FROM WELBECK MOTORS TO UBER: The long running debate over plying-for-hire
- Perry Richardson
- 3 hours ago
- 2 min read
The right to ply-for-hire has shaped the identity of the London taxi trade for centuries. Yet for just as long it has been the subject of disputes, challenges and legal grey areas. From the minicab boom of the 1960s through to the arrival of ride-hailing apps in the 2010s, arguments over what plying-for-hire really means have never gone away.
Welbeck Motors and the minicab row In the early 1960s a company called Welbeck Motors began operating minicabs in London. Their model was simple: cars could be hailed from the street, after which details were phoned through to a central dispatcher. This process blurred the line between taxis, which had the exclusive right to take passengers directly from the street, and private hire cars, which were meant to operate only through pre-bookings.
The practice led to confrontations between black cab drivers and minicab operators, culminating in the 1962 Rose v Welbeck case. The courts sided with the taxi trade, and Parliament debated a Bill to legally define plying-for-hire. Despite majority support in the Commons, the Bill failed, leaving the concept undefined in law.
Licensing of minicabs after tragedy
For decades, minicabs continued to operate outside formal regulation. That changed after the disappearance of Suzy Lamplugh in 1986, thought to have been linked to an unlicensed minicab.
Campaigns by the Lamplugh Trust pushed for licensing, and in 1998 the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act introduced a system for licensing minicab operators, drivers and vehicles.
At the time, ministers stressed that licensing would not affect the fundamental distinction: only taxis could ply-for-hire, while private hire vehicles had to be pre-booked. Sir George Young, then transport secretary, assured Parliament that minicabs would never be allowed to compete directly with black cabs.
The rise of technology
In the early 2000s new technology again tested the boundaries. Apps such as Zingo and later Hailo gave passengers the ability to electronically hail black cabs, effectively modernising the traditional hand signal in the street. The taxi trade accepted this as part of its exclusive right.
The real disruption came when Uber was licensed in London in 2012. Unlike earlier platforms, Uber offered passengers near-instant bookings of PHVs, using the same smartphone interface as a taxi e-hail.
This technology blurred the distinction between pre- booking and plying-for-hire. Within a few years the number of PHV licences doubled, while taxi driver numbers fell sharply.
Courts and regulators divided
The courts have repeatedly struggled with the issue. In the 2019 Reading v Ali case judges were forced to ask the basic question: what is plying-for-hire? No clear answer emerged. Regulators have often called it a grey area when concerns over app-based PHV bookings replicating the work of
taxis emerge.
Reports over the years, from the Law Commission to the Department for Transport’s Task and Finish Group, have recommended a statutory definition. Yet no government has acted, leaving the same ambiguity that was debated in 1962.
An unresolved question
The disputes over Welbeck Motors and modern day apps may be separated by half a century, but the underlying issue is the same. Without a clear legal definition, the line between taxis and private hire continues to shift. For the taxi trade, this risks eroding the value of their unique selling point and the distinct role of the black cab.
