TAXI AND PHV POLICY CLASH: Portsmouth City Council compares its standards with Wolverhampton licensing model
- Perry Richardson
- 6 days ago
- 4 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Portsmouth City Council’s Licensing Committee is reviewing differences between its taxi and private hire licensing rules and those used by City of Wolverhampton Council, as councillors weigh the operational and safety implications of cross-border working across the sector.
A report presented to the committee ahead of its meeting on 23 March provides a detailed comparison between the two authorities’ taxi and private hire policies. The document examines how each council regulates drivers, vehicles and operators, while also addressing concerns raised nationally about drivers licensed in one area working predominantly in another.
The report was commissioned following requests from councillors for a clearer understanding of how Portsmouth’s standards compare with Wolverhampton’s approach. Wolverhampton has become one of the largest licensing authorities in the country for private hire drivers, issuing licences that are often used by drivers working in other towns and cities.
According to the committee report, Portsmouth requires applicants for a taxi or private hire driver licence to hold a full DVLA or European driving licence for at least two years before applying. By contrast, Wolverhampton requires drivers to hold a category B1 licence for at least 12 months before applying.
Committee review highlights growing pressure on local authorities as out-of-area private hire drivers continue operating nationally
Background checks also differ between the two authorities. Portsmouth requires enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks every six months, with drivers also required to subscribe to the DBS Update Service. Wolverhampton also requires enhanced DBS checks but may limit licences to six months if drivers are not subscribed to the update service.
The comparison highlights wider policy differences beyond licensing entry requirements. Portsmouth mandates CCTV in licensed vehicles, a requirement that has been in place since 2016 as part of efforts to improve passenger safety and driver protection. Officials said this requirement represents one of the most notable distinctions between the two policies.
Medical standards for drivers are broadly aligned, with both authorities requiring drivers to meet Group II medical standards. These checks take place on application, again at age 45, then every five years until age 65, and annually thereafter. Drug screening requirements and spot checks may also be applied under the policies.
While many of the regulatory standards are similar, the committee discussion focused heavily on the operational impact of cross-border working. Licensing officers told councillors that responding to enquiries about drivers licensed elsewhere but operating locally creates additional work for the authority.
Committee members also heard that the issue is not unique to Portsmouth. Representatives from licensing authorities across the country have raised similar concerns during Local Government Association training sessions, where the prevalence of drivers licensed in Wolverhampton working in other areas was described as a nationwide challenge.
The committee noted that the Casey Review into safeguarding highlighted risks associated with drivers operating outside the authority that licensed them. Councillors were told that private hire vehilces working outside their licensing area may pose greater oversight challenges, particularly when enforcement or safeguarding concerns arise.
Some councillors suggested that passengers should consider avoiding private hire vehicles licensed outside Portsmouth, reflecting concerns about standards and familiarity with local roads. Others pointed out that investigating complaints about out-of-area drivers still requires local enforcement resources even though the driver may ultimately fall under another council’s jurisdiction.
The discussion also revisited whether a topographical knowledge test should be reintroduced locally. Such tests previously formed part of Portsmouth’s licensing process but were removed following national best practice guidance that discourages their use for private hire drivers. Officials told councillors that reintroducing such a requirement could potentially restrict the number of drivers entering the market at a time when hackney carriage applications have already fallen significantly.
However, some representatives from the taxi trade argued that stronger local knowledge requirements could help maintain standards. One taxi representative told the committee that drivers licensed elsewhere but working locally often lacked familiarity with the city’s roads and passenger destinations.
The wider policy review forms part of a broader national debate about whether the current system for licensing taxis and private hire vehicles remains fit for purpose. Government consultations are exploring whether regional or national frameworks for licensing could help address cross-border working and ensure more consistent regulatory standards across the country.
Under the current framework, local authorities set their own policies while also following national statutory guidance. This creates a system where minimum standards exist but specific requirements can vary between councils.
Portsmouth councillors were told that while differences exist, many of the core requirements between the two authorities remain broadly aligned. The report was presented for information rather than decision, but the discussion signals continued scrutiny of licensing practices as authorities respond to changes in the taxi and private hire market.
With ride-hailing platforms and national private hire fleets expanding rapidly, cross-border licensing is expected to remain a key policy issue for councils and regulators. Local authorities are likely to face increasing pressure to balance safety standards, market competition and enforcement capacity in the years ahead.
