The Badge - June 2026

More trade stories than all the others put together

trade does us proud with hastings trip

Issue 314 June 2026

inside

REPORT MUST DO MORE THAN IDENTIFY PROBLEMS 16-17

BLACK CAB - FAMILY DRAMA HITS THE SCREENS

26-27

Page 11

'MEAN MACHINE' WINS COMMONWEALTH BELT 28

2

JUNE 2026

THE LCDC REFUSES TO SIT AND WATCH TRADE WITHER Published by The London Cab Drivers’ Club Ltd. China Walks, Suite 111, Black Prince Road, London, SE1 7SJ Telephone: 020 7394 5553 E-mail for membership enquiries: thelcdc@gmail.com Web: www.lcdc.cab Editor: Grant Davis The Badge is distributed free to the Licensed London Cab Trade.

For advertising enquiries please contact the office on 020 7394 5553 or E-mail: thelcdc@gmail.com All advertising in The Badge is accepted under our terms and conditions. These are available at the LCDC office. Before entering into any commitment, financial or otherwise, always remember to seek professional advice.

The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Editor or of the Management Committee of the London Cab Driver’s Club.

Contributions for publication are welcomed and should be sent to the Editor at the above address.

Printed by Iliffe Print. T: 01223 656500

As I write this, I've just returned from another wonderful day in Hastings with the Albany Taxi Charity. What a day it was.

The drivers – some featured on our front page – were, as ever, exemplary and a real credit to the trade and a great day was had by everyone.

You'll also see an article from an LCDC member asking why Steve Mc of the LTDA applauded the Mayor at MQT last week.

I share the sentiment. Steve and I have worked together and I respect him greatly, but on this issue – and others – we fundamentally disagree.

Taxi numbers are down 7,000 under the Mayor's watch. We've lost three years from our age limit, received limited financial support, and still face barriers to access in LTNs. The list goes on.

As Chairman of the LCDC, I know it may be safer to be seen "playing the game". But the game I see being played is one the taxi trade is losing.

On a brighter note, it's encouraging to see work levels picking up with the weather.

Grant Davis

JUNE 2026

3

ASKING FOR HANDOUTS TO BUY TAXIS IS JUST ACCEPTING PROPER REGULATION WON'T HAPPEN

When Steve McNamara stood up and asked the Mayor of London to reinstate grants for taxi drivers purchasing LEVC vehicles, he likely believed he was helping the trade.

Asking for a grant is itself an admission that the trade is in trouble.

Mr McNamara may not have intended to say so, but that is exactly how it reads.

The irony is striking.

In reality, he exposed the scale of the crisis facing it.

For years, drivers have been told that the trade is strong, resilient and secure. Yet when given the opportunity to address the Mayor directly, the message delivered amounted to this:

For years, the LTDA has presented itself as the leading voice of London's taxi trade, claiming to represent around 70% of licensed drivers. If that figure is accurate, Mr McNamara's words carry real weight — which is precisely why his intervention was so disappointing.

"Our members need financial help to buy their taxis."

That should concern every licensed taxi driver in London. A trade representative's role is not simply to seek subsidies. It is to identify and challenge the causes of decline.

Consider what was actually being asked.

A representative of London's taxi drivers stood before the Mayor and effectively said that drivers need public subsidy simply to acquire the vehicle their job requires. That is not the sign of a thriving industry.

It is an admission that the trade's economics no longer work.

If the trade is struggling because regulation is not being applied consistently across the market, that is where the fight belongs. If drivers are losing out because enforcement is inadequate, that is where pressure should be directed.

The LEVC taxi represents a major financial commitment. Once finance costs are included, drivers can face costs approaching £100,000. The real question is not whether a grant would be welcome. Of course it would. The real question is why one is needed at all.

If the trade were healthy, drivers would be able to replace their vehicles through normal earnings.

If they cannot, something is fundamentally broken.

The contradiction is impossible to ignore. If the trade is healthy, grants are unnecessary. If grants are necessary, the trade is not healthy.

There is no third option.

By asking for public subsidy to purchase LEVC vehicles, the LTDA has acknowledged what many drivers have been saying for years: the economics of the trade are under severe strain.

Yet rather than challenge the causes of that decline, Mr McNamara chose to ask the very political establishment responsible for transport policy to subsidise its consequences.

If Transport for London is failing to enforce the law between taxis and private hire operators, that is where the argument should be focused.

That is not a plan to rebuild the trade. It is an admission that the trade can no longer sustain itself under the current regulatory model.

should dominate any discussion with the Mayor and Transport for London.

The central problem facing the trade is not a lack of grants. It is the regulatory environment in which drivers are expected to operate.

Why has driver income been squeezed?

For years, drivers have raised concerns about the enforcement of private hire regulation, the application of fit and proper requirements, consumer protection obligations, equality duties and broader compliance failures. Whatever one's view of these concerns individually, they go to the heart of whether London's transport market is being regulated fairly and consistently.

These are the questions that

Why are taxi drivers struggling?

Why are fewer people entering the trade?

Why does a taxi driver now require public assistance simply to buy the vehicle needed to earn a living?

Why are trade representatives discussing subsidies rather than the reasons subsidies are supposedly required?

These are the questions a trade leader should be asking. Instead, we get requests for grants.

Instead, the LTDA appears to have accepted the symptoms while ignoring the causes. That is not a strategy for recovery. It is a strategy for managed decline.

London's taxi trade deserves leadership willing to challenge why drivers are struggling, not leadership that simply asks for money once the damage has been done.

If Steve McNamara genuinely believes grants are now essential to sustain London's taxi trade, then he has effectively admitted that the trade is no longer capable of standing on its own commercial foundations.

That raises an obvious question After years of claiming to represent the interests of drivers, how has the trade reached this position?

Where are we as a trade and what do we need to do to fix it?

4

What London drivers say about

JUNE 2026

TM

London Drivers Are Ready For Change “I really enjoyed taking this for a spin, fast, smooth and a joy to drive. I was even flagged down on Waterloo Road! I know some drivers will say it does not look like a “cab” but we have about 5 different taxis on the streets now, and the public would love it. I’d like to buy one when they come to London.”

Azizz

“I must admit I wasn’t too sure about this until I drove it. I think having a brand new cab on the streets will only be a good thing. I must say it drove very smoothly and I know the public would love it with the massive glass roof, the vision is first class.”

“Do I have to give it back? This is the future in my opinion, modern, smooth, spacious, everything we need to do our job in the 21st Century. I sometimes work the airport, and this would be just the ticket, loads of room for passengers and luggage, fantastic. I for one think it would be a major asset for the trade.”

“I loved it, absolutely loved it, I want to know when TFL will pass this. I think many drivers once they get behind the wheel will be of the same opinion. I love the driving position, the big windows and mirrors, the view for the driver is very good. The space for 6 passengers in the back is a massive plus for the trade in my opinion.”

Tony

Noel

Johnny

It’s time to choose change.

Find out more about MAXiCab at CabDirect.com/London

JUNE 2026

'LACK OF WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXIS FROM LEVC DEMANDS ALTERNATIVES'

Seb Dance Deputy Mayor for Transport City Hall Kamal Chunchie Way London E16 1ZE

5

Michael Glassman Managing Director Colts Cabs 99 Dunbridge Street London E2 6JG

TFL ‘BIASES’ NEED SCRUTINY 1st May 2026

Sent by email to: seb.dance@london.gov.uk

cc.the MrAugust Andy Lord , TfL Commissioner andy.lord@tfl.co.uk In edition of Transport organisations like the LCDC, potentially favouring the legal framework for London’s cancellations if drivers are The Badge, the LCDC LTDA, Unite, RMT, and commercial interests of app regulated taxi service. not compensated from the reported that a member UCG, where TfL stated: companies? moment of booking reminded Transport for “…case law has determined By treating taxis and private acceptance, as case law and Dear Mr Dance London (TfL) through a that a hiring for a London taxi These companies, also hire vehicles similarly and the London Cab Order allow. court that takes place the licensed by is TfLpresenting as private the most allowing app challenge companiesfor to my company and numerous The claim inability of traditional LEVC to supply new TXewhere wheelchair accessible taxis serious taxi laws are still in force. booking is accepted, not hire operators and contribute do the same, TfL may be Moreover, TfL's PSED duty other taxi fleet operators. This situation is unprecedented in its severity and therefore I am requesting your intervention to: (a) clarify LEVC’s where the passenger is substantial revenue through acting unlawfully? includes maintaining current capacity to fulfil orders for new taxis, and In response to this claim, picked up.” licensing fees, could this be a regulated fare limits. Added TfL’s legal department conflict interest? taxis a publicstandards. fees, such as technology (b) instruct TfL to identify and approve alternative taxi models thatofmeet London’s rigorousSince safety andperform accessibility clarified a key issue raised by This 2017 statement was service, the app companies charges, high-demand fees, our member: whether a taxi related to a case involving TfL has stated that it does that dispatch them also surge pricing may make My own taxi fleet comprises approximately 1,000 vehicles, and under normal circumstances, I would expect to replaceand between 100 and 200 driver may start However, the meter whenyellow badge taxi drivers30 new not regulate apps,in anMarch perform a public taxi5unaffordable for taxis annually.

