David Wilson on Enforcement

If you’re going to quote me, please quote me accurately!

Berwick_taxi What I said was that over a 12-month period, only four section 68 suspension notices were issued in relation to unroadworthy vehicles. As that was a discussion about “enforcement”, my statement related only to suspensions issued as a result of enforcement.

When referring to unroadworthiness, I was (and am) referring to a vehicle not meeting MOT standards.

I would like to say how many section 68 suspension notices were issued as a result of vehicles failing the annual test, but I’d only be guessing. What I can say is that the figure was small and represented only a very small percentage of the vehicles tested. Again, that is not to say that there were not issues relating to non-compliance with conditions of licence, but they were not routinely dealt with by a section 68 suspension notice.

A failure to correctly display a plate or roof sign, to carry a fire extinguisher or to comply with some other condition of licence was generally dealt with in another way.

At the end of the day, so far as “enforcement” was concerned, I was endeavouring to ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that: (i) vehicles were roadworthy, (ii) vehicles were being driven by appropriately licensed, fit and proper people, and (iii) that vehicles and drivers complied with the conditions of their licences. To my mind, they ranked in that order of importance in the “enforcement” context. Other criteria apply to licensing.

Coincidentally, I never said I did the checks and, as a matter of fact, probably only did so on two or three occasions in 12 months. The checks were generally undertaken by one of my two licensing officers, together with an authorised MOT tester.

It is a fact that checks were undertaken in Berwick and Northumberland, at Newcastle Airport, and in Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Stockton / Middlesbrough, Darlington and Newton Aycliffe. In don’t think we ever ventured into Gateshead or Sunderland for enforcement purposes; and I admit we never went to mid-Wales or to East Riding.

We did, however, also check vehicles at proprietors’ homes. As a result of one such check, a section 68 suspension notice was issued.

As our enforcement was “high vis”, it was seen by many people. The fact that you nevr saw it does not mean it didn’t happen! I think you’ll find that North Tyneside Council liked Berwick’s “hig vis enforcement vehicle” so much that they introduced their own!

I regret we never managed more than one day’s enforcement a week, for three out of every four or five weeks, but that is what we managed.

On occasions, joint operations were undertaken with the police, VOSA and HM Customs & Excise.

Until today, I have always said I didn’t know which approach to ensuring compliance was best: regular interim tests or frequent (but irregular) high visibility, random roadside testing. In view of the results disclosed by North Tyneside today, I can only conclude that frequent random roadside tests seem to produce the highest levels of compliance.

Ultimately, however, what is really important is that there is compliance, not how it is achieved.

Finally, I’ll accept there hasn’t been any (or any significant) enforcement undertaken by Northumberland since it became responsible for taxi licensing on 1 April 2009. As I left the Council on 17 April 2009, that failure is not down to me!

Possibly Related Posts: