.jpg)
‘NEEDLESSLY HOSTILE’: Taxi driver representative details step-by-step experience of taking TfL’s SERU test
- Perry Richardson
- 53 minutes ago
- 3 min read
A London taxi trade representative has given a detailed first-hand account of sitting Transport for London’s Safety, Equality and Regulatory Understanding (SERU) assessment, describing the administration surrounding the test as “needlessly hostile”.
Paul Kirby, Executive S.O. at the London Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA), attended TfL’s offices in Greenwich to experience the SERU testing process himself and provide drivers with an account of what happens on the day.
According to Kirby writing in TAXI Newspaper, he said his appointment was scheduled for 11am and, after travelling from west London to North Greenwich, he walked to TfL’s Pier Walk offices. He arrived at around 10.40am carrying his appointment letter and photo identification.
However, Kirby said his early arrival was not welcomed. He wrote: “The stern, unemotional figure that faced me just said, ‘You must leave and come back at 10:45.’”
He added: “I found this a little strange, as we were only talking about five minutes.”
Kirby returned at the requested time and said his documents were checked before candidates were instructed to wait in a designated area.
He described it as “what can only be described as a ‘holding pen’: a small taped-off area presumably to stop us from wandering off!”
Kirby said the atmosphere became more concerning when another driver, who he said was recovering from recent surgery, asked whether he could sit down while waiting.
Kirby wrote: “During this wait period I witnessed another driver ask if he could sit down to wait as he was recovering from recent surgery. The request was denied without hesitation. So much for TfL’s duty of care regarding wellbeing.”
When around a dozen candidates had assembled, Kirby said staff opened the waiting area and directed the group towards a lift.
He added: “We walked behind like naughty schoolboys heading to the headmaster’s office.”
The security arrangements continued once candidates reached the testing area. Kirby said they were met by further staff and required to surrender their mobile phones before entering the examination.
“After being relieved of £40 and given a number, we were then made to line up against a wall and, one by one, whilst holding our number up, had mugshots taken,” Kirby wrote.
He compared the procedure to the television programme 24 Hours in Police Custody, before saying candidates were then taken into “a large, open plan office, which homed 50 or so computer screens”.
Kirby said each candidate was allocated a terminal and logged in by a member of staff. Candidates were also shown a short video explaining how to complete the assessment before the examination began.
Despite his criticism of the process leading up to the test, Kirby’s assessment of the SERU examination itself was markedly different adding “The 36 questions are very straightforward and not at all difficult.”
Kirby said the answers were presented in multiple-choice format, meaning candidates needed to identify the correct response on screen. He also highlighted assistance built into the assessment for drivers uncertain about a particular question.
Kirby said: “Even if you are unsure of the answer, the screen tells you what section of the book (which is on the desk in front of you) the answer is.”
He added: “It’s as simple as that. No trick questions.”
Candidates requiring help during the assessment could also raise their hand and speak to a member of staff, according to Kirby.
His account suggested time pressure should not be a major concern for prepared candidates. Kirby said drivers could review their answers before submitting the assessment and described an hour as “more than enough time so you don’t need to rush”.
He also highlighted the 60% pass threshold, adding: “If you can read very simple English, you cannot fail.”
Kirby said that once the assessment was completed, candidates were escorted from the premises. His final assessment of the examination contrasted sharply with his description of the arrival and security procedures.
Kirby’s experience raised questions about the balance between maintaining appropriate examination security and how candidates are treated while attending TfL premises. His strongest criticism related not to the SERU requirements themselves, but to what he regarded as an unnecessarily rigid approach before candidates reached their computers.
His verdict on the assessment was considerably more reassuring. After completing the process, Kirby concluded candidates would “hopefully never” need to return.
