RMT Private Hire Consultation Response.

click to see

1. Introduction
The RMT London Taxi Branch (RMT LTB) do not accept that the operating centre
scheme (aka satellite offices), introduced as part of the Private Hire (London) Act 1998,
was an appropriate measure to deal with the perceived but, as yet, unproven shortage of
licensed taxis at peak periods on some weekend nights.
We believe that satellite offices were badly planned and have been poorly regulated. A
lack of enforcement of PH laws has lead to widespread abuse of the system by
operators, licensed PH drivers and touts.
The system has compromised the safety of the public and licensed taxi drivers. Illegal
touting, which is prevalent at many busy night time venues, has had an undoubted
detrimental economic impact on our members.
The RMT LTB clearly disagree with TfL TPH about the need for satellite offices.
However, we are responding in the hope that our recommendations, along with the
proposals developed by TPH, will be implemented and help restore levels of public
safety which have been damaged by this flawed system.

2 Driver Proposals
Proposal 1 Additional Background Checks
The RMT LTB believe that a driver can only be considered 'fit and proper' to hold a PH
driver's license if their character has been assessed using an enhanced CRB check.
This check is only meaningful if the applicant has a minimum UK residency of 3 years
prior to application.
We also believe that all applicants should be checked to the same standard. Other
authorities, such as Basingstoke and Deane, have recognised that UK applicants are
checked more stringently than non UK applicants.
After an increase in complaints against drivers they acted to improve the checking
criteria of non UK drivers by requiring a certificate of good conduct from each country
the applicant has lived in since the age of ten.
This policy was only implemented after consulting with the CRB and embassy officials.
In contrast to London, this council will not consider granting a PH licence unless
certificates of good conduct are obtained from all previous countries of residence.
The council's Taxi and PH newsletter reported “This will ensure a level playing field is
maintained but, above all, will protect the public”.
We believe that this approach would be appropriate for London as it would provide a
more rigorous check to ensure the public is better protected. It would also ensure that
all applicants were checked to the same standard. UK applicants have their criminal
history checked back to the age of ten in a CRB check. Refer Appendix 1 page 7.
Razaq Assadullah was convicted of rape whilst working as a Private Hire driver in
Stratford. Trial judge Michael Sayers QC, made the following comment after jailing
Assadullah for eight years. “Those hiring a private taxi (sic) simply had no way of
knowing the driver's background”.
He went on to say "It appears that nobody can travel in minicabs with any degree of
assurance or safety, as demonstrated by the facts in this case. At the moment, when a
member of the public takes a cab he has no assurance that the driver is who he claims to
be or has got any insurance or driving licence. He has no way of knowing how the
driver conducts his business.
This is something that should be investigated. If minicab drivers are driving around
with false identities, it is something that should be looked into and investigated
properly. I find it quite a worrying state of affairs."
Police have also revealed that not one driver working for the same Private Hire
company was being legally employed. Refer Appendix 2
An article, published in the Guardian online (refer appendix 3), further demonstrates
that loopholes in the current system of background checks are being exploited. The
report describes how a Taliban commander fighting in Afghanistan raises money for
jihad whilst working as a minicab driver in London.
These cases clearly highlight that the current system of background checks is a risk to
public safety and could even pose a threat to national security.

Proposal 2 Enhanced Driving Assessment
The RMT LTB believe that part of the application process should involve a driving test.
We think that it is appropriate that the assessment is designed to provide skills beyond
those required to pass a standard driving test.
We agree that the DSA taxi and PH driving test is a suitable assessment of driving
skills for someone who is going to carry passengers vocationally.
We also agree that skills which are particularly relevant to driving in central London,
such as awareness, anticipation and planning should be included in the assessment.
The RMT LTB believe that passenger safety should always be given the highest
priority, as such, a driver who is applying to carry passengers should pass an
appropriate test of their driving skills before a licence is issued. This requirement has
been adopted by many councils in the UK.

