1.      Remove the 100% WAV (wheelchair Accessible Vehicle) requirement.

2.      Address and amend your tinted window policy

We as representatives of your licensed trade submit this petition to require your policy to be amended in order to comply with the regulators code 2014 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f4e14e2e90e071c745ff2df/14-705-regulators-code.pdf

Within this legal duty placed upon the regulator (you as the council), it is stipulated that the regulator:

1.      Regulators should carry out their activities in a way that supports those they regulate to comply and grow.

2.      2. Regulators should provide simple and straightforward ways to engage with those they regulate and hear their views.

3.      3. Regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk.

WAV POLICY / MIXED FLEET

It has been stated several times to date that there is zero justification for adopting any 100% WAV policy, in fact quite the opposite since the results we are seeing nationwide is a huge decline in the number of hackney carriage vehicles as a direct result of such requirements.

Furthermore, such vehicles only cater for a very small minority of the community which the industry and indeed the regulate are seeking to provide a service for, with the majority of service users finding it more difficult to safely enter and exit such larger vehicles.

With DFT does not support such measures, nor does the latest disabled persons act: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/29/section/1

Both of whom are clear that not all disabilities are visible, and that the requirement is simply that all vehicles, private hire and hackney alike, must have the ability to transport a wheelchair, which means folded and placed in the luggage area.

With the aim being euro 6 or EV vehicles in the near future, such WAV’s are extremely expensive to purchase, with very little actual demand, and the inability to charge for time and motion for such provision, such vehicles are not a viable business option.

There are many drivers and vehicle owners within the industry who will purchase such vehicles and do provide such services, but the majority simply cannot afford to do so.

The result of forcing such decisions as we are seeing nationwide, is simply that those drivers will either migrate to private hire or migrate to other local authorities where there is no such requirement, the result of both of these options, is a loss of hackney carriages entirely within your local area, which has a very negative impact on the service user.

The request is simply to allow a mixed fleet in order to avoid the loss of service provision within your district.

 

TINTED WINDOW RESTRICTIONS.

We have mentioned many times in recent months that such tinted window restrictions fail to satisfy the Wednesbury reasonably necessary test:

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/6-200-9152?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

There have been several articles written about the reasons why modern vehicles are manufactured with tinted glass as standard, and the impacts on vehicle compliance on national levels as written into your vehicle licensing policy, particularly that doing so cancels the M1 type approval issued by VOSA / DVSA and undermines insurance policies.

Whilst we are aware of the latest DfT best practice guidance on tinted windows and appreciate that your policy is a little more tolerant that is suggested within the same, we do not agree with the guidance and would remind the council that this is indeed simply “guidance”.

We are being approached by more and more drivers who have fallen fowl of your policy for no other reason than wanted to provide a modern vehicle as per your conditions, only to find that your policy does not allow for such vehicles at all, rather older vehicles and the lowest specification of such vehicles too due to having such window tint restrictions.

We would suggest it be more sensible to simply allow standard manufactured windows, or to allow CCTV to be installed where such glass is fitted, we would suggest another alternative is to adopt a further 5% tolerance to your percentage requirement.

We have seen the results of your examiners tests, which clearly show that the machine used was out of date and not fit for use at all, due to the machine being quite severely out of calibration date.

This could explain why the same glass on the same vehicles measured differently on different occasions, or it could simply be poor operation of the equipment, or poor lighting conditions in the area within which the vehicle was tested.

Having such a percentage requirement leaves the testing regime wide open to failure, leaves the testing of glass open to misuse and appeal, and adds more costs on to not only the trade, but your testers too in the form of purchasing such equipment, but also frequent calibration of such devices which MUST be performed every year.

The impact of adopting such policies also affects the end user, since there are times when glare from the sun is extreme and uncomfortable, the children form broken homes are far more identifiable within clear glass during school transport trips, placing them at higher risk, and the emissions are increased by having to use air conditions which may not otherwise be required.

 

Summing up, our request is to protect your trade, protect your environment, and protect your voters, by:

1.      Allow a mixed fleet to ensure suitable provision for all and avoid total loss of service.

2.      Allow manufactured glass to be acceptable or adopt a 5% tolerance to tinted glass policy.