Consultation outcome

Taxi and private hire vehicle best practice guidance: government response

Updated 17 November 2023

Foreword

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.

Going forward the government will continue to engage with the sector to ensure that the best practice guidance keeps pace with the ever-changing nature of the taxi and private hire vehicle trade, along with wider societal shifts in technology and means of travel.

Guy Opperman
Minister for Roads and Local Transport

Executive summary

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.  

Respondents replied on behalf of a wide variety of industry stakeholders. These included licensing authorities, trade bodies, taxi and private hire vehicle drivers (or dual licence holders/holders of both licences), private hire vehicle operators or taxi intermediaries, bodies that represents passengers and the public, and others.  

All the responses received have been considered and, where deemed appropriate, amendments have been made. The final version of the best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England is issued alongside this summary. 

This has been published as an HTML format to help support as many users as possible by enabling the use of custom browser settings and work well with assistive technologies like screen readers.

What follows is a summary of responses to consultation questions and the government’s response.

Summary of responses to questions and the government’s conclusion

Accessibility

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.

Duration of taxi and private hire vehicle licensing enforcement points

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.

Driver proficiency

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.   

Vocational qualifications

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.  

Topographical assessments for private hire vehicle 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.

Vehicle checks by drivers

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.

Euro NCAP ratings

Proposed measure

Sections 8.6 to 8.8 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined a recommendation that licensing authorities should consider the safety benefits to passengers, drivers and pedestrians of vehicles which have received a higher Euro NCAP rating where these have been assessed. Euro NCAP is an independent body who seek to use their ratings system to give consumers objective information around the relative safety of any given vehicle. They use a broad set of criteria through which ratings are given. Further studies, detailed in the guidance, have shown that a higher Euro NCAP rating directly correlates to a reduction in the risk of fatal injuries in vehicles – specifically a 40% reduction for occupants of a 5-star rated car when compared with an equivalent 2-star rated car.

Do you agree licensing authorities should consider the safety benefits to passengers, drivers and pedestrians of vehicles which have received a higher Euro NCAP rating (where these have been assessed) when setting its vehicle requirements?

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents disagreed with this question. Those that agreed generally saw the benefits associated with Euro NCAP rating for passenger safety. Trade bodies noted that Euro NCAP ratings provide an appropriate benchmark for vehicle standards and provide consistent standards for licensing authorities to follow. Drivers noted the improvement in safety this recommendation would bring, not just for passengers, but also for drivers themselves. In addition, drivers also noted that guidance such as this could provide the knock-on effect of encouraging more companies to develop safer vehicles.

Broadly, those that disagreed with this statement did not argue against improvements to passenger safety, but raised objections against Euro NCAP ratings being used as a standardised barometer against which vehicle safety standards are assessed. There were many who argued that a vehicle being deemed roadworthy in the United Kingdom should justify its usage as a taxi or private hire vehicle, and further assessments, such as Euro NCAP ratings, are not proportionate. Others argued that Euro NCAP ratings potentially exclude specialist vehicles, such as wheelchair accessible vehicles, as these vehicles often require modifications that affect their safety rating. As these vehicles are essential to the transportation of disabled passengers they should not be excluded from fleets as a result of this Guidance. Others pointed out that Euro NCAP ratings can vary over time as the testing criteria evolves.

Some argued that other measurements, such as emissions levels, should be used to assess vehicle suitability and questioned the justification as to why Euro NCAP ratings have been selected by the Department. The other general opposition to this measure stemmed from fears that this would increase costs to the trade, as requiring vehicles to have a high Euro NCAP rating would mean more expensive vehicles would have to be purchased and there would be less choice as a result of more limited criteria than was previously the case.

Government’s conclusion

The government recognises that the majority of respondents did not support this recommendation in the consultation version of the best practice guidance. It however remains the case that while all vehicles approved for use on the road are safe there are additional safety benefits to all road users in increasing the number of 5-star rated vehicles on the road, this includes benefits to the drivers themselves.

The recommendation supported the government position set out in the Road safety statement 2019 to increase consumer awareness of the Euro NCAP star rating system for vehicle safety. The government is committed to increasing the use of 5-star rated vehicles in its fleet in the interest of safety and considers it reasonable for licensing authorities, where possible, to do the same.

The point that the Euro NCAP rating of a vehicle might change, if it were resubmitted for testing, as a result of evolving criteria is noted. It is however the case that a vehicle rated 5-stars will not become less-safe as a result of changing criteria under which new vehicles are tested. While it is likely the case that under more rigorous criteria it would achieve a lower score this only means that it is not as safe as those obtaining 5-stars under the new criteria. It is important to note that a vehicle rated 5-stars under a set of criteria will always be safer than one which achieved a lower rating under the same criteria. As such a Euro NCAP rating will continue to have a value albeit diminishing. It would however be disproportionate to require the trade to replace all vehicles after the 6-year EURO NCAP rating has ‘expired’.

Data from the department’s 2023 taxi and private hire vehicle survey showed that of the eight most popular vehicles licensed all that had been NCAP rated received 5 stars.

The department acknowledges that after production alterations may be required to enable a vehicle to be licensed as a taxi or private hire vehicle, however these are thought unlikely to be so significant as to render the NCAP rating entirely irrelevant, particularly those related to ‘vulnerable road users’ and ‘safety assist’. The government’s view remains that licensing authorities should consider the safety benefits to passengers, drivers and pedestrians of vehicles which have received a higher NCAP rating where these have been assessed. The department also acknowledges that not all vehicles have been assessed. It would be for authorities to consider the level of rating they require and how such a policy would be implemented.

Passenger capacity

Proposed measure

Two questions were asked about the section in the consultation version of the guidance on passenger (seating) capacity of vehicles, as there is considerable interaction between these questions a single section on the government’s conclusion is provided at the end. A summary of the responses to each question has been provided to ensure the views expressed are accurately represented.

Sections 8.10 and 8.11 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined legislation that defines how children should be counted towards seating numbers in taxis and regular vehicles, namely the London Cab Order 1934 and the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993. Section 8.12 of the consultation version of the Guidance recommended that a practical solution for licensing authorities in deciding how many passengers a taxi or private hire vehicle is licensed to carry would be for vehicles to carry no more people than the number of seatbelts available, regardless of passenger age.

Do you agree that each person, regardless of age, should be counted as a passenger?

Summary of responses within scope

Generally, the majority of those who responded agreed with the first recommendation that all passengers, regardless of age should be counted as a passenger. Regulators and others said that this was an important definition for the sake of safety standards and that all passengers travelling in a vehicle should have access to a seatbelt when travelling. Drivers also added that this definition is favourable as it matches with the conditions of their insurance liability. There was an argument presented that this is a sensible recommendation, but ultimately the responsibility for children wearing belts lies with parents whose obligation in this regard should be better clarified.