Proposal 3 Passenger Vehicle Training
The RMT LTB believe that part of the application process should involve additional
training for PH drivers.
We look forward to GoSkill's recommendation as to what form this training should
take.
We also believe that a private hire driver's English should be good enough to
understand and use everyday expressions, especially those related to directions and
time.
The RMT LTB has noted that councils such as Cardiff require applicants for taxi or PH
licences to sit a BTEC course in taxi and PH driving which, while not a test of English
skills, requires drivers to be able to communicate to the level described above. We
believe the NVQ qualification in Road Passenger Vehicle Driving, or similar, could be
used in London to determine whether a PH applicant has the appropriate
communication skills. Refer Appendix 4.

Proposal 4 Driver Identification
The RMT LTB believe that driver identification should be displayed on the dashboard.
This would help passengers more easily identify licensed PH drivers and could help
reduce touting.
Some PH drivers engage in touting and the current badge system clearly misleads some
people into believing that they are being approached legitimately.
It is common at many night time venues for licensed PH drivers to approach members
of the public whilst wearing a badge. We believe requiring the licence to be displayed
on the dashboard may discourage these drivers from leaving their cars in order to
display their PH badge.
However, we think that the interim option of having two licences is open to abuse and
increases the chance of a licence being lost or stolen. This interim solution could also
encourage drivers to lend one of their licenses to an unregistered driver.
We believe legislation should be amended to allow ID to be displayed on the dashboard
of PH vehicles.

3. Vehicle Proposals
Proposal 1 Vehicle Identification
The RMT LTB do not feel that the current system of identification is effective, either
by making PH vehicles distinct from licensed taxis or from vehicles used by touts.
The existing green licence disc is not prominent enough and can easily be mistaken for
something like a parking permit. We agree that the 'pre-booked only' sticker only adds
to this confusion by making is easier to attract jobs that are not pre-booked.
We believe the most appropriate option is for a combination of rear licence plates and
Private Hire door vinyls. These vinyls could be supplied by the operator but approved
by TPH in a similar system to the one that administers Taxi livery and advertising.
Councils such as Basingstoke and Deane have adopted a system that insists that all
licensed private hire vehicles must display door vinyl’s issued by the Council. These
must be permanently affixed (not magnetic) on either both front driver and passenger
doors or both rear passenger side doors of the private hire vehicle immediately below
the windows. Refer Appendix 5 section 4e.
Our members have commented that they think the wording “No Booking No Ride” on
these vinyls (appendix 5 page 7) is appropriate but also believe including the terms
“No Street Hails” and “Not insured unless pre-booked” would make the message more
explicit.
A few of our members have remarked that the mock up license in the consultation
document is yellow. They feel to avoid any possible confusion with licensed taxi
badges or the proposed taxi badge colour plates, the PH plate should be any colour
other than green or yellow.

Proposal 2 Vehicle Distinction
Our members have reported many incidents of PH vehicles being hailed in the street.
We also believe the lack of a single PH vehicle colour allows touts to mix in with
licensed PH vehicles, particularly outside busy night time venues or where parking
regulations are not being enforced.
The RMT LTB therefore support the proposal that vehicles licensed as PH vehicles in
other areas of the country should not be used as licensed taxis in London.
Whilst most travellers are aware that the taxi light indicates that a vehicle can be hailed
in the street, they also recognise the iconic shape of the London taxi. As such, any
future use of a vehicle in London by both industries should be resisted, Mercedes Vito
excepted.
We think a lot of confusion could be reduced by introducing a system where all new
licensed taxis are black and all newly registered PH vehicles are the same colour, but
not black.
We think that the colour distinction is especially important now that vehicle partitions
can be installed in PH vehicles. This recent policy change (TPH 18/10) has made the
different vehicles less distinct from the inside and therefore, we believe, making the
vehicles more distinct from the outside can only benefit passenger awareness and
safety.
Whilst we do not have a view of which colour PH vehicles should be, we feel it is
important that it is a light colour. This should reduce any uncertainty about the type of
vehicle at night.
As the Mercedes Vito has been licensed as a taxi and a PH vehicle in London the
proposed new colour schemes should be introduced as soon as practical to ensure that
the two types of vehicle can be distinguished.
Manchester City Council faced a similar decision in 2008. At the time of their
consultation PH vehicles had to be white or silver and display prominent council
branding. A licensing policy decision was made that required hackney carriages to be
black or covered by full advertising livery. Refer Appendices 6a & 6b.

