Search results
Oct 10, 2024 · Taxi drivers testify remotely outside City Hall during a hearing on requiring vehicles to be wheelchair accessible, Oct. 10, 2024. Credit: Ben Fractenberg/THE CITY. Taxi medallion owners facing a new deadline for making their vehicles wheelchair accessible by next March say conversion costs could take cabbies off the road.
- Foreword
- Executive summary
- Accessibility
- Duration of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing enforcement points
- Driver proficiency
- Vocational qualifications
- Topographical assessments for private hire vehicle drivers
- Vehicle checks by drivers
The consultation on revised best practice guidance for taxis and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England recognised the critical role the sector plays in keeping the country moving, allowing people to travel safely and easily.
Many words have been written about the changes to the sector as a result of the adoption of new technology by the trade and the public, but the fundamental objective of licensing has remained the same - to enable the trade to provide a safe, accessible, available and affordable range of services. The recommendations made in the consultation version sought to assist licensing authorities to regulate in a way that enables the trade to meet the demands of the public.
The responses to the consultation have been carefully considered and have on some issues resulted in changes from the consultation version. This is a listening government and I thank all those that took the time to respond to the consultation and help shape its policy on many important and contentious issues that the much-expanded best practice guidance covers.
Passengers have different needs and preferences - licensing authorities must recognise this and have policies that accommodate these. In doing so they benefit not just the passengers who can access the services they need but they provide opportunities for those that work or wish to work in the sector. There is strong demand for services and in many areas demand outstrips supply. Licensing authorities must consider the effect that over-regulation has on the trade and their residents.
Where standards need to be high and rigorously applied, they must be. The government has already acted to protect the public from the small minority in the trade that seek to abuse their position of trust through the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards. The best practice guidance seeks to maximise these benefits by removing barriers to licensing so the public do not have to resort to unlicensed, unvetted and uninsured drivers and vehicles to get home. Setting proportionate requirements is however only part of the picture, licensing authorities must enable those that should be licensed to be granted one quickly and at a reasonable cost. Just as the trade and the public have embraced new technology, so too must licensing authorities. Too often I hear of excessive delays in the licensing systems of some authorities, not in processing but in enabling prospective licensees access to the training and assessments they require.
The government has provided its view on how the sector should be regulated. It is now for licensing authorities to review the best practice guidance and reappraise their policies and do so with the objective outlined above, to provide a regulatory environment that enables the trade to deliver safe, accessible, available and affordable services.
Since 2006, the Department for Transport (DfT) has published best practice guidance to assist local authorities in England that have a responsibility for the regulation of the taxi and private hire vehicle trades. This was revised in 2010. The consultation sought views on an updated version of the guidance to reflect changes seen in the sector since 2010.
In 2020, the Secretary of State for Transport published the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards. This was issued using powers under section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 which enables the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to licensing authorities as to how their licensing functions may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over from harm.
The best practice guidance is intended to be considered in conjunction with the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, focusing on how licensing authorities can best use their existing powers to ensure that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, vehicles and private hire vehicle operators provide a safe, inclusive, accessible and attractive service to all passengers they may carry.
While the safety of the public is paramount, licensing authorities, as regulators, also have a duty to ensure that they carry out their activities in a way that supports the people and businesses that they regulate. The best practice guidance aligns with overarching principles in the Regulators’ Code that unnecessary burdens should be avoided and that regulators should choose proportionate approaches.
As taxis and private hire vehicles have a wide range of users, a 12-week public consultation ran in 2022. This invited respondents to offer their views on specific parts of the revised best practice guidance.
573 responses to the consultation were received by the department. The majority of these responded directly to the consultation survey provided by the department, whilst others chose to respond in an alternate manner – such as detailing their opinions on the consultation in a letter. All relevant feedback from respondents was considered.
Proposed measure - inclusive service plan
The consultation version of the best practice guidance proposed that all licensing authorities develop and maintain an inclusive service plan (ISP), either as a standalone document or as part of their local transport plans. It was suggested that ISPs should present the findings of regular reviews concerning the extent to which demand for accessible taxi and private hire vehicle services in their area were being met and include a strategy for improving the inclusivity of taxi and private hire vehicle provision. In your view should licensing authorities introduce inclusive service plans (ISPs) for taxi and private hire vehicles? Summary of responses within scope Positive responses mostly acknowledged that disability should not be a barrier to people using taxis and private hire vehicles, and that disabled people should be able to access these services just like everyone else. Many agreed with the value of developing ISPs in collaboration with disabled people and representative organisations to understand what issues continued to pose a barrier for disabled passengers, and whether existing action taken by local authorities has helped to minimise negative experiences. There was also a view that an ISP should cover all transport modes to ensure issues with transport service accessibility are addressed holistically. A few respondents expressed the usefulness of integrating ISPs within a wider strategy, such as the local transport plans (LTPs) or a broader accessibility plan. It was however noted that LTPs are produced at upper tier local authority level and that it was not clear how individual licensing authorities could feed into them. Overall, a small majority of respondents disagreed that the guidance should encourage licensing authorities to introduce ISPs for the services they