Those that disagreed largely followed two strands of opposing viewpoints. The first argued that such recommendations are not in line with broader government guidance around children’s use of seatbelts. The argument was presented that children under the age of 3 are not considered passengers in legislation so should not be classified as adults when travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The other strain of opposition to this question came from those concerned that this would increase the number of trips required by some groups when travelling in taxis and private hire vehicles. Some stated that classifying children the same as adults could mean that groups might now have to travel in 2 vehicles rather than 1 due to the availability of seating, imposing a greater financial burden on passengers and having an increased detrimental effect on the environment as trip numbers increase.

Proposed measure

Section 8.12 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined the recommendation that licensing authorities should only license vehicles to carry no more people than the number of seatbelts available, regardless of passenger age.

Do you agree taxis and private hire vehicles should not be licensed to carry more people than the number of seats and seatbelts available?

Summary of responses within scope

Respondents were mostly in agreement with the proposal - that licensed capacity should not exceed the number of seats and seatbelts available. People generally supported the improvements to safety that such measures would bring as it would ensure that all passengers are protected by a seatbelt. There was also further support from drivers who argued that this would be in line with the liability insurance policies most drivers have.

Those who opposed this mainly argued that children should not be counted towards this limit. Many pointed to pre-existing legislation that does not count children under 3 as passengers and argued that recommendations around licensing should continue to mirror this. There was an argument given that children can travel in a parent’s lap in a perfectly safe manner and so do not need to be counted. There were further questions raised around how this would be applied in specialised vehicles, such as wheelchair accessible vehicles where the disabled person might not necessarily have an assigned seat.

Government’s conclusion

The intention of the recommendation in the consultation version of the best practice guidance that taxis and private hire vehicles should carry no more passengers than the number of seatbelts, regardless of the age of the passengers, was to provide clarity on seating capacity. As highlighted by some respondents, the department acknowledges that where an appropriate car seat is not available children under the age of three can travel on a rear seat of a taxi or private hire vehicle without a seatbelt. The final version of the best practice guidance has been amended to align it more closely with the law and to set out that the safest way for a child to travel by car is in an appropriate car seat.

The recommendation is that the licensed capacity of a vehicle should be limited to the number of seat belts. Children aged three and over should always count towards the licensed capacity of the vehicle as if an appropriate car seat is not available they must travel on a rear seat and wear an adult seat belt. Children under the age of three do not need to wear an adult seatbelt when an appropriate car seat is not available so they do not need to count towards the licensed capacity. Whilst the decision as to whether a child travels without an appropriate child seat or in the case of under-3s without a seatbelt is that of the adult responsible for the child, the department recognises the concerns drivers may have in transporting unrestrained infants. The department recommends that licensing authorities should provide advice to licensees on its policy on the carriage of children under 3 years to provide certainty in terms of overloading and refusal of carriage in such situations.

It is not possible to provide definitive guidance on the use of ‘third row’ seats as the means to enter and exit the vehicle and the ability to move other seats will vary. Licensing authorities should assess whether they consider a passenger would likely be able to exit the vehicle, with which they would be unfamiliar, in the event of an emergency. The final version of the best practice guidance has been amended to reflect this. The final version has also been updated to clarify that vehicles that have a designated space for carrying a wheelchair should have this space considered in the vehicle’s licensed capacity.

Window tints

Proposed measure

Section 8.16 of the consultation version of the guidance outlines the government’s recommendation that in the absence of evidence to show that a requirement for the removal of factory fitted windows is necessary and proportionate, licensing authorities should not require their removal as part of vehicle specifications.

Do you agree that licensing authorities should only require the removal of ‘factory fitted’ tinted windows as part of vehicle specifications if it can evidence that this is necessary and proportionate?

Summary of responses within scope

Those that agreed with this recommendation were of the view that factory fitted windows in taxis and private hire vehicles did not present a safeguarding risk. Many, including regulators, pointed out that if a window is factory-fitted then it is already complying with pre-existing laws around tinting which are proportionate in keeping individuals safe. Lots of respondents also pointed out the significant financial burden that a blanket ban on tinting, or certain levels of tinting, would place upon drivers and operators. As such tints would be factory fitted then drivers and operators would have had no say in their installation, so asking them to pay for their removal would be unfair. Some drivers pointed out that tinting, up to the legal limits, should be permitted as specialised private hire vehicles need tinting to carry certain passengers, like VIPs, due to security concerns.

Those that disagreed generally said tinted windows presented a safeguarding risk. Respondents expressed concerns that there was a greater possibility of abuse or safeguarding breaches occurring in the rear of vehicles that have high levels of tinting, but no compelling evidence to support this assertion was given. There was a further point made by a public interest body that partially sighted individuals are potentially unable to see out of tinted windows, presenting a safeguarding issue for them. There was also an argument given that installation of CCTV would be a necessary recommendation if tinting is allowed as this would alleviate any potential safeguarding concerns. There was some who questioned how licensing authorities should prove that a ban is ‘necessary and proportionate’ as the guidance outlines.

Government’s conclusion

The consultation version of the best practice guidance said that in the absence of evidence to show that a requirement for the removal of factory fitted windows is necessary and proportionate licensing authorities should not require its removal. To address the issue highlighted by some consultation responses that the use of the term factory fitted windows was not helpful in terms of identifying what an acceptable level of tint is, the guidance has been revised to provide greater clarity. The final best practice guidance recommends the acceptance for licensing of all vehicles that have a minimum light transmission of 30% or more in the windows rear of the B-pillar. Though there are no identified safety concerns from tinted windows of any value, this level is considered to be in the interest of passenger confidence which ultimately benefits the trade.

The government recognises that this means the privacy that executive hire passengers might demand would be restricted or prohibited, but some licensing authorities already allow exemptions from light-transmission policies for executive hire services (and from the requirement to display a vehicle plate) and this could continue if the licensing authority deemed it appropriate.

Vehicle testing

Two questions were asked about vehicle testing which had considerable interaction between them so a single section on the government’s conclusion is provided at the end. A summary of the responses to each question has been provided to ensure the views expressed are accurately represented.

Proposed measure

Section 8.24 of the consultation version of the best practice guidance outlined best practice for licensing authorities to, where possible, obtain details of vehicle tests, including failures. This means that frequent failures can be raised with the proprietor and authorities can consider whether they are content that the proprietor is taking sufficient action to monitor and maintain the safety of their vehicles.

Do you agree licensing authorities should, where possible, obtain details of vehicle tests, including failures?

