Taxi Driver Online

Spot the mega-clanger about the vehicle age rules - I mean, what's the point of reporting this?


Portsmouth councillors to review taxi safety rules amid Wolverhampton concerns

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/polit ... ns-5705765

Portsmouth councillors are set to review how the city’s taxi and private hire licensing rules compare with Wolverhampton plated taxis following concerns about safety.

A report to the council’s licensing committee provides a comparison between the two authorities’ policies covering driver checks, vehicle standards and enforcement rules.

The issue of taxis licensed by the City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) has raised fears in Portsmouth due to differing safety standards. The taxis are able to operate in Portsmouth due to CWC’s cheaper and simpler application process.

The review examines the requirements placed on private hire drivers, operators and hackney carriage vehicles licensed by each council.

Under Portsmouth’s rules, drivers must have held a full driving licence for at least two years and be at least 21 years old before applying.

The council also requires enhanced DBS checks every six months and mandatory safeguarding training, including written and oral English tests.

The report notes that some requirements in Wolverhampton differ. For example, drivers there must hold a DVLA category B licence for at least 12 months, and there is no minimum age requirement.

Vehicle standards also vary between the two councils. In Portsmouth, hackney carriage vehicles must be no more than six years old when first licensed and can operate until they are 12 years old.

By contrast, Wolverhampton allows new applications only for brand new vehicles but permits renewals until vehicles are around 15 and a half years old.

Portsmouth also requires CCTV to be installed in licensed vehicles, with recordings kept for 31 days, while CCTV in Wolverhampton vehicles is voluntary.

In Portsmouth, all drivers are required to undertake a driving assessment, while in Wolverhampton this is only required for hackney carriage drivers.

The report also outlines differences in enforcement approaches and how past criminal convictions are considered when assessing whether a driver is fit and proper to hold a licence.

In late February, the council’s licensing committee met to discuss resident feedback on private hire vehicles and taxis in the city.

Cllr Emily Strudwick stated that she has refused in the past to get into Wolverhampton plated taxis, advising residents that “if it’s not Portsmouth, don’t get in it.”

Councillors will meet on March 23 to discuss the report.

I don't think HC vehicle age limits are really what needs to be looked at

Interesting, though, if Wolves does only allow brand new HCs, in contrast to their PHV policy

This is a different version of the same article by the same shared local democracy reporter. But maybe a sub-editor has amended the bit about age rules for clarity and brevity. But has actually made it worse


Portsmouth set to check taxi regulations with Wolverhampton

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/259355 ... erhampton/

Fears over taxi safety have prompted a review of licensing standards after out of city taxis have overrun a Hampshire city.

Portsmouth City Council is set to examine its rules compared to those in Wolverhampton, where some of the city’s operating vehicles are licensed.

Councillor Emily Strudwick raised personal concerns and said she has refused in the past to get into Wolverhampton plated taxis.

She told residents: "If it’s not Portsmouth, don’t get in it."

A report to the council’s licensing committee highlights differences between the two authorities, covering driver requirements, vehicle standards and enforcement.

Taxis licensed by the City of Wolverhampton Council (CWC) can operate in Portsmouth due to CWC’s simpler and cheaper application process.

Under Portsmouth’s regulations, drivers must hold a full licence for at least two years and be at least 21 years old.

The city also requires enhanced DBS checks every six months and compulsory safeguarding training.

In contrast, Wolverhampton requires only 12 months on a DVLA category B licence and has no minimum age limit.

Vehicle age limits also differ, with Portsmouth allowing taxis up to 12 years old, while Wolverhampton permits renewals up to 15 and a half years.

Portsmouth also makes CCTV compulsory in vehicles, while Wolverhampton leaves it optional.

Councillors will discuss the report on March 23.

Well at least if you're reasonably switched on you'll know the first version of this at the top is irrelevant nonsense.

Not so much this, because most readers who know even the slightest bit about the Wolverhampton thing would assume it's about PHVs, when presumably it's again referring to the HC age rule as above.