regulate. Comments received indicated low engagement with the specific proposal however, with feedback reflecting respondents’ views on the provision of accessible services generally, rather than on the ISP proposal specifically. Most respondents representing the taxi or private hire vehicle trades, commenting on this proposal, felt that introducing ISPs would negatively impact drivers as they would have to bear the cost of purchasing vehicles that aligned with any new vehicle specification. Without any funding or support in place, drivers felt purchasing accessible vehicles was not feasible. A few drivers also felt that existing plans in place at a local level were suitable, although it is unclear which plans they were referring to and the extent to which they suggest respective authorities are already acting proactively to improve accessibility. If authorities already have accessibility plans of some description in place, the adoption of ISPs may be straightforward in such cases, but the extent to which this is likely to be the case is not clear. Over half of licensing authorities who responded to this question agreed that ISPs should be developed, with under a quarter of licensing authorities disagreeing with the proposal. Among those that disagreed, there was a view that the development of several ISPs across licensing authorities would create confusion for transport users, and that a standalone document would result in duplication and additional administrative burden where these plans already exist within wider transport strategies such as local transport plans. Two authorities also expressed concerns with the associated costs of developing ISPs including undertaking surveys of existing and potential disabled passengers. A small number of licensing authorities indicated that they already take steps in line with the recommendations made under the ISP section, with another licensing authority stating this is something that they are looking to do internally. However, it is unclear whether they are referring to the overall development of an ISP or the recommended actions as part of its development. Government’s conclusion Many stakeholders recognised the importance of an inclusive service and the potential benefits of documenting such service provision in the manner suggested. Although the quantitative responses and some commentary suggested a level of dissatisfaction with the proposal to recommend the creation of ISPs, the comments received suggest that there are greater concerns relating to the trades’ preparedness to support disabled passengers and to increase the availability of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), rather than on the ISP proposal itself. Whilst the recommendation has been revised to reflect discrepancies regarding, for instance, the link with local transport plans, the government proposes to maintain the overall recommendation that ISP-like documents are developed and maintained by licensing authorities. With regard to the updating of such plans, the department has emphasised the role taxis and private hire vehicles can play in the transport mix for all areas and the benefits of including them in local transport plans. In the final version, the department recommends that ISPs are reviewed at least every 5 years to ensure their evidence base is up to date and, where possible, to align this with the local transport plan cycle. Further, Section 9 provides a high-level steer on how licensing authorities can assess unmet demand. Although this guidance is in place for authorities that impose quantity restrictions on taxis to ensure there is no significant unmet demand, it should also be considered when assessing the unmet demand for WAVs more generally. Within this section, the department recommends that authorities consider whether the demand for WAVs has been met as part of their assessments.
Proposed measure - accessibility measures
The consultation version of the best practice guidance explored the different barriers disabled people may be faced with when using taxis and private hire vehicles and specific measures licensing authorities could take to support the provision of an inclusive service. This section also proposed the development and maintenance of ISPs and outlined the action licensing authorities should take in instances where a driver has discriminated against a disabled person or has not adhered to their legal duties. The appropriateness of recommendations on the development of ISPs are however covered in the consideration of other questions. Do you agree that licensing authorities should introduce the accessibility measures proposed in the best practice guidance? Summary of responses within scope Overall, the number of respondents agreeing or disagreeing with the proposals was fairly evenly split, with a small majority in agreement. Many respondents agreed that the accessibility measures within the guidance should be introduced to improve disabled passengers’ travel experiences, prevent discrimination, and ensure customer needs are taken into consideration. This included a majority of licensing authorities and representatives of disabled people. Some respondents agreed with the overall principle but wanted clarity on how to implement specific measures. For example, in relation to the recommendation to consider accommodating wheelchairs larger than the standard size, there was a question as to whether a minimum specification would be set by the department. There was also a view that vehicle manufacturers should be consulted for better understanding on the specifications, as such vehicles are not largely available on the market. From those that disagreed, many expressed reservations about the feasibility of incentivising an increase in WAVs given perceived costs, including a number of licensing authorities, whilst others questioned the levers available to encourage such change. Some also believed that existing measures were sufficient and that drivers already made the required effort to assist passengers as much as possible. Another common theme amongst responses was the need for licensing authorities to engage with taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, operators, disabled people and other key stakeholders to understand the challenges within the trade and how to accommodate disabled people’s needs well. A few respondents suggested the use of test purchasing (also known as mystery shopping) and the potential to incorporate this within ISPs, to consider whether an appropriate standard of service is provided to disabled passengers. Government’s conclusion The department recognises the concerns raised regarding costs of vehicles and acknowledges that this would need to be considered as part of licensing authorities’ policies to increase the number of the WAVs. The best practice guidance recommends that WAVs should be capable of accommodating at least a reference wheelchair. Whilst the Department remains of the view that authorities should consider encouraging the use of vehicles carrying larger wheelchairs, there are currently no plans to specify respective dimensions. Examples of how licensing authorities can incentivise the uptake of WAVs have been provided in section 8 of the guidance. Authorities are free to consider the most appropriate means to assess whether the required standard of service has been provided, however, a recommendation was included on the use of test purchasing in section 5.
