Taxi licences bid in Telford fee row

More than 500 private hire drivers across Telford & Wrekin are planning to take advantage of a legal loophole to avoid a rise in licence fees.

The drivers are planning to give back their licences to Telford & Wrekin Council and instead apply for hackney carriage licences from Shropshire Council as the fees are lower.

David Edwards, head of county public protection at Shropshire Council, said a hackney carriage licensed by Shropshire Council was able to undertake booked appointments anywhere in the country.

Councillor Miles Hosken, cabinet member for community protection and cohesion at Telford & Wrekin, said there was case law that enabled private hire operators to apply for licences wherever they chose.

Telford & Wrekin Council’s decision would see the operator’s annual licence fee rise from £462 to £2,495.

Mohammed Zaman, chairman of Telford Private Hire Drivers’ Association, said: “The majority, if not all, of the private hire trade licensed by Telford & Wrekin Council have decided to become licensed in the hackney carriage trade with Shropshire Council.

“Unlike Telford & Wrekin Council, Shropshire Council has clearly shown us that they are committed to providing the trade with an excellent customer service.”

It was revealed during a meeting of the council’s licensing committee in December that council tax payers were paying more than £40,000 annually to subsidise the cost of operating private hire vehicles in the borough. The council had said its aim was to reduce that burden.

Currently a private hire driver’s licence for 12 months costs £125, but this would rise to £170.

A 12-month licence with Shropshire Council costs £80, but that amount is currently under review.

Nigel Horler, chairman of Telford Private Hire Operators’ Association, said: “It’s a great shame that it’s come to this, but as a trade, we all work very hard to provide the very best service to our customers.”

Councillor Hosken added: “It is a matter for them which authority they apply to and a matter for the authority that receives the application as to whether it is granted.”

Read more:

City ‘faces taxi gridlock’

DURHAM City will be reduced to gridlock if plans to allow unlimited numbers of taxis to operate across the county are pushed through, a cabbies’ leader has claimed.

Adrian Fets, chairman of Durham Independent Taxi Association, was speaking after Durham County Council’s cabinet backed a series of changes to the taxi trade.

Councillors approved creating a deregulated, single hackney carriage zone, allowing unlimited numbers of vehicles to operate anywhere in County Durham and imposing an all-white colour scheme on taxis.

Mr Fets said: “This is going to put taxi firms out of business. It’s going to be gridlock in Durham City, there’s going to be more pollution and there are going to be constant traffic jams as taxis drive round and round trying to get a parking space.

“It’s an absolute disgrace.”

If the changes are approved by a full council meeting next month, taxi drivers will pursue a legal challenge through a judicial review, Mr Fets said.

Council officials say the changes would create a more consistent, open, fairer and cleaner taxi service.

Southport cab firms in trade battle

WAR has broken out on the streets of Southport as taxi companies battle for trade.

A Hackney cabs representative has accused private hire firms of using dirty tactics to steal passengers from them.

And it was claimed Hackney cabs have suffered £1.4m in loss of earnings as a result of foul play.

The issue is set to come to a head at a Licensing and Regulatory Committee meeting in Bootle on Tuesday, January 25.

Representatives from both sides will meet face to face in front of councillors.

Tony Crabtree, secretary of the North Sefton Hackney Cabs Association – which relies on passing trade and official taxi ranks – is infuriated by the situation.

He said: “They are licensed for private hire.

“That means they have to take pre-booked calls through an operator.

“But some operators are quite happy when they are waiting 10/15 turns for them to go and sit where the public can see them.

“The drivers will pick on people before they walk down to the rank, or they wait outside places they know they can get trade if there is a big queue.”

Mr Crabtree wants to see a more effective policing of the private hire taxis in Southport.

He said: “They do test purchases and a lot have been caught, but the problem now is they know when the inspectors are going to be out.

“This has gone on for years and taken millions of pounds from us.”

Mr Crabtree has calculated that this practice has cost Hackney cabs £1.4m in loss of earnings over the last 20 years.

He believes one issue at the heart of this is the public don’t know the difference between Hackney and private hire cabs.

He said: “The main reason we are being ripped off is private hire picking people up in the main street – people will get in anything.

“They also ringfence the taxi ranks, so take trade before it gets to us.”

