Taxi Forum
14 February 2017, Chertsey Hall
The Forum was attended by 11 members of the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trade
and chaired by Councillor Richard Edis, Councillors Jacqui Gracey, Margaret Harnden and
David Parr having submitted apologies for absence in advance.
The meeting was also attended by Robert Smith and Jill Tyne, notes of the meeting taken by
Clare Pinnock, Runnymede Borough Council.
1.
What representation has the Council made to TFL regarding the influx of Uber
mini cabs to the Runnymede area to the cost of the local taxi companies and
independent Runnymede drivers?
Mr Smith re-stated the position that Uber and any other out of area operator can legally work
in Runnymede as long as the work is pre-booked and that the same applies to Runnymede
operators working in another area. The fact that Uber and others have taken advantage of
this was not the fault of TfL or Runnymede. It was stated that the Licensing section cannot
complain to TfL about the impact of Uber and others, that is not our function and we hold no
authority or influence over Tfl . Mr Smith suggested the best way to bring this to TfL’s
attention was through the London Mayor, either as a trade body or through local councillors.
It was thought that TfL were aware of the impact on other areas but as it was legal there was
little room for manoeuvre.
The technology had overtaken the legislation and only a legislative judgement would help
the situation.
Some of the drivers, particularly those from Egham, said that they were outnumbered by
Uber drivers 4:1 on a daily basis and that their livelihoods were being seriously affected by
Uber effectively plying for hire using their app. because although they had to work for an
operator people could not book them in advance and could only use Uber if they were in the
area. Like other PH drivers, Uber did not have to return to base after a job and only true HC
drivers could sit on the ranks. However, confusion was caused by Uber referring to
themselves as HC drivers and ‘taxis’. It was further expressed by drivers that TfL were
taking over licenses nationwide and that eventually local authority licensing would become
obsolete.
Councillor Edis expressed sympathy with the drivers and confirmed that he would raise the
matter with Phillip Hammond MP later that week. He also encouraged individual drivers and
operators to make representations themselves. It was understood that appointments could
be made via his secretary to attend his local surgery. However, some drivers thought that
the Government were unconcerned by Uber because it made the unemployment figures look
better to not account for approximately 33,000 drivers.
The drivers felt that all local authorities should get together and challenge Uber with legal
assistance and ask advice from councils such as Brighton and Hove and Liverpool City
Council. They felt that the Government’s agenda was to look after TfL and increase revenue
from the congestion charge and in turn TfL rates were low which attracted more Uber
applications and Uber were then able to undercut the market. An article in the Financial
Times was referred to as evidence of this and incidents of their standard of driving were
discussed. There was a lot of frustration that the Council was not doing more about Uber,
despite their limited powers.
The recent petition to the Government was referred to. Unfortunately because it referred to
the generic term of ‘taxis’ the call to stop out of borough working would affect HC drivers
working as PH outside their area. HC could work outside of their area as long as it was not
their main employment. It was noted that the Law Commission had wanted to keep the
distinction between HC/PH but the Government had not moved forward on this.
Action
Mr Smith agreed to provide Tony Grinham with details of the relevant enforcement
Officer(s) at RBWM/TFL?
2.
Policing and Crime Bill (PCB) Implementation
The PCB had received Royal Assent on 1 February 2017. Although the new Policing and
Crime Act dealt predominantly with police reform, there were a number of licensing
measures included. For example, in response to the Rotherham case, Section - 179
Licensing functions under taxi and PHV legislation: protection of children and vulnerable
adults, introduces a new discretionary power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory
guidance “…to public authorities as to how their licensing functions under taxi and private
hire vehicle legislation may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals
who are 18 or over, from harm.”
The forum were reminded about the forthcoming CSE awareness training on Tuesday 21
March at the Civic Centre from 10am – 12 noon. This training was designed to help people
identify some of the warning signs of CSE and understand how to report their concerns. The
training will be delivered by Maria Edwards, the Surrey Police Advisor for Child Abuse and
CSE and further educational materials will be made available to businesses following an
official launch of Operation Makesafe at an event in March 2017.
3.
New Taxi Licensing Policy
The forum noted that the approved policy would be adopted by full Council on 2 March 2017.
Action
The new policy would be notified to all relevant parties by Mr Smith when it took effect
after the meeting.
4.
Fees
The forum was referred to the letter concerning fees that had been approved by the
Regulatory Committee in January 2017 after hearing representations received. Mr Smith
stated that the fees has only increased marginally and that the process of fee setting had
taken into account changes to processes and procedures which helped to keep costs down
despite an increase in running costs. Mr Smith confirmed that enforcement costs could not
be part of the fee calculations.
5.
DBS procedure change
The forum was referred to a letter outlining the changes to the DBS procedure (see
attached)
The problem for drivers without internet access was acknowledged, but there were PCs that
were available in public libraries and at the Civic Centre.
6.
