NPHTA warns MPs national taxi standards will fail without fee reform, statutory intended use and tougher enforcement
- Perry Richardson
- 3 minutes ago
- 4 min read
The National Private Hire and Taxi Association (NPHTA) has submitted detailed supplementary evidence to the Transport Select Committee, arguing that proposed national standards for the taxi and private hire sector will not deliver meaningful reform unless they address licensing fees, enforcement practices and intended use rules through primary legislation.
The submission follows the committee’s oral evidence sessions examining licensing, accessibility and regulation in the sector. While welcoming aspects of the discussion, the NPHTA warned that the current policy direction risks repeating existing failures by focusing almost entirely on drivers and vehicles, while leaving the behaviour of regulators and large app-based operators largely untouched.
Reflecting on the first session, the association said it was encouraged by comments from the Institute of Licensing acknowledging that public debate often overlooks the professionalism of most drivers. It quoted James Button’s statement that “the majority of the taxi and private hire industry consists in fact of hardworking, professional individuals who take great pride in their role and in providing a high-quality service to their communities”. The NPHTA said this recognition was important in countering narratives that frame the sector primarily through enforcement failures.
The association also welcomed Transport for All’s acknowledgement of the need for mixed fleets in rural areas, where full wheelchair-accessible provision may not be economically viable. “There is little justification for requiring 100 percent wheelchair-accessible vehicles in such settings,” the NPHTA said, warning that rigid mandates risk reducing service availability and affordability outside major cities.
Trade body tells Transport Select Committee that licence shopping, cross-border working and inconsistent regulation will persist unless councils and operators are brought within a binding national framework
Accessibility training was another area where the association urged reform. While supporting the involvement of disabled passengers in the design of disability awareness training, it argued that the industry itself must also play a central role. Drawing on operational experience, the NPHTA said training designed or approved solely by local authorities can be “significantly lacking in practical suitability”. It cited recurring omissions including “the absence of guidance on electric wheelchairs, limited understanding of wheelchair warning labels such as ‘do not hook’, and a lack of awareness of rear-loading wheelchair-accessible vehicles”.
Cost pressures featured prominently throughout the submission. The NPHTA highlighted comments by committee chair Ruth Cadbury that wheelchair-accessible vehicles typically cost “in the region of £70,000 for a cash purchase, or approximately £90,000 when financed”. It contrasted this with the absence of direct public funding for taxi and private hire operators, stating that “unlike the bus and rail sectors, the taxi and private hire industry receives no direct funding, making this an unsustainable business model”. According to the association, this disparity is pushing drivers away from hackney carriage licensing and towards private hire regimes with fewer vehicle requirements.
Enforcement emerged as a central concern as the NPHTA called for “far more active enforcement of the ‘triple lock’ rule and Section 75(1)(a) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act”, which restricts bookings to situations where the operator, driver and vehicle are licensed by the same authority. It stated that “there is no justification for drivers routinely or predominantly waiting outside their licensed region without a booking to support their presence”, warning that weak enforcement undermines local oversight and public confidence.
The association argued that without statutory intended use policies, enforcement tools remain limited. Intended use policies, long established in the hackney carriage sector, were described as “highly effective” and “enforceable at little to no cost to councils due to their evidence-based nature”. In their absence, the NPHTA said, “there is no meaningful deterrent” to licence shopping, regardless of whether national standards or further devolution are introduced.
During the operators’ evidence session, the NPHTA challenged claims by Uber that it complies with triple lock requirements. The submission stated that Uber has “only one operating office in the City of Manchester, which covers the entirety of Greater Manchester and its ten constituent local authorities”, while also onboarding drivers and vehicles licensed by authorities outside the region. This practice, it said, is “fundamentally inconsistent with compliance with the triple lock rule”. The association cited the Milton Keynes Council v Skyline Taxis and Private Hire Ltd 2017 judgment, which confirmed that the Deregulation Act 2015 did not remove or weaken the triple lock principle.
Driver protection was another major theme. Responding to claims that false allegations do not occur, the association said drivers are “frequently accused of serious misconduct, including being the wrong driver, rape, theft, unlawful imprisonment, speeding, and dangerous driving”. It added that “in the overwhelming majority of cases where CCTV evidence is available, these allegations are proven to be false and are made solely to obtain a refund”. One example cited involved a driver accused of rape who was deactivated for two months before CCTV evidence showed “that no such incident occurred and that the passenger thanked and tipped the driver before exiting the vehicle”.
The NPHTA noted that no compensation mechanisms exist for drivers who lose income or suffer reputational harm following false allegations, and said similar issues arise when local authorities suspend or revoke licences based on complaints later shown to be unfounded. It described this as a significant gap in both regulatory fairness and driver welfare.
On national standards, the association warned against allowing local variation, arguing that this would mirror the current framework under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards. A national standard applying only to drivers, vehicles and operators, but not to regulators, “will therefore achieve very little”, it said. Fee disparities of “£100 versus £600 for the same licence” were cited as evidence that economic incentives will continue to drive licence shopping unless fees and turnaround times are also regulated nationally.
The NPHTA proposed national oversight of licensing fees, statutory intended use requirements across all licence types, reforms to the DBS system to end duplicate checks, restrictions on app-based trip offers to reduce driver distraction, and the inclusion of CCTV within national standards. It concluded by warning that any future devolution of licensing powers must retain existing zones, or risk service withdrawal from rural areas and congestion at busy urban taxi ranks.
