UNITED FRONT: Push for national taxi and private hire licensing standards to end patchwork policies
- Perry Richardson
- 29 minutes ago
- 5 min read
Nearly all operator submissions strongly support introducing national minimum standards for taxi and private hire licensing. The idea is to replace the current patchwork of 276 English licensing authorities’ rules with a consistent baseline on key issues like driver vetting, vehicle requirements, training and operating practices. Addison Lee’s evidence welcomes a “legal national framework” of standards, arguing it would ensure a “consistent baseline for licensing across all authorities” and
“help eliminate licence shopping” by drivers seeking easier regulations.
This call harks back to proposals from previous reviews – the 2018 Task and Finish Group and others – which recommended national standards in the interest of public safety and fairness. Operators now urge the Government to finally implement such measures via legislation.
Safety and public confidence are major drivers behind the push for standardisation. Operators describe how, in practice, most councils already require similar core safeguards – for example, enhanced DBS criminal record checks, medical fitness tests, proof of insurance, and maintaining booking records. However, because these are only guidance and not mandated uniformly, there is a “perception that some areas are less safe or less accountable than others”.
Bolt’s submission notes that while the actual safety standards are broadly aligned, the lack of formal national rules undermines public confidence in the trade. Making these standards consistent and compulsory nationwide would reassure passengers that, no matter where they hail a ride, the driver has met the same fit-and-proper criteria and vehicle checks. It would also reassure drivers that competitors can’t undercut standards elsewhere.
Beyond safety vetting, operators highlight several areas where divergent local rules cause confusion or inefficiency. Vehicle signage is one example: some councils require prominent operator logos or specific decals on private hire cars, while others (like Wolverhampton) prohibit operator branding entirely. “If a passenger is familiar with their local PHV containing operator livery then they may become confused if a Wolverhampton-licensed vehicle without operator livery arrives,” Veezu notes, calling this inconsistency in presentation an issue (though not one that justifies banning cross- border work).
Bolt adds that extra markings beyond a basic PHV identifier often “add complexity without improving safety outcomes”, especially as many drivers are affiliated with multiple apps. A unified approach to signage – e.g. a standard decal or colour scheme to distinguish private hire vehicles from taxis across the country – would enhance recognition and enforcement without burdening drivers with multiple sets of stickers.
Driver training and testing is another aspect ripe for standardisation. Today, requirements vary: one city may mandate a local geography Knowledge test and a separate safeguarding course, while a neighbouring district has no test at all or different modules. Operators and unions alike see merit in adopting universal training standards. Bolt’s evidence recommends standardised knowledge and safeguarding training, delivered in an “accessible format”, to ensure every new driver meets a common skill and awareness benchmark.
Unite the Union echoes this, calling for “standardised training for all” drivers nationwide, including modules on passenger assistance (disability awareness) and preventing sexual violence. By levelling up training, authorities can reduce “licence tourism” whereby applicants gravitate to areas with easier exams. It would also improve service quality and safety uniformly – for instance, every driver would know how to safely assist a wheelchair user and handle vulnerable passenger situations as part of their licensing.
Licence costs and processes form a more contentious discrepancy that national standards might address. Fees for obtaining a private hire licence currently range widely – one cited comparison was £139 in Wolverhampton vs £277 in Birmingham for a three-year driver licence. Processing times also differ; some councils have backlogs of several months while others turn applications around quickly. These inequities directly contribute to drivers “shopping” for an authority that is cheap and fast. Veezu proposes that alongside national standards, there should be an alignment of licensing fees and timeframes so that drivers aren’t financially incentivised to licence in distant areas. A consistent fee structure (or at least a narrow band of charges) would remove the current advantage of certain councils that charge rock-bottom rates and have invested in high-volume application systems. Bolt’s submission even references an FOI finding that one council (Wolverhampton) employed 113 staff in its licensing team, whereas another (Bury) had just one officer in 2023. Central support for under-resourced authorities, or shared services, could equalise efficiency and prevent the emergence of “magnet” licensing authorities.
Operators argue that a fair, national pricing and service standard would reduce the motivation for drivers to game the system by getting licensed elsewhere. This in turn complements cross-border enforcement efforts, as fewer drivers would be operating far from the oversight of their licensing authority.
Notably, accessibility standards also feature in operators’ vision for national rules. Several firms call for every local authority to ensure an adequate supply of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs) and to require disability awareness training for drivers. At present, some cities (like London) have a 100% accessible taxi fleet by law, while many towns have few or no WAVs available. Addison Lee suggests it should be a national obligation that a “sufficient number of wheelchair-accessible vehicles are licensed in [each] area and that drivers receive appropriate disability awareness training”. Such a mandate would help standardise access for disabled passengers across the country, addressing the patchy availability they currently face.
Operators also mention digital communication with passengers as a standard – ensuring that riders receive key information (vehicle details, driver ID, how to complain) before a journey, regardless of which app or firm they use. These points reflect an emphasis on passenger experience and safety being uniform everywhere.
In practice, implementing national standards doesn’t mean erasing all local control – and both operators and some regulators recognise that. The London experience is cited as a model of regional standardisation: Transport for London (TfL) sets one rulebook for all 33 London boroughs, which Addison Lee says has “proven to have many benefits, the most important of which has been consistency” across the capital. Outside London, operators suggest a coordinated approach.
Bolt’s submission floats the idea of regional transport authorities handling taxi/PHV licensing across city- regions (for example, one authority for Greater Manchester or across the North West), which could “bring better resources and support greater standardisation”. However, Bolt and others stress that even with regional bodies, retaining flexibility for drivers to work across boundaries is crucial, and any regionalisation must be underpinned by national minimum rules to avoid new fragmentation. In summary, the operator consensus is that a strong set of national standards – potentially with room for local enhancements – would improve safety, reduce complexity, and stop the race-to-the-bottom on licensing rules. They urge the Government to move from voluntary guidance to formal requirements, thereby creating a level playing field for the industry.