4. Operator Proposals
Proposal 1 Restrictions in Shared Premises
The RMT LTB believe that it is appropriate to restrict applications for PH operating
centres in shared premises. Our members believe that the current system has been
widely abused and we therefore think it should be a requirement that an operator should
hold a mini cab operator's licence for a probationary period before being allowed to
operate in shared premises.
Our members have noted and reported many cases of blatant touting at various types of
shared venues, including restaurants, nightclubs and shops. However, they are equally
concerned about more subtle 'interviewing' and 'cherry picking' techniques that occur
inside many shared premises which, from the outside, appear to be operating
legitimately. A probationary period may discourage these types of practice which have
an undoubted economic effect on our drivers.
We also believe that the confusion created by the presence of 'Clipboard Johnnies',
either licensed or unlicensed, could be significantly reduced by requiring all bookings
to be taken from a dedicated and separate space within a shared premises. Anyone in a
high-viz jacket with a clipboard would then clearly be either unlicensed or operating
outside the terms of their license.
We recognise that employees at some operating centres escort bookings to waiting cars.
This has, at times, lead to accusations of touting. This activity would be much more
easily recognised if the booking had been taken in a dedicated space inside the shared
premises, removing the need for the PH employee outside to carry a clipboard.
We believe that standard signage, approved by the PCO would help customers identify
legitimate places where a PH car could be booked.
This requirement would also make it easier to identify illegal operations as they would
not own the necessary signage. It would also ensure that PH operators do not use
words such as taxi or taksi on their signs.

Proposal 2 Planning Consent
The RMT LTB agree that planning consent should be checked before an operating
licence is granted.
We believe that public safety should always be the first consideration when such
applications are made and, as such, the premises should be deemed appropriate and safe
by a qualified planning officer.
We believe particular attention should be given to fire safety at shared premises as ease
of exit is regularly compromised in busy venues by booking activities of PH
employees.
The planning application should also consider the availability of parking facilities and
the impact of increased congestion and obstructions. Indeed, we believe consideration
should first be given to the installation of a taxi rank at these locations. This view was
supported in 2004 by TPH & WCC who agreed that installing new taxi ranks is an
effective way of reducing touting. Refer Appendix 7 para 3.5.
If an application to install a taxi rank near a venue is rejected because of concerns over
increased congestion/obstructions etc. then any application for a PH operating licence
for that venue should be rejected for the same reasons.
The RMT LTB also think a taxi rank should be the preferred option outside a venue as
they cause less congestion than PH vehicles whose numbers are not restricted by the
TPH plate on a taxi rank. For example, PH vehicles that operate outside Maddox Club
in Mill Street often make both Mill and Maddox Streets impassable.

Proposal 3 Parking Regulations
The RMT LTB agree that operators should make a commitment to ensure PH vehicles
associated with their business comply with local parking restrictions.
Our members have reported many locations where vehicles ignore parking regulations.
This causes obstructions and traffic congestion. Examples where 'ranks' of PH vehicles
ignore restrictions are Embargos, Kings Road (pedestrian crossing), Abacus, Cornhill
(double yellow line), Tiger Tiger, Haymarket (taxi rank).
This proposal may help solve this problem. However, there are also places where there
are 'ranks' of drivers who are clearly touting and are therefore not linked to any
operating centre. We believe that the activities of these drivers can only be discouraged
by strict enforcement of the law and parking regulations. The 'ranks' of touts parked on
double yellow lines in high profile places such as Regent Street (at Heddon St) and
Club On Anon in Shaftesbury Ave show that touts operate without fear of receiving a
PCN.

