Limitation of taxi numbers & a brief legal history

The limitation of Hackney Carriage numbers

3.0 Limitation of taxi numbers – a brief legal history

3.1 A Licensing Authority did, until 1985, have unfettered power to limit the number of taxi licences that it chose to issue. Following changes introduced in the Transport Act 1985 a Licensing Authority could continue to limit taxi numbers but “if, and only if” it was satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for taxi services in that area. There is no indication in the legislation as to what would constitute “significant unmet demand” or how it could be measured.

3.2 A Licensing Authority does not and never has needed to give a reason for not limiting taxi numbers, nor does it need to conduct a demand survey before deciding to cease limiting numbers.

3.3 In August 2002 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) commenced the investigation into the practice of some Authorities of limiting taxi numbers. The scope of the investigation was subsequently extended to include other areas and as a result the investigation was delayed and the OFT findings not published until November 2003.

The report “The regulation of licensed taxi and PHV services in the UK” runs to 91 pages and the conclusion regarding taxi limitation that it reached was “We therefore recommend that the legislative provisions allowing licensing authorities to impose quantity controls should be repealed. In the meantime, we recommend that LAs with quantity controls remove them.”

3.4 After consideration of the OFT report the Government announced in a written statement to Parliament on 18/March/2004

“The Government agrees that consumers should enjoy the benefits of competition in the taxi market and considers that it is detrimental to those seeking entry to a market if it is restricted. The Government is therefore strongly encouraging all those local authorities who still maintain quantity restrictions to remove restrictions as soon as possible. Restrictions should only be retained if there is a strong justification that removal of the restrictions would lead to a significant consumer detriment as a result of local conditions.”

The Government elected not to remove a local authority’s ability to impose numerical limits on taxi licences but did make it very clear that the interests of consumers of taxi services were paramount; that numerical restrictions should only be imposed where those restrictions “deliver clear benefits to consumers”.

4.0 Limitation of taxi numbers in Sheffield – the recent history

4.1 Until November 2000 the Council had a policy of limiting taxi numbers. The process followed was to review the limitation policy every 3 years and following confirmation that the policy of limiting taxi numbers was to be retained to commission an independent “demand survey”. Once the results of the survey were known the Licensing Board would determine how many, if any, additional licences to issue. Clearly, if the survey identified an unmet demand that would be met by x number of additional licences then the Council would have to issue at least that number of additional licences in order to satisfy the legal test. The Board could, and on one occasion did, issue a greater number of additional licences than the survey had identified were required to meet the “significant demand that was unmet”.

4.2 In November 2000 the Licensing Board considered the taxi limitation policy and heard representations from the STTA, taxi owners and drivers, those that wished to enter the trade, the Police, disability representatives and private hire operators. The decision of the Board was to cease limiting taxi numbers. Prior to that decision there had been a limit of 300 licensed taxis in Sheffield.

4.3 In December 2000 the STTA lodged a petition with the Council requesting a further review of the policy. The petition was referred to the Licensing Board in January 2001 and the Board resolved that “….this Board confirms that the hackney carriage limitation policy was fully and properly considered at its meeting on 22nd November 2000 and has determined not to review that decision.”

4.4 An application for Judicial Review was launched on behalf of the STTA which was considered in the High Court in London in August 2001. The Judge considered the evidence presented and announced that he was satisfied that the Council had acted in a proper manner, commended the policy determination process, dismissed the application, refused an application for leave to appeal and awarded costs in favour of the Council.

4.5 On 12/February/2004 the Licensing Board considered a report on taxi limitation which set out the findings of the OFT and representations received. The Board resolved that “after careful consideration of all the issues outlined in the report and the representations now made, the Council’s policy of not limiting hackney carriage vehicle numbers be continued;”

4.6 The Government response to the Office of Fair Trading report was considered by the Licensing Board at its meeting on 20/May/2004 and representations from the STTA were heard. The decision of the Board was to note the content of the report to it. No further action was required by the Board in relation to this policy.

5.0 The Office of Fair Trading report.

5.1 A full copy of the OFT report was circulated to Members and to the trades associations in early December 2003. Extracts of the OFT report that relate specifically to taxi limitation together with local information and Officer comment as appropriate are attached at appendix 1.

6.0 Taxi limitation – a legal view

6.1 There has been no change in the legislative situation. Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 is still in force and does permit licensing authorities to limit the number of taxi licences “ if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.”