Summary of responses within scope

Those that agreed with this recommendation generally acknowledged that this is necessary to maintain the safety of vehicles. Regulators especially noted that they thought it was essential that licensing authorities were made aware of any vehicle defects so they can take appropriate, informed licensing action to ensure the safety of passengers. Many also noted that some licensing authorities already do this so it would not be a significant change in practice for them to implement this.

Those that disagreed with this question presented a few reasons for doing so. There were some who argued that MOTs already assess vehicles, and the outcome of these are already available online, so there should be no requirement for licensing authorities to check the outcome of any vehicle tests as this is not proportionate. Others pointed to practical implications for licensing authorities, with one trade body noting that the retention of this information could be burdensome for some licensing authorities. Some noted that this will bring financial implications for drivers who will likely have to pay for these tests, potentially causing further issues as drivers shop around for cheaper tests that are less stringent and drive down vehicle safety standards.

Drivers specifically requested that they should be given time to address any defects identified by such tests and felt that immediate licensing action would be unfair on them.

Proposed measure

Section 8.26 of the consultation guidance set out that licensing authorities should require testing stations to pass on the outcome of all vehicle examinations of taxis and private hire vehicles. This would include instances where advisory notices were issued to the vehicle proprietor.

Do you agree licensing authorities should require testing stations to provide the outcomes of all examinations carried out, including where vehicles were subject to advisory notices?

Summary of responses within scope

Respondents who agreed with these questions noted the safety benefits this recommendation would provide to both passengers and drivers. Regulators saw benefit of increased transparency and being able to follow up with testing stations about the specifics of a vehicle test. There was broad consensus among respondents that being able to monitor whether a vehicle has had any concerns addressed would ensure that vehicles are safe for transporting individuals. There were calls from some that felt drivers should not be penalised for minor issues, such as damaged body work, as these issues are not related to safety and drivers should not be required to address them.

Those that disagreed with these questions offered a few points against this proposal. MOTs were cited as already serving this intended purpose and the details of these can be found online. Respondents argued that having licensing authorities going straight to test centres to collect this information was an unnecessary step in light of this, with online MOT information providing licensing officers with all the facts they need to make an informed decision in regard the licensee.

Others argued that being required to undertake additional tests to an MOT was overly bureaucratic and would cost drivers both time and money. There were some who queried the exact nature of these tests: questions were raised about circumstances where the test centre was outside a licensing authority’s remit and whether this would impede their ability to collect data. Drivers specifically requested that issues like damaged body work should not result in penalisation and asked that they be given sufficient time to address any issues identified before any licensing action is taken.

Government’s conclusion

The purpose of these recommendations was to ensure that licensing authorities obtain details of vehicle tests to enable them to establish any patterns of poor maintenance by vehicle proprietors. Vehicles should be maintained to high standards to maintain safety so that retrospective repairs to make a vehicle safe are not needed. This is the reason why the vehicle checklist was proposed elsewhere in the consultation version of the best practice guidance, vehicle proprietors and drivers should be proactive in respect of vehicle safety.

As highlighted by stakeholders, information on MOT tests (passes, failures, and advisories) can be found online, therefore, the recommendation has been changed to say that licensing authorities should use GOV.UK to check the MOT record of a vehicle to ascertain if any vehicle defects were identified during an MOT. Where licensing authorities designate where a vehicle must be inspected, and the outcome is not recorded on the MOT database, the authority should require the tester to provide them with the outcome of the test.

Proposed measure

Section 8.51 of the consultation version of the guidance noted that taxis and private hire vehicles that operate predominantly in urban areas can be significant contributors to poor local air quality, if not properly maintained and regularly checked, due to their higher usage. This might suggest that emissions testing for vehicles that use petrol and diesel (including hybrids and range extenders) should be carried out more frequently than the annual MOT vehicle test/inspection.

Do you agree that taxis and private hire vehicle with internal combustion engines should be tested more frequently than annually?

Summary of responses within scope

Respondents that agreed with this question generally saw the environmental benefits associated with this recommendation. It was acknowledged that taxis and private hire vehicles have a much higher mileage when compared to other vehicles, so they are more prone to mechanical defects. As a result, those that agreed thought it pertinent that vehicles with combustion engines, that produce higher emissions if their engine has a defect, should be checked more frequently than other vehicles in order to give more opportunities for vehicle proprietors to address these issues. It was noted that some authorities already require this level of frequency for some vehicles so adoption of this proposed recommendation would not be required in these areas.

Those that disagreed with this question expressed several reasons for doing so. Some argued that these tests would act as a barrier to entry for the trade as they would increase costs for proprietors to satisfy this measure. Indeed, as many vehicles use a combustion engine this would be a significant impact on the trade as others pointed out. Others felt that such a policy was not proportionate in some areas, with regulators noting that rural areas do not suffer from poor air quality when compared to urban areas so this advice would not be as pertitent in these places. There was also an argument that MOTs already pick up on such issues and, as DVLA standards generally necessitate annual MOTs, vehicles should not be subjected to further testing. There was a further point made by drivers that newer combustion engines should not have to undergo such tests as these are far less likely to malfunction and produce excess pollution.

Government’s conclusion

The government recognises improvements in vehicle manufacturing standards mean that vehicles are more reliable than previously and has recently consulted on changes to the MOT testing process. It may therefore be overly burdensome to require vehicles to be submitted for checks specifically on emissions as these are usually undertaken as part of an authorities’ normal licensing requirements. Many authorities have a testing regime that reflects the increased likelihood of vehicle failures as they become older, a point reflected in the best practice guidance. The government has therefore removed the recommendation on emissions testing from the final version of the best practice guidance.

Vehicle age limits

Proposed measure

Section 8.29 of the guidance outlined the government’s recommendation that licensing authorities should not impose age limits for the licensing of vehicles but should consider more targeted requirements to meet its policy objectives on emissions, safety rating and increasing wheelchair accessible provision where this is low.

Do you agree licensing authorities should not impose age limits for the licensing of vehicles?

Summary of responses within scope

Those that agreed with this recommendation supported the government’s justification for this position. The environmental argument against arbitrary age limits, stating that older vehicles can cause less pollution than younger vehicles, was echoed in the responses provided by many. Others, including regulators, noted that the same argument can be given for vehicle conditions or safety standards as older vehicles can still be perfectly safe, clean and comfortable for transporting members of the public. It was felt that authorities can continue to ensure that vehicles remain suitable for work as taxis or private hire vehicles later into their lifespans by increasing the frequency of vehicle tests and via other methods. Indeed, some proposed different barometers to assess vehicles, such as emissions levels, safety ratings or mileage, which they felt were a more appropriate means of measuring vehicle suitability.

Overall, most points in agreement underpinned that this would significantly benefit vehicle proprietors as the recommendation would avoid them from having to pay the significant costs associated with purchasing a new vehicle at regular intermissions that is necessitated by age limits.