Proposal 4 Booking Area
The RMT LTB believe that any shared premises that take PH booking should have a
separate and dedicated area for that purpose. We believe that this, along with the other
operator proposals, would help ensure that bookings were not taken outside venues.
We also believe that this process could be improved by requiring the driver to hold a
record of the booking.
The booking details should be held in a booklet as well as on a PDA, if applicable. The
booklet should be supplied by the operator and approved by TPH. We suggest that the
booklet should hold the driver's ID and should be page numbered to prevent tampering.
Licensed taxi drivers on radio circuits who are required to manually record all prebooked
work in a similar way, even though the job comes on their terminal, have
reported it is very easy to get used to this dual process.
A sequential booking reference (sequential within operator NOT driver) should be
recorded for each job. This system would make any job that had not been booked
legitimately easy to identify.

Proposal 5 Accessible Vehicles
The RMT LTB believe that operators should be able to provide accessible vehicles after
a reasonable notice period.
We think it appropriate that small operators should be exempt from this obligation.

Proposal 6 Restrictions for Small Operators
The RMT LTB believe these proposals are appropriate. We think it is important that
small operators are limited to operating from residential addresses only.
If operators are restricted to providing a service where there is significant demand
(proposal 9) then it makes little sense for an operator with two drivers to be based at
anything other than a residential address as they would be unable to meet the demand.
Implementing this proposal would also allow TPH to easily identify 'satellite' offices as
no small operators (residential addresses) would be operating from shared venues.

Proposal 7 Fixed Line Telephone
The RMT LTB agree that operators should have a landline telephone number for
bookings.
This proposal would ensure that bookings are taken from a legitimate and registered
address and therefore help reduce the number of operations that run from stairwells,
hallways or alleys.

Proposal 8 CRB Check
The RMT LTB agree that a CRB check should be carried out on applicants for an
operator's licence. We believe that this is an appropriate check to ensure that the
licence holder is a 'fit and proper' person.
We also believe that the requirement for certificates of good conduct should apply to
operators as well as drivers.
Recent events in Scotland, where the Councils have been concerned about involvement
of organised crime in PH operations, justify this proposal. Police in Edinburgh have
raised fears that west coast gangsters are attempting to infiltrate the city's PH firms as
'fronts' for drug dealing and money laundering.

Proposal 9 Restrictions on Premises
The RMT LTB agree that operating centres should only be established, like taxi ranks,
where there is a demand for the service.

5. Other Issues & RMT LTB Proposals
Our members raised a number of issues during meetings related to this response. We
believe this consultation is an appropriate forum in which to communicate them.

Proposal 1 Satellite Offices & Illegal Ranks
The RMT LTB have noted that the consultation document concedes that the current
situation outside many operating centres
• Gives opportunity for licensed or unlicensed drivers to tout or to accept
bookings directly (pg 8)
• Tempts operators' staff to accept bookings outside the venue (pg 8)
• Makes it easier for PH drivers to attract jobs illegally (pg 15)
Whilst we agree that at many locations, such as Mayfair hotels, PH vehicles are waiting
for pre-booked jobs legally we have argued many times that licensed PH vehicles at
venues such as Tiger Tiger, Embargos, Shoreditch House, Oxo Tower, Fulham High
Street, Clapham High Street, The Artesian Well, The Clapham Grand and many more
are not pre-booked or even linked to a legitimate operating centre.
These vehicles are forming an illegal rank whilst waiting to be booked .
Numerous high court judgements have upheld the principle that if a vehicle is on view
and making itself available then it is plying for hire.
Our members are adamant that until TPH recognise this then the recent increase in
serious sexual assaults will continue.

Proposal 2 Enforcement and Funding
Our members are completely frustrated by the lack of will of TPH to recognise the
difference between a PH vehicle that is waiting outside a venue for a pre-booked job
and one that is waiting to be booked.
Our members urgently request that regulations relating to plying for hire are enforced
more rigorously.
We understand that a key element in the Private Hire (London) Act 1998 is the
provision that the licence fees can only be used to cover the costs of licensing,
compliance and enforcement functions, and cannot be used to fund other TfL activities.
We urge TPH to ensure that funding from PH license fees are sufficient to fund
effective enforcement.