And, of course, this version omits the *on* age rule, which is perhaps the major difference, and thus the bit that needs to be highlighted.

But since it's about HCs it's all irrelevant nonsense anyway

(Could get even sniffier and point out that the above paragraph reads like it's making a distinction between *renewals* and otherwise. But it's all bollocks anyway )

Of course, the official report does outline the different PHV age rules.

Six-years on for Portsmouth, and then 12-years off. And the basic age rule for Wolves is 11.5 years. So presumably there's no on and off rules per se, and just a blanket 11.5 years maximum age.

So, in fact, Portsmouth actually allows older PHVs than Wolverhampton

But, of course, it's the ON rule that's probably the more important one.

And, interesting that there's no mention of the Wolverhampton inspection process for vehicles, which would also be a mega-interesting comparison. But maybe the reason it's silent on that is because Wolverhampton also likes to keep quiet about it all

Anyway, it's quite a long list of stuff if anyone fancies a look, and would take a bit of time to go through it all, particularly the vetting-related stuff.

But not clear precisely the point of it all - presumably there's no intention to relax the Portsmouth standards?

I suspect the intention is to do a bit of grandstanding and posturing.

Therefore just like Wolverhampton does, just for a different audience

https://democracy.portsmouth.gov.uk/doc ... report.pdf

Councils need to realise you can't compete with Wolverhampton.

They are the pariahs of the taxi/PH trade.

_________________
IDFIMH

All eminently predictable. And not really sure what writing to the government and LGA will add to all that's already going on at the moment...


Portsmouth takes steps to manage out-of-town taxis

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/259467 ... own-taxis/

A Hampshire city is calling for urgent reform of taxi licensing due to concerns over public safety.

The call follows growing concerns about out-of-town vehicles operating under different safety standards in, with Portsmouth City Council formally agreeing to raise the issue with central government at a recent full council meeting.

The motion, tabled by Councillor Emily Strudwick, addresses the issue of cross-border licensing, where taxis and private hire vehicles operate in areas where they are not licensed.

Cllr Strudwick said: "Due to national legislation, particularly the de-regulation act, local authorities have very limited powers to control cross-border licensing.

"Over time this has allowed vehicles licensed in other areas to operate widely across the country and we saw a significant increase during the Covid-19 period and it does not appear to be slowing down."

Councillors have raised concerns about taxis licensed by The City of Wolverhampton Council, which has a reputation for a cheaper and faster application process, as well as lower safety requirements.

She said residents deserved "confidence" when entering a licensed vehicle, that local drivers deserve a "level playing field", and that councils should be able to use "the tools they need to protect the public they serve".

Portsmouth has introduced safety measures such as mandatory CCTV in vehicles, a standard not adopted in Wolverhampton.

She welcomed the Department for Transport’s current consultation on taxi licensing and said the motion "clearly expresses Portsmouth’s position."

The newly appointed chair of the licensing committee, councillor Lee Hunt, commended Cllr Strudwick for her work.

Cllr Hunt criticised the "dark side" of de-regulation as the "headlong rush of successive governments cosying up to market forces".

Cllr Hunt previously said as far as the council is concerned "they’re out of control" in relation to Wolverhampton taxis.

Cllr Strudwick also told residents "if it’s not Portsmouth, don’t get in it.”

The council unanimously supported the motion, which calls for a national database, mandatory CCTV, journey limits based on licensing areas, and stronger local enforcement powers.

The council will write to central government and the Local Government Association to request urgent reform.

It also asks the council leader to seek backing from Hampshire MPs and the Police and Crime Commissioner, and reaffirms the council’s commitment to passenger safety, particularly for women and girls.

I think Portsmouth needs to get its own act in order before they start preaching about out-of-town cars.

An increasing number of Portsmouth cars now work B&H via the Uber act, and an increasing number of them have decided they don't need to worry about proper signage on their vehicles.

The B&H trade has sent Portsmouth at least a dozen photos, and as of yet, nothing seems to have happened.

_________________
IDFIMH