Locations identified as hotspots for private hire cars acting illegally include the corner of Lord Street and Market Street, the forecourt of the Scarisbrick Hotel and Coronation Street.

Mr Crabtree has been frustrated with previous trade meetings and believes this one will be different as councillors will be present.

He said: “I’ve brought it up and brought up and brought it up but get all the usual excuses.

“This will be different because it will be in front of councillors.”

“The unscrupulous ones need catching and dumping out of the trade.

“We want a level playing field.”

The manager of one Southport-based private hire firm said: “Sefton Council have measures in place to deal with this.

“Trading tandards officers have been doing test purchases over the last 18 months.

“As far as I am concerned they are dealing with it.

“I think what they’ve been doing has eradicated the problem.”


Taxi drivers threatening strikes over council’s licensing policy, again

Taxi protest of October 2010
Taxi protest of October 2010

Taxi strikes in Rossendale are back on the table over the introduction of a new policy covering their licences.

The Taxi Licensing Policy, setting out the council’s views on private hire operators within the borough, will be decided at a Policy Overview and Scrutiny committee on Monday evening.

The document covers measures that relate to the licensing of drivers, vehicles and taxi operators to which the council and firms must adhere .

Last October, the council backed down in the face of threatened weekend strikes and town centre blockades over the planned introduction of a penalty points scheme covering 34 misdemeanours.

The penalty points scheme was scrapped after over 150 cabbies took to the streets to protest.

Cabbies leaders now say they are again “very concerned” over a number of measures within the policy and have threatened to strike unless they are amended or removed completely.

The Rossendale Taxi Association sent a letter to the council listing a number of concerns about the policy including: having to retake their Driving Standard Agency (DSA) test if they get six penalty points, a dress code, charging for tests on vehicles and vehicle age limits.

Glenn Bulcock, chairman of the association, said: “We are very concerned about the new licensing policy and it will affect taxi drivers ability to make a living.

“About 50 per cent of the stuff included in the policy has never been discussed so we will be going on Monday to challenge it and we will just have to see what the outcome is.

“We will be strongly represented at the meeting and there will be about 100 drivers there.

“We can’t have conditions like that imposed on our living. The council have had ample opportunity to listen to us and the policy has been looked at for the past nine months.

“They have a golden opportunity to try and get the policy right this time as it will be the conduct and licensing scheme in Rossendale for the next five or six years.

“To even look at the possibility of controlling our licences is completely ridiculous. Hopefully we will get the policy either delayed or thrown out.”

Mr Bulcock confirmed that unless changes are made to the policy drivers could go on strike “within weeks”.

He said: “Strikes will happen. If it goes through in its current form and our suggestions are not followed or we feel the laws are too harsh for the trade then we could strike within weeks.

“If common sense prevails and they listen to our concerns then we won’t take action but we are strongly prepared to strike should the policy go through as it is.”

Stuart Sugarman, the council’s director of business, said: “Making threats to go on strike at this stage is not helpful. Councillors will give full consideration to all of the issues when they meet on Monday evening at the Licensing Committee.

“The taxi drivers will be fully represented at the meeting and given extended speaking rights to state their case.”

The licensing committee will consider the new policy at its next meeting on Monday, January 24.


Police warning to students

Police in Cheltenham are reminding local students to make sure that they only use licensed taxis and to report any instances where they are offered a taxi ride in an unauthorised vehicle.

The advice follows a suspicious incident in Cheltenham over the weekend.

In the early hours of Saturday January 15, at around 2.45am, two female students were approached on the High Street by a man asking if they needed a taxi.

The woman declined as they had noticed the car wasn’t marked, and carried on their walk home.

At 3:05am the same man stopped in the middle of the road close to the Hardwicke Campus of the University of Gloucestershire and again asked the women if they needed a taxi.

They again declined and the man drove off.

The girls were able to make a note of the car’s license plates and officers have made a number of enquiries using the details but now believe the car may have been displaying false plates.

The man was described as white, with short dark hair and dark eyes. He was driving an unmarked black VW Passat or Toyota with a registration mark similar to RF56 RUB.

PCSO Ross Nicholl said: “These women did exactly the right thing and declined the man’s offer as they didn’t believe he was a licensed taxi driver. They also then reported the suspicious incident to the police. We are very grateful for this and urge other students to follow their example and to ensure that if they are using taxis to make sure that it is an authorised vehicle.”