6.2 The OFT has recommended that the legislative provision (detailed above) which allows licensing authorities to impose taxi limits be repealed. However, possibly due to constraints on Parliamentary time, that has not happened but the Government has made a statement outlining its position on this issue.

6.3 The OFT recommends that (pending a change in the law) those authorities that have a limitation policy remove them and by inference those that do not have such a policy do not implement one. As the OFT has determined that it is to the detriment of the public to limit taxi numbers and that a numeric limit disadvantages those that wish to enter the trade additional avenues of legal recourse for those refused licences may have opened.

6.4 The findings of the OFT, supported by local evidence, regarding surveys to assess unmet demand would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy any court that a survey of unmet demand has any cogent evidential value. Without acceptable evidence, even in the present legal situation, a licensing authority is unlikely to be able to satisfy a court that a licence was refused for the purpose of limitation of numbers because there was no significant unmet demand.

6.5 A telephone survey of a number of the larger licensing authorities has been undertaken and the results received to date are attached at Appendix 2.

7.0 Demand Surveys

7.1 Where a council has taken a decision not to limit taxi numbers then no “demand survey” is required. Where a decision has been taken to limit taxi numbers then a council has to be satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand. The way a council achieves this is to commission an independent survey and then act upon the results of that survey. The validity of such surveys has long been questionable as they only measure the demand that exists at the time and in the circumstances in which the survey is undertaken and do not attempt to assess what demand has been lost due to the unavailability of taxis which may be regained if more taxis were available or what latent demand there is should taxis become more widely available. Demand surveys do not measure the detriment to certain groups of people eg. disabled people, that limiting the availability of accessible taxis has.

7.2 When the Licensing Board considered the taxi limitation issue in November 2000 it was critical of surveys and local evidence showed that in the period 1990 to 2000 independent surveys had shown an “unmet demand” which could be satisfied by the issuing of 4 more taxi licences. In the same period the number of private hire vehicles licensed by the Council (which serve largely the same market) had increased by around 700.

7.3 The Office of Fair Trading were very critical of the manner in which surveys had been conducted and the validity of their findings. The Government announced that it expected any future surveys undertaken to assess latent as well as existing demand.

7.4 Although the Government has not changed the legislation and, technically, local authorities can still restrict taxi numbers the Government has stipulated additional criteria that it expects any licensing authority contemplating limitation to meet.

Although the legal test of “no significant unmet demand” remains the new test puts the onus firmly onto the local authority to demonstrate that allowing more taxis to be licensed “would lead to significant consumer detriment” before it can restrict numbers. It is difficult to envisage the type of evidence that a local authority could produce that would satisfy a court that this test had been met.

Demand surveys have traditionally measured quantifiable matters eg how long customers wait at taxi ranks, the demand surveys that must now be undertaken would also need to survey latent demand which is much more difficult to objectively assess and would result in a significant increase in survey cost.

8.0 Taxi Fares

8.1 A Licensing Authority is not obliged to set taxi fares but it is considered to be beneficial that it does so by both the trades associations and the Board. The Board sets a maximum fare based on distance and time.

8.2 Taxi drivers can charge less than the maximum fare but not more, it is an offence to do so.

8.3 There is no routine review period. Fares are reviewed at the request of the trade association/s.

8.4 Where the Board has decided that fares should be increased the proposed increase must be advertised and objections (whether from the public, taxi driver or other person) considered.

8.5 High taxi fares can be used as a mechanism to reduce demand in those areas that operate a restriction on taxi numbers.

8.6 378 Licensing Authorities set fares for taxis. In a survey of those authorities in February 2005 Sheffield was the joint 59th most expensive together with Leeds (which limited taxi numbers). The only Council north of Sheffield that was more expensive was Newcastle (which limited taxi numbers). Sheffield fares are approximately 11% above the national average.

8.7 The fare increase approved by the Board in October 2004 averaged at around 3%, less than was requested by the STTA.

8.8 Fare increases of around 12% in 2002 and 6% in 2003 resulted in an overall increase in fares of around 19% in that period.

8.9 A request from the STTA for a further fare increase is currently being processed for consideration by the Licensing Board.

9.0 Financial implications

9.1 There are no financial implications to the Council relating to the number restriction issue or taxi fares as costs reasonably incurred by the Council in administering its licensing function can be recovered through the charging of fees.

9.2 Should a demand survey be commissioned where there is no policy of restricting taxi numbers then this may not be held to be a reasonable cost of the licensing function. If that were to be the case the cost of a survey could not be recovered through the charging of fees.