I attempted to order vehicles for taxi delivery this year, I was function, informed that a only could be supplied upon accepting an forthat Computer Cab,couldassertion that seems under the passengers, and when questioned on why working they said is all they supply however they did find thereby anotherfalling 5 of which had to be vulnerable white in colour and not immediate whether intended to to deflect which TfL Other is tasked including wheelchair users ideal . Theapp-based situation has sinceaddressing deteriorated, with they no commitment at all meet my ongoingPSED, requirements. operators have also reported significant being offered one or two white taxis, is whollywith inadequate. booking.

TfLdifficulties, replied: with some were plying for hireonly in the responsibility forwhich protecting enforcing. and disabled individuals who green badge sector. Given both the public and taxi may already be financially Thehas lackalready of newconfirmed vehicle supply freeze used many fleet operations and garages. TfL’s “TfL thatwill TfLalso understands that taxi availability drivers. and will therefore bankrupt The PSED mandates that disadvantaged. continued endorsement of a monopoly in the market is now threatening its ability to provide and accessible transport for disabled people to you in correspondence hiring occurs at the booking TfLsafe eliminate discrimination, and others in2024, London. dated 21 May that a location, it should also However, case law harassment, victimization, In conclusion, TfL’s claim of hackney carriage driver may recognize that Section 39 of classifies taxis as public and practices that endanger non-regulation over apps For fleet on operators such as myself, the inability to 1934 source replacement taxis is causing reduction in fleet size, vehicles are retired dueits not switch the taximeter the London Cab Order transport, unlike private hire athe public. Therefore, TfLas older seems disingenuous given to 12 and 15-year age limits, with no suitable replacements available.

Colts Cabs may withstand these challenges for a few years thanks to fleet prior to the point at which the permits the meter to start vehicles, which are cannot permit app statutory duty to safeguard size, but smaller operators and garages will become entirelycategorized unviable. While my businesscompanies may decline but survive in the medium-term, manya form passenger is picked up, from the acceptance point. as private or drivers to public welfare in taxis, others will not, and the consequences will be felt soon. when it is being pre-booked Section 39 of the Cab Order transport. As a result, cancel bookings, which could of public transport distinct as a hackney carriage.

1934 specifies: “The driver of Section 149 of the Equality leave passengers, from private hire vehicles.

No clear answersthat arethis cominga from LEVC andstart the the current vague assurances are of little value to businesses thatonare rapidly approaching a Again, we consider motor cab shall Act 2010 requires TfL to fulfil particularly those relying critical point of survival. I therefore request a response whether LEVC has in fact ceased production, or is in the process of ceasing production, of point is clear sooner thanthat meets its Public Sector services is a pressing for the TXe taxi and and,does if so,not when ataximeter suitableno replacement the CoF willEquality be launched.contracted In the absence of in a arobust andThere satisfactory plan,need I urge require a declaration from the when the cab is hired or at Duty (PSED) when third vulnerable situation if drivers government intervention to you to give serious consideration to the new Ford taxi, which is wheelchair accessible, more affordable, and already licensed in other major UK High such later time as the driver parties, such as app cancel the app job in Favor address TfL’s apparent cities.Court before that is the case.” thinks fit.” companies, dispatch taxis. of a street hail. shortcomings and potential Therefore, TfL’s claim that it biases that continue to affect I look forward to hearing from you This statement from TfL This inconsistency raises does not regulate apps TfL’s policy requiring drivers the London taxi industry. appears to contradict a 2017 questions about TfL’s taxi appears misleading; it has a to start the meter only when Yours sincerely statement made during a and private hire department? statutory duty to ensure that the passenger is picked up TfL has been contacted for trade meeting with Drivers are asking if they are these apps operate within the may lead to app booking comment.

Michael Glassman

L.C.D.C LEADERS NOT FOLLOWERS

Stop talking about it and JOIN!

JUNE 2026

7

HOW TAXI TRADE MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED

BY YEARS OF PRIVATE HIRE VAT AVOIDANCE This month’s Court of Appeal ruling against Bolt has brought renewed attention to a long running issue within the private hire industry. Yet the real story is not the judgment itself.

The more important question is whether London’s taxi trade spent years competing against private hire operators that benefited from a VAT treatment which enabled lower fares and accelerated market growth at the expense of licensed taxis.

The government moved to close this VAT route in 2025, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves announcing measures designed to prevent private hire operators from using the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) to reduce their VAT liabilities. However, closing the loophole does not answer a more fundamental question, what damage may already have been done?

The Court of Appeal’s decision in favour of HMRC against Bolt is significant because it reinforces the government’s position that the scheme was being used incorrectly.

The dispute is reported to be worth around £190 million to Bolt alone, while Uber faces a separate VAT dispute reportedly worth approximately £1.4 billion. Such figures illustrate the enormous sums involved and the potential competitive advantage that may have existed over many years.

Crucially, passengers were not presented with

fare, then it is legitimate to ask whether the market was distorted for many years before TfL, government and HMRC fully addressed the issue.

The PH legislation declaration and legal clarifications that emerged around 2021 and 2022 did not create new law. Rather, they clarified how existing law should apply. If that is correct, then London’s taxi trade may have spent two decades competing against businesses that may have been required to charge VAT on the full fare.

a separate VAT charge.

Had operators been required to account for VAT on the full fare from the outset, they would have faced a choice, absorb the cost themselves or pass some or all of it on through higher fares. Either way, the economics of the private hire market would have looked very different.

It is difficult to believe that VAT liabilities running into hundreds of millions, or even billions, would have had no impact on pricing. Had fares been higher, some passengers would undoubtedly have made different choices.

Many journeys that went to private hire vehicles may instead have gone to licensed taxis. Every journey lost represents income that never reached London’s cab drivers.

To understand the issue, it is necessary to

look at how private hire operators were permitted to structure their businesses.

For years, many operators acted merely as agents, introducing passengers to selfemployed drivers.

However, a series of legal developments culminated in the courts making clear that London private hire operators contract with passengers as principals rather than agents. In simple terms, the operator is supplying the journey to the passenger.

That distinction matters because a principal is generally required to account for VAT on the full value of the supply rather than merely on a commission.

Once operators were recognised as principals, significant VAT liabilities potentially arose.

Rather than accounting for VAT on the full fare,

some operators sought to rely on the Tour Operators Margin Scheme. TOMS was originally designed for travel businesses selling package holidays and similar services.

By using the scheme, operators argued that VAT should only be accounted for on their margin (commission) rather than the entire fare paid by the passenger.

The government ultimately disagreed and moved to close this route.

The litigation has centred on whether operators were entitled to use TOMS in the first place.

For London’s taxi trade, however, the key issue is not the technical detail of VAT law but the effect on competition.

If operators were always required by ph legislation to act as principals, and if principal status should have resulted in VAT being charged on the full

The consequences could have been profound. Lower fares help attract passengers.

More passengers generate more data, more driver recruitment, greater network effects and increased market share.

Once established, those advantages become selfreinforcing.

The issue is therefore not simply whether HMRC eventually receives additional tax revenue. It is whether years of lower private hire pricing, made possible by a disputed VAT treatment and not enforcing existing Private Hire legislation altered the competitive landscape of London’s transport market.