Those that disagreed with this point expressed a few concerns with this recommendation. Some regulators felt that age limits set a clear and defined standard for vehicles that owners can follow with minimal complexities involved. They also noted that this simplification carries over to licensing authorities themselves as licensing based on another criteria, like emission figures, can be complicated and potentially also arbitrary.

There was also an argument that there is a direct correlation between age and emissions or safety standards but this was not evidenced. Concerns were raised that this recommendation would cause an influx of old, unsafe vehicles to the trade. Even some that supported age limits stated that exemptions should perhaps be offered for electric or hybrid vehicles as these do not cause increased air pollution regardless of age.

Government’s conclusion

Vehicle fleets are expected to evolve naturally in the coming years as the lower cost of running electric vehicles and improved charging infrastructure make these increasingly attractive to the trade. While vehicle age limits may provide a clear expectation for vehicle proprietors it does so at a potentially high and unnecessary cost. If a vehicle meets the requirements the licensing authority has deemed appropriate, for example on vehicle emissions then there seems no justification for requiring this vehicle to cease to be licensed purely as it reaches a specified age.

The importance of licensing authorities providing certainty to the sector so it can plan ahead and invest is acknowledged and encouraged in the consultation document. Giving the sector sufficient advanced notice of a change in vehicle policy is essential to this. Time should be given to enable a fleet to evolve rather than there being sudden and drastic wholesale changes in vehicle policy. Licensing authorities should make sure that their licensees are fully prepared for the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK by 2035. Licensing authorities in areas with air quality issues may need to accelerate this transition.

Responses to the consultation raised the point that, should a licensing authority not apply a maximum age policy, it will affect the effectiveness of other aspects of its vehicle policy. The Euro NCAP safety ratings was given as an example. As these are valid for six years, vehicles may cease to achieve the same ratings under new, more stringent testing. This is likely to be the case but that does not mean that the vehicle becomes less safe, only that further advances are now available which means newer vehicles have to be even safer to achieve the same rating. A vehicle that obtains a 5-star rating will always be safer than a vehicle that achieved only 1 star under the same test criteria, those additional comparative benefits will remain.

Licensing authorities should not refuse to license a vehicle purely because it has reached a specified age.

Vehicle signage

Proposed measure

Section 8.41 of the consultation version of the guidance presented the government’s advice that licensing authorities should not permit roof signs of any kind on private hire vehicles. Regardless of the wording required on such a sign it is likely to increase awareness of the vehicle and the likelihood of being mistaken for a taxi. This increases the success of those illegally standing or plying for hire and may lead to confrontation when private hire vehicle drivers refuse a request for a journey that has not been pre-booked.

Do you agree licensing authorities should not permit roof signs of any kind on private hire vehicles?

Summary of responses within scope

Most of those that responded to this question agreed that roof signs should not be permitted on private hire vehicles, this included the majority of licensing authorities who responded. The main reason for this was that it was a good means of visibly distinguishing between a taxi and a private hire vehicle. Many argued that roof signs are one of the most distinguishable and iconic features of a taxi – clearly marking them out as one in the mind of the public. Respondents said that recommending that private hire vehicles do not use roof signage would avoid the public mistakenly identifying a vehicle as a taxi before trying to flag it down without pre-booking. It was noted that this may make it harder for the small minority of private hire vehicle drivers who try to illegally ply for hire to do so. This would be a simple way in which the public can differentiate between the two services, which may also reduce instances of private hire vehicle drivers being abused if they rightfully refuse a fare from a passenger that had assumed they are a taxi.

Some private hire vehicle drivers argued that clear identification is not needed for private hire vehicles as the pre-booking process means passengers are given the make and model of the vehicle by the operator so it can be identified. Some private hire vehicle drivers also pointed out that roof signs diminish the value of vehicles and invite vandalism, so would welcome any recommendation that would mean they are not permissible on private hire vehicles. Overall, there was an underlying theme amongst these respondents that more needs to be done to clarify the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles in the minds of the public.

The minority that disagreed with this recommendation said that it would reduce public safety as it would make private hire vehicles less visible. It was argued that passengers would struggle to identify their pre-booked transport without roof signage to make it obvious, potentially leading to passengers entering unlicensed vehicles instead. Others pointed out that some passengers suffer from visual impairments and roof signs allow these individuals to identify their ride. There was also an argument given by one regulator that roof signage allows private hire vehicles to enter bus lanes and identifies their right to do this, so if the recommendation to remove this signage was followed then it would cause issues in such instances.

Government’s conclusion

Prohibiting roof signs on private hire vehicles was recommended to provide greater distinction between the two elements of the trade. The government intends to retain this recommendation and to further strengthen the position by amending the final version of the best practice guidance to state that licensing authorities should require roof signs on taxis that display the word taxi and can be illuminated when available for hire furthering the distinction between the two types of service. Increased awareness of the services that can and cannot be provided will enhance public safety and the right of taxi drivers to ply for hire.

Proposed measure

Section 8.42 of the consultation version of the guidance presented the government’s advice that licensing authorities should not impose a livery requirement on private hire vehicles. The more distinctive a private hire vehicle is made to appear, the greater the chance that this might be confused with a taxi. To assist the distinction further, licensing authorities should prevent private hire vehicles from being the same colour as its taxis, unless they are easily identifiable i.e. they are purpose-built vehicles as is the case in many cities.

Do you agree that licensing authorities should not impose a livery requirement on private hire vehicles?

Summary of responses within scope

A large majority of respondents agreed with this question. Respondents that agreed generally saw this recommendation as beneficial for both passengers as well as drivers. There were arguments that passengers’ safety would be improved as taxis would become more immediately obvious for passengers, preventing illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles that are only allowed to complete pre-booked fares and unlicensed vehicles. Taxis, that can be flagged down by passengers, would standout more to the public if they were the only vehicles permitted to have livery on them, making them more easily identifiable when compared to private hire vehicles and unlicensed vehicles.

Others pointed out that livery on vehicles does not make any private hire vehicle safer, and there is no evidence to support that it does, further arguing that livery can be forged anyway if a person intended to imitate a private hire vehicle. Some also argued that driver safety is improved if vehicles are less noticeable as customers are given vehicle details when pre-booking a private hire vehicle so they are able to identify these vehicles whereas others, who may harass or abuse a driver if they do not accept the fare, are unable to single the vehicle out as a private hire vehicle and attempt to flag it down.

Drivers noted the benefit that no livery requirements would mean a reduction in the amount of vandalism they suffer, pointing out that they currently are targeted due to livery on their vehicle. In addition, drivers are also advantaged by this recommendation as it enables them to work for multiple operators, which might have been a limited prospect previously if they were required to put a single operator’s details on their livery.

