TfL’s Taxi and Private Hire Action Plan faced INTENSE scrutiny during London Assembly session
- Perry Richardson
- 5 hours ago
- 3 min read
Transport for London’s (TfL) recently released Taxi and Private Hire Action Plan has drawn significant attention from London Assembly Members and industry stakeholders, as frustrations mount over delays, lack of data access, and perceived inaction on key issues affecting the trade.
During a detailed meeting of the London Assembly Transport Committee, members questioned senior TfL figures on the delivery and scope of the 2025 plan. Assembly Members expressed concern over the lack of interim targets and transparency around progress. TfL officials acknowledged that while the plan sets out goals spanning to 2030, many actions will begin in 2025 and 2026, with officials open to six-monthly progress updates.
A critical issue raised was the ongoing backlog in licensing private hire drivers. TfL apologised for long delays caused by a cyber incident and transition to a new licensing system. As of the meeting, 480 drivers awaited re-licensing with no outstanding documentation, while a further 1,400 cases were still pending due to administrative issues. TfL committed to resolving the backlog by the end of the summer, aiming for a return to “steady state” operations by September 2025.
Assembly Members described the situation as chaotic, citing casework from constituents experiencing months-long delays and inadequate communication. Concerns were also raised about the psychological and financial pressure on drivers who are unable to work due to licensing holdups. TfL confirmed short-term licences had been issued to over 1,000 drivers, with 300 more expected, and said longer short-term licences could be considered.
Another major topic was the influence of app-based operators on the private hire sector. TfL acknowledged that it lacks legislative powers to demand the kind of operational data held by similar authorities overseas, such as New York. This includes data critical for assessing driver fatigue and multiple-app usage. TfL said it had called for additional legislative powers but admitted such asks were not prominently included in the current Action Plan.
Concerns about the safety implications of new operator features—such as Uber’s ‘trip radar’ system, which may encourage illegal mobile phone use while driving—were raised. TfL stated that it is aware of such practices and engages operators where necessary, but reiterated its limited enforcement ability without new legislation.
The session also revisited the longstanding issue of cross-border hiring. TfL maintained that addressing this loophole is more urgent than introducing a cap on the number of licensed private hire vehicles. Members challenged the rationale, arguing that the powers to cap vehicle numbers could still serve congestion and safety objectives.
From the taxi trade perspective, Assembly Members pressed TfL to do more to support driver recruitment and retention, including promoting the accessibility benefits of black cabs. While TfL highlighted changes to the Knowledge and other support mechanisms, Members suggested that proactive marketing and financial support—potentially through the Mayor’s Green Finance Fund—should be considered to lower barriers to entry.
Finally, the committee debated a motion to formally address key concerns raised by taxi and private hire stakeholders. While Assembly Members were divided on the merits of passing a motion during an ongoing committee investigation, the core themes—including accessibility, declining driver numbers, and lack of concrete commitments—are likely to feature in the committee’s final report.
TfL’s leadership offered to continue engaging with both Assembly Members and trade representatives, but the session made clear that for many, progress must now be measured in action rather than plans.