The loophole may now be closed. The litigation may eventually conclude. But for many within the taxi trade, the unanswered question remains, if private hire operators had been required to account for VAT correctly from the beginning, how many passengers would have chosen a taxi instead?

8

JUNE 2026

Transport for London offers Knowledge candidates year of free Santander rides

Transport for London (TfL) is opening up Santander Cycle access to Knowledge of London candidates while they prepare for their Knowledge test by offering free annual subscriptions that provide unlimited 60 minute rides across the capital.

From 20 June, candidates will be able to request use of the cycle hire scheme, providing a cost effective alternative to travelling by car or motorcycle during their studies. With more than 1,300 candidates currently working towards the Knowledge, the new offer aims to reduce the cost of training, while also helping candidates build practical experience on the roads by learning central London’s road network more efficiently.

David Eddington, Head of Cycle Hire at TfL, said: "Becoming

Cycles, we’re giving Knowledge students a flexible, affordable way to get out on the road and build the real-world experience they need. " Peter Laszlo, Black Cab driver who passed The Knowledge last year: "I be-gan my study for The Knowledge using Santander Cycles to complete my first 80 runs so this is a fantastic new benefit. Cycling offers clear advantages, it allows access to routes restricted to taxis, and the flexibility to push through temporary road closures. It also makes ‘pointing’ easier, as the bike can be taken onto the pavement. On top of that, it’s a great way to stay fit while learning the Knowledge."

a licensed London taxi driver requires an incredible level of dedication and commitment, and

we want to make that journey as accessible as possible. By offering free access to Santander

The initiative has been developed through collaboration between TfL’s Cycle Hire and Licensing and Regulation teams.

The accountant in your pocket

JUNE 2026

11

A WONDERFUL DAY IN HASTINGS!

On Monday the 15th June, myself and around 60 other drivers turned up early to the Car Park of Charlton FC to attend the Albany trip to Hastings.

stairs to the second floor and receive a very, very nice English breakfast... "that`'l keep you going" a driver said to me in the queue and you know what, he was right.

I must say, if you haven't been, then have a think about coming next year, it's a fantastic day and one that you won't forget in a hurry. Once you put the stickers on the Cab, you can then take the

The children then started to arrive and the day really got underway getting them all onboard was like a military operation and again the Albany Charity marshalls were superb.

With a police motorcycle escort, the cabs swished out of the Valley and we headed for the A2 in a taxi cavalcade, with other motorists beeping their horns in recognition of the fantastic effort from the drivers. A pit stop half way and then back in the Cabs and on we went... a bit like the "Jolly Boys Outing" on Fools and Horses, the drivers parked up and everyone made their way to the

Hastings beach and amusements.

I must say, I did succumb to scampi and chips, thank you Steve Mc, but in return I reciprocated by buying the lovely ice -creams...

2 scoops and all.

Then we all met up at the car park and made our way to the White Rock Theatre, where the children were treated

to food, drinks and entertainment whilst some drivers took in the sea air on benches along the front... marvellous!

Once finished, we all got into our cabs and took our guests home or wherever they wanted to be dropped off with their own goodie bags.

Not just a lovely day... but a Great day, roll on next year.

JUNE 2026

Come Out From Behind the Wheel Thirty-five years behind the wheel has taught me a lot about London, people and the taxi trade. It has also taught me something else: the wheel keeps you company, but it doesn’t keep you connected.

Ours is one of the most independent jobs in the world. That’s one of the reasons many of us love it. But independence can easily slide into isolation, and before you know it your world has become a cycle of home, rank, fare, home again, with very little human connection in between.

Too many of us fall into the same rut: home to rank, rank to fare, fare to home again, day after day, with barely a proper conversation in between that isn’t through a partition or a phone screen.

It’s an easy trap to fall into.

The job is solitary by nature.

You’re sealed off in your own little office on wheels for ten, twelve hours at a stretch, and the only voices you hear are the ones giving you a destination and, occasionally, their unsolicited opinion on the quickest way to get there.

After a long shift the last thing you fancy is more talking. You just want to get home, put your feet up, and switch off. I get it. I’ve done it myself more times than I’d like to admit.

But here’s the thing.

That’s exactly the problem.

Cabbies are some of the best company you’ll find anywhere. Decades of dealing with the public give you a stock of stories that would fill a book, opinions on absolutely everything from the congestion charge to the state of the nation, and the kind of dry, deadpan humour you

13 only pick up from years of having every type of passenger imaginable sat behind you. Yet so many of us go weeks, sometimes months, without using any of that on another human being who isn’t a fare.

We talk for a living, and somehow we still end up isolated.

That’s why, on Cab Chat, we made a point of bringing back our meets.

Not webinars, not Zoom calls, not another podcast episode to half-listen to while you’re driving. Actual, real, sit-down-in-a-room meets, where you get out of the cab, switch the meter off in your head for an hour, and talk to people who understand the job without you having to explain a word of it. No agenda, no guest speaker, no minutes taken. Just cabbies being cabbies, having a laugh, putting the world to rights, and reminding themselves that there’s a whole trade full of people going through exactly the same thing they are.

We started with fish and chips, because it’s hard to go wrong with fish and chips, and because there’s something properly British and properly taxi trade about gathering round a table with a plate of cod and chips and a pot of tea, talking nonsense for a couple of hours. It became a regular fixture, the second Tuesday of every month, and it’s been going from strength to strength.

You don’t need to book anything fancy, you don’t need to bring anything other than yourself and an appetite, and you certainly don’t need to have a story prepared. Just turn up. The conversation takes care of itself; it always does when you put a room full of cabbies together.

Off the back of that, we’ve now started a Pie and Mash meet as well, because variety is the spice of life and not everybody’s a chip shop man through and through. The dates for those are still being finalised, but

we’ll be announcing them on the show and across our channels as soon as they’re locked in, so keep an ear out.

While I’m on the subject of getting out and putting food in front of you with other cabbies around, I can’t write this without mentioning the shelters. We’re lucky enough to still have thirteen

What a lot of drivers forget, especially the younger ones who’ve never had reason to stop at one, is that these places aren’t just bits of heritage to look at; they’re still working caffs, and good ones at that. A bacon sarnie and a mug of tea at a price that won’t make your eyes water, sometimes a proper fry-up or a breakfast roll if you catch the right shelter at

more of these little green huts than we already have.

So next time you’re passing one, on the rank or near it, do yourself a favour and pull in. You’ll get a decent feed at a fair price, you’ll likely find another driver or two already in there to pass the time of day with, and you’ll be doing your bit to keep a genuine piece of taxi trade history standing for the next generation of drivers as well.

Every one of us knows a driver who’s gone quiet over the years. Maybe they’ve stopped coming to the ranks they used to work. Maybe they don’t seem quite themselves. Sometimes all it takes is a cup of tea and a conversation to make a difference. The taxi trade has always looked after its own, but that only works if we’re actually seeing each other.

of the old green cabmen’s shelters dotted around London, and if you’ve never made use of one, you’re missing a trick.

They go all the way back to 1875, when a newspaper editor by the name of Captain George Armstrong got caught in a storm and couldn’t find a cab for love nor money, because every driver in the area had taken refuge in the pub.

Rather than just complain about it, he rounded up some well-off friends and established what became the Cabmen’s Shelter Fund, building little green huts at ranks across the capital where drivers could get a hot meal and a non-alcoholic drink without having to leave the horse, and later the cab, unattended.

At their peak there were over sixty of them. Only thirteen survive now, every one of them listed and protected, and the same charity that built them is still keeping them going nearly a hundred and fifty years later.

the right time, and you’re sat in a hut that’s been feeding cab drivers since before any of us were born.

The shelter at Pont Street’s well known for its breakfast roll. The one up

by Lord’s, the one they call the Chapel, has had the same keeper looking after it for the best part of two decades, and he’ll tell you it’s as much a little community hub as it is a place to get a cuppa.

That’s exactly the point I’m making about getting out of the cab. These huts were built so cabbies wouldn’t be sat alone in the rain eating out of a paper bag on their lap, and they still do that job today if we let them.

