Taxis are used by almost everyone in our society occasionally, but they are used regularly by particularly vulnerable groups: children; the elderly; disabled people; and the intoxicated, and a taxi driver has significant power over a passenger who places themselves, and their personal safety, completely in the driver’s hands.
Local authorities (districts, unitaries and Welsh Councils) and TfL are responsible for hackney carriage and private hire licensing.
The principal legislation is the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The purpose of taxi licensing is detailed in the DfT “Taxi and Private Hire Licensing – Best Practice Guide” para 8 which states: “The aim of local authority licensing of the taxi and PHV trades is to protect the public.”
Within the two licensing regimes, there are 5 types of licence:
- hackney carriage vehicle
- private hire vehicle
- hackney carriage driver
- private hire driver
- private hire operator
In relation to all these licences, the authority has a discretion over whether to grant.
Whilst there is some guidance issued by the DfT, there are no national standards.
Drivers and operators cannot be granted a licence unless the authority is satisfied that they are a “fit and proper person” to hold that licence (see Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 ss 51 and 59 in respect of drivers; s55 in respect of operators).
There are no statutory criteria for vehicle licences; therefore, the authority has an absolute discretion.
In each case, the authority has powers to grant a licence, renew it on application and, during the currency of the licence, suspend or revoke it.
What is the role of each of these, and how do authorities determine an application, or take action against a licence?
Taxi Drivers
The term “taxi driver” encompasses two different occupations: hackney carriage drivers and private hire drivers. “Taxi driver” is therefore used as a broad, overarching term to cover both hackney carriage and private hire drivers.
In each case there are identical statutory criteria to be met before a licence can be granted and many authorities grant “dual” or “combined” licences to cover driving both types of vehicle.
An applicant must hold a full DVLA or equivalent driver’s licence, have the right to work in the UK, and be a “fit and proper” person (Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Section 51(1) covers private hire drivers, and section 59(1) covers hackney carriage drivers)
The driving licence element is a question of fact. Although there are some issues with foreign driving licences, ultimately a person either has, or does not have a driving licence.
An applicant must also have the right to remain, and work in the UK (Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 S51(1)(a)(ii) in respect of private hire drivers and S59(1)(a)(ii) in respect of hackney carriage drivers.)
Again, this is ultimately a question of fact and the local authority should follow the guidance issued by the Home Office.(“Guidance for Licensing Authorities to Prevent Illegal Working in the Taxi and Private Hire Sector in England and Wales” ‐ Home Office, 1st December 2016 available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/licensing‐authority‐guide‐to‐right‐ to‐work‐checks)
It is the whole issue of “fit and proper” that causes local authorities the most difficulties. It has never been specifically judicially defined but it was mentioned in Leeds City Council v Hussain (3 [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin), [2003] RTR 199).
Silber J said: “‘... the purpose of the power of suspension is to protect users of licensed vehicles and those who are driven by them and members of the public"
Its purpose [and], therefore [the test of fitness and propriety], is to prevent licences being given to or used by those who are not suitable people taking into account their driving record, their driving experience, their sobriety, mental and physical fitness, honesty, and that they are people who would not take advantage of their employment to abuse or assault passengers.”
This is reflected in a test widely used by local authorities: ‘Would you (as a member of the licensing committee or other person charged with the ability to grant a hackney carriage driver’s licence) allow your son or daughter, spouse or partner, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter or any other person for whom you care, to get into a vehicle with this person alone?’(Button on Taxis – Licensing Law and Practice 4th Ed Bloomsbury Professional at para 10.21)
It is suggested that the expression “safe and suitable” person to hold a driver’s licence is a good interpretation which neither adds nor removes anything from the original term of “fit and proper” but brings the concept up to date.
How can a local authority assess and then judge whether or not someone is safe and suitable to hold a drivers’ licence?
The local authority has the power to require an applicant to provide: “such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence. (Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s57(1))
This “information” can include any pre‐conditions or tests that they consider necessary
Some of these are universal, such as medical assessments (See Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 s57(2)).
Others are required by some authorities, but not others.
These include:
- enhanced DBS certificates and sign‐up to the update service
- knowledge tests
- driving tests
- disability awareness
- signed declarations
- spoken English tests
The provision of information in these terms can satisfy the local authority that a person has the skills and competencies to be a professional driver to hold a licence.
However, the concepts of safety and suitability go beyond this. There is the character of the person to be considered as well.