Proposal 3 Driver's Deterrent
A TfL report from 2008 (refer Appendix 8) reported that the average fine for touting
was £135 and this figure was lower than the same figure calculated in 2004.
TOCU analysis of sample cases in 2008 found that the average fines for touting and
having no insurance were £150 for each offence (refer Appendix 9, para 3.17)
The RMT LTB feel that these figure does not act as a deterrent (the maximum fines for
touting and having no insurance are £2500 and £5000 respectively) and does not reflect
the danger touting poses to public safety.
Our members are aware of the prices that touts charge as customers often recount the
offers they have been made. The level of these fines are modest compared to their
potential earnings.
We believe that fines will only act as a deterrent if touts are aware they will be heavily
penalised if they are caught. This view is shared by Wolverhampton City Council who
recently reported that they have gradually created heavier sanctions for PH drivers who
respond to 'flag downs'. This policy was reviewed and upheld at a Licensing
Committee meeting in September this year. Refer Appendix 10, para 2.5.

Proposal 4 Operator's Deterrent
The Private Hire Operator's Abstract of Laws states that “An operator's licence may be
suspended or revoked for any reasonable cause....”
We do not believe that this part of the legislation has been used frequently enough
given the level of touting that our drivers experience.
Clearly TPH already have the powers to act against operators that allow touting at their
venues. Our members have requested that this power is used to deter other possible
offenders.

Proposal 5 Operator's Licence Period
The RMT LTB believe that a PH operator's licence period should be for 3 years, the
same as for a PH driver.
We think recent events in Scotland (see Operator Proposal 8) would justify this change.
Police and council officials in Edinburgh have recently held discussions on how PH
licensing rules could be more strictly applied to prevent criminal gangs getting a
foothold in the PH industry.
Similar concerns in Glasgow has seen the City Council attempting to ban a PH
operator's vehicles from the road after he was jailed for money laundering offences.

Proposal 6 Terminology
Paragraph 21 of the Abstract of Laws for London's Private Hire vehicle operators
states :
A PHV operator must not use the words 'taxi', 'taxis', 'cab', 'cabs' or any other word
which is closely similar …...
The intention of the above is clearly to reduce the chance of confusion and protect
public safety. However, ambiguous use of the word 'cab' is prevalent, especially in the
media, and is regularly used to describe vehicles or drivers from either industry
A report from the Mail Online (appendix 2) uses all the following terms in one report
about a private hire driver jailed for rape: minicab driver, cab driver, private taxi
(driver), private hire driver, unlicensed taxi tout.
Ambiguous use of language that can cause confusion is not restricted to the media. We
have included a TfL document (refer Appendix 8-Tackling Taxi Touting in London)
which uses the terms 'cab' and 'cab related sexual offences' when referring to vehicles
other than licensed taxis.
RMT LTB members are licensed taxi drivers and, to avoid confusion with other
drivers, that is how we feel we should be described by our licensing authority.
Similarly, our vehicles should be described as hackney carriages or licensed taxis
although we accept that the terms 'black cab' and 'taxicab' are commonly understood to
mean the same.
Consistent and appropriate use of 'private hire' and 'unlicensed driver' or 'tout' would
also help the public and media to distinguish between the different services.
We think it is particularly important to use this terminology correctly when describing
crime statistics (see below).

Proposal 7 Statistics
The RMT LTB have been led to believe that crime statistics for licensed taxis, PH
vehicles and unlicensed vehicles are not held separately.
Our members have proposed that records for taxis, licensed PH drivers and unlicensed
drivers should be maintained separately. This process should be transparent and the
figures should be available to interested parties.
Our members have also requested that the following statistics are also made available
• number of arrests/prosecutions/convictions with reasons
• number and amounts of fines with reasons
• number of drivers' licences suspended/revoked with reasons
• number of operators' licences suspended/revoked (incl. variations) with reasons
• number of driver applications rejected with reasons
• number of operator applications rejected with reasons
We strongly believe that the success of these proposals and the effect their
implementation has on the Safe Travel at Night policy can only be established if these
proposals are implemented.