The trouble is, with the way the trade’s gone, with apps and online ordering and drivers grabbing something from wherever’s nearest rather than wherever’s best, fewer of us are stopping in. Some shelters are ticking along nicely, others are struggling for footfall, and the last thing any of us want is to lose

For those who haven’t caught up with Cab Chat itself yet, we’ve been running for a good few years now, covering everything that matters to the licensed trade, the rule changes, the rank disputes, the rogue private hire stories, the bits of trade history that are slowly being forgotten, and a fair bit of nonsense besides.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or whatever podcast app you happen to use; just search for Cab Chat and we’ll be there. We’re also on YouTube, where you can watch the shows as well as listen to them, at cabchat. uk. And if you want to keep up with everything we’re doing, including the meets, the guest line-up, and all the latest from the show, head over to cabchatshow.uk So pull into a shelter.

Come along to a meet. Sit down with a fellow cabbie and put the world to rights for half an hour.

The meter can wait.

The conversation might be exactly what you needed.

ComCab Just Got Better We’ve launched a brand-new ComCab consumer app - built to bring more customers to you

More visibility. More bookings. More opportunities to keep moving across London.

It’s a smarter way to connect with passengers - and a stronger way to grow the ComCab family.

0207 432 1600 | join@comcab.com

Join our driver waiting list today

JUNE 2026

15

16

JUNE 2026

REPORT MUST DO MORE THA

The publication of the Transport Select Committee’s report into taxi and private hire licensing represents the most significant Parliamentary examination of the industry for many years.

Following evidence from licensing authorities, regulators, operators, trade representatives and drivers, the Committee concluded that the current framework is “unfit for purpose in the modern era” and criticised the fact that “successive governments have sat on worthwhile reforms without acting.”

Those are not minor observations.

They amount to an acknowledgement that many of the problems affecting the industry today have been known about for years but have not been addressed.

For London taxi drivers, the obvious question is whether the report genuinely addresses the concerns that have been raised repeatedly over the last decade or whether it merely identifies some of the symptoms while avoiding the more difficult underlying issues.

One area where the Committee appears to have accepted many of the trade’s concerns is out-of-area licensing.

The report states that MPs heard “compelling evidence that the scale of out-of-area working has undermined public confidence in the sector and made enforcement harder.” This is a significant finding because concerns about out-of-area licensing have frequently been dismissed as protectionism or

resistance to competition.

Instead, the Committee concluded that the issue has become a genuine problem affecting accountability, enforcement and public confidence.

A second concern raised repeatedly by London’s taxi trade concerns the gradual erosion of the distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles.

Historically, the distinction was clear.

The Committee also acknowledged concerns regarding licence shopping and the growing disconnect between licensing authorities and the areas in which drivers actually work. It notes the extraordinary growth in licences issued by certain authorities and recognises concerns that drivers may seek licences from authorities perceived to offer lower costs, easier administration or less burdensome requirements.

Taxis were permitted to ply for hire, accept immediate custom from the street and operate from ranks. Private hire vehicles were permitted to undertake only pre-booked journeys arranged through a licensed operator. The distinction was not merely administrative. It formed the foundation of the entire regulatory system and justified the additional obligations placed upon taxi drivers.

MPs further recommended that Government should develop a plan “which incentivises drivers to operate and remain licensed in their local areas.”

This recommendation represents an implicit acknowledgement that the existing system is no longer functioning as originally intended.

However, while the Committee clearly recognises the problem, it stops short of recommending the most obvious solution. It does not propose ending out-of-area licensing, nor does it recommend restoring a clear link between licensing and the area in which a driver predominantly operates.

In that respect, the report identifies the consequences of the current system but leaves unresolved the question of whether the structure itself remains viable.

The Committee acknowledges that technological change has fundamentally altered the market and repeatedly refers to the impact of app-based operators. MPs accept that existing legislation has failed to keep pace with technological developments and that modern booking platforms have created challenges that were not envisaged when much of the legislation was drafted.

The report recognises that the current framework struggles to accommodate a market in which passengers can summon a vehicle within minutes through a smartphone application.

Yet this is also an area where the report appears hesitant to follow its own analysis to its logical conclusion.

While it recognises that technology has transformed the market, it avoids addressing the central question that

many taxi drivers believe lies at the heart of the problem.

If app-based private hire has effectively created an on-demand transport service operating in direct competition with taxis, should it continue to be regulated under a framework originally designed for traditional pre-booked services? The Committee acknowledges the challenge but does not fully address the implications.

Accessibility represents another area where the report reflects concerns long raised by the taxi trade. MPs place considerable emphasis on the importance of wheelchair-accessible transport and recommend that Government publish a national plan to increase the availability of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The Committee also supports mandatory disability awareness training and highlights the importance of accessible

JUNE 2026

17

AN IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS avoids examining how that public good should be funded or protected.

Perhaps the greatest weakness in the report concerns the economics of the market itself.

Throughout the inquiry the Committee heard evidence regarding driver earnings, working hours, financial pressures and concerns about sustainability.

MPs acknowledge that many drivers face long hours and declining earnings. The report also recognises concerns regarding oversupply in parts of the market.

What is striking, however, is the extent to which the Committee avoids confronting the issue directly. There is relatively little discussion of whether unrestricted growth in vehicle numbers has itself become a source of wider problems.

transport for disabled passengers.

These recommendations are welcome. However, they expose a contradiction which the report never fully resolves. For decades London’s taxi trade has been required to provide universal wheelchair accessibility as a condition of licensing.

Drivers have invested in specialist vehicles, accepted higher operating costs and complied with

obligations that go far beyond those required of most private hire operators.

The Committee recognises the importance of accessibility but does not fully address the question of how those obligations can remain sustainable if operators competing for the same passengers are not subject to equivalent requirements. The report identifies accessibility as a public good but largely

Congestion, falling earnings, increased competition for work and pressure on standards are all discussed to varying degrees, yet the relationship between these issues and market saturation is never examined in detail.

The result is a report that acknowledges the consequences of oversupply without seriously considering whether oversupply itself has become part of the problem.

This omission matters because many of the concerns raised by taxi drivers cannot be separated from the wider economics of the market.

Standards, accessibility, vehicle quality and professional competence all depend upon viability.

A system may impose obligations on drivers, but those obligations become increasingly difficult to sustain if the economic foundations of the trade are steadily weakened.

The report acknowledges the symptoms but avoids engaging with this broader question.

The Committee is at its strongest when discussing regulatory failure. Its conclusion that the existing framework is “unfit for purpose in the modern era” is unusually blunt by Parliamentary standards.

Equally significant is its criticism that “successive governments have sat on worthwhile reforms without acting.”

These statements reflect a recognition that many of the challenges facing the industry today are not new. Concerns about licensing consistency, technological change, enforcement and regulatory fragmentation have been raised repeatedly over many years.

The Committee also supports the creation of a national database and stronger informationsharing arrangements between licensing authorities. These proposals have the potential to improve enforcement and accountability. Likewise, its support for national minimum standards reflects a recognition that significant inconsistencies currently exist across the licensing system.

Nevertheless, the report leaves several fundamental questions unanswered. It recognises that technology has transformed the market

but does not fully address the consequences for the traditional distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles.

It acknowledges the importance of accessibility without resolving how accessibility obligations should be sustained. It identifies problems arising from out-of-area licensing while stopping short of recommending structural reform. It discusses driver welfare and financial pressures while largely avoiding the question of market saturation.

Taken as a whole, the report represents an important step forward.

It validates a number of concerns that have been raised by London’s taxi trade for many years and provides a far more critical assessment of the current system than many previous reviews. Its findings on out-of-area licensing, regulatory fragmentation and legislative failure are particularly significant.

However, the report is ultimately stronger on diagnosis than prescription.

It identifies many of the industry’s problems with considerable clarity but is often less certain when it comes to proposing solutions. For that reason, the real test will not be the publication of the report itself but the legislation that follows.

The forthcoming Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Bill will determine whether Parliament’s findings lead to meaningful reform or simply become another chapter in a long history of reports that recognised the problems but failed to resolve them.

Mark White

MTD IS HERE

the accountant in your pocket

If you’ve been waiting for the right software - your wait has been worth it.