An authorised vehicle will be endorsed with a taxi licence plate on the rear of the vehicle so that you know they are properly licensed. The plate displays a hologram to show authenticity. Officers also encourage the public to ask for identification from the driver before getting into the vehicle, a legitimate driver will not mind you doing this.

Police are asking anyone to report similar incidents or sightings of a car matching this description to them on 0845 090 1234, quoting incident number 51 of January 15.

You can also report information anonymously by calling Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.


Be Careful what you wish for

By the time you read this magazine your future could be sealed. You could be heading towards oblivion and your future could be in the hands of others.

You see, due to pressure the Transport Select committee are to look into the taxi and private hire trades. Whilst they will primarily be looking into cross border hiring issues with Private Hire vehicles, they will also be open to suggestions and input from any concerned persons into the taxi and private hire trades.

Not scared yet? You should be.

What will happen if, and I have every reason to expect they will, the large private hire companies across the country actually get themselves involved and tell the select committee they cant get on with their business properly due to (and in their opinion) silly licensing rules?

What will happen if the licensing officer groups and local government write into the committee and say the system is a mess and in need of a total shake up?

The fact the taxi trade itself seem to have brought it to the attention of the Committee suggests they (some in the taxi trade) already think its worthy of consideration by the government.

So, you’ve got three groups, maybe more, all banging on the government door saying the current licensing system isn’t good, isn’t workable and it needs overhauled, what do you thinks going to happen, more importantly, do you actually care?

Well you should. If the select committee advise the government that the system is in meltdown, the government may be forced into a cab act. But I fear this act won’t be a thing that any of you will like.

Would a new act retain limitation of numbers? Would a new act decide cross border hiring is a bad thing, particularly if the licensed vehicle is pre-booked? Would a new act see the need to even have a two tier system?

Lots of questions, not too many answers.

Those of you that want new legislation point towards the 1847 act as being out of date. Yes, the act was around before the Crimean War, but the question we should ask is why? Why has this act lasted 164 years when so many others have come and gone?

Those people who want a new act should look through the 1847 act and think what they would replace it with.

For example, section 62 of the act makes it an offence to leave a cab attended at a place of public resort. This was originally intended to avoid horses wandering off and becoming a nuisance, yet it is still used in cases where drivers leave cabs unattended on ranks. Are we saying we want cabs unattended on ranks whilst drivers go shopping?

Section 53 makes it an offence to refuse to take a passenger to a destination within the prescribed area (without reasonable excuse). Are people suggesting drivers should be able to cherrypick fares?

Section 54 makes it an offence for a driver to demand more than the agreed fare. Do people want the taxi trade to have the ability to demand more money?

I could carry on, but I’d only be pointing out further examples of workable legislation. Any new legislation wouldn’t surely go beyond the driver being fit and proper with the vehicle being fit for purpose. Justifiably, the fitness and propriety of both driver and vehicle is always open to interpretation.

One expert, James TH Button, stated in his (infamous) book that in his opinion taxi law was outdated and there was no substitute for modern legislation. Really Jim? There’s one chapter in the Equality Act 2010 dedicated to taxis, and this has created more confusion and more ambiguity than any previous act known to taxis (save for section 16 of the 1985 transport act).

Indeed, if you can all recall section 52 of the Road Safety Act and the use of immediate suspensions. Everybody thought this was going to be used for serious offences, unfortunately they didn’t actually factor in some councils being slightly retarded.

Am I really to trust the draftsman or local authorities given the above examples with new legislation? I seriously don’t think so.

The fact of the matter is that if a person in Liverpool wants to pre-book a private hire vehicle from Sefton they can, whatever new act is worked out, phone for a vehicle from another area. If the people of the Wirral go into Liverpool for a night out, and don’t want a Liverpool Hackney Carriage, possibly due to an unfortunate experience involving going through a tunnel, they will continue to call a private hire vehicle. That is called customer choice, and there’s nothing a government can do about someone’s choice.

Furthermore, if any part of the act is going to be looked at, it’s more than likely to factor in changes that would benefit private hire. For a hackney carriage people to suggest a PH car should return to its area when its completed a fare, knowing full well there’s a pre-booked job in the next street in half an hours time, isn’t only folly, its bordering on sheer stupidity.

