Operators clash over cross-border licensing, enforcement failures and safety standards as MPs grill Uber, Bolt, Veezu and independents

The Transport Committee’s latest evidence session on taxi and private hire licensing produced some of the clearest public testimony yet on the growing dysfunction in England and Wales’ regulatory model. Senior figures from Uber, Bolt, Veezu and Medway-based Vokes Taxis set out sharply different perspectives on cross-border operations, national standards, enforcement shortcomings and driver accountability. What emerged was a picture of an industry increasingly split between digital platforms operating across dozens of councils, and traditional local operators who say the system is fracturing under the weight of deregulation and weak oversight.

The hearing forms part of the Committee’s wider inquiry into whether the taxi and private hire legislative framework remains fit for purpose. Earlier evidence from licensing bodies and driver groups had already painted a bleak picture of inconsistency, insufficient enforcement and escalating cross-border tensions. This operator-focused session confirmed the scale of the challenge.

Bolt’s Senior General Manager for the UK and Ireland, Kimberly Hurd, told MPs that while core safety requirements were being upheld, the system was “significantly inefficient”, describing the UK as the most complex market Bolt faces globally. The company must contend with 3,900 separate licensing requirements across 50 councils, supported by a 200-strong UK team, including more than 100 staff dedicated solely to licensing compliance.

Uber’s UK Policy Director Emma O’Dwyer took a similar view. She said the sector was “well regulated”, particularly in relation to safety, but argued that the absence of clear mandatory national standards creates unnecessary variability that undermines both operators and passengers. Uber wants uniform rules for background checks, complaint-sharing, CCTV deployment and real-time licensing data. She told MPs that some councils still rely on “ad hoc” email updates when a driver is revoked or suspended, making it harder for operators to ensure immediate deactivation.

Transport Committee session exposes widening gulf between national platforms and local taxi operators as concerns mount over licensing inconsistency, data-sharing gaps and the erosion of local oversight.

Veezu’s Corporate Affairs Director Andrew Wescott gave a more operationally grounded perspective. Licensed by more than 60 authorities, Veezu has to navigate widely differing requirements around MOT frequency, training standards, signage rules, licence processing times and fees. He said the company deliberately works to the highest standard it encounters to minimise internal inconsistency, but the burden on operators is “significant”, and the variation creates “a real lack of standardisation across the sector”.

Independent operator Mark Robinson offered a contrasting assessment rooted in local experience. Vokes Taxis serves the Medway towns with 200 vehicles, and he told MPs that intra-area licensing works effectively — until out-of-area vehicles enter the district. He said Medway Council “does not have any ability or authority to even inspect” the many cars licensed in other districts, leaving zero local oversight of vehicle condition or driver fitness. “The system does not work when there are vehicles that are licensed elsewhere that are operating,” he said.

Join us on WhatsApp here

The industry splits over cross-border licensing

The biggest disagreements centred on cross-border working, which has transformed the sector since the Deregulation Act 2015. Uber and Bolt defended it as essential to modern mobility. O’Dwyer described the ability for drivers to cross boundaries as an “essential freedom”, warning that restricting it would significantly reduce service reliability and hinder connectivity between towns and cities. “The travelling public would not expect that they would be limited,” she said, adding that drivers “cross multiple boundaries within quite a small geographical area” on a typical shift.

Hurd reinforced this view, pointing to ordinary commuting patterns as evidence that boundary-based restrictions do not reflect real-world mobility. Bolt data shows 47% of its Manchester-based drivers hold Wolverhampton licences, something she attributed to faster processing times and lower licensing costs rather than weaker safety standards. In Bolt’s view, passengers and drivers live and work across multiple authorities, and attempting to confine operations to a single licensing area would disrupt supply and inconvenience users.

Robinson rejected that analysis outright. He told MPs that 95–98% of Medway journeys start or finish in Medway, meaning cross-border movement is negligible for his customer base. What matters, he argued, is the increasing volume of out-of-area vehicles working full-time in Medway without any local regulatory oversight. He said the public cannot easily identify which authority to complain to when the driver is licensed elsewhere, weakening accountability and lowering service standards.

Wescott took a nuanced position. He argued cross-border hiring is essential in some regions to maintain coverage, particularly during peaks or major events. In Cardiff, for example, local demand often exceeds supply, requiring drivers licensed in nearby Newport or Bridgend to service busy periods. He warned that removing cross-border flexibility could leave passengers waiting much longer for late-night journeys.

MPs probed whether the ABBA principle — requiring operators, vehicles and drivers to be licensed in the same district — could feasibly be reinstated. Robinson said yes; Uber and Bolt said no, insisting it would result in reduced service in suburban areas and increased congestion in urban cores as drivers gravitate to higher-demand zones.