TRUSTED BY THE TRADE

The Licensed London Cabbies already using Tax Mouse love its simplicity.

No jargon, no spreadsheetjust a few taps between fares and your books are done.

HMRC RECOGNISED Fully authorised for 2026/27 MTD filing requirements

TOTAL SIMPLICITY

Log income & expenses in seconds. Edit or delete mistakes in one tap.

INSTANT VISIBILITY

See your running profit in realtime.

25 YEARS OF HISTORY Built by the team at United House who have been looking after the trade for over two decades.

YOUR FIRST YEAR:

100% FREE

Stay compliant without the cost, because as a driver, you’ve got enough overheads.

TAXI

USE

TAX MO

SCAN TO DOWNLOAD TAX MOUSE

Tax Mouse Ltd, United House, North Road, London N7 9DP

JUNE 2026

21

WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL CALLS ON TFL TO HALT PLANS FOR OXFORD STREET

Westminster City Council has asked Transport for London (TfL) to halt changes to bus stops on Oxford Street that are being implemented as part of the mayor's plan to make the thoroughfare pedestrian-only.

been rolled out".

Council leader Paul Swaddle accused TfL of "a stitch-up, plain and simple" after the measures were advertised the day after the May local elections, when all eyes were on the results.

The western stretch of Oxford Street between Orchard Street and Great Portland Street will be closed to private vehicles, buses, taxis, cycles, scooters and pedicabs.

He said the mayor and TfL "tried to force through permanent changes to the most famous shopping street in the world, the day after an election, in a consultation so quiet that the people whose livelihoods depend on the street never even knew it was happening.

"That's not how you treat

The pedestrianisation plan was approved only after Sir Sadiq Khan, following the council's rejection of the proposals, obtained government permission to assume planning powers.

the nation's high street."

The transport authority published traffic orders affecting more than 20 streets with the aim of pedestrianising the street later this year.

effectively once the pedestrianisation has

A spokesperson for TfL said it followed the standard process for making traffic orders which included "publishing a notice and sending emails to statutory consultees such as Westminster City Council".

Sir Sadiq has claimed his plans will help boost the local economy and rejuvenate the area.

The £150m scheme has come in for criticism over fears about the impact on crime, accessibility and traffic.

The Local Democracy Reporting Service said the council was expecting more notifications as the scheme progresses, providing future opportunities to respond.

TfL said the orders included changes to bus stands and other infrastructure "to ensure the traffic network can continue to operate

Courtesy of the BBC

Sadiq Khan has pledged on social media, to engage directly with the taxi trade and unions to protect livelihoods.

He said in the Highways news, automation will not be introduced at the expense of jobs.

(who used to write under the name of Semtex) said in his final post on my website The Anderson Shelter, which later moved over to Facebook and became Taxi Leaks…

So where do we go from here….to be honest I can’t see any worthwhile resistance to this introduction of driverless hire vehicles.

But this is the Mayor who pledged to be the renaissance of the London Taxi Trade, yet under his mayoralty we’ve seen the numbers of licensed taxi drivers drop by a third.

He also reduced the age limits of euro 4/5 Taxis, and we are now seeing their disappearance at an unprecedented rate.

Because the older, cheaper to rent vehicles are disappearing fast, many older drivers who worked mainly part time, are finding it unaffordable

Westminster does not

have the power to reject TfL's traffic orders.

But the one thing we have to fight to protect at all costs is our iconic name "TAXI." We have to fight tooth and nail to stop our name being associated in any way with these driverless mini cabs. to rent newer vehicles and so have given up the job.

But then most of what’s happened to the trade

over the last 15 years was predicted in the Project Horizon Files, yet few people took any notice of their publication.

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: As an old friend of mine

"Although we had a few wonderful drivers who led from the front and turned up at every protest, they were not supported by the main body of the trade…

When the final battle for our survival comes, you will find all those capable of leading the troops from the front, will have left the battlefield through consistent lack of support over the years."

As Pastor Martin Neimoller famously said in his 1946 poem: "And when they came for me there was no one left to fight for me."

22

Heathrow Taxis: How Much More Evidence Do We Need?

I attended the latest Heathrow Taxi Trade Liaison Meeting remotely after a long shift and very little sleep. Joining via Teams was better than not attending at all, but some of the discussion was difficult to hear and, if I am honest, by the end of the meeting I was left with a feeling that has become increasingly familiar over the years.

We are still discussing many of the same issues.

The names around the table change. The titles change. The technology changes.

The meeting dates change. Yet somehow the conversations remain remarkably similar. We discuss infrastructure, barriers, welfare facilities, signage, charging provision, communications, touting, congestion and operational reliability. We raise concerns. Minutes are produced. Actions are recorded. Then, a few months later, many of the same issues reappear in a slightly different form.

Before the June meeting I submitted fifteen agenda items.

None were designed to create controversy. They covered matters that drivers raise repeatedly and which have appeared in previous meetings and previous minutes. I asked for updates on touting, congestion, charging infrastructure, welfare facilities, communications, hotel access

JUNE 2026 been discussed for years.

Touting has been discussed for years.

The details change, but the pattern remains remarkably consistent.

That is why I no longer believe the problem is simply operational.

I believe it is structural.

Airport Matters

By Mark White arrangements, barrier reliability, commercial proposals, accountability and progress against previously agreed actions.

I also asked Heathrow to identify who was responsible for particular issues and when drivers could expect delivery.

That should not be controversial.

It should be normal.

If a matter is raised in March and discussed again in April, it is perfectly reasonable to ask what progress has been made by June.

What struck me after the meeting was not what was discussed, but what was not discussed.

The Heathrow taxi trade appears increasingly willing to discuss how Heathrow operates whilst showing far less interest in where Heathrow is going.

The latest Taxi Feeder Park figures tell a story that should concern every driver. In 2024 the feeder park recorded 899,887 movements. In 2025 that figure fell to 779,056.

More than 120,000 movements disappeared in a single year. Every one of those movements

represents a passenger.

Every passenger represents a fare. Every fare represents income.

If any business lost the equivalent of 120,000 customer transactions in a year, management would be asking serious questions. They would be analysing customer behaviour, examining competitors, reviewing strategy and identifying ways to recover lost market share.

drivers were being turned away from the canteen before the advertised closing time.

Staff reportedly stopped serving customers around 9.45pm despite the facility being advertised as open until 10pm because they needed time to cash up before the end of their shift.

Yet within the Heathrow taxi trade there appears to be remarkably little urgency.

It is not.

We continue discussing the administration of the system whilst the market itself appears to be changing around us.

That concerns me far more than most of the issues that dominate liaison meetings.

Take welfare facilities as an example. During the meeting I again raised concerns about toilets and the canteen.

Driver welfare has been discussed repeatedly over recent years. We have heard assurances. We have seen commitments.

We have had discussions about standards and improvements. Yet only days after the meeting

On its own, this might appear a relatively minor incident.

It is symptomatic of a wider problem.

The issue is not whether a driver gets a sandwich at 9.50pm. The issue is why concerns repeatedly raised through formal channels continue to reappear. It is why drivers increasingly feel that issues are discussed rather than resolved.

The same pattern can be found elsewhere.

Electric vehicle charging has been discussed for years.

Signage has been discussed for years.

Congestion has been discussed for years.

Barrier reliability has

The Heathrow taxi trade currently has multiple representative organisations. Each has its own history, priorities and membership.

Each performs a role.

Yet the reality is that the organisations have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to act collectively on the scale required. Some representatives attend regularly. Some contribute more than others.

Some are absent.

Some focus on issues that many drivers would regard as peripheral when compared with the challenges facing the wider trade. Meanwhile, the bigger questions often remain unanswered.

Who is responsible for growing the Heathrow taxi market?

Who is responsible for increasing passenger numbers?

Who is responsible for developing a long-term strategy?

Who is responsible for marketing Heathrow taxis?

Who is responsible for ensuring that London taxis remain competitive in an increasingly aggressive transport market?

The answer appears to be nobody.

And that is the problem.

The Heathrow taxi trade has representation.

What it does not have is stewardship.

JUNE 2026

23

Those are not the same thing.

