Written evidence submitted by City of Wolverhampton Council (TPV0160)
Introduction
In 2015, City of Wolverhampton Council was a typical licensing authority that licensed around 1,200 Private Hire Drivers, before undergoing a streamlining initiative called ‘systems thinking’ across different services. As part of this digitisation programme, a user-friendly application form went online in 2016 which made it more convenient to apply to Wolverhampton and subsequently applications began to come in from across the country, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Legally, the Council could not refuse these applications simply because of where the applicant lived. This has resulted in over 50,000 Private Hire Drivers being licensed by the Council, 96% of which live outside of Wolverhampton.
City of Wolverhampton Council are submitting evidence in support of the inquiry and the vital opportunity it presents, in delivering an improved licensing framework that prioritises public safety.
In short, no. City of Wolverhampton Council is clear that the current licensing regime needs to change. The Council’s clear key priority is the protection and safety of the public.
The current licensing system does not allow licensing authorities such as Wolverhampton to reject drivers or applications unless they are not fit and proper or do not meet other very limited criteria. The Council has done a lot to try and mitigate the potential impact of the large number of drivers/operators who have applied to the Council for licenses but critically it cannot choose to reject applications for a lack of connection with our city, and it is also important to note that licensing authorities cannot use licensing income for other purposes, and cannot make a surplus on the fees.
The Council has focused its efforts on doing all it can to try and protect the public but is always open to suggestions and comments on how it can improve within the current legal system. The Council has implemented the Department for Transport’s statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards including advice on how it deals with convictions as well as the DfT’s best practice guidance for licensing authorities. It has also carried out a significant number of steps to try and protect the public, however the current legal system needs change.
It is important to note that the Council would welcome changes to the law to change the current system and that the large number of licenses that the Council currently has is not down to the Council encouraging such applications but rather applicants applying to the Council due to the current level of fees and the ease of making applications digitally to this Council.
Fundamentally the licensing system needs to change to ensure that there is a more co-ordinated and uniform system across the country and less difference, both in terms of applications, processing, standards and enforcement.
A good example would be a mandatory requirement for all authorities to use the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Multiple Status Checking Facility to automate daily conviction checks. These are used by this Council and ensure that for the vast majority of drivers, convictions are notified the same day they go on the system, meaning the Council can take urgent action to protect the public. In some areas, drivers are allowed to continue working for up to six months before authorities are made aware of police information on the DBS Update Service.
The DVLA’s decision to charge 60p for each check on their Access to Driver Data is also a challenge on the frequency of checks for motoring convictions and disqualifications. This information should be freely accessible by licensing authorities, in the interests of public safety.
Another key issue is the inability for compliance officers to stop moving vehicles, creating a dependency upon police officers, who often must work overtime to support and at a cost of around £500 per shift to the licensing authority. Compliance officers should be statutorily empowered to stop licensed vehicles and unlicensed vehicles suspected of committing offences under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, such as acting as an illegal taxi.
There are also issues arising from a lack of a centralised database of all drivers, which means that police and other authorities cannot quickly identify the licensing authority of a vehicle.
It should also be standardised across the country that only wheelchair accessible vehicles may be granted hackney carriage licences, as otherwise they are unable to be hired by those in wheelchairs and therefore are not available to the whole public. There is no other practical incentive available to local authorities to encourage the purchase of wheelchair accessible vehicles.
Yes, as stated earlier, the focus here must be protection of the public. This Council believes that changes can and should be made to the system to bring greater standardisation. Passengers are less safe in vehicles where drivers do not have daily comprehensive automated checking of licensees, or where the DfT standards are not followed.
Standardisation will also support the consistency in fares. For example, when a local policy, requires a vehicle to be under a certain age, this can increase costs to the trade which are passed to customers. Passengers could also receive varying service, for example discrepancies about if children under three years old count towards to passenger capacity. Consistent clear guidance about under-threes always counting towards the capacity, for safety reasons again would support customer expectations of service.
Consistency of appearance would also reduce confusion for customers around what a safe licenced taxi should look like, i.e. standard appearance of each type of vehicle. Licence plates should take a single uniform format, and driver licences being standardised will help customers make the right choice when choosing a taxi.
Penalties for breach of licence conditions should be standardised for all licensing authorities.
We would be required to consult and then update our policies.
Uniform standards in taxi licensing reducing the appeal of drivers looking outside their local authority will support this. As stated earlier, legally, the current licensing system does not allow licensing authorities such as Wolverhampton to reject drivers or applications unless they are not fit and proper or do not meet other very limited criteria. Authorities like Wolverhampton cannot choose to reject applications for a lack of connection with our city when potential applicants are attracted to us because of our fees and quick, digital systems.
A national regime with uniform standards is, in our view, likely to be the best solution. The benefits to public safety of a comprehensive uniform regime will take away some of the allure of authorities like Wolverhampton’s digital processes for processing applications quickly, if the same high standards are in place across all licencing authorities.