10.0 Recommendation

10.1 That members consider the information contained in this report, representations made and the interest of the public and make such comments or recommendations as it appropriate for submission to the Licensing Board and/or Cabinet.




June 2005 Liz Bashforth
Assistant Chief Executive Legal & Governance

Appendix 1

Office of Fair Trading Report

1. Taxi provision

· Areas with quantity controls generally have significantly fewer taxis than those without.

· The average number of taxis and PHV’s per 1,000 of the population for an urban authority is set out below:

Unrestricted Restricted

Taxis 1.51 1.14

PHVs 1.43 2.42

All vehicles 2.94 3.52

Ratio PHVs to taxis 0.95 2.12


Locally

During restriction Sheffield licensed 300 taxis. Based on the statistics in the table above an authority the size of Sheffield would generally have been expected to restrict the number of taxis licensed to a little over 600.

With a taxi fleet limited to 300 taxis the expected number of PHVs would have been to the ratio 1:2.12, giving 636 PHVs. In fact the number of PHVs peaked at around 1,100, a ratio of 1:3.7.

The average number of taxis per head of population for unrestricted urban areas is 1.51 per1,000. If this was applied to Sheffield then an increase to around 800 could be expected.

With 630 licensed taxis the expected number of PHVs would be 598 – it is around 930.

· In LAs with quantity controls the shortfall in taxi services gives rise to increased provision of PHVs. The reason behind the higher proportion of PHVs is that where taxi numbers are artificially limited and demand outstrips supply, PHVs come in to fill part of the gap. However, because PHVs cannot ply for hire in the street they cannot substitute for all taxi services.

· The finding that quantity controls reduce the supply of taxis is strongly supported by the more detailed case studies, looking at areas over time which have removed quantity controls.

· Removing quantity controls generally stimulates members of the PHV trade to move over to driving taxis. This can often mean that there is only a small increase in the total fleet of licensed taxis and PHVs when taxi limits are lifted.

Locally

During limitation there were 300 taxis and around 1,100 PHVs, a total of 1,400 vehicles.

Currently there are around 630 taxis and 930 PHVs, a total of 1,560 vehicles.

2. Effect of quality controls on taxi users

Fewer taxis per head of population can impact consumers in a number of ways. In particular:

Those wanting to take taxis have to wait longer for the service

It restricts choice and may force consumers into taking alternative, less suitable, modes of transport

It increases public safety concerns

3. Passenger waiting times

Consumers wait longer for taxis in LAs with quantity controls.

In areas without quantity controls waiting times were between 2 and 7 per cent lower than in those areas with quantity controls. At peak times the reduction in waiting time is even greater(10%). These reductions, when considered in terms of the total number of journeys made each year, are considerable. A 5% fall in waiting times amounts to around 2.5 million hours saved each year by UK consumers. This gain does not include the gains of those who were deterred from waiting, in the expectation of not finding a taxi, in the first place.

In Sheffield removing quantity controls led to the number of taxis rising from 300 in 1998 to 457 in 2003. This resulted in a drop in passenger waiting times. The proportion of people waiting over 5 minutes for a taxi at ranks fell from 27% in 1998 to 9% in 2003. The overall waiting time fell from 1.47 minutes to 1.23 minutes over the same period. Although this is a small increase for individual journeys, if we take it across all journeys from ranks it equates to 4,420 hours of saved waiting time per year.

4. Reduced choice

If there are fewer taxis available, consumer choice is restricted as to the type of transport they can use. Consumers who otherwise would have taken a taxi may have to opt for other, less preferred and less suitable, modes of transport.

In a survey 15% of consumers in all LAs said high waiting times were the main reason for not using taxis or PHVs. This suggests that, were waiting times to drop, consumers who do not currently use taxis or PHVs would begin to. This was the case in Sheffield where the removal of quality controls resulted in the numbers of passenger journeys from ranks increasing by 8% after de-restriction and waiting times dropping by 16% (the number of taxis rose by 34%).

Our case studies have shown that following the removal of quantity controls there has been a change in consumers’ preferred use of taxis and PHVs. In particular, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of passengers hailing a taxi in the street as opposed to ordering it by telephone. The proportion of respondents hailing taxis in the street increase from 7% to 44% in Sheffield. The proportion pre-ordering taxis by telephone fell substantially while rank usage increased.

Overall, therefore, the case studies strongly support the proposition that consumers value and use the greater choice opened up by removing quantity controls.

5. Consumer safety

Restricting the supply of licensed taxis raises issues of public safety.