Both hackney carriage and private hire drivers are exempt from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
This means that there are no “spent” convictions and that any and all criminal convictions (apart from “protected convictions” and “protected cautions” where they have been declared (“Protected convictions” and “protected cautions” are single, minor and elderly matters that do not appear on any DBS Certificates) can be taken into account by the local authority in assessing safety and suitability, but only relevant spent convictions should be considered by the decision maker (See Adamson v Waveney District Council [1997] 2 All ER 898)
All applicants/licensees should be required to obtain an enhanced DBS Certificate with Barred Lists checks (“For Taxi [driver] Licensing purposes the correct level of check is always the Enhanced level check, with the Adults and Children’s Barred list check. Other Workforce should always be entered at X61 line 1 and Taxi Licensing should be entered at X61 line 2” DBS email 31st August 2017) and to provide this to the Licensing Authority.
All licensees should also be required to maintain their Certificates through the DBS update service throughout the currency of their licence.
If any applicant has, from the age of 10 years, spent six continuous months or more living outside the United Kingdom, evidence of a criminal record check from the country/countries covering the relevant period should be required.
Local authorities should have a policy to provide a baseline for the impact of any convictions, cautions or other matters of conduct which concern a person’s safety and suitability (As recommended by the DfT “Taxi and Private Hire Licensing – Best Practice Guide” para 59) .
The character of the driver in its entirety must be the paramount consideration when considering whether they should be licensed. It is important to recognise that local authorities are not imposing any additional punishment in relation to previous convictions or behaviour.
They are using all the information that is available to them to make an informed decision as to whether or not the applicant or licensee is or remains a safe and suitable person.
There are occasions where unsuitable people have been given licences by local authorities, or if refused by the authority, have had it granted by a court on appeal.
Often this is because of some perceived hardship. Case law makes it clear that the impact of losing (or not being granted) a driver’s licence on the applicant and his family is not a consideration to be taken into account (Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin), [2003] RTR 199 and Cherwell District Council v Anwar[2011] EWHC 2943 (Admin)). This then leads to the question of whether the stance taken by local authorities is robust enough to achieve that overriding aim of public protection.
However, all too often local authorities depart from their policies and grant licences (or do not take action against licensees) without clear and compelling reasons.
It is vital that councillors recognise that the policy, whilst remaining a policy and therefore the Authority’s own guidelines on the matter, is the baseline for acceptability. It should only be departed from in exceptional circumstances and for justifiable reasons which should be recorded.
One common misunderstanding is that if the offence was not committed when the driver was driving a taxi, it is much less serious, or even if it was in a taxi but not when passengers were aboard.
This is not relevant. Speeding is dangerous, irrespective of the situation; drink driving is dangerous, irrespective of the situation; bald tyres are dangerous, irrespective of the situation.
All these behaviours put the general public at risk.
Violence is always serious.
The argument that it was a domestic dispute, or away from the taxi, is irrelevant. A person who has a propensity to violence has that potential in every situation.
Sexual offences are always serious. A person who has in the past abused their position (whatever that may have been). to assault another sexually has demonstrated completely unacceptable standards of behaviour.
Applicants may claim that they have sought employment in other fields and been precluded as a result of their antecedent history particularly if that contains convictions.
They therefore seek to become a licensed driver as an occupation of last resort. This is unacceptable as the granting of a licence would place such a person in a unique position of trust.
The paramount responsibility of a licensing authority is to protect the public, not provide employment opportunities.
Licensees are expected to demonstrate appropriate professional conduct at all time, whether in the context of their work or otherwise. Licensees should be courteous, avoid confrontation, not be abusive or exhibit prejudice in any way.
In no circumstances should Licensees take the law into their own hands. Licensees are expected to act with integrity and demonstrate conduct befitting the trust that is placed in them.
There are those who seek to take advantage of vulnerable people by providing services that they are not entitled to provide; for example, by plying for hire in an area where they are not entitled to do so.
Licensees are expected to be vigilant of such behaviour and to report any concerns to the Police and the relevant licensing authority.
Passengers should feel confident to check that the person offering a service is entitled to do so. Licensees should willingly demonstrate that they are entitled to provide the offered service by, for example, showing their badge.
As a society, we need to ask the question “who is driving my taxi?” and be secure in the knowledge that the answer is “a safe and suitable person”.
The vast majority of drivers are decent, law abiding people who work very hard to provide a good service to their customers and the community at large.
However poor decisions by local authorities and courts serve to undermine the travelling public’s confidence in the trade as a whole.
Unless local authorities and the courts are prepared to take robust (and difficult) decisions to maintain the standards the local authority lays down, and in some cases tighten up their own policies, the public cannot have complete confidence in taxi drivers.