Other accessibility measures
The department sought the views of respondents on other measures that might be included in the final version of the best practice guidance. In your view are there any other measures licensing authorities should take to improve accessibility of taxis and private hire vehicles? What other measures should licensing authorities take to improve accessibility of taxis and private hire vehicles? Summary of responses within scope The vast majority of respondents did not answer this question. Only 136 responses were received, which included some responses that were not directly in scope of this question or the best practice guidance as a whole. A reoccurring theme to these responses concerned the consistency of the passenger experience. A small group of respondents, including licensing authorities, drivers and a representative organisation for disabled people, expressed the need to set a minimum accessibility standard to improve the service provided to passengers, particularly as many taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and operators run services across licensing authority boundaries. A licensing authority suggested improvements should be made to the manner in which information on taxis and private hire vehicles is made available, with the creation of a passenger standard charter to provide a central point for information on accessibility. A common view was the need for driver training, which a small number of respondents specifically referred to in some form. One licensing authority suggested an operator should be able to demonstrate that the driver of a WAV is equipped with the skills to assist disabled passengers, including with the securing of a wheelchair user’s wheelchair within the vehicle. Going further, some respondents suggesting that disability awareness training should be mandatory and cover all LA staff. Another suggestion was for relevant training to consider other protected characteristics, and for relevant training to extend to these groups. There was also a comment on the need for consistency when utilising restraints and seatbelts. An individual also suggested clarity on the use of a taxi meter, with a suggestion that meters have Text-to-Speech so that the price is read out for a visually impaired person. Two respondents suggested subsidies for disabled users, with one citing the Taxicard scheme, to help reduce barriers to access. Comments were also made on changes to roads which can affect a disabled person’s journey. For example, a small number of responses related to the theme of access to bus lanes with a few on wider road access. Often, the implication was that there was a need for taxis and private hire vehicles to have direct access to opportune locations so that disabled people could complete journeys more easily. A respondent noted the importance of safe and accessible pick-up and drop-off points throughout urban centres. A second theme concerned WAV policy. A small number of respondents suggested a requirement is set for a minimum percentage of an operator’s fleet to be wheelchair accessible, with one making an additional comment that licensing authorities should have the option to require private hire vehicle WAVs. Two comments were received in relation to WAV taxis, with one suggesting authorities should have policies in place to establish a minimum proportion of taxis that were WAVs and another that all taxis should be WAVs. While some felt that gradually there should be a move towards all vehicles becoming wheelchair accessible, others were supportive of ensuring a mixed fleet of vehicles is maintained. Additionally, a licensing authority responded to welcome further guidance on actions they can take to ensure enough WAVs are available, highlighting that introducing mandatory requirements may be an obvious option to introduce a certain type of vehicle, but that this might be unpopular and create disparity in areas where there is a mixed fleet. Another respondent noted concerns amongst licensing authorities regarding the variation in WAV standards, and suggested the guidance specifies what licensing authorities should look for in a WAV. For example, a Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) certificate. Further guidance was requested as to how a licensing authority could ensure sufficient wheelchair accessible taxis are available throughout the day, as this is beyond their control. The Disabled Person’s Transport Advisory Committee’s (DPTAC) position paper on taxis and PHVs raised the same concern with WAV availability reducing towards the end of the day and on weekends because of outsourced WAV services only operating during contracted hours. There were further comments on WAVs regarding the need for financial incentives to improve the level of accessibility of services, and to increase the provision of WAVs or vehicles with accessibility features. Some respondents were recorded as mentioning funding to help meet the costs of accessibility. A recurring theme concerned what happens after a journey, particularly if a passenger encounters an issue. One respondent suggested that a forum could be set up where disabled people can share their experiences of travelling by taxi and private hire vehicle, and the issues they have faced when doing so. Another suggestion was to provide passengers with a specific telephone number or website to report instances of discrimination. Linked to this was a view that licensing authorities should ensure sanctions are in place for drivers or operators who overcharge or discriminate against a disabled passenger by, for example, imposing a fine. Booking methods and the efficacy of existing systems was another key theme raised by some respondents. It was suggested that current methods of capturing accessibility requirements in systems was insufficient, as passengers often receive unsuitable vehicles despite informing operators of their needs. Linked to this were a few comments on the importance of using a range of accessible booking methods, including non-auditory means to cater to the needs of a variety of disabled people. Another issue highlighted was the challenge to book a WAV in advance. On this point of booking, a licensing authority suggested private hire vehicle operators or booking intermediaries should ask passengers if any reasonable adjustments need to be made, which may include providing a vehicle with a footwell large enough to accommodate a larger assistance dog. One respondent raised their concerns with the restricted definition of an assistance dog under the Equality Act 2010, and suggesting this is expanded as it currently limits the type of passengers who can access taxis and private hire vehicles with their assistance dogs. A disabled people’s representative organisation suggested that operators should record all attempted bookings, including those from passengers with an accessibility need and the length of time it takes between requesting a pickup and the pickup being made. The theme of consideration given to drivers and service providers was raised by a small number of respondents. These responses promoted the importance of working with the trade to deliver improvements in accessibility. Lastly, two suggestions on the development of ISPs were made. The first suggestion was for ISPs to include measures to improve the accessibility of toilet facilities, including new taxi ranks to be located near public toilets and clear signage to be provided at existing taxi ranks directing passengers to nearby facilities. One respondent representing local authorities recommended that ISP development should take into consideration the move towards increasing the number of electric vehicles in an operator’s fleet. Noting that there are growing concerns regarding the environmental impact of WAVs powered by conventional fuels, they suggested ISPs align with current environmental priorities. Government’s conclusion As concerns passenger service and particularly the points about training, the Department notes that there was a strong feeling towards drivers undertaking some form of training to better assist disabled passengers. The consultation version already included a recommendation for disability awareness training in section 6, and signposts licensing authorities to the department’s REAL training package. With regard to the setting of a standard for the accessibility of services, the department acknowledges the benefit of consistency in the standard of service provided to passengers. The aim of this guidance is to increase the consistency of licensing requirements across England. If all authorities follow the recommendations it should help to achieve this. The department received feedback outside of the consultation on the wording of paragraph 11.7 which looks at kerbside access. It was suggested that emphasis should be placed on the need for such infrastructure to be designed inclusively, which has been incorporated in the final version of the guidance. A link has also been provided to guidance which outlines how licensing authorities can implement high quality cycle infrastructure. However, changes to roads such as closures or extended routes are not the Department’s direct responsibility. The final version of the guidance addresses the need for authorities to consider how to enable access to the kerb for disabled people where such access for a taxi or private hire vehicle is prevented. There is now a recommendation for authorities to consider payment options which are accessible for visually impaired people, including consideration of audible ‘talking meters’. Considering the range of points made about WAVs, the department continues to support the use of a mixed fleet of vehicles including the use of vehicles that support wheelchair users and other disabled people. Recognising the clear differences between the levels of wheelchair accessible taxis and private hire vehicles available, licensing authorities are encouraged to consider both the number of taxis and private hire vehicles that are wheelchair accessible and whether there are sufficient to meet demand within its area. The department also recognises that the