Anecdotal evidence from some (police) authorities suggest that a shortage of safe transport, particularly taxis available to ply for hire from the street or ranks, during the late evening contributes to difficulties faced by police in clearing city centres or public places. The inability to clear these areas can be a contributory factor to violence and public disorder.

Authorities and the taxi trade press have highlighted concerns about the safety issues surrounding consumers’ use of illegal taxis and PHVs that are not licensed to ply for hire, especially during the evening peak times. When there is a lack of available taxis consumers have tended to use alternative methods to make a journey and this can include illegal taxis. A survey has shown that 7% of consumers who have taken some form of taxi or PHV in the last 12 months had used an illegal taxi or a PHV not licensed to ply for hire at least once. This equates to approximately 1.8 million people per year.

A large number of people are therefore placing themselves in danger from drivers who may not have undergone a police check and vehicles that may be unsafe.


Some customers have also said that they have used PHVs which have been illegally plying for hire where a taxi was unavailable. PHVs illegally plying for hire invalidate their insurance, limiting means of redress in the event of an accident. Again it creates a consumer protection problem.

Officer comment

The OFT seem to have overlooked a further and much more serious danger to the public and that is in relation to those illegal drivers whose sole purpose in posing as a taxi driver is to indulge in serious criminal activity.

We believe that the availability of more taxis, and strong enforcement of the taxi regulations, would help address these issues.

6. Impact of quantity regulation on supply.

As a result of their limited supply in areas where quantity restrictions apply, taxi vehicle licences have acquired an unofficial “street” value when licensed taxi vehicles are sold. If taxi proprietors are willing to pay a premium to enter the market, this suggests that they consider that they can make sufficiently high profits to justify the shortage premium, whether because there is a ready supply of consumers waiting for services or because LAs have to set fares at a higher rate to reduce waiting times. The precise level of the vehicle licence shortage premium is determined by a range of factors but the key one is quantity control.

Shortage premiums exist in spite of a free PHV market as PHVs cannot serve the rank and hail market.

In 10% of LAs (that operate a waiting list for taxi vehicle licences) the number waiting for a vehicle licence exceeds the number of licences currently in circulation.

Locally

Sheffield did not operate a waiting list during the limitation era but on the last occasion (October 1999) that a single licence became available there were 148 expressions of interest even though there were specific criteria that must be met. The deciding criteria was that the licence would be awarded to the person who had held a HC & PH drivers licence for the longest period of time, provided that they had not previously had a taxi vehicle licence. A very high number of potential licensees will have been deterred from expressing an interest due to the “length of service” criteria.

7. Arguments in favour of retaining quantity controls.

7.1 There is no significant unmet demand.

One argument which has been put to us is that unmet demand tests ensure that quantity controls do not result in under supply to the market. We do not accept this argument for three reasons:

it is not an argument to justify quantity controls, but one which says, at most, that they do not have a detrimental effect. If it cannot be shown that quantity controls serve a useful purpose the presumption should be that they are unnecessary;

our evidence shows that, despite unmet demand tests, there is considerable unmet demand; and

we have looked carefully at unmet demand studies as part of our research, and do not consider that they accurately measure unmet demand for taxis.

Locally

In 1990 there was a limit of 278 taxis and the number of private hire vehicles licensed was around 450. An unmet demand survey in 1992 showed an unmet demand of 4 taxis – this resulted in the limit being increased to 282. An unmet demand survey in 1995 showed no significant unmet demand and no further licences were issued. An unmet demand survey in 1998 showed no significant unmet demand but the Board did, nonetheless, raise the limit to 300. During the period
from 1990 to 2000, when unmet demand surveys had shown an unmet demand for only 4 taxis, the number of PHVs rose from around 450 to around 1,100 (an increase of 133%).

· Unmet demand surveys do not properly assess latent demand.

· Unmet demand studies focus heavily on unmet demand at ranks. They do not measure actual waiting times, or demand, from consumers hailing taxis in the street. Our study of both Sheffield and Cambridge LAs showed that after quantity restrictions were removed the proportion of passengers hailing a taxi in the street increased substantially.

7.2 Maintaining the quality of service

· It is argued that without any limit on the quantity of vehicle licences the quality of both taxi vehicles and drivers will fall. Therefore consumers will receive a poorer quality of service.

· The argument is that a rise in taxi numbers will cause vehicle quality to fall as the only proprietors to survive would be those that run lower quality vehicles and skimp on maintenance at the expense of safety.


· With drivers, although removing quantity controls may lead to more entry into the profession it is felt that it might also lead to more exit if there is an oversupply of taxis, leading to the loss of experienced drivers.

