Responsibility for private hire vehicle guide dog refusals lies with the individual driver, less so with the operator
- Perry Richardson
- 1 day ago
- 4 min read
When a private hire driver in Manchester recently refused to carry a blind passenger because she was accompanied by her guide dog, the issue once again exposed a fundamental failing, not of the app-based platform he was using, but of the individual behind the wheel.
Mohamed Abid Hussain, working via Uber, pulled up to collect the passenger from Grafton Street, only to refuse the journey after seeing her guide dog. Despite the dog wearing a high-visibility harness, he reportedly told the passenger she could not bring her “pet” into the vehicle. The passenger explained the situation clearly, but the driver still declined. The case ended in court, with Mr Hussain pleading guilty to three offences and being fined and told to compensate the victim. His licence had already been revoked following a local authority hearing.
It’s an outcome that rightly sends a clear message. But what should not be lost in this is where the real responsibility lies: with the individual driver, not the app.
The law is clear. So is the responsibility. Under the Equality Act 2010, it is a legal requirement for both taxi and private hire drivers to carry assistance dogs without additional charge, unless they hold a valid exemption certificate. This certificate is only granted on medical grounds such as severe allergies. Drivers cannot claim ignorance as a defence. Local licensing authorities make this clear in training and guidance. Operators like Uber also make it a core part of their driver policies.
That makes cases like this entirely avoidable. The idea that a trained, badged private hire driver cannot distinguish a guide dog, even when wearing a high-vis harness, raises serious questions about that individual’s suitability to hold a licence. Councils have been consistent in taking action in such cases, with licence revocation typically the first step. Courts are also showing a willingness to impose fines and compensation where discrimination is proven.
Are platforms doing enough?
In the wake of such incidents, attention often turns to the platform involved. App-based services have transformed the private hire sector, and some critics point to the digital nature of the work as a barrier to proper engagement between drivers and passengers. But in practice, platforms like Uber and others have taken multiple steps to ensure drivers are aware of their legal responsibilities.
Training material includes guidance on accessibility, including the duty to carry assistance dogs. Drivers are asked to acknowledge these policies before being allowed to accept bookings. If a refusal is reported, platforms can suspend or remove driver access, in addition to the statutory actions taken by licensing authorities. They also share data with councils to support enforcement.
The reality is that digital platforms are not the barrier here. The barrier is personal choice. The driver made a decision not to accept the fare. It was not the app’s decision. No amount of policy or platform controls can replace the judgement of the person in control of the vehicle.
What drivers need to know
Private hire and taxi drivers should treat this case as a reminder of their obligations. Carrying assistance dogs is not optional. The rules apply to every licensed driver in England, Wales and Scotland. You do not need to be based in a large city to encounter such passengers. You do not need to take dozens of trips a day to be reported for a breach. One refusal is enough to bring the weight of the law down.
Drivers with medical concerns must seek a proper exemption through their licensing authority. These are not issued lightly, and they must be clearly displayed if approved. If you don’t have an exemption, and you refuse a guide dog, you are committing an offence. Importantly, drivers should also be aware that passengers do not have to prove their disability or the dog’s role. The presence of a harness or clear indication is enough. If in doubt, the correct action is always to complete the journey and seek clarification later, not to refuse service on the spot.
Better information, but also better enforcement
The current legal and platform-based controls are extensive. What is needed is consistent enforcement across licensing authorities, along with continued pressure from platforms to report and remove drivers who breach the rules.
For the public to trust the system, there must be confidence that discriminatory behaviour will be addressed every time. That means clear procedures, published outcomes, and visible penalties. It also means supporting drivers to understand their responsibilities from day one, through training and licence renewal processes.
But beyond all of that, it comes down to driver responsibility. The person in control of the vehicle must take ownership of the decisions they make. It is not enough to blame confusion, personal belief or poor judgement. Licensed drivers are professionals, and they should be held to professional standards.
The case in Manchester is not the first of its kind, and it likely won’t be the last. But the solution remains the same: educate, enforce, and expect more from those trusted to serve the public.
