Bolt submits data showing out-of-area private hire drivers receive LESS complaints compared to drivers working their licensed area
- Perry Richardson
- 2 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Ride-hailing operator Bolt has submitted further written evidence to the Transport Select Committee, setting out data and policy arguments in support of cross-border private hire work and warning against tighter geographic restrictions in any future reform of taxi and private hire licensing.
The submission follows Bolt’s oral evidence session during the Committee’s inquiry into taxi and private hire licensing standards. Bolt said the additional material was provided to address points raised by MPs and expand on how national minimum standards could improve passenger protection without disrupting coverage or driver livelihoods.
At the centre of Bolt’s argument is its claim that cross-border hiring does not, in itself, pose a safety risk when licensing standards are aligned. The operator said passengers routinely travel across local authority boundaries and restricting drivers to their licensing area would reduce vehicle availability, lengthen waiting times and increase the risk of service gaps, particularly late at night and in areas with smaller licensing authorities.
Bolt told MPs it operates under what it described as a “triple lock” approach, where the vehicle, driver and operator are licensed by the same authority. It said internal data does not show out-of-area work to be inherently less safe when this framework is in place. To support that position, Bolt cited London figures from 2024 showing that out-of-area licensed drivers generated a lower rate of safety-related complaints than drivers licensed in London. According to the company, out-of-area drivers recorded 0.128 safety complaints per 10,000 journeys, compared with 4.894 per 10,000 journeys for London-licensed drivers.
Supplementary evidence to Transport Select Committee argues national standards, not geography, should underpin private hire regulation
The operator argued that public confidence is better achieved through consistent standards and enforcement rather than geography-based restrictions. Bolt said it does not support licensed-area-only or geofenced operating models, claiming these would increase dead mileage and reduce driver earnings. Bolt also say it risks leaving passengers stranded at council boundaries. The operator instead called for stronger use of shared enforcement tools and closer cooperation between licensing authorities.
In its evidence, Bolt backed wider and mandatory use of the National Register of Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Driver Refusals and Revocations, commonly known as NR3. The company said NR3 checks should be compulsory at application and renewal across all authorities and upgraded to provide daily status alerts, preventing drivers who have been refused or revoked in one area from continuing to work elsewhere without detection.
Bolt also addressed the Committee’s focus on national minimum standards, welcoming the Government’s intention to introduce them through the forthcoming Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While supporting local administration of licensing, the company said a clear national baseline should apply across England. Bolt suggested this should include enhanced safeguarding checks and training, digital-first document and identity verification, defined requirements for complaints handling, and agreed datasets that operators must be able to share with licensing authorities in an auditable format.
The submission outlined Bolt’s own compliance systems, which it said are already built around technology-enabled oversight. These include frequent automated and manual licence and document checks, automatic account blocks when critical documents expire, selfie-based identity verification to reduce fraud and account sharing, and device checks linked to driver accounts. Bolt said these processes are supported by human review rather than automation alone.
Bolt provided further detail on how it handles complaints, suspensions and compensation. It said quality-related complaints, such as punctuality or customer service, are logged and reviewed but would not normally result in suspension unless patterns emerge over time. Safety-related complaints are treated differently, with proportionate interim measures applied while investigations take place. Where there appears to be an immediate risk, drivers may be temporarily suspended or restricted while trained staff review the case.
Serious incidents, Bolt said, are escalated to the police and the relevant licensing authority within 48 hours, supported by journey and account records. Drivers are able to submit representations and evidence during investigations, which are considered before final decisions are made. Bolt said it does not operate a fixed numerical threshold for complaints, instead assessing each case on its seriousness, credibility and available evidence.
On compensation, Bolt told MPs it does not generally compensate drivers who are suspended following safety-related complaints, regardless of the outcome, arguing that reports must be handled in a way that does not discourage passengers or drivers from raising concerns. However, it acknowledged that errors can occur and said that in rare cases where the company is at fault, such as delays in lifting a block after a decision, it may assess compensation based on a driver’s typical daily earnings for the affected period.
The Transport Select Committee continues to gather evidence as part of its inquiry, with cross-border hiring, enforcement consistency and the shape of national standards expected to remain key issues. Bolt’s latest submission adds to a growing body of operator-led evidence as MPs weigh safety, availability and fairness in a sector facing ongoing scrutiny.
