The Licensing Policy Officer presented a report updating the Committee on the consultation undertaken in respect of a proposed “Intended Use/remote trading” policy for Hackney Carriages and to determine the adoption of the policy in respect of intended use/remote trading of Hackney Carriages detailed in the report.

At the meeting of 25 October 2016, Members received a report relating to the 2008 High Court Judgement – Newcastle City Council v Berwick-upon-Tweed, which established a principle that it was lawful for Hackney Carriages to trade as Private Hire Vehicles, in a local authority area other than that which issued the licences. The case precedent arose as a result of a challenge from a licensing authority (Newcastle City Council) against a neighbouring licensing authority (Berwick-upon-Tweed) where there was a considerable disparity between standards of vehicles, conditions of licence and fees. As a result of the decision that such activity was indeed lawful, several licensing authorities identified ‘out of area’ vehicles trading in their area and took steps to eliminate such trade.

A number of authorities adopted an ‘Intended Use’ policy.  The justification for such a policy was on the grounds of public safety, in that if vehicles were predominantly operating outside of the area where they were licensed then they were not available to be spot checked by officers when carrying out enforcement.

Members were advised that the policy was an attempt by Bridgend to deal with the problem locally and specifically dealt with those predominantly trading in other areas. Licensing Enforcement Officers only had powers to deal with vehicles licensed by their own area and as such neighbouring licensing authorities would have to rely on Bridgend Licensing Enforcement Officers to regulate the Bridgend vehicles in their area and this was not practicable. There were joint enforcement powers across the shared regulatory service but this did not extend beyond the Vale, Cardiff and Bridgend.

Applications for new licences would be expected to demonstrate a bona fide intention to ply for hire within BCBC. Applicants who do not intend to entirely or predominantly ply for hire within BCBC would not be granted a hackney carriage licence.

The Committee was advised that this policy had been approved for use by Cardiff and the Vale in the shared regulatory service and this would harmonise the service.

The Committee was concerned that the 2008 High Court Judgement established a principle that it was lawful for Hackney Carriages to trade as Private Hire Vehicles in a local authority area other than that which issued the licences but authorities were introducing policies to restrict the practice.

Members raised the issue that BCBC issued Licences but it was not clear how many were operating within BCBC. Members were concerned that BCBC were responsible for enforcement for vehicles licensed in BCBC however if they chose to operate in a different authority, Enforcement Officers were unable to monitor them effectively.

Members also raised concerns about the number of applications considered from applicants living in Birmingham and the surrounding area. The Committee was advised that this policy would not stop applicants from outside BCBC applying but it would establish if the applicant intended trading remotely.

The Committee asked how the policy would be policed if licence holders were trading outside BCBC. The Licensing Policy Officer explained that other drivers in the area could complain about a particular driver and the complaint could be investigated and records checked to see what the driver was doing on that date. Members noted that some of the consultation responses were from outside BCBC.

Members asked what safeguards the introduction of this policy would give and what powers there were to monitor its implementation. The Committee recognised that it would be difficult to monitor and police. Powers to stop and inspect any vehicle had been proposed by the Law Commission but did not make it to legislation.

The Committee asked how the consultation was promoted. Members were advised that it was a corporate consultation on the Bridgend website and that there were no recognised trade associations within the Bridgend area.

Members discussed the possibility of an informal arrangement with an authority such as Swansea where Enforcement Officers from Swansea could inspect vehicles from Bridgend. Members were advised that this could only happen if there was a written collaboration agreement which would be difficult to administer in addition to the existing shared regulatory service.

The Committee recognised the importance of harmonising with Cardiff and the Vale and that this would strengthen existing arrangements. Members were concerned that this would not resolve all the issues and that they could be considered further in the future.

The Committee requested information on how the consultations were conducted in the Vale and Cardiff. Members were advised that a Forum was held in Cardiff attended by two people who gave a positive response. The Vale contacted a recognised trade organisation which then disseminated the information. No responses were received.

RESOLVED:            The Committee approved the adoption of the Intended Use/Remote Trading Policy as set out in Appendix A of the report to take effect on 8 March 2017.