Those that disagreed with this question largely felt it would impact upon the safety of passengers. Many argued that livery provides a clear means for passengers to identify a vehicle they have pre-booked and its removal would leave many struggling to find their vehicle which could leave them vulnerable. The point was also made that livery marks a vehicle as legitimate so customers can feel safe entering private hire vehicles with this. Others argued that there might be other potential means of distinguishing between taxis and private hire vehicles without removing livery, with recommendations for different colours for both given as one potential solution.

Government’s conclusion

The primary objective of the recommendations around livery and signage was to enable the public to more easily distinguish between private hire vehicles and taxis and from those that are unlicensed.

While it is the case that a livery requirement for private hire vehicles would provide passengers with a means to easily identify them from unlicensed vehicles, it does not enable the identification of the specific vehicle and driver that has been dispatched for them by a private hire vehicle operator, to achieve this a unique identifier such as the vehicle registration mark is required. The government view remains that a distinctive livery requirement would perpetuate the current confusion between taxis and private hire vehicles and complicate the message needed to raise public awareness of the differences between taxis and private hire vehicles.

After careful consideration of the consultation responses, the position on vehicle livery is maintained. The only livery requirements should be to prevent private hire vehicles from being the same colour as a taxi if this is specified unless the vehicle itself is sufficiently distinct, for example a London style taxi.

Proposed measure

Three questions were asked about reducing licensing authorities’ requirements regarding the display of private hire vehicle operator details on the vehicle, as there is considerable interaction between these questions a single section on the government’s conclusion is provided at the end. A summary of the responses to each question has been provided to ensure the views expressed are accurately represented.

Section 8.43 of the consultation version of the guidance presented the government’s advice that licensing authorities’ private hire vehicle signage requirements should be limited to the authority licence plate or disc and a “pre-booked only” door sign.

Do you agree that private hire vehicle signage requirements should be limited to the authority licence plate or disc and a “pre-booked only” door sign?

Summary of responses within scope

This was a divisive question. A small majority of respondents agreed with this measure, generally supporting it as a means of achieving a greater differentiation between taxis and private hire vehicles – recognising the subsequent safety improvements that would stem from this. Many agreed that reducing signage for private hire vehicles to this limited scope would allow the public to better identify taxis and private hire vehicle separately and encourage them to understand the difference between them both.

It was noted that the “prebooked only sign” and licensing authority information serve as their own means of identifying a legitimate private hire vehicle by customers, distinct from the visual indicators of taxis, and prevents private hire vehicles from posing as ply-for-hire taxis. Drivers who supported these measures further identified some benefits for themselves: namely, minimal signage allows them to work for multiple operators, as company signage can affect their ability to do this and reduces vehicle vandalism which is often attracted by overt signage.

Those that disagreed with this question identified a few reasons for doing so. There was a view from some, including regulators, that this would reduce safety as overt signage provides an effective means of identifying private hire vehicles. Indeed, there were further fears by some that reducing signage to this extent could potentially allow unlicensed drivers to pose as private hire vehicles or increase the occurrence of passengers mistakenly entering unlicensed vehicles assuming it is the one they have pre-booked. The evidence of an uptick in unlicensed drivers offering services via social media was used to support this point further.

Regulators also argued that more obvious signage provides more information about the driver or operator that is useful when conducting enforcement action. This obvious signage also allows companies to promote their services further. Some felt that “pre-booked only” signs are still not clear to the public and can induce abuse for drivers when they refuse an immediate ply-for-hire fare from a passenger. A few drivers opposed the increase in multi-apping that would stem from this recommendation, arguing that this would increase costs for consumers.

Proposed measure

Section 8.45 of the consultation version of the guidance presented the government’s advice that a private hire vehicle driver and proprietor are free to work with more than one operator and licensing conditions or requirements that effectively tie a vehicle or driver into an exclusive relationship with an operator should not be implemented or should be discontinued where these are currently imposed. Examples of such policies are a requirement for the private hire vehicle to display the name of the operator under which it is operating by means of a permanent or semi-permanent sign, or to require a driver to advise the operator who they intend to work for and require notification in advance of any change.

Do you agree that licensing authorities should not require the displaying of private hire vehicle operator details on vehicle?

Summary of responses within scope

A large majority of respondents agreed with this question and were generally supportive of the benefits that this would bring for drivers. Many agreed that drivers should not be impeded from working for multiple operators, as this enables them to potentially earn more money than they otherwise might, so favoured any measures that might eliminate any such barriers. Some stated that operator signage was not a necessity for identifying a pre-booked vehicle so this recommendation would not impede a passenger’s ability to do this. Drivers also supported this recommendation because they had concerns that operator signage can potentially ruin the value of any vehicle so were supportive of a recommendation that would prevent this being a vehicle requirement. Drivers also argued that discouraging mandatory operator signage would reduce incidents of vandalism of vehicles, targeted due to their signs.

Respondents that disagreed with this recommendation, including a small majority of licensing authorities, cited a public safety reason for this. Many suggested that enabling drivers to work for multiple operators, which the proposal would support, means drivers can ‘cherry-pick’ the fares they choose to accept which can potentially leave passengers stranded if their journey is not appealing to any drivers. Operators have reported an increase in the number of journeys accepted by drivers and later cancelled, suggesting that drivers switch to higher paying fares offered by other operators. This means operators cannot accurately assess how many drivers/vehicles they have available.

Others argued that clear operator details were important for vehicle identification and preventing this would lead to safety issues. There were some suggestions that removable signs should be permitted, allowing drivers to promote the companies they work with, which is important for advertising, but also allowing them flexibility to have minimal signage, in line with the recommendation, or interchangeable signage. It was also further argued that promoting operator details on this livery has the consequential impact of making these companies more accountable for the actions of drivers and makes complaints easier.

Proposed measure

Section 8.46 of the consultation version of the guidance advises that where an exclusive relationship exists between the vehicle proprietor, driver and operator, a licensing authority should consider permitting the display of operator details in a discreet manner so as to not undermine the overall objective of enabling the public to differentiate easily between taxis and private hire vehicles. This might, for example, be through small branding on the rear of the vehicle.

Do you agree that when an exclusive relationship exists between the vehicle proprietor, driver and operator, licensing authorities should permit the display of private hire vehicle operator details in a discreet manner?

Summary of responses within scope

A very small majority of respondents agreed with this proposal. This was also true of licensing authority responses. Those which agreed with this position had various reasons for doing so. Some felt that being able to display operator details, even in a more covert manner, better allows passengers to identify vehicles that are due to pick them up. Others noted that measures that limit the visibility of signage on private hire vehicles better distinguishes them from taxis, thus reducing the possibility of illegal plying for hire as the public are more informed of the difference between the two. Drivers noted that this signage being discreet still allows them to display the name of the operator they work for, but in a way that leaves them less likely to receive abuse or vandalism due to the signage on their vehicle. The possibility to advertise an operator was also seen as beneficial by drivers as this could boost their own income.