Representative organisations exist to express the views of members and challenge decisions that affect them. Stewardship is different. Stewardship involves responsibility for outcomes. It requires somebody to take ownership of the future rather than simply comment upon the present.

For years I have argued that Heathrow requires a single properly constituted, democratically accountable, drivercontrolled and notfor-profit organisation capable of taking responsibility for the Heathrow taxi business as a whole. Not because I believe all existing organisations should disappear. Not because I imagine everyone will suddenly agree with each other. But because the current structure has failed to produce the strategic leadership that the trade increasingly needs.

This is not a criticism of individuals. It is an observation about outcomes.

The evidence is sitting in front of us.

The feeder park figures are falling.

The same operational issues continue to reappear.

The trade remains fragmented.

The market becomes more competitive every year.

And Heathrow Airport Limited continues to make decisions based upon Heathrow’s interests rather than the interests of self-employed taxi drivers.

That last point is

particularly important.

Many drivers still appear to believe that Heathrow Airport Limited should somehow solve these problems for us. Heathrow will listen. Heathrow will engage. Heathrow will occasionally invest.

Heathrow will sometimes accommodate requests from the trade. However, Heathrow is not our regulator, our trade association or our representative body.

Heathrow is a commercial airport operator.

Its priorities are not necessarily our priorities.

Nor should we expect them to be.

The interests of a commercial airport and the interests of thousands of independent sole traders will sometimes overlap and sometimes

diverge. That is simply reality.

Expecting Heathrow to provide the strategic leadership that the trade itself has failed to provide is neither realistic nor sustainable.

The irony is that the solution has been staring us in the face for years.

The Heathrow taxi trade generates many millions of pounds in passenger revenue every year. It is a substantial economic operation serving one of the busiest airports in the world.

Yet responsibility for its future remains fragmented across a collection of organisations, committees and meetings with no single body accountable for developing the business, protecting market share or planning

strategically for the future.

No successful enterprise operates in that manner indefinitely.

Eventually somebody takes responsibility.

The only question is who.

The June Liaison Meeting reinforced that view more than ever. I listened to discussions about barriers, cameras, systems, enforcement and procedures. Some of those discussions were necessary. Some were useful. Yet I could not escape the feeling that we were once again discussing the symptoms whilst ignoring the underlying condition.

The Heathrow taxi trade does not merely have an operational problem.

It has a leadership problem.

It has a structural problem.

Most importantly, it has a responsibility problem.

More than 120,000 feeder park movements have disappeared since 2024. The market is changing.

Passenger expectations are changing. The competitive environment is changing.

Yet the trade continues to rely upon structures that were never designed to provide strategic direction for an industry of this scale.

There comes a point where the evidence becomes too overwhelming to ignore.

For me, that point arrived some time ago.

The question is how much more evidence everybody else needs.

24

JUNE 2026

IS IT TIME FOR A CLEAROUT AT TFL's

By Christopher Johnson

inaccurate.

For years, ministers have been told that the country's cross-border licensing crisis is the consequence of outdated legislation.

TfL found that a booking request was offered to drivers, a driver decided whether to accept the trip, and only afterwards was the booking recorded as accepted by Uber’s London operating licence.

TfL regarded that issue as sufficiently serious to question whether Uber's model complied with the statutory framework governing private hire operators. As a condition of continued operation, TfL required Uber to redesign its booking system so that the operator accepted and recorded the booking before approaching drivers, and to provide greater transparency to passengers by expressly informing them that Uber London had accepted their booking before a driver was allocated.

For years, Parliament has been told that technology has outpaced the law.

For years, local authorities have complained that they are powerless to control private hire activity taking place on their own streets.

For years, government consultations have been launched, reports have been commissioned, and fresh legislative proposals have been advanced.

None of it has worked. The reason is not complicated.

The country's cross-border licensing crisis is not the result of a lack of law—it is the result of a deliberate failure to enforce the law that already exists. The uncomfortable truth—the truth that platform lobbyists have worked hard to keep off the agenda—is that the legal principles required to address this crisis were identified years ago. The regulator understood them.

The regulator applied them.

And then the regulator stopped.

That decision did not happen by accident. It happened at Transport for London's Taxi and Private Hire Department. And it is long past time for Parliament to say so plainly.

The principle is not complex. The operator accepts the booking. The driver performs the journey.

The operator comes first.

That principle sits at the heart of private hire regulation for good reason.

The operator is the licensed entity. The operator is accountable. The operator is subject to regulatory oversight. Parliament did not create a licensing framework built around drivers. It created one built around operators.

TfL recognised this. TfL defended this. TfL insisted upon it. And then it walked away.

The Regulator That Already Knew

TfL Shut the Front Door.

The DfT Left the Back Door Open.

In 2017, Helen Chapman, then General Manager of Taxi and Private Hire at TfL, investigated Uber's operating model and concluded that Uber's previous explanations regarding its booking process were materially

While Uber was required to alter its London operating model, the wider issue was never addressed nationally. The Department for Transport did not require licensing authorities across England and Wales to apply the same operator-first

acceptance principles that TfL had insisted upon in London.

The consequences were entirely predictable. Crossborder hiring expanded.

Operators accumulated licences in multiple jurisdictions. Digital platforms evolved into national booking marketplaces. Drivers and bookings moved freely between licensing districts.

The distinction between operator acceptance and driver acceptance was progressively eroded.

The problem that TfL identified in London was not solved. It migrated.

Today, ministers are told that the country's crossborder licensing crisis requires fresh legislation. But before Parliament is asked to rewrite the law, a more important question demands an answer: Why was the original solution never applied consistently across the country? And why has TfL— the regulator that understood the problem better than anyone—declined to pursue identical concerns in the years since?

Enter Bolt UK Bolt's passenger terms expose the current position with particular clarity Consumers are presented with a single national identity: Bolt UK. Behind that identity sits a collection of operator licences issued by licensing authorities across the country. Bolt's own terms define "Operator Licences" as including its London licence together with licences issued elsewhere.

The question that this raises is not subtle. Which operator is accepting the booking? Not eventually. Not after processing. Not after allocation. Not after a driver

becomes involved.

But before the contract is formed—at the point at which the consumer commits, and legal obligations arise.

The answer cannot be identified. The consumer cannot identify it. The regulator has not explained it. The licensing authority cannot readily determine it.

ambiguous: Consumers must know who they are dealing with before they commit.

Under the Bolt UK structure, a consumer cannot identify which specific geographical

Everything is presented under the umbrella of Bolt UK. Yet private hire legislation does not licence brands.

It licences operators.

Specific operators. Specific operating centres. Specific licences. Specific legal entities exercising specific statutory rights and obligations.

Parliament created a framework based on identifiable operators accepting identifiable bookings. It did not create a framework whereby dozens of geographically separate operator licences could be pooled and marketed to consumers as a single national trader.

That is what is happening.

And TfL appears to have no interest in saying so.

The Consumer Law Problem This is not merely a licensing issue. It is a consumer protection failure.

Parliament has required traders to disclose material information to consumers before contracts are concluded. That obligation has been tightened progressively through the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

The principle is not

operator is accepting their booking before the contract is formed. If the operator cannot be identified until after a driver somewhere in the country has accepted a booking request, the question of who actually accepted the booking first becomes impossible to answer on the operator-first model that TfL itself has historically required.

TfL knows this argument.

TfL built this argument. The only question is why it has chosen not to deploy it.

The Great Regulatory Fiction A booking request enters a national digital marketplace.

Drivers are identified, offered the trip and respond.

Only afterwards does the system determine which operator licence becomes associated with the booking.

JUNE 2026

25

taxi & private hire department?

The paperwork records operator acceptance.

The operational reality is materially different. The operator appears at the end of the process rather than the beginning.

The booking is

by taxi drivers alone. They were identified by Transport for London.

In her witness statement, Helen Chapman described how TfL became concerned that Uber's booking process did not operate

That question matters not only for the litigation itself.

institutional self-preservation.

A Clear-Out

It matters because the underlying issues have not disappeared. They have evolved. The platforms have changed. The technology has changed.

This is what independent scrutiny exists to address.