availability of WAVs varies throughout the day and on different days of the week. The guidance has been revised to recommend that authorities take this variation into consideration when assessing whether passenger demand is being met. The aim of the accessibility measures within the best practice guidance is to outline desired outcomes, whilst supporting licensing authorities to choose solutions which work for the trades and passengers within their area. Whilst no specific accreditation schemes are recommended licensing authorities are encouraged to consider the role such schemes can play in supporting the provision of an inclusive service. On booking, the department has considered the suggestions to address challenges with the booking of taxis and private hire vehicles and has strengthened recommendations on this within the final version of the guidance. The department acknowledges that people have varying levels of access to technology and has included a recommendation for licensing authorities to consider the provision of a range of booking methods. To support the appropriate selection of a vehicle, licensing authorities should encourage operators to identify disabled people’s access needs prior to taking a booking. Operators are generally already required by licensing authorities to record the time a booking request has been made, however, it is felt that setting an expectation for operators to log the time of the actual pick-up would be a disproportionate burden given the operational procedures involved in recording this information, particularly if this is done through call handlers. The scope of the definition of an assistance dog as outlined in section 173 of the Equality Act 2010 cannot be addressed through guidance as it requires legislative amendments to be made. However, the department acknowledges that this may presents challenges for some disabled people and recommends that authorities consider enabling the carriage of other categories of assistance dogs where appropriate. Concerning the broad cluster of responses about post-journey actions and redress, the Department has considered the suggestions on action that should be taken to address discrimination. The Guidance encourages the prosecution of licensees where instances of discrimination have been identified and makes reference to licensing sanctions in section 4. The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022 strengthened the protection of disabled people and helped to tackle instances of discrimination. The department has included a recommendation that authorities provide a straightforward method for passengers to report instances of alleged discrimination, which can be found in section 4. The department agrees that operators should be willing to provide information that would support passengers to raise a complaint against a private hire vehicle driver. A recommendation has been included for licensing authorities to require operators to do so upon the relevant licensing authority’s request. While some responses mentioned the financial consequences for drivers, and the need for financial incentives, such provisions are outside the remit of this guidance. On the question of the consideration given to drivers, the department endorses a collaborative approach to improving accessibility. A recommendation has been included in section 4 for licensing authorities to work with trade union representatives and associations of service providers to understand the barriers and opportunities related to more accessible services. Finally, on the points made around ISPs in this section, the department also recognises the importance of aligning governmental priorities and will include a recommendation for authorities to consider the types of vehicles used when developing ISPs, recognising that some vehicles are easily convertible compared to others. On toilet facilities, a recommendation has been included to signpost to accessible toilet facilities where possible.
Proposed measure
Sections 5.13 to 5.15 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined recommendations for licensing authorities that operate a points-based enforcement system for licensees. Such systems allow minor breaches of the rules to be recorded and considered in context, while referring those with persistent or serious breaches to the licensing committee (or other bodies charged with reviewing). Section 5.15 stated that breaching any points limit should not result in automatic action against an individual, but rather it should trigger a review of this licensee where their conduct can be considered in greater detail. The proposal was that where enforcement point systems are used, points should remain on a driver’s taxi or private hire vehicle licence for 3 years and a private hire vehicle operator’s licence for 5 years. This was felt to be a suitable timeframe over which their conduct can be assessed as it mirrors the standard length of driver and operator licences. As such, this would ensure that any relevant information on past non-compliance is available for consideration at licence renewal. Do you agree that any points incurred through a points-based enforcement regime should remain on the record for 3 years for drivers from the date of the incident? Do you agree that any points incurred though a points-based enforcement regime should remain on the record for 5 years for private hire vehicle operators from the date of the incident? Summary of responses within scope Many respondents set out their opposition to points-based enforcement systems for drivers and operators. They questioned why such a system was necessary or proportionate, particularly as the DVLA already run such a system in respect of driving licences (for example DVLA category B as opposed to a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s vocational licence). Others stated that accruing a certain number of points should not cause an automatic ban or suspension of a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence or an operator’s licence. Operators themselves directly pointed out that they receive annual inspections anyway so questioned why any such system would be needed considering this. Other operators argued that points should be proportionate to their size, with larger operators more likely to incur points as their operations and fleet are at a larger scale than others, which should be accounted for under any such system. A few licensing authorities believed that points-based enforcement systems could become arbitrary or rigid in its usage on the ground and argued for other means of handling driver and operator misconduct which are more flexible for the authority’s needs. Those who did not raise the above points were largely supportive of points-based enforcement regimes. Many licensing authorities noted that they already had a points-based enforcement system in place and highlighted the benefits it provides in terms of consistency in enforcement action. Others recognised that such a system would provide a clear deterrent for drivers and operators breaching their licensing conditions, thus driving up safety standards in the sector. Drivers raised the point that ensuring that operators are safe and responsible with the running of their businesses serves to improve the reputation of the taxi and private hire vehicle trade, subsequently benefiting these companies and their drivers. Most of those who expressed a view on the actual proposal, that where a points-based enforcement system is used points should remain on a driver’s record for 3 years and on an operator’s record for 5 years from the date of the incident, supported these retention periods as they match the standard duration of both licences respectively. Therefore, assessing points over this time period is a fair way of assessing driver and operator conduct. Some licensing authorities even commented that they now planned on extending their retention period for pre-existing points-based enforcement regimes as they recognised this rationale. Indeed, resetting points after these time-periods was seen as favourable as it allows drivers and operators to reform behaviour and assures them that they will not be punished for actions committed in the distant past. Some drivers specifically favoured this method as a useful tool in removing unsuitable drivers from the trade, encouraging only good drivers to work in the sector and driving up their reputation as a whole. Those who voiced opposition to points remaining on a driver’s record for 3 years and on an operator’s record for 5 years raised concerns in a few areas. There were some who felt that 3 and 5 years were not proportionate timeframes for these points to be held on a licence, with many seeing this as an arbitrary duration with no basis. Others saw 3 and 5 years as too short and believed driver and operator conduct should be assessed over a longer length of time. Some argued that the 3-year retention period on licences should be standardised for both drivers and operators to avoid confusion between the two. Government’s conclusion The consultation version of the best practice guidance did not recommend that all licensing authorities should adopt a points-based enforcement system. It was recommending that where such systems are used points should remain on the record for 3 years for drivers and 5 years for private hire vehicle operators. The government’s view that licencing authorities who operate a points-based enforcement system should be able to consider past behaviour when considering whether to grant a new licence remains unchanged. The guidance has been changed to say that the periods of retention recommended should be minimum requirements but these still reflect the legislation on the standard duration for taxi and private hire vehicle driver and operator licences. It is therefore appropriate that details of infringements should remain on the record from the date of the incident for at least 3 years for drivers and 5 years for private hire vehicle operators, regardless of the length that an individual licence may be issued for, so that a reasonable assessment of long-term compliance can be considered.