Discrimination against wheelchair users
Drivers were advised that from 6 April 2017 it would be illegal for taxi drivers to discriminate
against wheelchair users. For example, if a driver refused to transport someone using a
wheelchair or attempted to charge extra. Taxi and PH drivers would be obliged to:


transport wheelchair users in their wheelchair
provide passengers in wheelchairs with appropriate assistance
charge wheelchair users the same as non-wheelchair users
Mr Smith confirmed that the new rules affect vehicles that are designated as wheelchair
accessible and will apply to both taxis and private hire vehicles.
In a change to the law, drivers found to be discriminating against wheelchair users face fines
of up to £1,000 as part of provisions being enacted from the Equality Act. Drivers may also
face having their taxi or private hire vehicle (PHV) licence suspended or revoked by their
licensing authority. It was acknowledged that some of the electric wheelchairs were heavy
but that Drivers unable to provide assistance for medical reasons will be able to apply to
their licensing authority for an exemption from the new requirements.
This led to a discussion about transporting dogs; including guide dogs which some thought
they should be able to refuse. It was confirmed that this was not an option and that
assistance dogs were very well behaved. It was refuted that there was an additional cost to
transporting assistance dogs and that this form of discrimination would not be condoned.
The forum was directed towards a leaflet produced by Guide Dogs UK (also on website)
about promoting good practice with regard to blind people and their assistance dogs.
7.
Enforcement Update
Mr Smith advised that on Monday 5 December 2016 Taxi Licensing Officers from RBC took
part in a joint operation with 2 TfL Enforcement Officers and Surrey Police.
The licensing team considered the joint operations with Tfl enforcement officers and Surrey
Police to have been very worthwhile and both Tfl and the Police were more than happy to
carry out further work in the Borough. Further joint operations would be carried out when
time permitted.
The result of this previous operation had been circulated to the trade and was not repeated
at the forum although the previous circulation has been repeated below.
The purpose of this operation was to check vehicles and drivers operating in the Egham
area were operating legally.
A total of 29 vehicles were stopped, 16 of these were licenced with TfL, 5 with Windsor &
Maidenhead and 8 with Runnymede. Enforcement action was taken against 12 drivers for
failing to wear their hackney carriage or private hire drivers badge, 3 drivers for using
vehicles with defective tyres or wheels and one for having an illegal number plate. Further
investigations are being made into one driver suspected of having no insurance. It was
noted that only the Police could check if insurance was ‘live’ and valid.
A further operation was carried out on Wednesday 7th December when Taxi Licensing
Officers from RBC took part in a joint operation with Surrey Police and a further 18 licensed
vehicles were stopped for minor traffic violations. Three drivers from an out of area operator
have attended the Civic Centre in relation to parking on the ranks at Egham station. All were
interviewed under caution and fully admitted the violation , they were all given written
warnings regarding their action and their operator was informed. More operations with TfL
and Surrey Police were planned, resources permitting.
8.
Taxi Rank markings
It was hoped that once the works at Chertsey station had been completed the request for
fresh markings at Chertsey and Egham could be pursued. The Licensing section had been
assured that provision for taxis would be made in the new Addlestone One development. It
was disappointing that the Egham situation had not improved as the RBC bid had been
turned down by Surrey County Council. The provision would continue to be monitored and
and early bid would be made for taxi ranks in Egham’s redevelopment
The rank signage at and outside Virginia Water Railway station continued to be an issue for
some drivers who wanted additional signposting as they felt the existing sign, although legal,
was not sufficient.
9.
Driving Licence checks
Drivers were advised that all DVLA checks were now carried out online, all the Licensing
section needed from the drivers is an access code from the DVLA shared driving licence
service, these checks are carried out yearly on the anniversary of a licence’s issue date.
Mr Smith explained that drivers would save money as they would not be charged the £13 fee
which had been in place for the request of the printed copy of their licence.
Drivers without internet access or expertise felt disadvantaged.
10.
CSE Training
Surrey authorities were working on a County-wide policy and training. Mandatory training
would follow in due course; but optional awareness training was also recommended.
Action
An invitation to the free awareness training event on 21 March 2017 would be sent to
all drivers and operators (see attached)
11.
Using your horn at Egham rank
The Forum was advised that complaints from residents had been received about drivers
using horns inappropriately and causing a noise problem. Mr Smith stated that South West
Trains could withdraw their contract for using their ranks at Egham Railway Station if it
continued. Some drivers did not think the complaints were valid, nevertheless it was a good
idea to maintain positive public relations.
12. AOB
MOT advisories
Mr Smith confirmed that vehicles with MOT advisories on tyres, brakes or suspension would
not be accepted under the new policy. Mrs Tyne added that there could be some discretion
on tyres and the acquisition of a tread depth gauge would help them decide whether to
accept a vehicle or not. On balance drivers agreed that safety came first but that discretion
would be useful.
The Chairman thanked everyone for their input and attendance.
The meeting finished at 12.20pm