Indeed, current legislation forbids private hire operators passing bookings on to other private hire operators across district borders. This is permitted in the London Private Hire act, but not the 1976 act. If this changes we could well see large national private hire companies.

To my knowledge only the National Taxi Association are currently opposed to wholesale change in legislation and they appear to be akin to King Canute, their opposition, given their size, will be as ineffectual as England’s recent world cup bid, unless of course people begin to take this threat as serious and join the body.

I summed all this up recently when I said;

“Local Authorities have every tool available already at their disposal, from the 1847 act onwards, they have guidance from government and numerous conditions they could apply to both hackney proprietors and private hire licensing, yet for some reason some people out there are trying to convince government things need changed. Changed to what exactly? Is any new act going to stray from drivers being fit and proper and vehicles being in decent order? I’m convinced people out there are mad.”

It appears to me that a good number of people in the hackney carriage trade look down their noses at private hire, the reality is that private hire are much better funded than the hackney trade. For example, how many thousands of pounds were invested in lobbying to get private hire removed from the equality act?


Do people seriously expect the private hire trade to sit down doing nothing as the hackney carriage trade try to dictate?


Believe that and you need a bib.


© Wayne Casey

BRAINTREE: Scared taxi drivers want CCTV in vehicles after attacks rise

FRIGHTENED taxi drivers want CCTV cameras to be fitted in their cars to combat the rising numbers of attacks on them.

More than 40 drivers from Braintree and nearby towns are backing a drivers’ association request for public money to fund in-car CCTV to discourage violent and drunken behaviour from passengers.

Shegun Akindayini, who was viciously attacked and robbed of £100 of takings recently, said: “This is definitely something which could help us.

“At the very least there should be a CCTV camera covering the ranks.

“But a system in the car would mean we are protected at both ends of the journey, which would be ideal.”

Mr Akindayini’s ordeal began shortly after he picked up two young men and a woman from the Braintree town centre rank.

The group asked to be driven to the grounds of Braintree Town Football Club but a short way into the journey, began to argue among themselves over who would settle the fare.

Mr Akindayini asked them to clarify that they would be able to pay him at the end of the journey, and they reassured him that they could.

However, a short time later one of the men pulled the seatbelt he was wearing tightly around his neck, forcing him to stop the vehicle.

They then dragged him out and beat him before robbing him of the £100 he had taken that day in fares and fled on foot.

Despite reporting the robbery to the police, who issued an appeal for witnesses, no one has yet been brought to justice for the attack.

Mr Akindayini has only recently returned to working at nights.

He said: “I had to return to working nights – it is the only way I have of making a living.”

However, he still feels paranoid and becomes uneasy whenever a passenger sits down behind him.

Another driver, Barry Archer, said he was attacked by two men after driving them to Black Notley.

He said: “I called the police and reported it but they were never caught.

“CCTV would give them the evidence to find those who carry out the attacks.”

Robin Song, secretary to the town’s taxi association, which is calling for the security measures, said: “There has been a huge response to this suggestion, not just in Braintree but also in Witham and Halstead.

“I know there have been numerous instances of drivers being attacked, and strongly believe that something could be done to act as a deterrent.”

At a meeting of the town centre strategy group last week, councillors and businesspeople brought the matter to the attention of Essex Police’s chief constable, Jim Barker-McCardle.

Mr Barker-McCardle said: “I always want to help and support the taxi drivers as much as I can.

“It is worrying that they are more concerned about their safety than they used to be.”


Durham taxi drivers threaten to strike

CABBIES in Durham are threatening to go on strike as plans to make all taxis one colour took a step closer to becoming a reality.

Durham County Council’s cabinet yesterday backed a policy to make the area’s hackney carriages white, and it could now be in force by April 1.

The proposals also include a single deregulated taxi zone – making trade throughout the county a ‘free for all’, say drivers.

Adrian Fets, chairman of the Durham Independent Taxi Association, said the changes would force companies out of business.

“This is absolutely ridiculous,” he said. “They haven’t done any research. They have no idea of the implications of what they are doing.”

The authority claims eight out of 12 North East councils have a taxi colour policy and it will make trade more consistent, fairer and safer for residents and visitors.