Various reasons were cited by those who disagreed with this position. Some argued that any signage should be more overt than the ‘discreet’ signage the government recommended as this is necessary for passengers to identify the vehicle, they have booked in order to prevent activity by unlicensed drivers. Others argued that some vehicles being permitted to include operator signage and others not being able to (please refer to the previous question) could potentially confuse customers and distort the government’s goal of achieving a clear distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles. Indeed, there were some drivers who argued that no operator details should be permitted on any private hire vehicle as customers receive the details of the vehicle they booked anyway so signage is not a requirement for passengers to identify their allocated vehicle.

Government’s conclusion

The government recognises that there is little consensus as to what signage should and should not be on private hire vehicles; there is however a consensus that it would be beneficial for the public to be able to better differentiate between taxis, private hire vehicles and those which are not licensed. The consultation proposals looked to achieve this by limiting vehicle signage on private hire vehicles; with the pre-booked sign acting to inform the public that the vehicle must be booked and to show that the vehicle is licensed.

The government believes that high levels of signage draw attention to private hire vehicles and leads the public to mistake them as a taxi, which poses a risk to passenger and private hire vehicle driver safety. Reducing the relative visibility of private hire vehicles in comparison to taxis should help to increase the public’s awareness of the differences between the two elements of the sector. Limited signage on private hire vehicles will assist this objective and build on the earlier recommendations on roof signs and vehicle livery.

The public is safest when they verify the details of the private hire vehicle and/or driver before entering the vehicle. Assuming that a vehicle is theirs simply because it displays the name or logo of the operator with whom they are booked could lead to them trying to get in a vehicle that has not been assigned their booking. If multiple passengers are waiting for a vehicle from an operator they might all reasonably assume any vehicle is for them; they would need to check with the driver or rely on other unique information such as the vehicle registration mark of the vehicle. If more than one vehicle with the operator’s logo is in the area, the passenger would again need to check to see if the vehicle was for them or rely on a unique identifier.

An operator’s details can help narrow down the vehicles a passenger would enquire with, but this assumes that the booking is not sub-contracted or that if it is the passenger is advised of the details of the operator fulfilling the booking. In the interest of safety, passengers should always verify the vehicle they have been allocated.

Requiring operator details on a vehicle also increases risks for drivers as there is the potential for conflict if, as they are required to do, they refused carriage to passengers that have booked with the operator displayed on their vehicle but have not been allocated the booking. Private hire vehicle drivers that accept carriage without a booking out of fear for their safety are still acting illegally. The insurance in place will not cover such a journey, putting passengers, drivers and other road users at increased risk.

The government wants to promote a regulatory environment that helps provide a safe means of travel for the public and allows licensees to earn a good living in safety. Restrictive requirements distort competition and limit choice for passengers, reducing the ability of new entrants to enter the market and increase competition. Requiring vehicles to display private hire vehicle operator details restricts choice for drivers and so the potential to maximise their income. Drivers should be able to work with more than one private hire vehicle operator using the same licensed vehicle (as long as the operator is licensed by the same authority) if they choose to.

The point raised that operators are unable to be certain whether a vehicle and driver is available to it if the driver can accept fares from more than one operator is noted. Government also notes the concern by regulators and operators that this flexibility means that drivers may ‘shop for fares’ but private hire vehicle operators are free to choose the drivers with whom they work and are not required to continue to work with drivers they consider unreliable. If operators require drivers and vehicles to be at their exclusive disposal at certain periods, they are free to do so but licensing requirements should not do this to the detriment of drivers.

It is not the role of the department nor licensing authorities to dictate the commercial relationships between licensees. Practices that effectively tie vehicles to one operator leaves the driver in an unfair position. The department is aware of the concern among some operators that they are unable to exert controls on drivers as this may affect the employment status of the driver, but it is not the role of the department nor licensing authorities to intervene in this matter. Licensing authorities should not as, an unintended consequence of their policies, restrict or distort the balance of this commercial relationship.

The tying of vehicles and drivers to an operator may also be detrimental to passengers as it reduces flexibility in the system. In the absence of a requirement to display operator details on vehicles all operators are able to draw from a much greater pool of vehicles, potentially any vehicles licensed by the same authority as them. Private hire vehicle operators are able to sub-contract a booking to utilise vehicles and drivers tied to another operator which are available, but it is simpler and arguably provides a better service to the public if operators and drivers are able to work as flexibly as possible.

The government’s position on requirements to display the details of the operator on vehicles is, after very careful consideration of the arguments presented in response to the consultation, unchanged.

The government discourages requirements by licensing authorities to display operator signage but accepts that where there is an exclusive relationship, if signage is discreet, it does not undermine the overall objective to differentiate the two services and provides a means for companies to promote their business.

Private hire vehicles will, with very few exceptions, still be required to display a licence plate or roundel to assist the public in identifying private hire vehicles from those that are not licensed and operating outside the licensing system. The addition of a pre-booked only sign on the door will also help differentiate licensed and unlicensed vehicles. It is common for executive hire services to be exempted from a requirement to display a plate; the government is content that licensing authorities continue to do so and apply this exemption to door signs if they are content that there is no increased risk to public safety.

Proposed measure

Section 8.46 of the consultation version of the guidance laid out recommendations that restrictions should be applied to all signage on private hire vehicles, restricting use of the words “taxi” or “cab”, whether singular or plural, or any word of similar meaning or appearance to any of those words, whether alone or as part of another word. Restrictions on the use of terms which might lead to confusion among the public are detailed in section 64 of The Transport Act 1980 in respect of roof-signs, and this recommendation aligns with this legislation.

Do you agree with our suggested practice regarding the use of the words “taxi” or “cab”, as well as similar meaning words, for display on private hire vehicles?

Summary of responses within scope

A majority of respondents, including a large majority of licensing authorities, agreed with this proposal as generally they saw the logic, and supported the government’s aim of clearly differentiating between taxis and private hire vehicles. Many appreciated that branding around the words “taxi” or “cab” gives people the impression that these vehicles are available for immediate ply-for-hire work when they are in fact private hire vehicles. This recommendation was supported by those working in the taxi sector who feel that these terms have been inappropriately appropriated by the private hire vehicle industry. Generally, this was seen as a sensible way of increasing awareness of the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles for the public.