· We reject these arguments on the basis that quality specifications and quantity limits are regulated separately. Given this, if quality controls are maintained, there is no evidence to show, and no reason to suppose, that the removal of quantity restrictions impact on quality.

· The key to maintaining quality in the market is to ensure that both driver and vehicle (and PHV operators) are subject to sound quality controls that are backed up by robust enforcement.

7.3 To ensure an adequate supply of taxis

· Another potential argument is that, if drivers are unable to earn enough from taxi work they will take on other jobs and only undertake taxi work at evenings and weekends, when it is most profitable, leading to a lack of availability of taxis outside these periods.

· Our analysis leads us to reject this argument, as does the experience of LAs that have derestricted. When quantity controls are removed taxi supply increases. The evidence on waiting times shows that availability increases at all times of day. In any event it would run counter to commonsense for the lifting of quantity controls to result in less supply.

7.4 To prevent drivers working longer hours

· It is argued that increasing the number of taxis may lead to a fall in the revenue of drivers. Drivers must therefore work longer hours to maintain the same income which may have public safety implications. Working excessively long hours may put the driver and their passenger at risk.

· There is no statistically significant difference, when allowing for the type of LA, in the number of taxi accidents between areas where no quantity controls exist and where they do.

· We do not consider that maintaining quantity controls (the OFT survey actually states quality controls but I feel sure that this is an error) to protect drivers’ incomes and hours of working is a valid argument on the facts. There are, in any case, alternative regulatory methods of preventing drivers working excessive hours to ensure driver and passenger safety.

7.5 To prevent overcrowding at ranks

· Where the amount of rank space provided is limited, it is argued that removing quantity controls would lead to rank overcrowding and illegal parking. This could especially be the case in urban centres or LAs where the market is centred on focal points such as railway stations and when little space is available for expansion.

· There is limited evidence to indicate that overcrowding has been a problem in LAs after the removal of quantity controls. Our case studies show that where this is an issue, the market often adjusts with a smaller proportion of taxis waiting at ranks and a greater proportion plying for hire on the street or expanding to serve different areas. In Bristol, after the removal of quantity controls, it was noted that taxis were serving more residential areas which had previously not had any service.

· While we accept that potential rank overcrowding is an issue for LAs without quantity controls, in our view it can be managed. For example new ranks or temporary ranks to cover weekend and evening peaks may be created. Marshals could be used at peak times to help speed up traffic flow.

Officer Comment

· The present and future redevelopment of the city centre is causing and will continue to cause, for some years to come, some disruption of rank facilities in the city centre. Pedestrianisation and road narrowing will have a significant effect on where ranks can be provided and where taxis can stop to pick up and drop off. However, the provision of suitable ranks in suitable locations is a priority and Officers and representatives of the trades associations are being consulted on the matter.

· Taxis in Sheffield have traditionally been a mode of transport mainly for journeys from the city centre and from a limited number of locations eg supermarkets (during the day). Getting a taxi other than at these locations has largely been a matter of chance – flagging down a taxi on its return to the city centre.

· There is little evidence as yet to indicate whether there has been any significant movement away from the city centre ranks to service other areas but observations at ranks do not seem to indicate that there is much more of a problem of overcrowding at ranks than was the case during limitation.

7.6 To reduce traffic congestion, air pollution and encourage public transport use

Another set of arguments is that limiting the supply of taxis encourages use of public transport and reduces congestion and air pollution. Again we do not find these arguments supportable:

· Our consumer research shows that if customers are unable to get a taxi, they will generally not switch to public transport, nor to environmentally friendly and congestion reducing modes of transport, but would tend instead to use their car.

· Congestion and pollution caused by motor vehicles is a huge problem of which taxis are only a small part. These problems are already dealt with directly through fuel taxation and through initiatives such as congestion charging and pedestrianisation of city centres. Since taxis are often used in conjunction with other public transport (for example at the start and end of train journeys) or at times when other public transport is not available, restricting taxis could even decrease other public transport use.

· Our evidence and analysis suggest that limiting taxi numbers will not effectively address these issues.

Officer comment

It is a fairly common practice for those having a night out in the city centre to use public transport to the city and then to rely on a taxi to get them home. Where there is a shortage of taxis some people will choose to use their own car for both the inward and outward journey. This reduces usage of public transport, creates congestion and parking problems and may result in some people drink driving.