Bit if the plans are agreed by all councillors the association has pledged to push for a judicial review. It said members are planning strikes and protests “at the busiest times possible.”

“The whole trade is up in arms,” said Mr Fets.

Coun Bob Young, cabinet member for strategic environment and leisure, told the meeting the proposals have been put forward after extensive consultation with taxi drivers and residents.

Read More

NTA response to Select committee enquiry into Cross Border Hiring

20th December 2010



Dear Sirs,


Transport Committee – Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles


We act for the National Taxi Association and have been asked to respond to the consultation exercise now being undertaken. 


We are afraid that we have not heard until very recently about the Committee in question although we deem the work that it is to undertake of paramount importance in the industry. 


The points that we would make on behalf of the National Taxi Association are as follows:

  • The Association is aware that a number of private hire operators who have obtained operator’s licences fully aware of the limitations on those licences are choosing to try to increase their share of the market in circumstances where that could not have been in accordance with their original expectations.
  • The corollary of that is that hackney carriage proprietors who may have made very substantial investments in acquiring vehicles suitable, particularly, for carrying wheelchair passengers may find that their investment in the industry is frustrated by those who seek to change the existing legislation.
  • It is fair to say that although it is easy to come to the conclusion that the existing legislation is of a somewhat aged nature that legislation has held very good for many years.  The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 still governs matters in relation to hackney carriages and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 governs private hire operations. 
  • What is important is to have a properly regulated industry and one where a distinction between two entirely different operations is clear.  As members of the Committee will be aware, only a hackney carriage can be hailed in the street.  A private hire vehicle can only be pre-booked and appropriate records of bookings have to be kept. 
  • The writer has recently seen a handout from a local private hire operator who has been licensed in North Tyneside Council and who has operated within that district.  The proprietor has acquired an operator’s licence in Newcastle Upon Tyne and wonders why the fleet cannot be essentially apportioned across the two authorities.  The reason for that is that when the operator acquired the licence in Newcastle Upon Tyne he was well aware that he could only operate, therefore, in Newcastle Upon Tyne.  The basic rule, and it is a very sensible rule, is that, in private hire, all three licences i.e. operator’s licence, vehicle licence and driver’s licence have to have been issued by the same local authority. 
  • The classic case on cross-border hiring is a case involving the operator referred to above (North Tyneside Council v Shanks).  What happened in that case was that the operator was licensed by North Tyneside Council.  It also had an operator’s licence from Newcastle Upon Tyne.  The business was run as one meaning that if a booking was made in North Tyneside a vehicle might be dispatched which was licensed by Newcastle.  That, of course, breaks all of the obvious rules that have governed matters and North Tyneside Council, quite rightly, refused to renew the operator’s licence on the basis that the operator had not been complying with Section 62(1) of the 1976 Act. 
  • The case effectively involved sub-contracting and the effect of it is that someone licensed in one district can only provide vehicles licensed in that district.  Moreover, if there is a need to sub-contract out the work the work can only be given to another operator licensed within the same district.  The position is clear enough from the legislation and it is perfectly clear that the object of that legislation is to protect the public. 
  • It would be impossible properly to look at these matters without looking at a problem that has occurred very noticeably in Newcastle Upon Tyne.  It gave rise to the case of R.(APP.Newcastle City Council) v Berwick – Upon – Tweed Borough Council (2008) EWHC 2369.  In that case it was held that if a licensing authority wanted to issue plates that were not going to be used in its own local authority then they would have to have a good reason to do so. 
  • Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is clear in its terms.  What it says is this:

“the Commissioners may from time to time license to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, or if no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town or place to which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance) such number of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of persons as they think fit”.   

  • The prescribed distance is going to be essentially the area of the relevant licensing authority.  What happened in the Berwick case was that Berwick Council, for some reason, took it upon themselves to issue a large number of licences full well knowing that they were not going to be used within their own authority.  Indeed, our understanding is that they were specifically forbidden to be used within their authority.  These licences were hackney carriage vehicle licenses.  It is clear law that there is no need for an operator’s license when dealing with hackney carriages.  The result of this is that they were able to exploit that loophole creating a situation where:


    1. Berwick had little interest in what was going on because of the fact that the vehicles were being used somewhere else; and
    2. Newcastle Upon Tyne where a very large number of these vehicles were being operated, could not enforce because they were not the licensing authority. 
    3. This was, perhaps, an ingenious way of trying to secure a commercial advantage.  It is perceived that this could not possibly be in the interests of the public for the following reason:


                                          i.    The primary reason for adopting this device, especially given the fact that any vehicles operating within Newcastle Upon Tyne could quite easily have obtained private hire licences, was to deal with a local authority whose fees were lower.