Proposal 8 Virtual Hails
A US company, Ubercab, has developed a mobile phone app that accepts payment in
return for matching drivers with customers.
We understand that the company is currently in dispute with the San Francisco
Metropolitan Transport Commission and the Public Utilities Commission of California.
The authorities are concerned that the Ubercab service does not comply with city and
state taxi and limousine regulations whilst Ubercab are insisting that they are merely an
apps provider, not an unlicensed taxi service.
The RMT LTB believe that the process of matching driver with a customer constitutes
an unlicensed hail. Our members have reported that similar apps are already on sale in
the UK. We believe that use of this type of software is an attack on our right to ply for
hire and the business model of the PH industry.
Our members have requested that this consultation includes a commitment to review
taxi and PH regulations to ensure that both industries are protected from this type of
technology.

Proposal 9 Location of Satellite Offices
The RMT LTB have requested that TPH publish the locations of satellite offices. TPH
have refused this request on data protection grounds as some operating centres are
registered at residential addresses.
It has been suggested (operator proposal 6) that small operators should be restricted to
run from residential addresses only. This would mean that only large operators would
be licensed to run operating centres in shared premises (satellite offices).
If operator proposal 6 is implemented then we believe that a list of satellite offices
should be published.
This would ensure a level playing field and make it much easier for taxi drivers and
TPH to identify unlicensed operations. It would also allow representatives from taxi
organisations to lobby for new ranks which, if installed, would allow the public to make
the choice as to which form of transport to use.

Proposal 10 Vehicle Dimensions
Our members have reported seeing PH vehicles that are too small to carry passengers in
safety and comfort.
The RMT LTB suggest that minimum dimensions should be defined to ensure
passenger comfort. We also believe the number of doors should be defined to ensure
safety is not compromised.
A number of councils, including North Tyneside, have adopted this, or a similar
approach, refer appendix 11 paragraphs 7 to 9.
Another LA, Derby, has a similar system for PH vehicles. Here a licence may be
granted for smaller vehicles, but for less passengers than for those that meet the
minimum size requirements.

6. Conclusion
The Private Hire (London) Act 1998 was introduced to improve safety for the benefit of
the travelling public.
The RMT LTB accept that the Act defines the term “variation of operator's licence” but
we assert that the concept of satellite offices was never discussed in Parliament when
the Bill was being debated.
We believe that this lack of debate and an absence of a clear, common sense approach
has led to many of the problems that TPH has now recognised and that this consultation
is attempting to address.
Whilst we agree that if all the proposals are fully implemented it will be more difficult
for licensed and unlicensed drivers to operate illegally, we are concerned that these
proposals will not be supported by the strict enforcement necessary to make them
effective.
We believe that although the legislation was enacted it has never been enforced.
This was shared by the London Assembly Transport Committee in 2008 (refer para
3.13 appendix 9) who reported :
Unless the regulations governing private hire can be effectively enforced, some
licensed drivers and others will act illegally if they believe they will not be caught.
Furthermore, there appears to be a tension between the priorities of borough police
and the TOCU Cab Enforcement Unit. Borough police working late at night will
prioritise getting people home as quickly as possible which does not necessarily
complement TOCU’s work.
The same observation was also made in an OFT report titled 'The regulation of licensed
taxi and PHV Services in the UK' which, although not specifically about London, stated
:
Although it is an offence to ply for hire without a taxi licence under section 45 of the
Town Police Clauses Act 1847, police do not often seek to charge the offender. This is,
in part, because in the interests of public order the police would rather see the streets
cleared than prevent unlicensed plying for hire.

The RMT LTB urge TPH to
1. Fully implement TPH's proposals as soon as possible.
2. Consider the additional recommendations proposed by the RMT LTB.
3. Recognise the difference between a PHV that is waiting for a pre-booked job
and one that is waiting to be booked.
4. Secure sufficient funding from PH licensing to resource effective enforcement.
5. Ensure the penalties for touting are stringent enough to act as a deterrent.
6. Measure the success of the new regulations by maintaining and publishing
relevant statistics.