High cost of data control may price councils out of the mandatory taxi CCTV market
- Perry Richardson
- 1 day ago
- 2 min read
Colchester’s decision to shelve mandatory CCTV in taxis highlights a growing challenge for local authorities: the substantial cost of data control risks pricing councils out of surveillance schemes.
When councils become data controllers, they inherit expensive technical, legal, and administrative duties, with Colchester’s experience provides a telling example.
Colchester estimated that installing GDPR-compliant cloud-based CCTV in its 600 licensed vehicles would require a one-off capital outlay exceeding £650,000, plus around £48,000 annually for storage, encryption, handling subject-access requests, investigating breaches, and ensuring reliable systems.
By comparison, voluntary systems, where individual operators retain data control, shift both fiscal and operational burdens away from the council and onto the cabbies. Authorities encourage installation without legal control over footage and offer GDPR compliance guidance as needed. This approach promotes safety benefits without the high costs of full programme management.
Mandatory CCTV does offer safety advantages. It can deter crime, support investigations through audio and visual records, and enhance driver and passenger protection. In some areas, approved systems with audio-triggered panic buttons have proven valuable during emergencies. But such systems also raise concerns over privacy, particularly with continuous in‑cab audio, which is only regulatory allowed when activated via panic alarms. These privacy measures can limit evidence usefulness and complicate system management.
A critical practical hurdle is cross-border licensing. Under current national rules, private hire vehicles licensed in one council area may operate elsewhere, even if local rules require CCTV. This weakens enforcement and makes it harder for locally licensed drivers to operate due to higher operating costs.
Portsmouth demonstrates this vulnerability perfectly. The city mandates CCTV in licensed taxis, but recent reports show PHVs licensed elsewhere, such as Wolverhampton, operating without cameras and dodging enforcement. In one case, a vehicle not covered by Portsmouth’s CCTV requirement was allegedly involved in an assault, prompting a councillor to call for national reform to close the loophole. The inability of Portsmouth’s licensing team to act against out-of-area vehicles highlights a significant enforcement gap.
These issues illustrate why smaller councils may be wary of mandatory CCTV mandates. They face tough choices. Absorb rising data-control costs, enforce limited regulations in an inconsistent licensing backdrop, or risk losing taxi business to neighbouring areas with lower requirements. Colchester chose caution, preferring guidance and voluntary adoption to avert escalating costs and avoid pushing operators into other out-of-area authorities.
Pros and Cons of Mandatory CCTV in Taxis and PHVs
Pros:
May deter crime and anti-social behaviour.
Aids investigations and supports driver and passenger protection.
Provides strong evidence in incidents involving physical or verbal exchanges.
Cons:
High financial burden on local authority: capital, storage, compliance, and legal duties.
Audio recording restricted, limiting usefulness in disputes.
Privacy and data protection concerns.
Enforcement hampered by cross-border licensing loopholes without national alignment.
