PLYING-FOR-HIRE: Call for clarity from the trade associations, but not the operators
- Perry Richardson
- Oct 25
- 3 min read
A long-running issue in taxi licensing is the line between “plying for hire” (exclusively allowed for taxis, meaning accepting street hails or waiting on ranks) and pre-booked rides (the only legal method for private hire vehicles).
With the rise of app-based booking that can occur almost instantaneously, taxi drivers have raised concerns that some PHV services effectively mimic plying for hire. The question of whether to introduce a statutory definition of plying for hire, something notably absent from current law, drew a stark contrast between operator submissions and those of taxi trade bodies.
The major private hire operators did not make a statutory definition of plying for hire a priority in their evidence. Their focus tended to be on practical licensing matters (cross-border rules, driver standards, technology, etc.) rather than on this legal definition. For instance, Addison Lee references the issue only briefly, noting that if a PHV driver is caught illegally plying for hire, the local authority where it happened should be able to take enforcement action against that driver even if licensed elsewhere.
This implies operators support enforcing the existing ban on PHVs picking up unbooked fares. However, they did not explicitly call for new legislation to define what constitutes plying for hire versus what counts as a booking. Others were essentially silent on the matter in their written evidence. This suggests that from the operators’ perspective, current regulations – which require all their rides to be pre-arranged through an app or dispatcher – are clear enough, so long as they are enforced. They did not signal a pressing need to redefine the terminology in law.
By contrast, driver representatives and taxi associations strongly emphasise this issue. Groups like the United Cabbies Group (UCG) and others argue that the lack of a clear legal definition of plying for hire has allowed ambiguity and exploitation. The UCG’s submission explicitly urges the Government to “introduce a statutory definition of both plying for hire and pre-booked [services] in order to maintain the two-tier system”. This call is about drawing a bright line that preserves the black cab trade’s exclusive right to instant hire.
As UCG points out, proving a PHV is illegally plying (for example, by waiting on a street corner for rides hailed via an app) can be difficult under current case law and demands significant enforcement resources. A clear statutory definition could “remove ambiguity and clearly define the difference” between taxis and PHVs, making it easier for regulators to crackdown on any PHV effectively acting like a taxi. In London, taxi drivers have long felt that certain PHV operators “impinge into these undefined areas” of hailing that should be taxi-only.
UCG and others argue that technology has “blurred the distinction” between the trades, so the law must catch up by explicitly accounting for app-based hailing and what constitutes an immediate hiring. They even suggest measures like geofencing could be used to prevent PHVs from congregating in busy areas waiting for rides, thereby enforcing the spirit of the two-tier system.
It’s worth noting that while operators did not object to a definition, their relative silence indicates it’s not a battle they are choosing to fight in this forum. Many private hire companies likely feel that as long as a ride is dispatched via an app and logged (even just seconds before pickup), it qualifies as pre-booked under existing rules. Trade bodies, however, want lawmakers to tighten that definition to avoid any loopholes.
This difference in focus highlights how each group views the issue: taxi associations see plying for hire as a cornerstone issue - essential to protecting taxi drivers’ exclusive rights and livelihood - whereas operators are more concerned with ensuring they can continue app-based operations without new restrictions, assuming current laws already allow that. The inquiry may not have heard much from operators on plying-for-hire definitions, but it certainly heard from the trade unions on this topic.
