’WE NEVER ASKED FOR THIS’: Wolverhampton Council defends its controversial role in England’s taxi and private hire licensing sector
- Perry Richardson
- 2 hours ago
- 5 min read
The City of Wolverhampton Council have defended their role in private hire licensing across England with the Transport Select Committee after coming under intense industry pressure.
At a recent Transport Committee hearing on 15 October, licensing officials from Wolverhampton, Transport for London (TfL), and Blackpool Council laid bare the challenges caused by the lack of a unified licensing framework, warning that current laws are outdated and enforcement powers are limited.
David Pattison, Chief Operating Officer at Wolverhampton Council, admitted that 96% of the drivers licensed by his authority live outside the city. This has sparked concerns that Wolverhampton has become a “licence factory”, issuing tens of thousands of licences to drivers who then work in other regions with little or no connection to Wolverhampton itself.
“We never asked for this,” Pattison told the committee. “We are legally obliged to process an application if the driver is fit and proper. We cannot lawfully refuse someone just because they don’t live in Wolverhampton.”
This interpretation of the law has led to a surge in applications, partly due to Wolverhampton’s reputation for quicker turnaround times and lower costs. At one point, drivers could obtain a three-year private hire licence for under £100, significantly lower than many other councils. Although the council has since raised its new driver licence fee to £69, this remains far cheaper than the £200 to £300 seen in many other regions.
GMB, the union representing professional drivers, previously accused Wolverhampton of running a “licence factory… creaking at the seams”. Pattison rejected the characterisation, insisting: “Over 55% of those who apply for a licence with us fail the process. That doesn’t happen if you’re rubber-stamping applications.”
He went on to defend Wolverhampton’s commitment to safety: “We have daily DBS checks, we’ve introduced anti-fraud checks on ghost plates, and we use technology comparable to the UK Border Force. Public safety is our number one priority.”
However, others see the situation as evidence of a broken system. Helen Chapman, Director of Licensing at TfL, said that cross-border hiring has created a major enforcement challenge. “It cannot be right, from a passenger perspective, that you stand in central London, open an app, and a driver licensed by a completely different authority comes along,” said Chapman. “That’s not what passengers expect. It creates confusion and undermines trust.”
TfL has long argued for the introduction of a more structured approach to tackle cross-border working. In 2018, it published proposals calling for drivers, vehicles, and operators to all be licensed by the same authority – a system dubbed the “ABBA” model. Chapman repeated those calls and added that while national minimum standards are welcome, local authorities must retain the ability to go beyond them where appropriate, particularly on issues like emissions and vehicle age.
“We need national minimum standards, but they should be set at a high level,” said Chapman. “London’s needs are different. We have age limits and zero-emission capable vehicle requirements, which are necessary for our air quality.”
Blackpool Council’s enforcement manager, Lee Petrak, went further, describing the current system as chaotic. “The flow of vehicles in and out of the border is really difficult for us to control. We cannot control it at all,” he told MPs. “It is absurd that one operator can work nationally under a single licence.”
Petrak suggested that larger app-based operators are exploiting gaps in the law. “There’s no statutory definition of what a fit and proper operator is,” he said. “When problems arise with enforcement, we always look at the driver. But should we be looking more at the operators, who hold all the data and control how drivers behave?”
The witnesses all agreed that enforcement is the central weakness in the current system. While local authorities are responsible for licensing, they have no power to enforce conditions on drivers licensed elsewhere. Chapman said: “The cost of enforcement falls on the licensing authority, even when we can’t take action against out-of-area drivers.”
Pattison echoed that concern. “We do over 400 enforcement operations a year, and we’ve given enforcement powers to 15 other councils to help,” he said. “But our hands are tied. We cannot refuse applications from out-of-area drivers, and we can’t stop them working elsewhere.”
MPs questioned whether Wolverhampton could do more to limit the number of incoming drivers. Pattison responded: “We brought in external lawyers to audit our process. We asked if there were any lawful barriers we could use. We follow the DfT guidance line by line.”
Some MPs raised the issue of driver knowledge tests, vehicle age, and accessible vehicles. Wolverhampton does not require local knowledge tests for private hire drivers, citing DfT guidance that says such tests are unnecessary for pre-booked work. It also allows private hire vehicles to be up to 11 and a half years old. On accessibility, only 0.2% of Wolverhampton’s private hire fleet is wheelchair accessible.
Dr Scott Arthur MP questioned this approach. “Isn’t that a risk to passenger safety? You’re choosing to stick with the minimum standards set by DfT,” he said. Pattison accepted the point but insisted they were open to improvement: “We’re happy to look at doing more. We take this responsibility seriously.”
The panel also touched on complaints handling and suspensions. Chapman explained that TfL can immediately revoke a driver’s licence following a serious allegation, while suspension powers are now more limited due to legal rulings. Wolverhampton takes similar action, but Pattison warned that they often lack the power to suspend a driver immediately while an investigation is ongoing. “The law isn’t good enough,” he said. “It needs to change.”
Data-sharing between operators and licensing authorities was also raised as a priority. TfL is calling for statutory powers to require app-based firms to supply journey and driver data. “With proper data, we can understand where journeys are happening, who is working where, and enforce accordingly,” Chapman said.
On broader reform, all three authorities backed the idea of regional licensing bodies. TfL’s single-city licensing model has worked in London, and Chapman argued it would be “a backward step” to fragment it. Petrak said, “Localism is virtually dead in this industry. Regionalism might still be a possible solution.”
The Department for Transport is expected to consult on licensing reform in the coming months. Options on the table include national licensing standards, fee caps, changes to cross-border working rules and stronger enforcement powers.
As it stands, the law gives drivers the freedom to be licensed in one part of the country and work in another with little oversight from the receiving authority. While Wolverhampton’s leadership insists they have followed the rules, the impact of those rules has now made them a central figure in the national licensing debate.
Whether through national standards or operator reform, the consensus among licensing bodies is that the system needs fixing, and soon.