Join our YouTube channel here

Pressure builds for national minimum licensing standards

Despite disagreements on cross-border operations, most witnesses backed stronger national standards. Uber set out a detailed list: clearer rules on background checks, mandatory safety reporting, faster and more reliable licence-revocation notifications and greater enforcement ability for all councils against all drivers. Uber also called for a licensing database operators can check in real time, warning that inconsistent data flows from councils are an active safety risk.

Bolt supported national safeguarding and vetting standards, digital-first compliance requirements, and upgrades to the NR3S database, including daily flagging of suspensions and refusals. Hurd said councils need “better powers” and more awareness of their existing enforcement abilities.

Veezu backed a comprehensive national framework covering fees, timelines and training requirements but expressed concern that “minimum” standards may be interpreted as lowering the bar, given some authorities already exceed proposed baselines. Wescott stressed any reform must include cross-council enforcement rights.

Robinson argued national standards would not solve what he sees as the core issue: the inability of local authorities to enforce against out-of-area drivers. He said the only effective solution is to remove cross-border working from the system entirely.

Enforcement failures exposed

The hearing highlighted that councils vary dramatically in their capacity to enforce standards. Hurd told MPs that among the 50 councils Bolt works with, only three conduct joint enforcement operations, despite having the legal power to do so. She pointed to stark resourcing disparities: Wolverhampton has around 100 licensing staff, while some councils have a single part-time officer.

Robinson said this creates an unsafe and unmanageable environment. Local authorities have no visibility of non-local drivers “regularly working supposedly in its territory”, leaving large numbers of vehicles operating with little or no local scrutiny.

Wescott said enforcement is further hindered by councils’ reluctance to share revocation and suspension outcomes, with some citing GDPR as the reason. Others provide daily updates. This inconsistency complicates operators’ attempts to ensure unsuitable drivers do not continue working on the platform.

Disabled passengers still facing widespread refusals

The Committee explored evidence from disability groups showing high levels of discrimination and refusals. Wescott said only two-thirds of licensing authorities require any form of disability awareness training, and even that is inconsistent. He warned that the removal of VAT exemption on wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) will worsen the shortage.

Robinson said local firms can often better assist disabled passengers because phone bookings allow for detailed conversations about their needs, but the lack of funding for WAVs makes universal accessibility unrealistic.

Bolt told MPs that less than 2% of PHVs in the UK are wheelchair-accessible, driven by high purchase costs and limited availability of suitable EV models. Hurd said Bolt recorded 34 assistance-dog refusal complaints in 12 months and investigates all such cases, with termination considered after repeated verified incidents.

Uber came under pressure when O’Dwyer was unable to state what proportion of its fleet is wheelchair-accessible, prompting MPs to question whether the company was meeting its obligations to disabled passengers. O’Dwyer said availability varies sharply depending on local licensing rules and the cost of WAV vehicles.

Driver earnings disputes and the pressures of multi-app working

MPs pressed operators over declining driver earnings, oversupply and extended working hours. O’Dwyer said Uber drivers earn around £30 an hour while logged in, with median annual post-cost earnings at approximately £36,000 based on Frontier Economics analysis. MPs challenged whether these figures reflect waiting time and rising costs.

The Committee also explored the risks of fatigue, with O’Dwyer confirming that while Uber enforces a 10-hour limit on its platform, nothing stops a driver switching to another app immediately afterwards.

Robinson said competition from subsidised pricing models used by national platforms is already reducing local driver earnings, citing cases where operators pay drivers a full fare while charging passengers a fraction of the price.

Deactivation processes and natural justice

Witnesses were questioned extensively on how drivers are deactivated following complaints, particularly when accusations are later disproven. Bolt said all cases are manually reviewed and drivers can appeal. Uber said it rarely deactivates on a single complaint and looks for evidence of patterns, with appeals supported by GMB representation.

MPs pointed out that drivers can lose their entire income instantly and struggle to understand appeal processes. Robinson argued that local operators maintain better accountability because they know their drivers personally and work closely with local licensing officers.

Local presence and accountability

MPs asked whether digital-only operators have lost touch with local accountability. Bolt said it has staffed offices in Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham and London and maintains 24/7 channels for drivers and councils. Uber said it operates a large “Greenlight Hub” in Greater Manchester and has local specialists for each licensing authority.

Robinson said this does not reflect the reality on the ground in places like Medway, where hundreds of Uber drivers operate without Uber holding a local operator licence. He argued this undermines enforcement and public safety.