                                         ii.    There were issues as to how rigorous CRB checks were and this is of course an essential protection of the public.

                                        iii.    There were questions as to whether the vehicle testing arrangements were of a sufficiently high standard.  They were certainly not to the standard that would have been adopted by Newcastle Upon Tyne.

                                       iv.    There would be no effective locality test because the licensing authority would be Berwick and, of course, knowledge of the Berwick locality would be completely irrelevant to someone operating in Newcastle.


  • It seems therefore that all that was going on here was a scheme to enhance the commercial position of various local operators at what would certainly appear to be some risk to the public. 

  • Of course, there is nothing to stop a member of the public having a vehicle of his choice.  A person who lives in the area of North Tyneside Council could quite legitimately book a vehicle licensed in Newcastle to carry him.  The point there is that the booking was made where the operator was licensed.  There is no question, therefore, of the public being denied freedom of choice.  It is simply a question of not breaking the rules which are obvious in their terms. 
  • In short, the present case law and also the present legislation is extremely straightforward.  The only extent to which it has become less than straightforward is insofar as various operators, all over the country, have looked at ways of trying to circumvent the rules and to do this in such a way as, quite simply, to give them commercial advantage.  It would be very difficult to argue that they are, in so doing, especially if we look at what was going on in relation to the Berwick plates, looking to enhance the interests of the public. 
  • The Association do not believe that there is any pressing need or indeed any need at all for a change in legislation.  It is easy, as mentioned above, to say that this legislation is old.  So is the Wills Act which has served the public since 1837 subject to relatively minor amendments over the years.  So is the Law of Property Act which has served the public since 1925 and which still remains substantially in the same form. 
  • The Association would be happy to make any further representations that may be invited or to assist the Committee in any way.  Their concern is to ensure that there is clear and effective legislation, notwithstanding efforts that seem to be made to cloud that legislation with ingenious but equally ingenuous schemes.  What the Association seek to see is that the public are protected and that the standard of service given to the public is heightened.  It is imperative that the following matters are always carefully monitored: 


    1. The quality of the vehicle.
    2. The behaviour of the driver.
    3. The character of the driver which, of course, is something that must be the subject of the appropriate CRB check.
    4. The way in which the business is conducted. 


At the present time all of these matters are addressed effectively by virtually all of the local authorities with whom the Association deal.  Most administrative matters are better dealt with at a local rather than a national level.  


  • The Association believes that it would be a major task to review the law in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles in its entirety but believes that that is in any event quite unnecessary.  It believes that the protection of the public is paramount and that schemes to circumvent the existing simple legislation are not in the best interests of the public. 



Yours faithfully,



New policy leaves Rossendale taxi drivers concerned

TAXI drivers in Rossendale have expressed concern over the introduction of a new policy covering their licences.

A draft policy, setting out the council’s views on private hire operators within the borough, is to be approved by councillors later this month.

The document covers measures that relate to the licensing of drivers, vehicles and taxi operators that the council and firms must adhere to.

But the controversial ‘penalty points scheme’, which saw more than 160 taxi drivers stage a protest on the Town Hall car park last October, has been shelved.

Rossendale Taxi Association has sent a letter to the council citing a number of concerns about the policy. Drivers are concerned about issues such as having to retake their DSA test if they get six penalty points, dress codes and tests on vehicles.

Glenn Bulcock, chairman of the association, said: “We have a lot of concerns about the policy. We will be challenging around 50 per cent of it.

“Around 100 drivers could be attending the meeting and we will raise our concerns to the council then.”

Stuart Sugarman, Rossendale Coun-cil’s director of business, said: “Rossendale Council does not have a written taxi licensing policy nor any published procedures outlining how it deals with various aspects of vehicle, driver and operator licensing. There are, of course, procedures in place.”

The licensing committee will consider the new policy at its next meeting on Monday.