Those that disagreed with this question generally saw this as potentially causing confusion in the minds of the public. Regulators and operators specifically took issue with the term “cab” being discouraged from signage as the argument that this is often used as shorthand for “mini cabs” which can be pre-booked and factors into the branding of some companies. Other regulators noted that the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles is not clear in the minds of the public and this measure does not do anything to educate the public further on the difference, instead this just acts as a barrier for some operators as the general public sees terms like “taxis” as synonymous with both hackney carriages and private hire vehicles.

There was also an argument from operators that this would cause significant frustrations and administrative issues for companies that run a mixed fleet. Trade bodies also presented evidence that this conflicted with a ruling made in 2006 by the Advertising Standards Authority on the use of the term ‘taxi’ in a radio advert for a private hire car company in Scotland.

Government’s conclusion

It is widely acknowledged that the public does not understand the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles. The proposed recommendation that licensing authorities should prohibit the use of ‘taxi’ and ‘cab’ on private hire vehicles was made to help raise awareness. Continued use of these terms to cover both taxis (hackney carriages) and private hire vehicles will undermine this objective. 

The department acknowledges that this may cause difficulties for companies that provide both taxi and private hire services (mixed services). But it is still the case that: 

• a company must be licensed as a private vehicle operator to take any private hire vehicle booking 
• taxis can fulfil pre-booked fares both in the area that it is licensed or elsewhere, and this proposal does not change that position – they would still be able to use taxis to fulfil a booking 

In instances where an exclusive relationship exists between the vehicle proprietor, driver and PHV operator, and the display of operator details is allowed on the vehicle in a discreet manner, this recommendation would not prevent the display of a company logo. But it could not include the words ‘taxi’ or ‘cabs’. So, for example, ABC Taxis would only be able to display ‘ABC’.

Alongside the recommendations that taxis should have a roof sign and that roof signs should be prohibited on private hire vehicles, this position should help make the distinction between the two types of service clearer to the public.

Taxi ranks

Proposed measure

Section 11.3 of the consultation version of the guidance offered the government’s view that taxi ranks should be subject to regular review, with a rolling assessment of ranks every three years proposed as a proportionate frequency of any such reviews.

Do you agree that taxi rank provision should be reviewed every 3 years?

Summary of responses within scope

Generally, there was broad consensus in agreement with this recommendation. Regulators, and others, felt that this was appropriate in order to address local transport demands and how taxis factor into local transport systems. There was also a general acceptance that three years was a proportionate time span between reviews as this allows local authorities to respond to the rate of change to the built environment, including changes to infrastructure and housing in local areas. Some respondents suggested ranks are currently not fit for purpose so this recommendation would encourage local authorities to act on these issues. Some who were supportive of this point further asked that private hire vehicle pickup and drop-off points be subject to similar reviews over similar intervals.

Those that disagreed with this question were generally against the 3-year timeframe the guidance proposed, not to the concept of reviewing ranks themselves. Some regulators argued that reviews every three years places too much burden on licensing authorities with alternate recommendations offered instead. These alternatives included a longer time span between reviews – such as every 5 years – or for reviews to only take place after important milestones such as the completion of major development works.

To contrast this, others also argued for more regular reviews, with annual checks the most significant proposal on this side of the argument. There was also a view that these timeframes should be adjusted on a local basis, with some pointing out that reviews are needed less frequently in rural areas, where major geographical changes and infrastructure projects are less common, as opposed to urban areas.

Government’s conclusion

The government recommendation that taxi ranks should be subject to regular review was to enable local authorities to establish whether a change is required to current provision for the benefit of the travelling public. The government however wants to see the role that taxis (and private hire vehicles) can play in local transport provision better recognised and integrated. As noted in sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the consultation version of the guidance, taxi ranks are vital in building an integrated transport model in local areas as they provide a means of interchanging between modes. This means their location is important and should be regularly assessed to ensure ease of access by passengers so that they can make use of interconnected travel systems and facilitate effective passenger transit.

The final version of the best practice guidance recommends that taxi rank provision is considered at least every 5 years and, where possible for consideration in formulating local transport plans.

Model byelaws

Proposed measure

Annex B of the consultation version of the guidance provided an updated set of the department’s model byelaws for taxis which were largely unchanged from the 2014 version but updated to use more modern language to increase transparency. The consultation sought views on these changes.

What, if any, comments do you have on the model byelaws?

Summary of responses within scope

A lot of respondents chose to not offer any response to this question.

Those that offered favourable opinions on the proposed byelaws mainly supported the standardisation they would encourage across the country. Many saw value in these model byelaws reducing local variations in byelaws and viewed this as a valuable tool in achieving these ends. There were minimal comments on the content of the byelaws themselves.

Those that were critical of the model byelaws did not offer much opposition to the content of the byelaws themselves. They noted that this set of byelaws did not differ much from previous versions put forward by the government, with some comments that they require further modernisation to address matters such as GPS (global positioning systems). Other specific comments argued that these byelaws needed further updates to reflect the requirements in the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards with another suggestion that an obligation for operators to record complaints should be included. The most prominent complaint however focused on the fact that byelaws are very burdensome for licensing authorities to change, and many resisted these updated byelaws on the basis that doing so would cost time and money for licensing authorities that could be better spent elsewhere.

Government’s conclusion

The main change proposed in the consultation version was to modernise the language used in the byelaws, including use of the term ‘taxi’ rather than ‘hackney carriage’, to provide greater consistency and to make them easier for people to understand. The final version of the model byelaws issued alongside this document has taken account of feedback of the language used in the updated version, which should provide greater clarity.

It is acknowledged that in preparing the document for publication the necessary formatting was omitted. This has been addressed in the final version of the model byelaws which is published alongside the updated best practice guidance.

Taxi and private hire vehicle passenger notices

Proposed measure

Annex F of the guidance presented a sample notice for passengers travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle. The notice outlined what a passenger can reasonably expect from the behaviour of the taxi and private hire vehicle trade, and vice versa. Recommendations to include a notice such as this in licensing policies intends to establish good practices on behalf of drivers and to inform passengers of the sort of service they should be receiving when travelling in a taxi or private hire vehicle. This same intention is applied to passengers as the guidance details how drivers expect them to behave in a vehicle.

What, if any, comments do you have on the sample notices?

Summary of responses within scope

A lot of respondents chose to not offer any response to this question.

Those that responded positively to the sample note offered few comments on the content itself. Regulators pointed out that licensing authority complaints department details might be a pertinent inclusion as this would ensure that passengers are able to raise incidents with the relevant licensing authorities and encourage drivers to behave in accordance with their licensing conditions. Mostly though, favourable comments saw this as a useful tool for encouraging good behaviour by both passengers and drivers.