7.7 To protect licence shortage premiums.

It is argued that lifting quantity restrictions is unfair on those licence holders who have paid a licence shortage premium to enter the taxi market during times when quantity restrictions were in place, as they bear the burden of being unable to recoup this cost when they exit the market.

· The average licence shortage premium in areas where quantity restrictions apply is estimated at £16,500.

· In economic terms the premium value attached to vehicle licences in quantity restricted areas is an artificial one created by the constraints on the market caused by regulation. The premium value does not relate to any effort of the licence holder to improve service levels and quality, and therefore the licence holder has not “earned” it. Moreover, it is unofficial – it is unrecognised by statute, and legal ownership of the licence, and the licence plates attached to the taxi vehicle, remains at all times with the LA that issued them.

· Taxi licence holders in areas where quantity restrictions apply have been aware for some time that these could be lifted at any time by their LA.

· In our view the protection of certain taxi licence holders from a one off loss of rental value that could lawfully occur under existing legislation does not justify maintaining the market inefficiencies caused by taxi licence quantity restrictions.

Locally

In Sheffield it had long been the practice to review the taxi limitation policy every three years. Where the decision was to continue with a policy of limitation an unmet demand survey was then commissioned and a meeting of the Board after the results of the survey were known would determine whether the limit was to be increased.


8. Conclusion and recommendations.

· We conclude that quantity controls have a clear detrimental impact on the public which shows up in the following ways:

shifting consumers onto less preferred and/or suitable modes of transport;

increasing waiting times; and

compromising public safety.

· We have found no cogent rationale for quantity controls to balance against these detriments. Nonetheless, we have examined a number of arguments which have been advanced in the course of the study. We find each of these arguments to be unsupported by evidence and/or outweighed by the clear benefits of de-restriction.

· In our view, the existence of quantity controls causes consumer detriment and does not address any problems in the market that cannot be more effectively addressed by other means. We therefore conclude that the removal of quantity controls will benefit consumers, particularly through the higher availability of taxis and lower waiting times. In our
view, the best service to consumers will be achieved by enabling consumer demand, rather than regulations, to determine a level of taxi service supply that meets the needs of the public.

· We therefore recommend that the legislative provisions allowing licensing authorities to impose quantity controls should be repealed. In the meantime, we recommend that LAs with quantity controls remove them.

Appendix 2

Other Licensing Authorities


Birmingham (1300 HCVs)

Ceased limiting numbers in 1997.
Have reviewed policy since but no change.
No plans for a further review.
Do not think limitation could be successfully defended.

Newcastle (780 HCVs)

Do limit numbers.
Policy confirmed April 2005. Evidence to support limitation – “demand” survey + representations from Police. Legal challenge seems imminent – likely to rely on city centre congestion to support argument that the issuing of further licences would be detrimental to the public.

Liverpool (1,417 HCVs)

Do limit numbers.
Policy reviewed in March 2005, “demand” survey undertaken.
Ceased to limit numbers in early/mid 1980’s & issued a HCV licence to every licensee of the time (hence the odd number of licensed vehicles). Now have 1 HCV to 265 head of population (320% higher than Sheffield). Situation in Liverpool seems fairly unique as taxis are readily available all over the city (not just city centre) throughout the day and are a heavily used form of transport – people expect to be able to hail a taxi wherever they are in the city. The night time trade is catered for by second drivers of the licensed taxis. The decision to limit was taken to ensure a night time provision, the view being that if there was no limit in place then existing second drivers would licence their own vehicle and only work during the day when there is plenty of (easier) work.
Believe that they could successfully defend an appeal because of the number of licensed taxis which is much higher than anywhere else (per head of population).

Leeds (537 HCVs)

Do limit numbers. Have always limited numbers.
Recent Scrutiny Board consultation exercise to assess “unmet demand” determined that there was no significant unmet demand for taxi services and policy to limit retained. Will be reviewed again in two years.
Taxis work from the city centre. Very high number of PHVs (3,300) compared to HCVs. HCVs and PHVs very busy.

Leicester (318 HCVs)

Do limit numbers.
Decision to limit taken in 2002. Due to be reviewed this year after a survey has been undertaken.
Have 1300 + PHVs.

Coventry (c560 HCVs)

Do not limit numbers.
Ceased to limit numbers in 1997. 130 licensed taxis during limitation. Currently have c270 PHVs – much higher when taxi numbers limited.

Manchester (856 HCV’s)

Do limit numbers.

apparantly sheff had no limitation until 70's,so the old timers told me.

All potential taxi drivers were still working on the buses then, and nobody else wanted this job so not much need for a limit on a job no one wanted.