Proposed measure
Section 6.6 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined the government’s recommendation that licensing authorities should require drivers to evidence a higher degree of driving ability due to their position as professional drivers. Section 6.7 went on to explain that it was considered appropriate and proportionate for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to operate at a higher standard than private motorists and this was consistent with other elements of the guidance that recommend higher standards than for normal car drivers such as more stringent medical standards. Do you agree licensing authorities should require taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, as professional drivers, to evidence a higher degree of driving ability than is required for a private motorist? Summary of responses within scope A small majority of respondents saw value in drivers completing driver proficiency assessments, generally acknowledging that drivers should be able to prove that they can drive to a higher standard than the average road user as their job role of transporting passengers means they are responsible for the wellbeing of those that travel in their vehicle. Respondents felt that proficiency assessments provide a quantifiable means of proving this and would be a relatively straightforward thing for licensing authorities to consider when licensing an individual. It was noted by some that other professional drivers need to demonstrate they are advanced drivers, and this should be replicated in the taxi and private hire vehicle sector. Many drivers commented that they value their position as a professional driver and welcomed further measures that confirm their status as such in the minds of the public. They thought that this would, in turn, reassure the public that taxis and private hire vehicles are a safe mode of transport, with passengers being justified in expecting drivers to be proficient in operating their vehicle. Although supportive, some respondents were split over exactly who should be expected to complete these assessments. There were those that argued only new, prospective licensees should need to fulfil any such assessments as drivers that have been licensed longer have gained experience on the road that makes them more competent than most private drivers anyway. However, there were those that noted that more experienced drivers can often become complacent and fall into bad habits; a blasé response to driving needs to be addressed and having all drivers complete proficiency assessments is one means of achieving this. Those that responded in opposition to this position generally cited a few reasons for doing so. A lot of respondents argued that the regular DVLA car driving test is comprehensive enough to prove that a driver is safe. Such respondents further noted that activities undertaken by taxis and private hire vehicles do not differ from those of the average road user, so questioned why they need to be an advanced driver when there is not an increased demand on their driving ability. Indeed, the point was made that the department should prove that taxis and private hire vehicles are a safety risk to justify this proposed measure. Concerns were also raised that proficiency assessments would increase costs for licensees who have to pay to complete these, acting as a barrier to entry into the trade. Amongst drivers especially, there was a view that experience in driving is the only means of properly becoming a proficient driver and any such assessments will be ineffectual in comparison to the lessons learnt ‘on the job’. There was a feeling among such respondents that poor drivers can instead be identified through checks of their driving and insurance history, as these prove a driver is poor, rather than placing an obligation on them to prove that they are proficient. There was also some who questioned why taxi and private hire vehicle drivers should have to prove a greater driving proficiency when many other public sector drivers who transport passengers are not also required to do this (though no specific examples were given). Government’s conclusion The consultation version of the best practice guidance recommended that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers should evidence a higher degree of driving ability than private motorists. This was because taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are professional drivers carrying fare paying members of the public and are responsible for their safety when transporting them; so, it is appropriate and proportionate for drivers to be held to a higher standard. The department recognises that to get a driving licence to drive a car, which must be obtained before applying to be a taxi or private hire vehicle driver, a person must be able to demonstrate that they can drive safely in different road and traffic conditions. Therefore, someone applying for a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence would have already evidenced control of the type of vehicle they would be driving as a taxi or private hire vehicle driver. Whilst the government acknowledges this, its view remains unchanged that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers should be held to a higher standard than non-vocational car drivers. The government’s road safety statement is clear, “The need to improve road safety does not end with the driving test; nor does it exclude those who drive or ride professionally or as part of their job.” The UK has among the safest roads in the world but opportunities to make them even safer must be considered. As acknowledged by respondents, taxi and private hire vehicle drivers drive a much higher number of miles than the average private motorist. Behaviours such as speeding, distraction and fatigue are frequently the cause of road traffic collisions; excess speed alone accounted for 12 percent of all road traffic collisions in 2021 and 25 percent of those that resulted in a fatality. In light of consultation responses and the consideration of evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural training, the government has decided to refocus the driver proficiency recommendation in the guidance. Rather than focussing on a driver’s ability to control the vehicle the guidance now recommends that drivers should be required to undertake training and/or assessment focussed on attitudes and behaviours so that drivers understand how their driving can be affected by the factors outlined in the paragraph above which contribute significantly to collisions. The guidance recommends such training and/or theory assessment is undertaken at first application and renewal (typically every 3 years). Education on attitudes and behaviours and how a more defensive approach to the driving environment can help keep drivers, their passengers and all other road users safer, will better address the behavioural risks than a practical assessment of driving ability. The results of an evaluation on the effectiveness of national speed awareness courses, which focus on behaviours rather than practical assessments, found that participation in these was more effective at reducing speed reoffending than a fixed penalty notice (comprising a fine and penalty points) over a period of three years following the initial offer to attend. Where an authority has specific concerns about the driving ability of a driver, for example through passenger complaints, it would still be appropriate for the authority to consider whether the driver in question should undertake a practical driving ability training course or assessment to address those concerns. The government notes the views expressed by some licensed drivers in response to the consultation that as they cover more miles it is to be expected that they will incur more points on their DVLA driving licence. The department does not share this view. Taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are trusted to transport the public and it is imperative to the safety of passengers and other road users that drivers obey road laws.