Parliament Must Act

The country's cross-border licensing crisis did not emerge because Parliament forgot how to legislate.

But the fundamental question remains exactly the same: Who accepted the booking first?

When regulators learn nothing from their own history, the public is entitled to ask why.

TfL's Conflict of Interest Is Not Subtle If TfL were formally to identify operator-first acceptance failures in modern platform models, such as Bolt, attention would return immediately to its own record.

Questions would arise about when similar concerns were first identified internally. retrospectively attached to whichever geographical operator licence the platform selects.

The legal documentation presents operator acceptance. The technology depends upon driver acceptance.

This is precisely the issue TfL identified in 2017. That it appears unwilling to confront the same issue in 2025 is not a coincidence. It is a choice. And it is a choice that demands explanation.

The Shadow of the Uber Litigation The ongoing litigation brought by black cab drivers against Uber concerns allegations about the way Uber operated in London between 2012 and March 2018.

The issues underpinning that claim were not identified

as previously described and stated that TfL was "minded to conclude" that Uber's arrangements did not comply with the statutory framework because the licensed operator was not demonstrably accepting bookings at first instance.

TfL ultimately required Uber to redesign its booking architecture so that bookings were accepted and recorded by the operator before drivers were approached, and passengers were expressly informed that Uber London had accepted their booking before a driver was allocated.

TfL acted—eventually.

The question that the litigation makes unavoidable is why it took so long, and what regulatory decisions were made in the intervening period that allowed a model identified by the regulator itself as problematic to continue operating.

Questions would arise about what enforcement decisions were taken, when they were taken, and by whom.

Questions would arise about whether regulatory assumptions were permitted to persist because confronting them would expose the department's own prior conduct.

The regulator is therefore not a neutral party. It is a party with a direct institutional interest in not finding what independent scrutiny might find. That is not a coincidence of circumstance. That is a structural conflict of interest.

And it is precisely why the current leadership of TfL's Taxi and Private Hire Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, assess its own historic decisions, or reach conclusions untainted by

For too long, scrutiny has focused exclusively on operators. The operators are not blameless.

But the regulator that permitted non-compliant models to operate failed to apply established principles more broadly and now declines to pursue concerns it has historically recognised—that regulator has questions of its own to answer.

Senior officials at TfL's Taxi and Private Hire Department should be required to explain, publicly and under examination: • How do current platform models satisfy operator-first acceptance requirements, and what evidence has TfL examined?

• How do consumers identify the specific contracting operator before bookings are formed, and has TfL formally assessed whether that is possible under Bolt’s existing platform architecture?

• Why do the concerns identified during the Uber investigation in 2017 not appear to be driving equivalent enforcement activity today?

• What role, if any, has institutional self-interest played in enforcement decisions made since 2018?

• Whether any formal legal advice has been sought or received regarding the consumer protection obligations of operators using pooled multi-jurisdiction licence structures.

These questions should not be answered in private correspondence or deflected to future reviews. They should be answered before the Transport Select Committee, on the record, in public.

It emerged because regulators chose to stop enforcing first principles. The law did not fail. Enforcement failed.

TfL's Taxi and Private Hire Department once understood the importance of operator-first acceptance.

It once recognised the dangers of driver-led booking models. It once demanded compliance. The record of what it demanded from Uber in 2017 is public.

The contrast with what it tolerates today is stark.

That contradiction does not resolve itself. It does not improve with time. And it will not be addressed by another consultation, another legislative review, or another set of assurances from the same officials who have overseen the crisis.

What is required is a formal parliamentary inquiry into Transport for London's Taxi and Private Hire Department: its leadership, its enforcement priorities, its historic decisions, and its role in creating the regulatory environment that has produced the country's cross-border licensing disaster.

The inquiry should have the power to examine documents, require attendance, and produce findings that are binding upon the department's future conduct. And if that inquiry finds what the evidence already suggests—that first principles were identified, applied briefly, and then quietly abandoned in the interests of regulatory convenience—then yes.

A clear-out is exactly what is needed.

26

JUNE 2026

BLACK CAB - A FAMILY DRAMA ABOUT L

ABOUT THE FILM

Black Cab is, at its core, a family drama about a man trying to hold on to his sense of purpose as a husband, father and provider, in a world quickly leaving him behind.

Writer & Director, James Arden, says of the film: “I wanted to make this film now because the script’s themes are so current - autonomous cars are starting to appear on London’s streets in 2026.

In a wider sense, all of us are concerned about what the future holds, and I think we can all relate to wanting to preserve our place in the world. Harry is just a normal person, like us all, facing great change.”

Over two years of research and development went into the script - interviewing real cab drivers and gaining real insight into a fast-changing industry.

It’s easy to get caught up in exciting technological developments without considering the wider social impact on individual people. Car technology is a perfect example of this: the convenience of Uber; the allure of a selfdriving Tesla or Waymo.

But all those people who make their living behind the wheel - cabbies, truck

drivers, delivery drivers, emergency services drivers - will soon have to find new work, and millions will be potentially left by the wayside.

“I wanted to tell a story about an individual dealing with this developing crisis; how it affects him and his family life. Work identity defines so many of us - especially men as earners, providers and protectors something Harry, despite his optimism, can’t escape when reality hits.”

ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS FROM BROTHER / PRODUCERS: What immediately drew us to Black Cab was its portrayal of an incoming (and in 2026, very much imminent) societal change that twenty years ago would seem like science fiction.

Harry’s plight in James Arden’s script is a harsh reality that all London cabbies are going to face in the years to come, and it typifies the wider friction between technology and tradition that we’re seeing across every sector of 21st century life. It is this friction that James, and Jay Simpson who plays Harry in the film, were able to bring to life so effectively.

As a production company we are hugely proud of Black Cab and what the whole team were able to achieve - weeks and months of preproduction slotted around other (paid!) projects,

three bitterly cold shoot days in South and West London, and a hefty postproduction process that slowly but surely began to look like the film we’d all envisaged from the first draft.

We’d like to extend a heartfelt thank you to the entire cast and crew for coming on this journey with James and ourselves.

As Harry would say, “be lucky!”

JUNE 2026

LIFE AS A LONDON CAB DRIVER IN 2026

27

Jay Simpson (HARRY)

I'd thought about A.I. a lot before meeting James and playing Harry, but doing this film has made me think so much more about what is coming for us all in a world where A.I. is advancing at a pace beyond anything most of us had imagined.

I felt a real connection with Harry, he's a man who did the Knowledge - the hardest driving/ navigational test in the world. I can memorize a play, or a script but: 25,000 streets, 20,000 landmarks and 320 specific routes like a black cabbie does… completely beyond me, beyond most of us. It's not an easy club to join, being a black cab driver, and not an easy living.

I've been lucky enough to earn my living, as an actor, all my adult life.

When Harry learnt the Knowledge, that's what it meant - a job for life. A surefire way to provide for you and your family if you were willing to work hard enough. Now that is going. Being taken away.

Through no fault of his own he is being made obsolete.

For what? The Waymos of this world don't feed families, they take jobs away from people the world over purely to make profit for Google.

If it's anything like Uber (owned by massive financial outfits like Blackrock and Vanguard), they start out playing nice, they are cheap and on time - but only until they eliminate all the competition. Nearly all the mini-cab firms we used to rely on are gone.

Then, they bump the prices and cancel on you at the last minute but you have no choice. If you

need a ride, they are the only game in town. Apart from the black cabs.

So now it looks like Waymo are going to use the same playbook to take out the Cabbies. Real men and women who have studied London's streets for years, on mopeds and electric bikes in all weathers, trying to build a future for themselves and their families.

Why? They say it's progress, but they don't talk about the hidden cost, the human cost. If you're young enough, you can retrain right? But globally, driving is one of the biggest employers of people without secondary or tertiary education. They don't tend to earn more

when their jobs vanish.

They take whatever is available and earn less, and they suffer.

Their families suffer. But Waymo or whoever wins.

And when they are the only game in town, they charge what they want and again we have no choice.

There's only one longterm aim: increase the price of their stock. And the cost to people whose jobs they take, whose lives they damage: nothing to do with us, it's progress. I think a world where tens of millions lose their jobs for profit is the ultimate in greed and cynicism. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: They are men who know the price of everything, and the

value of nothing.

earn, how do we live?

