CROSS-BORDER HIRING: Why major operators want to retain flexibility with better enforcement
- Perry Richardson
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
Private hire operators responding to a recent licensing inquiry stress that cross-border hiring (drivers working outside the area of their licensing authority) should not be banned outright. Companies like Uber, Bolt and Veezu argue this flexibility is vital for passenger coverage, especially in areas or times with low local supply.
Veezu’s submission warns that prohibiting cross-border operations would “remove passenger services and increase safety risks by removing vital supply to communities”. Similarly, Bolt calls the ability for taxis and PHVs to operate across local boundaries a “practical necessity and essential part of transport networks” in the UK. They point out that many essential journeys – such as airport transfers, hospital trips or late-night rides – cross council lines, and rigid area-by-area restrictions could leave rural and off-peak customers without reliable service.
Operators cite data and operational realities to defend the practice. Bolt, for example, reported that out-of-area drivers accounted for only 3% of safety-related complaints in London in 2024, with a lower complaint rate per trip than London-licensed drivers (0.128 vs 4.894 per 10,000 rides). This is used to counter the perception that cross-border drivers undermine safety. The companies also note that so-called “out of town” drivers are often local residents who obtained licences elsewhere purely due to faster or cheaper licensing processes – not to evade standards. In other words, a driver living in Greater Manchester might licence with a council like Wolverhampton to benefit from quick turnaround and lower fees, yet will still serve Manchester passengers. From the operators’ perspective, this kind of licence shopping reflects inconsistent licensing regimes, not driver misconduct, and should be addressed through standardisation rather than a ban.
While opposing an outright ban, operators acknowledge concerns around unchecked cross-border activity and “licence shopping”. They propose targeted reforms to improve oversight. A common recommendation is to bolster enforcement powers and collaboration across jurisdictions. Addison Lee argues that enforcement officers should be empowered to stop and inspect any licensed vehicle or driver, regardless of which authority licensed them. Currently, council officers are often powerless to intervene against vehicles licensed elsewhere – a loophole that can let infractions slide.
Operators support closing this gap by enabling joint operations and data sharing between councils. Bolt noted that it contacted 56 councils where it holds licences and found only 3 had ever conducted joint enforcement exercises with other authorities. The company suggests councils make better use of existing “joint enforcement” provisions, coordinating to check vehicles and drivers from each other’s areas. There is agreement that if councils actively share information (for instance via the national licensee database, NR3) and undertake enforcement together, problems associated with cross-border operations (like non-compliant drivers feeling “untouchable” outside their home area) can be greatly mitigated.
Several operators endorse pragmatic limits or transparency measures short of a ban. Addison Lee proposes a cap on purely out-of-area journeys: for example, an operator might be allowed to have up to 20% of its bookings involve both pickup and drop-off outside its base licensing area. This kind of threshold, set in law or by policy, they say would curb extreme cases of operators working almost entirely remotely while still permitting cross-border flexibility for genuine customer demand. Addison Lee suggests requiring firms to report what percentage of trips they perform outside their home area, enabling authorities to monitor compliance. The intent is to prevent “excessive licence shopping” where an operator bases itself in a lightly regulated jurisdiction but does most of its work elsewhere. Not all operators go as far as endorsing a numeric cap – Bolt, for instance, favours reinforcing standards rather than imposing quotas – but there is a shared sense that greater transparency in cross-border operations would help regulators keep companies accountable.
Importantly, operators caution that any reforms should avoid stranding passengers or creating inefficiencies. A recurring example is the scenario where a driver takes a customer across a boundary – say from a village in Authority A to a town in Authority B. If rules prevented that driver from picking up a return fare in B, they would drive back empty (“dead mileage”) and passengers in B might wait longer for a ride. Addison Lee notes that proposals like the “ABBA” rule (requiring all journeys to begin and end in the licensing area) would “entail delays for passengers, unnecessary mileage, higher costs and environmental impacts”, with older people, wheelchair users and other vulnerable passengers left waiting longer in potentially unsafe conditions. Bolt similarly argues that “barring drivers from operating in areas outside of where they are licensed” would reduce flexibility and risk “increasing wait times and costs for passengers in areas which are not well served”, such as rural districts or late at night.
The consensus among the major operators’ submissions is that cross-border hiring itself is not inherently problematic if high standards are maintained – and indeed it improves coverage – but it needs to be accompanied by uniform standards and cooperative enforcement to address any safety or compliance gaps.