Proposed measure
Sections 6.21 to 6.22 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance discussed the merits of requiring vocational qualifications in assessing driver suitability and proposed that these should not be required by licensing authorities as they cannot reflect evolving training requirements such as new accessibility duties and safeguarding awareness. The consultation version of the revised guidance noted that vocational qualifications only provide a ‘snapshot’ of learning on topics deemed relevant at the time when the qualification was completed. Further updated training would be increasingly likely to be needed: for example, the recent inclusion of ‘county lines’ awareness as part of safeguarding training. Do you agree that licensing authorities should not require drivers to obtain a vocational qualification? Summary of responses within scope A slight majority of respondents disagreed with this question and supported vocational qualifications, doing so for a number of reasons. Some recognised the value disability and awareness training for drivers provides as part of this and in supporting a consistently high level of service for passengers, seeing vocational qualifications as a suitable means of ensuring this is delivered. There were some calls for a standardisation of any such qualification among regulators, this would provide drivers with a portable qualification which would enable drivers to be exempted from some licensing requirements should they license with another authority. Other regulators saw benefits in recognised qualifications but did not want it completely standardised to allow the content to be adjusted in order to address specific local concerns. A private hire vehicle operator/taxi intermediary furthered this point and saw vocational training as a means of delivering specialist training for specific roles within the industry, with home-to-school transport highlighted as their chosen example. There were also drivers who saw benefit in vocational qualifications upskilling drivers beyond safeguarding and disability awareness training, with English language assessments and first aid training specifically raised as other potential additions to the qualifications content. Other drivers felt mandatory vocational qualifications would make the trade more professionalised, thus enhancing its reputation amongst the public. Others who supported vocational qualifications argued that they were appropriate for new drivers entering the trade, but felt they were disproportionate for existing licensees who could receive refreshed training content via more informal means. Those that agreed that vocational qualifications should not be required saw the obligation to complete any vocational qualification as disproportionate as other means of delivering their content are available. Training and assessment delivered through courses that were not part of a vocational qualification were favoured by many as these still ensure that safeguarding and disability awareness information is given to licensees, but via a means that are less of a financial burden on the trade and are less cumbersome for drivers when compared to any formal qualifications. This feeds into a wider, extensively held opinion that qualifications like this serve as a barrier to entry to the trade and the prospect of gaining a qualification would deter many prospective drivers. Drivers argued that practical experience is the only effective means of ensuring that individuals are suitable to complete their job role. One respondent cited findings from the Road Safety Observatory website as evidence that such qualifications do not improve safety for drivers or passengers. The Road Safety Observatory website is based on reviews of a range of research reports all published between 1986 and 2013. Government’s conclusion The consultation version of the best practice guidance said that licensing authorities should not require applicants for a licence to have obtained a vocational qualification. The government recognises there could be benefits of a portable qualification across licensing authorities, although it was not clear from responses that vocational qualifications are currently portable or how significant these benefits would be as drivers may not move between licensing authorities very frequently if at all. It seems likely that benefits would also exist if all licensing authority training requirements were portable and this will be considered when the government legislates for national standards, although it is likely that such portability would need to be time limited. The government remains of the view that there is specific training that should be mandatory and other aspects which are discretionary. Requiring vocational qualifications as a means for providing specialist training for specific roles in the sector, would be overly burdensome. Specialised training requirements are a matter for the contracting parties for these services. Taxi and private hire vehicle driver requirements should be limited to the skills that all drivers might reasonably be expected to obtain and evidence. It would not for example be reasonable to require drivers to pass first aid courses as these are not necessary to their core duties. Whilst the government’s recommended requirements of safeguarding and disability awareness training could be met through vocational qualifications, the government’s view remains that such a qualification should not be required in order to obtain a licence. If drivers and private hire vehicle operators wish to go beyond what is required to obtain a licence so they can provide higher levels of customer service they can obviously do so, this is the approach taken in other forms of regulation including other modes of transport. Unnecessary licensing requirements impose costs on the sector which ultimately increase fares for passenger and restricts the range of service available. The government recommendation remains that licensing authorities should not require vocational qualifications for drivers.