Again, the majority of comments that were critical of the sample notice did not really focus on the content of the notice itself. Those that did raised the question of why taxi drivers were expected to only start their meter once the passenger enters the vehicle and sits on the seat. Passengers can often leave drivers waiting before entering the vehicle and drivers feel that they should not lose money for this inconvenience.

Others argued that ‘shortest route’ should replace the most ‘time efficient route’ in the notice, as drivers taking the shortest route can save them money on fuel which might not be the case if they take passengers on the quickest route possible. Those that were critical on grounds other than the contents of the notice questioned where this note would be placed in vehicles with minimal space in them. More generally, others argued that these notices are likely to be ignored by members of the public, especially intoxicated ones, and felt that they would have little impact upon the behaviour of passengers.

Government’s conclusion

It is hoped such notices will establish respect between drivers and passengers, encouraging a safe relationship between the two in taxi and private hire vehicle settings. The practicalities around displaying this and other notices in a vehicle are acknowledged. It may be that such notices are displayed at ranks and on operators’ websites or at booking offices to achieve this objective. The statutory standards already recommends that ways to make complaints to the licensing authority should be displayed in all licensed vehicles and that guidance on making a complaint should be on the authority website.

Staying Safe guidance for the trade

Proposed measure

Annex G of the document offered guidance for taxi drivers to follow in order to keep them safe when transporting members of the public. The guidance acknowledged the potentially dangerous situations taxi drivers can find themselves in when completing journeys with strangers in the vehicle, often at night, who could be under the influence of alcohol and therefore more prone to violence. Advice offered in this guidance educates drivers how to act in these potentially volatile situations and also discusses what to do if a driver feels a child that they are transporting is at risk of harm.

What, if any, comments do you have on the staying safe guidance for taxi drivers?

Summary of responses within scope

A lot of respondents chose to not offer any response to this question.

Those that responded with support for the guidance had little to say on its contents. There was some suggestion from regulators that a line should be included asking drivers to report instances of hate crime to their local council as well as the police. Other regulators recommended that drivers should be advised to:

• complete a risk assessment of passengers when entering a vehicle
• report bilking to the police
• defend themselves with a necessary amount of force, as opposed to the recommendation to resist fighting back that is included in the consultation version of the best practice guidance

Separate from the content of this guidance, those that supported it felt it offered valuable information to drivers that would improve their safety.

Respondents who took a more negative view on this staying safe guidance also had little to say on the content itself. Instead, these respondents questioned how valuable this guidance would actually prove in reality to protect drivers. There was also a feeling that adding this additional guidance could lead to the rear of taxis becoming cluttered with such notices as many drivers already display several other documents in their vehicles.

Proposed measure

Annex H of the document offered guidance for private hire vehicle drivers to follow in order to keep them safe when transporting members of the public. The guidance acknowledged the potentially dangerous situations PHV drivers can find themselves in when completing journeys with strangers in the vehicle, often at night, who could be under the influence of alcohol and therefore more prone to violence. Advice offered in this guidance educates drivers how to act in these potentially volatile situations and also discusses what to do if a driver feels a child that they are transporting is at risk of harm.

What, if any, comments do you have on the staying safe guidance for the private hire vehicle trade?

Summary of responses within scope

A lot of respondents chose to not offer any response to this question.

Respondents that were positive towards the guidance for private hire vehicle drivers generally supported the potential safety benefits this would bring drivers. There was a feeling among these respondents that the guidance outlined a sensible set of principles for drivers to follow which should ensure they remain safe whilst completing journeys.

Those that offered a negative view of the guidance again had little to say on the actual content of the notice. There was one comment that suggested a recommendation that drivers ‘should not illegally ply for hire’ would be a sensible suggestion to protect drivers. The majority of other such responses focused in on the practicalities of such guidance keeping drivers safe in reality. Many argued that the guidance will not be effective in protecting drivers as it is only advice that does not necessarily ensure safety.

Government’s conclusion

The government is aware of a continuous stream of reports of attacks and assaults on taxi and private hire vehicle drivers; this is not acceptable. The best practice guidance makes clear that the personal security of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff must be considered by licensing authorities. It is unfortunately the case that guidance is needed to advise the trade in ways that they can stay safe. The best practice guidance repeats the position set out in the statutory standards that CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles can be a valuable deterrent in preventing crime. In order to assist licensing authorities in understanding the safety issues the trade faces all too frequently, the ‘staying safe’ guidance includes a recommendation that incidents are reported to them.

This will allow licensing authorities to more accurately consider the need for CCTV in vehicles as part of their duty to reduce crime and disorder. Further information has been provided in the ‘Health and safety responsibilities’ section of the ‘Private hire vehicle operator licensing’ chapter, though taxi intermediaries might equally benefit from considering the use of secured by design (SBD) devices and apps to increase driver safety.

Taxi quantity restrictions

Proposed measure

Whilst the Department does not regard quantity restrictions as best practice, annex I laid out a set of recommended questions for licensing authorities to consider when setting any taxi quantity controls. Section 9.14 of the consultation version of the Guidance suggested that taxis quantity controls should be reviewed regularly and for proper justification of any control to be laid out in local transport plans. These questions are designed to support licensing authorities in reaching a verdict on any such controls and to give them an idea of the things they should be considering to demonstrate that control would be proportionate.

What, if any, comments do you have on the questions for assessing taxi quantity controls?

Summary of responses within scope

A significant majority of respondents chose to not offer any response to this question.

Those that offered positive comments on these questions generally thought the questions were sensible and proportionate. There was support from regulators that this would still ensure WAVs were available for passengers. No mention of limits on private hire vehicles was also generally seen as a positive of the questions.

Respondents that took a negative view on the questions had little to say about the content of the questions themselves. Some argued that this would be an expensive and time-consuming process for licensing authorities to go through, so opposed the questions on these grounds. Most other respondents in this vein opposed the concept of taxi quantity controls, but this is outside the scope of the question being posed.

Government’s conclusion

Given the limited responses to this question and the focus of many of these being on the policy rather than the process of restricting taxi licences, no amendments have been made.

Other comments

CCTV guidance

Some respondents to the consultation requested that guidance on the use of CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles should be included in the best practice guidance. The government has acknowledged the benefits to passenger and driver safety in the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards which includes extensive guidance on this issue. Licensing authorities are under a duty to have regard to the statutory standards. To avoid duplication, this has not been repeated in the best practice guidance.

Pedicabs

The best practice guidance includes text which encourages licensing authorities to be receptive to applications to license these vehicles to meet public demand, being flexible in their approach to allow licensing under high but proportionate requirements.

Other matters

Some respondents requested the inclusion of recommendations that are already in the Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards or other guidance issued by the department. The department has already collated guidance and other useful information on GOV.UK primarily to assist licensing authorities, but these may also provide a useful resource to the trade and the public.