TAXI AND PHV CAPPING: LPHCA reveals reasons for rejecting private hire caps in fresh Transport Committee inquiry submission
- Perry Richardson
- 14 minutes ago
- 2 min read
A fresh submission of evidence to Parliament’s Transport Committee this month has seen the Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) set out a firm rejection of capping private hire driver numbers, arguing that supply controls are only justifiable for taxis and not for the private hire sector.
In supplementary written evidence dated December 2025, the LPHCA told MPs that restricting driver numbers “only makes sense” for the taxi trade, where vehicles can legally ply for hire and queue on ranks located on the public highway. According to the association, caps in that context are a tool to manage congestion, over ranking and unnecessary cruising.
The organisation said extending similar controls to private hire vehicles would be inappropriate because PHVs do not rank or solicit work on the street, operating instead through pre-booked journeys managed by licensed operators. As a result, the LPHCA argued that supply restrictions in private hire would not deliver the environmental or traffic management benefits sometimes claimed by local authorities.
The submission also pointed to Department for Transport guidance, stating that the DfT regards not imposing quantity restrictions on taxi and private hire vehicle numbers as best practice. The association noted that while licensing authorities have powers to limit taxi numbers, most councils in England do not exercise those powers, reflecting long-standing central government advice against market intervention unless a clear unmet demand case is made.
Trade body says restricting driver numbers would damage service provision and contradict DfT guidance
Beyond capping, the LPHCA used its evidence to criticise the wider regulatory framework underpinning local licensing. It described the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 as the root cause of fragmented standards across hundreds of licensing authorities, leading to higher costs for passengers and public services. The group said inconsistent local rules incentivise out of area licensing rather than addressing safety or service quality.
On cross-border licensing, the association rejected claims that long-distance working by drivers is inherently problematic, arguing that technology has enabled private hire to operate efficiently on a regional and national basis while legislation has failed to keep pace. It also disputed suggestions linking historic safeguarding failures to cross-border licensed drivers, stating that such drivers were locally licensed at the time.
The LPHCA further opposed mandating in-vehicle CCTV for private hire, citing privacy, safeguarding and data protection concerns, and called instead for any optional CCTV installations to be regulated to a national standard. It also renewed calls for absolute national standards on training, medicals and criminal record checks, which it said could be implemented immediately without primary legislation.
The evidence lands as the Transport Committee continues to examine the future regulation of taxis and private hire vehicles, including whether national reforms are needed to address cross-border working, local enforcement capacity and market balance. The LPHCA’s position places it firmly against any move to introduce caps on private hire numbers, setting up a clear dividing line with some local authorities and campaign groups pressing for tighter supply controls.