Proposed measure
Section 6.24 of the consultation version of the revised guidance laid out the recommendation that licensing authorities may set a topographical knowledge test for private hire vehicle drivers but are not required to do so. It is acknowledged that private hire vehicles, unlike taxis, are not available for immediate hire. As a result, drivers are able to pre-plan the route of any allocated fares. In your view should a private hire vehicle driver be required to pass some form of topographical knowledge test? If a private hire vehicle driver is required to pass a topographical test do you think the topographical knowledge test requirement for private hire vehicle drivers should be: to test the candidate’s ability to plan a route or safely use a navigation system to pass the same topographical test as taxi drivers; or, another requirement Summary of responses within scope Most respondents expressed a view that private hire vehicle drivers should be required to pass some form of topographical knowledge test. Testing a candidate’s ability to ‘plan a route’ or ‘safely use a navigation system’ was seen by the large majority of respondents as a proportionate assessment. Some favoured another requirement and there was a minority who argued that private hire vehicle drivers should be subject to the same topographical tests as taxi drivers. Those opposed to topographical knowledge tests for private hire vehicle drivers considered them to be irrelevant in the face of a driver’s ability to pre-plan a route or safely use a satellite navigation system due to the fact that pre-booking gives them time to safely do either of these things; regulators with this view extolled the accuracy of modern sat nav and its capacity to be updated to reflect changes to road layouts, a view also held by other groups, making retained memory of specific routes for private hire vehicle drivers (and in some responses taxi drivers too) an unnecessary requirement. Drivers also favoured the ability of satellite navigation systems to provide the fastest or shortest route which ensures journeys are cost effective. Regulators also pointed out that a private hire vehicle driver’s ability to work outside the area of the authority that licensed them further makes topographical tests redundant as such assessments cannot realistically cover all the areas in which a driver could potentially complete work. Drivers that argued for the use of satellite navigation systems said that they are now commonplace, affordable and reliable enough to be used in all instances, thus arguing against any notion that requiring a local knowledge test is reasonable and proportionate, instead arguing that such tests act as a potential barrier to entry. Those that argued that private hire vehicle drivers should be asked ‘to pass the same topographical test as taxi drivers’ presented several reasons for favouring this option. Regulators saw value in applying consistent standards to all drivers, pointing to the fact that this would simplify the processing of dual licensed drivers or those who wish to hold both a taxi and a private hire vehicle licence. Regulators and trade bodies who agreed with this point were further keen to point out that topographical tests ensure that drivers are prepared for eventualities where satellite navigation equipment might break or other emergency situations. Taxi drivers who held this view argued that drivers having to re-enter an address midway through a fare is unprofessional during the instances where this is necessary and so believed an assessment of topographical knowledge is needed to avoid this. Private hire vehicle drivers who held this view noted that many of their colleagues are too reliant on satellite navigation, echoing the view that they should prove their ability to adapt when they are not available. There was a further notion put forward by drivers that some can be liable to focus too heavily on satellite navigation and so expose themselves to a higher likelihood of collisions. Those who suggested ‘another requirement’ generally favoured some form of hybrid solution between preplanning routes and topographical knowledge. The most common of these responses proposed an assessment of a driver’s ability to pre-plan a route combined with some local knowledge test, completed without the use of any navigation system, limited to local landmarks, tourist attractions and amenities. The exact suggestions on what should be included under these limited topographical tests varied, with suggestions varying from hotels to hospitals. The only alternate proposal to this instead argued that preplanning and use of navigation should be assessed in conjunction with a driver’s ability to use a map. This would account for the rare instances where satellite navigation fails. Government’s conclusion The consultation version of the best practice guidance said licensing authorities may set private hire vehicle drivers a topographical test but are not required to do so. Most respondents supported some form of topographical knowledge test, but only a minority thought it should be the same topographical test as for taxi drivers. Most favoured testing a candidate’s ability to ‘plan a route’ or ‘safely use a navigation system’. The government acknowledges that passengers travelling in private hire vehicles will feel reassured if their driver knows the location of their destination, but provided the private hire vehicle operator that accepted the booking provides suitable information to the driver, a working knowledge of the area should not be needed. It is however advised that the driver confirms the destination with the passenger before setting-off to avoid possible disagreement and conflict. For example, there may be more than one ‘train station’ or branch of a particular retailer, restaurant or pub chain in the area. Checking the destination also enables the driver to make any changes to the navigation system or route they have planned. As private hire vehicle journeys must be booked in advance, the advantages of a private hire vehicle driver having to evidence the same in-depth navigational knowledge as a taxi driver (who can be flagged down in the street or at taxi ranks for immediate hire) do not justify the additional burden that this would place on private hire vehicle drivers. If licensing authorities do place the same training and assessment requirements on both driver licences, it would seem appropriate and best practice to issue a dual licence to those that meet them. Whilst most respondents supported a test of an applicant’s ability to ‘plan a route’ or ‘safely use a navigation system’, there seems to be limited value in this. Satellite navigation systems are by and large extremely reliable, and drivers can take steps to increase their reliability by ensuring maps are updated and if possible stored locally on the device to mitigate the issue that loss of data signal might cause. This may be particularly important in very rural locations where mobile network, not satellite, coverage may be weaker. Since late 2017, 4 out of 5 DVLA driving licence candidates have had to follow directions from a sat nav during the 20-minute independent driving part test, so some new drivers will already have been assessed on this aspect. The benefit to passengers of a driver being able to plan a route using maps is only effective if the driver has access to up to date maps with which to do this. The use of road maps to plan a route and navigate does not provide the same advantages that satellite navigation systems have. They are not easily updated to reflect temporary road closures and cannot identify any areas of congestion so these may be avoided. Given the limited benefits of testing topographical knowledge and route planning for private hire vehicle drivers and the availability of reliable satellite navigation systems, it seems disproportionate for licensing authorities to test the topographical knowledge of private hire vehicle drivers. If a test or assessment has to be done in person, the availability of places could cause delays to a driver obtaining a licence if they are unable to secure a spot. Based on this the final version of the best practice guidance has been revised to make clear that private hire vehicle drivers should not be required to pass a topographical knowledge assessment of any type.