In our view it is insufficient to implement ‘minimum standards’. As long as there is variation in standards across the country, there is a risk of licence shopping, the trade will complain of an uneven playing field and the public will be concerned about danger areas.
It must be considered that many drivers who undertake school transport bookings are not licensed in the area within which they occur. Many authorities with significant school transport needs do not have an adequate licensed trade to meet demand, which would result in an increase in the number of children unable to be transported to school.
Some of these challenges would be offset by new powers given to licensing authorities to suspend a licence pending investigation, with magistrates and crown courts empowered to revoke and suspend licences at the point of sentencing, (as happens currently with personal licences held under the Licensing Act 2003). It is our belief that licencing officers should also be allowed to suspend other licensing authorities’ licences, to prevent the driver continuing to work on a ‘back up’ licence held elsewhere.
Going further, there should be a duty upon licensees to declare their licences upon arrest and a further duty for police officers to make a decision, as well as recording their reasoning either way, as to whether that licence should be suspended as part of the licensee’s bail conditions. Barring decisions should be considered at point of conviction and the DBS must reduce the timescales within which the Update Service notifies licensing authorities – this can take in excess of six months. There should be a duty to update records for taxi and PHV drivers within five working days.
The challenges the current system experiences have not been helped by the reduction in retention periods on the National Anti-Fraud Network’s National Register of Refusals, Revocations and Suspensions, from 25 years to 11 years, weakening safeguards. Hypothetically, this means that drivers revoked following serious complaints, such as rape in 2013 that did not result in conviction, may now reapply to another licensing authority with ease. This decision should not only be reversed but ideally increased to 99 years.
Compliance and Enforcement efforts would be supported by better partnership working and increased efficiencies, as well as the benefits of pooling resources, if those same officers were regionally organised, balancing efficiency with economies of scale. It is our belief that there should be a national compliance intelligence board to share information, plus a national information sharing agreement should be in place with every licensing authority required to join, as well as giving every compliance officer in the country the power to suspend any vehicle and submit licences for review.
Compliance officers should be empowered to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for private hire vehicles entering taxi ranks and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for a range of offences, including breaching licence conditions, plying for hire, using a vehicle with a defective tyre or using a mobile phone whilst driving. Fees would be payable to the compliance authority.
Compliance officers need the power to stop hackney carriage and private hire vehicles, as well as unlicensed vehicles suspected of operating illegally in the trade. Currently, this is undertaken by joint working with police officers, however the police have limited resources, and a better solution would be to give compliance officers new powers in legislation.
Transparency and information sharing would be supported by a publicly accessible national register which lists all vehicles, operators and drivers. This should be updated daily by every authority. There should be a consistent standard that requires licensed operators publish on their website which licences they hold, and they should link to the register, similarly to pharmaceutical licences.
Licence plates and driver badges should take a standardised national format, ensuring consistency for customers to reduce confusion and increase informed decision making when using taxis.
All of this would be supported if Government enacts legislation which allows the minister to issue regulations to continuously improve the regime with consistent national standard licence conditions for all licensees across the country, with the option for additional conditions to be added following a hearing for an application or licence review.
It is illogical that private hire vehicle operators cannot accept bookings for any private hire vehicle in the country, when they can accept bookings for any hackney carriage. Companies based overseas can also accept bookings for these hackney carriages.
It is our experience that some private hire vehicle operator licensing sees duplication across authorities with some operators reportedly having upwards of 100 individual licences. This is clearly inefficient, costly and does not improve public safety, as they are expected to navigate the multitude of requirements and spend a huge amount of money purchasing multiple licences which effectively permit the same activity. Effort by councils is then unnecessarily duplicated across the country as multiple applications for the same operator are processed.
To prevent the above Wolverhampton Council would support removing the triple lock, allowing all drivers to work for any operator and drive any vehicle. Operators should not need to apply for hundreds of licences. Licences should allow any operator to accept a booking for any licensed vehicle, driven by any licensed driver anywhere in the country. This will increase the availability of drivers and reduce costs to operators and lease companies as they only have to be licensed once.
There is a similar problem for drivers and proprietors, as a private hire vehicle can only be driven by a driver licensed by the same licensing authority. Therefore, licensed lease vehicles have a limited customer base. This limited market affects drivers, particularly when their usual vehicle has been involved in a road traffic collision, with the reduced supply driving up hire charges.
If this is not implemented, as hackney carriages can accept bookings from any licensed operator, it should be a national legal requirement that they are wheelchair accessible.
Consistent national uniform standards must be published and updated by government, through statutory guidance. These must not be ‘minimum’ standards, as allowing licensing authorities to deviate will create variation in regulation, when consistency is key.
