers on the basis of a complaint from police, as opposed to a criminal prosecution per se. (But to which the answer is zero )

On the other hand, I initially assumed the question 4 followed on from the first three - ie how many suspended or revoked as a result of the prosecutions. But that's actually asked in question 3

So question 4 is very vague. Is it referring to a criminal investigation that didn't result in a prosecution or conviction? Or to investigations more generally?

West Lothian takes a different approach (although it's different in Scotland anyway), and seems to be more about Police Scotland complaints under the legislation up here, as opposed to any criminal investigation of any kind.

And West Lothian is obviously ignoring the question in terms of its own investigations that don't necessarily involve Police Scotland

Apart from that, it's all quite straightforward

But it all shows the difficulty of even formulating a suitable question for FOI stuff, because of the often legalistic way they're answered.

For example, as regards the TfL complaints and revocation stuff that was answered in an FOI recently, I considered FOIing them to drill down as regards the plying for hire stuff, and thus the extent to which this was happening within or outside the TfL area (I thought it would be interesting in terms of cross-border compliance and enforcement stuff etc).

But I found it difficult to even formulate a suitable question that probably wouldn't leave lots of stuff unanswered, and would probably entail a bit of email toing and froing to clarify it all. So in the end I didn't bother

I think there were too many questions.

Just ask for all enforcement actions taken by the council in respect of taxi/PH licensing.

_________________
IDFIMH

Problem is, Sussex, your suggested question is maybe a bit too wide. Might work with one or a handful of councils in terms of collating and comparisons, but 300 responses to a question like that would just mean overwhelmed with information

As, indeed, even the 300 responses here to the narrower set of questions demonstrates - very difficult to go through it all and compile the responses into something meaningful.

Have been meaning to do a bit of this for a while now (30 years or so ), but never quite got round to it.

But from what I can see from the stuff I've read over the years, I think a narrow set of well-defined questions would be the way to go, and probably aimed at a small number of licensing authorities if meaningful comparisons are to be made.

Because I strongly suspect that if meaningful comparisons are to be made etc, then it would require a bit of back and forth with the councils to clarify the information etc. Thus not really possible with 300 councils

I mean, came across this response at random from Falkirk Council:


I don't think Matt Thompson responded...

(Maybe he was offended by the lack of question mark and poor spacing )

And, as suggested earlier, I don't really think *councils* in Scotland have the power to initiate prosecutions.

But I suppose it depends how you define *initiate* - in the loose sense, this could mean making a complaint to Police Scotland, say. In the stricter sense, it could mean the more formal processes set in train by Police Scotland itself.

Here's another Scottish one from Perth & Kinross:


Which, again, is another potential quirk muddying the waters, because I don't think councils in Scotland have the same power to initiate prosecutions as they do in England - for example, the Trafford Council one yesterday.

And the further quirk here is that I'm assuming any prosecution would be done by the council complaining to Police Scotland, and then they would do it via the Procurrator Fiscal (roughly speaking, like the CPS in England).

But I'd have guessed councils don't really have the powers to refer taxi licensing stuff directly to the Procurator Fiscal anyway, but who knows?

Rabbit hole, much?

I don't believe it would be.

All councils have to keep a log of enforcement activities, or they should.

They just need to publish that log.

_________________
IDFIMH

But they all interpret the questions in umpteen different ways, as they have done in this instance.

Whereas if they just published the raw data, then we can interpret it as we wish.

_________________
IDFIMH

It could maybe be done with a handful of councils, with a fairly narrow remit in terms of what the information was required for.

Otherwise it would be far too huge a task, and exceptionally messy. I don't even want to think about these 'enforcement logs', or whatever

Of course, if there was a specific purpose to it all - as opposed to just pontificating about it on here - then I could see the point, but I can't really think of any obvious purpose, or at least a purpose that would be anything other than a talking point for a handful of people on here.

Maybe the NR3S database is instructive, and I spent some time on another thread comparing some of the stats disclosed on the DfT's stats spreadsheets, and even with something like that you'd think would be roughly comparable, the stats didn't really look anything like comparable, and didn't look as if they were complied on a consistent basis.

I did actually collect all the Scottish councils' licensing emails addresses together last year and drafted a few questions in relation to their annual inspections, therefore not unrelated to the kind of stuff in this thread.

So that was a fairly narrow remit, and with a specific purpose in mind - comparing policies and practices elsewhere to what's been happening in Fife

I didn't follow through, though