Proposed measure
Sections 6.27 to 6.29 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance recommended that drivers should complete a daily walkaround check of their vehicles to check the roadworthiness of their vehicle before transporting members of the public. Annex E of the guidance provided an example checklist, covering issues that could be included, items such as brakes, tyres and licence plates. Do you agree licensing authorities should require drivers to conduct daily checks on their vehicle similar to the checklist provided? What, if any, comments do you have on the vehicle condition checklist? Summary of responses within scope Those that agreed licensing authorities should require drivers to undertake vehicle inspections gave broadly similar justifications for doing so. One recurring theme was that checks by drivers are rarely a daily occurrence. One regulator noted that random testing of vehicles in their area found that 90% had faults which had gone unnoticed or ignored by drivers. Compelling drivers to complete a daily spot-check of their vehicle would alleviate this bad practice and improve safety standards for passengers. Indeed, some pointed out that the fact such checks are in the Highway Code means this should be being done already and adding this to government guidance is thus justified. Many also pointed out that such checks are even more pertinent for drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles as the distances their vehicles travel, by virtue of their job, necessitates more frequent checks as these vehicles are more likely to incur faults. Those that disagreed with this recommendation raised several issues in their responses. There were questions raised around why drivers are expected to complete these checks when in some instances the vehicle will be owned by an operator or intermediary. Some drivers explicitly stated that any such checklist will be ignored by some and argued that this is open to abuse as the list can be filled in without the checks actually taking place. Regulators further questioned how such a system could be properly enforced. Others believed that requiring daily checks is too onerous a requirement, with many instead proposing weekly or monthly checks, or arguing that annual MOTs address any potential issues. Drivers also argued that they do not receive any specialised training to conduct any such checks. Few made any comments on the contents of the example checklist. Most of those who did felt the suggestions were proportionate and were possible for drivers to conduct. Those who did not entirely agree with the example check list raised a few points. Some argued that the contents were too extensive and should be shortened to a more concise, relevant list that would be less laborious for drivers to complete. Others felt that some areas would require specialist training to assess and so should be removed, with the example of tyres and oil levels specifically given. Others questioned the practicality of some of the checks, such as the ability to check brake lights when alone. Government’s conclusion This recommendation stems from the pre-existing legal responsibility of all drivers for the condition of a vehicle when it is in their use. The proposal was to assist licensing authorities and in-turn drivers to identify the checks that should be made as a minimum before using the vehicle for taxi and private hire vehicle services. This requirement builds on the general responsibilities in the Highway Code and would help to ensure the vehicle is safe for drivers, passengers and all other road users. Drivers should consider these checks as part of their duty of care. Licensing authorities should consider whether those that fail to do these checks remain ‘fit and proper’. The completion, retention and presenting on demand of these checklists would evidence the appropriate driver diligence. Should a vehicle be checked by a licensing authority and a completed checklist provided by the driver, if evidence is identified during the compliance check that that the driver has completed the checklist without actually checking the vehicle, for example if a tyre clearly must have had less than the required tread depth before the vehicle was used that day, the licensing authority may conclude the driver has been dishonest and so would not be fit and proper. The government does not consider that the checks listed are beyond the competence of drivers nor is any specialist equipment necessary to complete them. Given the safety benefits and the relative ease with which these checks can be completed the recommendation is that such checks are made before the vehicle is driven for hire. It is noted that many of the checks should be made by all motorists every time a vehicle is driven and that a taxi or private hire vehicle remains such at all times when licensed, the vehicle may be driven for personal use and, in the case of private hire vehicles licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, driven by those that do not hold a private hire vehicle driving licence. Following consideration of the responses, minor amendments to the vehicle checklist have been made including the addition of recording the mileage.
Mar 28, 2022 · If a PHV driver has to pass a topographical test, should this be the same test as a taxi driver? Or, should it evaluate the candidate’s ability to plan a route or safely use a navigation system?
- Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) play a critical role in keeping our country moving, allowing people to travel safely and easily.Whether thos...
- IntroductionDfT first issued best practice guidance to licensing authorities in 2006 and this was refreshed in 2010.Much has changed in the taxi an...
- The focus of the best practice guidance is on how licensing authorities can best use their existing powers to ensure that the taxi and PHV drivers...
- DfT is carrying out this consultation to gather views and evidence on measures for inclusion within the best practice guidance issued to taxi and P...
- A summary of responses, including the next steps, will be published. Paper copies will be available on request.If you have questions about this con...
Aug 17, 2021 · Licensing authorities have a duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a ‘fit and proper’ person to be a licensee.
Nov 17, 2023 · Licensing authorities should require taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, as professional drivers, to display a higher degree of driving aptitude and diligence than a private motorist.
Aug 9, 2022 · The duty to report concerns about out-of-area drivers: From 31 May 2022, if any licensing authority in England has information about a taxi or PHV driver licensed by another authority, that is relevant to safeguarding or road safety concerns, it must share that information with the authority that issued that driver's licence.
People also ask
Can a taxi driver testify remotely outside city hall?
Is personal security a problem for taxi & private hire drivers?
Should taxi & private hire drivers communicate with neighbouring authorities?
How can CCTV help a taxi & private hire vehicle?
Should taxi and private hire vehicle enforcement be aimed at night?
Should taxi drivers ply for hire?
Feb 23, 2023 · In December 2021 the new Taxi and Private Hire Driver Policy was issued. There are significant changes and additional offences, which may have an impact on a driver’s fitness and propriety.