In my industry, many actor's voices have already been stolen by A.I. and used without their permission in commercials and other media without the human receiving any form of payment. Many authors have had their work taken

by A.I. And used without permission, payment or credit. Microsoft's own research says its Co-Pilot chatbot can complete at least 90% of the work carried out by historians and coders, 80% of salespeople and journalists, and 75% of DJs and data scientists.

I fear we will be forced to give up any idea of meaningful work, jobs we like or love or can take some sort of pride in or even just earn a living at.

When the day comes, we will have to take what is left.

No one has a job that is safe. And if none of us have work, how do we

That will be up to them, and judging by the tax avoidance and lack of care for anyone who uses their platforms, willingness to post information they know to be harmful to anyone of any age and complete lack of empathy for other human beings - I fear that day.

This film is that day for Harry.

28

JUNE 2026

Dean 'Mean Machine' Gardner claims Commonwealth title For the next four rounds, the two men stood toeto-toe in the centre of the ring, exchanging heavy punches in a fierce battle of attrition. While Butler remained dangerous throughout, Gardner gradually began to gain the upper hand as his superior pressure and accuracy took effect.

As the fight entered the eighth round, Gardner raised the intensity once more. A series of clean head shots left Butler under increasing pressure before another devastating body shot sent him to the canvas for a third time.

Butler bravely rose at the count of eight, but referee Sean McAvoy judged that he had taken enough punishment and waved the contest off, handing Gardner a memorable stoppage victory.

The result sparked jubilant celebrations among the large contingent of Gardner

BETHNAL GREEN – Dean “Mean Machine” Gardner delivered a careerdefining performance on Saturday night, capturing the Commonwealth International Super Lightweight title with a dramatic stoppage victory over Joseph

Butler at the iconic York Hall.

The Sutton fighter entered the contest amid considerable anticipation, with many predicting a “barnstormer” of a fight.

The bout certainly lived up to expectations, providing fans with eight rounds of relentless action and high

drama.

The opening exchanges were closely contested, with both fighters enjoying success in the first two rounds. However, Gardner seized control in the third, sending Butler to the canvas twice with punishing body shots.

supporters in attendance, with York Hall erupting into cheers and applause as the new champion's hand was raised.

Speaking after the fight, Gardner’s trainer and club member, Alec Wilkey, expressed his delight at the victory.

“I’m over the moon for Dean,” Wilkey told The Badge. “He’s the ultimate professional. He trains hard, lives the life and deserves every bit of success that comes his way.”

Wilkey described the title win as “the icing on the cake” and revealed hopes that Gardner will return to the ring in September, potentially challenging for another championship belt.

The victory marks a significant milestone in Gardner’s career and further establishes him as one of the region’s most exciting boxing talents.

JUNE 2026 ‘Please let me stay up and watch it dad, ah go on mate’ ‘No, bit strong for you boy’ ‘Oh go on, everyone is talking about it at school, I’ll be left out I will…’

29 she called him, that she was ‘up the stick’ again, so he had another baby coming.

The Mumper of SE5

‘Oh do leave off ‘Azel’ Needless to say, our boy scarpers from all of that, never to be seen on TV again. There were rumours of a planned third series, but Faith was involved in a serious traffic accident soon after filming had ended and he temporarily, as it turned out, retired from acting at the time.

‘Oh, alright then, but if it’s got strippers in it, you’re off to bed…’

And so went the conversation, or something like it, between me and my dad in the early 70s when the TV series ‘Budgie’ was all the rage in the UK. It was a massive hit and my memory is of it being originally shown on a Friday evening. It was on 8/9 at the time hence my old man wary of me seeing the stray nipple, which to be fair looking back on the show as I do on a regular basis, popped up in more than one or two episodes.

This show was so big – only three channels then remember – that the fashions worn by Ronald ‘Budgie’ Bird, played by singer, actor and entrepreneur Adam Faith soon became seen on many a high street. His hair for a start was a feather cut, very much along the lines of Rod and The Faces.

He also wore a jacket that quickly became known simply as a Budgie jacket (that’s fame that is) and then there was him wearing clogs. They proved to be inconvenient for when he was running away from the police, which like the appearances of nipples, happened on a fairly regular basis. Even as a rascal thief, fashions came first to Budgie.

Budgie stands the test of time First up was the ‘The Loner’ performed by The Milton Hunter Orchestra and then ‘Nobody’s Fool’ written by Ray Davies of The Kinks and sung by brother Dave, both performing under the name of Cold Turkey.

The plot of each show showed Budgie, a small time petty thief, mainly operating around the

serious Glaswegian hard man, played by Iain Cuthbertson, who had previously appeared as ‘Daddy, my Daddy’ in the film The Railway Children from 1970.

‘You sticky fingered toe rag Budgie!’

Charlie’s wife, only ever addressed as Mrs Endell,

Budgie’s home life in series two shows him fresh out of the nick, living with girlfriend Hazel and their son Howard.

Despite having certain responsibilities, Budgie continues to get in scrape after scrape eventually annoying Charlie Endell so much by the end of the series, that he sets his henchmen on him,

I distinctly remember the beating Budgie received from the programme the first time round and I was left wanting more. That memory never left me, so I was delighted to see repeats of the show in the 1980s on the then new Channel Four. I set about taping all the programmes I could and watched them endlessly after. The whole set up, the acting, writing, and plot lines for me, had stood the test of time.

Fair to say I was bitten by the Budgie bug. So much so, that I ended up seeing a musical based on the show, not once but twice at The Cambridge Theatre in 1988.

Faith played Budgie, with Anita Dobson then of ‘ Ange from Eastenders’ fame playing Hazel. The music was by Mort Schuman with lyrics from the pen of Don Black. Despite all that talent, the show never really took off and ended after a three month run.

Ok, to the nuts and bolts of it. It was all the idea of writers Keith Waterhouse and Willis Hall, who had a fine pedigree with films like ‘Billy Liar ‘ from 1963.

‘Budgie’ ran for two series and they were shown on ITV between April 1971 and July 72. Each series of 13 shows had a different theme tune, both great and both fondly remembered.

He would later make a comeback and appeared in the films such as ‘Stardust’ in 1974 and ‘McVicar’ in 1980 and managed singer Leo Sayer in his early career. Not one to stay still old Adam.

‘alleyways of old Soho’ trying to pull a stroke or two, whilst all the time in the ‘now and then’ employ of one Charles ‘Charlie’ Endell, porn baron and

never says a word in any of the programmes.

‘Another Strawberry tart Mrs Endell?’

including one called ‘Laughing Spam Fritter’ played by John Rhys Davies. Hazel, played by Lynn Dalby had by this stage informed ‘Budge’ as

You can buy the two series of ‘Budgie’ now on DVD and I often dip in and refresh my memory of how good it was.

If you haven’t got it, I urge you to purchase.

Trust me, it's good and still stands up. I mean, as the man himself would have said ‘Would I put you on a dodgy one?’

LONDON TAXIS TO RENT +*)('(+&%$(#"'!(*

& ( + & $ New and Used Taxi Finance Hire Purchase / HP with Balloon Payment Private Sale (Ltd Co.s only) Credit Lines for Fleets

Flexible Terms and Competitive Rates Call us on ( or email

Please vist

for more information

(

Suit all budgets Full back up Clean and well maintained Call 07738 162 518

ASTRAL CAFE ENGLISH BREAKFAST SALADS - ROAST DINNERS PASTA - SANDWICHES ALL FRESH EVERY DAY

Sceptre Finance Limited is a credit broker and not a lender. Authorised & Regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN: 673142) Registered in England and Wales with company No. 4247886. We can introduce you to a limited number

Who’s in your corner?

The LCDC: fighting for the trade and YOU Call 020 7394 5553 to become a member

London’s Trusted Taxi Insurance & Breakdown Cover All under one roof • Exclusive Insurance schemes • Breakdown cover only £99 • Roadside assistance and recovery • Recovery to any UK Location

Call us on:

0208 691 9691 Quotax Insurance Services is a trading name of London Taxi Insurance authorised and regulated by the FCA (504042)

www.quotax.net