This is detrimental to all involved.
Private hire operators
A private hire operator (“PHO”) is the person who takes a booking for a private hire vehicle (“PHV”), and then dispatches a PHV driven by a licensed private hire driver (“PHD”) to fulfil that booking.
All three licences (PHO, PHV and PHD) must have been granted by the same authority (See Dittah v Birmingham City Council, Choudhry v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356 QBD. A local authority cannot grant a PHO licence unless the applicant has the right to work in the UK and is a fit and proper person (3 Section 55(1) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976)
As with taxi drivers the role of the PHO goes far beyond simply taking bookings and dispatching vehicles. In the course of making the booking and dispatching the vehicle and driver, the PHO will obtain significant amounts of personal information.
It is therefore vital that a PHO is as trustworthy and reliable as a driver, notwithstanding their slightly remote role. Hackney carriages can also be pre‐booked, but local authorities should be mindful that where that booking is made by anybody other than a hackney carriage driver, there are no controls or vetting procedures in place in relation to the person who takes that booking and holds that personal information.
How then does a local authority satisfy itself as to the “fitness and propriety” or “safety and suitability” of the applicant or licensee?
Spent convictions can be taken into account when determining suitability for a licence, but the applicant (or licensee on renewal) can only be asked to obtain a Basic Disclosure from the Disclosure and Barring Service.
Although this is by no means a perfect system, it does give local authorities a reasonable basis for making an informed decision as to fitness and propriety of an applicant or existing licensee.
To enable consistent and informed decisions to be made, it is important to have a working test of fitness and propriety for PHOs and a suitable variation on the test for drivers can be used: “Would I be comfortable providing sensitive information such as holiday plans, movements of my family or other information to this person, and feel safe in the knowledge that such information will not be used or passed on for criminal or unacceptable purposes?”(Button on Taxis – Licensing Law and Practice 4th Ed Bloomsbury Professional at para 12.35)
There is a further point to consider in relation to PHOs and that concerns the staff used on the telephones and radios. There is no reason why a condition cannot be imposed on a PHO licence requiring them to undertake checks on those they employ/use within their company to satisfy themselves that they are fit and proper people to undertake that task and retain that information to demonstrate that compliance to the local authority.
Any failure on the part of the PHO to either comply with this requirement, or act upon information that they obtain (thereby allowing unsuitable staff to work in positions of trust), would then have serious implications on the continuing fitness and propriety of the PHO.
Care should be taken in circumstances where a PHO Licence is sought in the name of a limited company, partnership or other business structure that all the requirements applicable to an individual applicant are made of each director or partner of the applicant organisation (5 See s57(1)(c) of the 1976 Act). Only by so doing can a decision be made as to the fitness and propriety of the operating entity.
Vehicle proprietors
Similar considerations apply to the vehicle proprietors, both hackney carriage and private hire (referred to here generically as “taxis”).
Although the vehicle proprietor may not be driving a vehicle (and if they are they will be subject to their own fitness and propriety test to obtain a driver’s licence), they clearly have an interest in the use of the vehicle.
They will also be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle, and vehicles that are not properly maintained have a clear impact on public safety.
Taxis are used to transport people in many circumstances, and are seen everywhere across the United Kingdom, at all times of the day and night, in any location.
Therefore, taxis could provide a transportation system for illegal activities or any form of contraband, whether that is drugs, guns, illicit alcohol or tobacco, or people who are involved in or are the victims of illegal activity, or children who may be at risk of being, or are being, abused or exploited.
In relation to both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, the local authority has an absolute discretion over granting the licence (S37 of the 1847 Act in relation to hackney carriages; section 48 of the 1976 Act to private hire vehicles.) and should therefore ensure that both their enquiries and considerations are robust.
It is much more involved than simply looking at the vehicle itself and it is equally applicable on applications to transfer a vehicle as on grant applications.
Again, this is not an exempt occupation for the purposes of the 1974 Act, but exactly the same process can be applied as for private hire operators – Basic DBS, statutory declaration and consideration of spent convictions.
This can then be used in the light of a similar policy in relation to suitability as the authority will already have for drivers and PHOs.
A suitable test would be: “Would I be comfortable allowing this person to have control of a licensed vehicle that can travel anywhere, at any time of the day or night without arousing suspicion, and be satisfied that he/she would not allow it to be used for criminal or other unacceptable purposes, and be confident that he/she would maintain it to an acceptable standard throughout the period of the licence?” ( Button on Taxis – Licensing Law and Practice 4th Ed Bloomsbury Professional at para 8.98)