Why the 2017 ‘START AND FINISH’ rule still sits at the centre of the cross-border taxi debate

When Transport for London (TfL) set out its proposals to tackle cross-border hiring in late 2017, one idea quickly became the focal point of the debate: the introduction of a statutory requirement that every taxi or private hire journey must either start or finish in the area in which the driver and vehicle are licensed. Eight years later, that “start or finish” rule continues to dominate discussions among drivers, regulators and police, despite never being enacted.

In its submission to the Department for Transport’s Taxi and Private Hire Task and Finish Working Group, TfL argued that cross-border hiring had moved beyond a fringe issue and was actively undermining public safety and local licensing standards. The start or finish requirement was presented not as a silver bullet, but as the structural anchor needed to make other reforms workable.

At the time, TfL was explicit about the problem it was trying to solve. Drivers and operators were legally licensing in one authority while working almost entirely in another, often hundreds of miles away. The report said it was “unlikely that Parliament intended” for the law to be used in this way, particularly once app-based platforms enabled national dispatch with little regard for local boundaries.

The proposed a-to-b or b-to-a rule known as ABBA was deliberately simple. A journey could begin in the licensed area and end elsewhere, or start elsewhere and finish back in the licensed area. What would no longer be permitted was vehicles operating all day, every day, entirely outside the authority that licensed them. TfL argued this would preserve flexibility while restoring a basic link between licensing, enforcement and local accountability.

Crucially, the proposal was designed to work alongside national minimum standards and national enforcement powers. TfL warned that introducing any one element in isolation would fail. Without a start or finish rule isolation would fail. Without a start or finish rule, enforcement officers would still be chasing vehicles licensed elsewhere. Without enforcement powers, a start or finish rule would be meaningless. That interdependence has proven to be one of the reform’s biggest political obstacles.

Eight years on, the same structural weaknesses remain and it has taken the shocking Casey Report to reignite meaningful discussion on the topic again. Local licensing officers still have little powers over out-of-area vehicles. Councils still bear enforcement costs without receiving licence fee income. Drivers continue to licence-shop between authorities with lower fees, faster processing or lighter conditions. The absence of a start or finish rule means there is still no legal trigger that clearly places responsibility back on the licensing authority benefiting from the fees.

Support for the proposal has remained broad among regulators and police. In 2017, the Metropolitan Police described cross-border hiring as “the single largest risk to policing nationally” and explicitly endorsed the logic of requiring journeys to start or finish in the licensed area. Whether there has been a change in their views is unknown as the Met Police has not chosen to submit evidence to the ongoing Transport Select Committee Inquiryaround taxi and PHV licensing. However, other police forces did highlight their concerns around safeguarding fault lines TfL identified some eight years ago.

Join us on WhatsApp here

Local authorities outside London have also continued to reference the proposal as the most workable option. A start or finish rule would immediately reduce the number of vehicles they are expected to regulate without having trained or funded enforcement for.

Opposition to the proposal has largely come from sections of the trade that have benefitted from the loophole. Some operators argue it would reduce flexibility, harm cross-boundary business and increase red tape further. Those concerns were anticipated in the original TfL report, which proposed exemptions for specialist services such as chauffeurs, school transport and certain contracted work. TfL also suggested transitional arrangements and the ability for operators to hold licences in multiple authorities where genuinely required.

Despite this, successive governments have not taken the proposal forward. Part of the hesitation has been legislative bandwidth, with taxi and private hire reform repeatedly deprioritised. There has also been reluctance to reopen a complex area of law involving nearly 300 licensing authorities, each with different standards, fees and political pressures.

Follow us on YouTube here

Another factor is scale. Since 2017, private hire numbers have continued to grow, and app-based platforms have become even more embedded. What was once framed as a corrective measure is now seen by some policymakers as a potentially disruptive intervention in a much larger market. Critics argue that the longer reform is delayed, the harder it becomes to unwind entrenched operating models.

Yet that same growth has strengthened the case for action. Issues TfL warned about in 2017, including congestion, emissions, declining driver earnings and uneven safety standards, are now central to national policy discussions. The start or finish rule remains one of the few proposals that directly addresses the geographical mismatch at the heart of those problems.

The persistence of the idea reflects its underlying logic. Licensing is local, enforcement is local and passenger expectations are local. Without a rule that ties daily operations back to the licensing authority, those systems remain misaligned. Eight years on, the debate has not moved on because the problem has not changed.

As pressure builds for wider reform, including potential for stronger national standards, the start or finish proposal continues to resurface. Its longevity is less a sign of controversy than of unfinished business. Until the legal framework changes, the same arguments made in 2017 will continue to be made.