Mandatory data sharing agreement and joint-authorisation agreement with every other authority would support effective reform. Along with the statutory power to enforce against any licence holder. Wolverhampton Council would support regionalisation of licensing authorities into strategic transport authorities, or at least regionalisation of enforcement officers onto the police areas, as this would improve the economies of scale and enforcement.
Enhancing the powers of licencing authorities to undertake interim suspensions of driver’s licences whilst they are investigated by the police for serious matters would increase passenger safety. There should also be a duty placed on licensees to declare to the police (when arrested) and courts (when appearing in court) that they hold a licence. Police should then be under a duty to formally consider bail conditions prohibiting them from using those licences and the courts should also be under a duty to consider revocation of the licence as part of sentencing.
Further enforcement powers would also support this, for example, compliance officers should be empowered to issue Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) for private hire vehicles entering taxi ranks and Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for a range of offences, including breaching licence conditions, plying for hire, using a vehicle with a defective tyre or using a mobile phone whilst driving, helping support compliance around safety for customers.
This step would also reduce the burden on the courts. It should be noted that we believe that the use of fixed penalty notices should not preclude the authorities’ powers to review, revoke nor suspend licences.
Currently, vehicle proprietors do not apply to transfer ownership, they merely notify the Council. As such, we believe it should be an offence to transfer ownership of a licensed vehicle to an unlicensed person. This prevents the current issue where vehicles are transferred to people who are not fit and proper, but the Council has to take reactive action rather than preventative. Limited companies, including those for operators, should also be prevented from adding new directors until their fitness and propriety has been assessed by the licensing authority.
We would also like to note that Hackney carriage booking offices are unregulated, inconsistent of the requirements of private hire vehicle operators. The invitation and acceptance of bookings for hackney carriages should be licensable, with all hackney carriage drivers permitted to do this and all private hire vehicle operators permitted to do this. The resulting ‘operator’ licence should allow them to do so for taxis and PHVs.
Wolverhampton Council would also support fees being set nationally and reviewed annually, increasing as a minimum in line with inflation. Payment for licences should be on a Direct Debit system to ensure continuity, with digital checks occurring throughout the licence period and not simply on renewal, a system which should include daily checks of the DBS Update Service, DVLA records and NR3S. This step would help licencing authorities being stuck in the legal position of investing in the service to reduce fees and therefore making Wolverhampton more attractive for licence applicants. Again, we support this consistency as a way to reform the PHV application process.
If CCTV is to be mandated, it must be introduced that the system must not be able to be disabled or removed in any way. We do acknowledge that funding would be needed from government to the existing trade to support them in purchasing these, and/or bulk procurement organised nationally to help the trade benefit from economies of scale.
The training and English assessment for drivers must be standardised.
Safeguarding is at the heart of everything we do when licensing in Wolverhampton. This dedication to keeping our residents safe has led us to conclude that working as a hackney carriage or private hire driver should become a regulated activity within the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This would make it a criminal offence for people barred from working with children or vulnerable adults, to apply for a hackney carriage or private hire driver licence. Licensed drivers should also be able to use their Enhanced DBS Certificate to apply as a school transport driver as they are currently required to obtain a separate certificate.
All vehicles should be fitted with digital tachographs to ensure that drivers are resting and not overworking. These should be paid for by vehicle proprietors.
Standard licence conditions should also be published by the government and updated through statutory guidance.
These platforms are driving up standards. Complaints are much easier to investigate, particularly due to the record on the passenger’s phone of the journey, as well as GPS data which can be viewed by the Council. Much of the criticism of these platforms is anti-competitive, from incumbent local monopolies.
It is often said that passengers will not know which council to complain to if their vehicle is licensed elsewhere. This is not the case. As for any private hire vehicle the complaint should be made to the operator, who can then pass this to the correct licensing authority. If customers think it is sufficiently urgent or appropriate to contact the licensing authority, it is already government guidance that the licensing authority includes signage on how to make complaints directly to them. City of Wolverhampton Council complies with this guidance and complaint stickers have been in place in our licensed vehicles for several years. We believe that this should be a consistent standard across all PHVs to ensure any customer has an immediate point of contact to complain.
The primary issue is the decision to reduce the retention of records from 25 years to 11 years. This must be reversed and ideally increased to 99 years. This change has meant, hypothetically, drivers revoked following complaints of rape in 2013 which did not result in conviction are now easily able to apply to another licensing authority. We believe this needs to change.
In addition, it may be that licensing authorities have not backdated their decisions on the register, meaning that many drivers who were revoked for non-conviction complaints before 2022 in some areas continue to trade. The register should include a list of all licensees, which is automatically updated to provide a national register of licence holders.
This change will also aid police investigate crimes.
Whilst there will likely always remain a need for some driven vehicles, such as for the elderly, those with care needs and school transport, the majority of the trade will be significantly impacted by this. Within a relatively short period, there could be significant unemployment in the industry, as drivers become redundant. There are also concerns about the use of driverless vehicles to traffic people, drugs and weapons.
September 2025