Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s policy decision to ban the use of white Private Hire Vehicles. He said thousands of drivers will be financially affected. There was no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s policy decision to ban the use of white Private Hire Vehicles (PHVs).
2. Mr X raised the following concerns about the policy and process:
• The Council did not properly consult those most affected.
• The Council did not write to all licensed drivers about the policy proposals as it does with changes to licenses or fare increases.
• The policy discriminates against Private Hire Vehicle drivers, because white cars are cheaper and more easily available.
• The policy is unique and unjustified.
• The Council ignored Mr X’s proposal for a stripe or marking system to identify white Private Hire Vehicles.
• Failure of oversight by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, who was wrong to say the Council followed the correct procedure in implementing the policy. Mr X said requirements to hold full consultation and consider new proposals fairly were ignored.
3. Mr X said thousands of PHV drivers will be financially affected by the Council’s new policy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I did not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of the Monitoring Officer.
7. That is because we previously decided not to investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Monitoring Officer due to lack of evidence of fault. In addition, his complaint about the Monitoring Officer relates to the procedural fairness of the Council’s policy and its consultation, which I have addressed as part of my investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Licensing for hackney carriages

10. Section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 states:
• A district council may attach to the grant of a licence of a hackney carriage under the Act of 1847 such conditions as the district council may consider reasonably necessary.
• A district council may require any hackney carriage licensed by them under the Act of 1847 to be of such design or appearance or bear such distinguishing marks as shall clearly identify it as a hackney carriage.

Taxi and private hire vehicle statutory guidance

11. Individual licensing authorities are still responsible for deciding their own policies and making decisions on individual licensing matters applying the relevant law and any other relevant considerations. This guidance is primarily intended to assist licensing authorities, but it is only guidance and does not intend to give a definitive statement of the law; any decisions made by an authority remain a matter for that authority. (Department for Transport Best Practice Guidance, section 1.1)
12. The primary and overriding objective of licensing must be to protect the public.
13. It is for licensing authorities to ensure that their licensing policy and requirements are proportionate, so that passengers can choose from a wide range of safe services. As indicated above, the primary function of the licensing regime is public safety; however, an unduly stringent regime on other issues may restrict the supply of taxi and private hire vehicle services by putting up the cost of operation, or otherwise restricting entry to the trade. Licensing authorities should recognise that too restrictive an approach can be counter-productive, restricting the licensed trade to such an extent that the public resort to the use of unlicensed, unvetted and uninsured drivers and vehicles. (Department for Transport Best Practice Guidance, section 3)
14. Licensing authorities should not impose a livery requirement on private hire vehicles. The more distinctive a private hire vehicle is made to appear, the greater the chance that this might be confused with a taxi. To assist the differentiation further, licensing authorities which require taxis to be a particular colour should prevent private hire vehicles from being that same colour, unless they are easily identifiable i.e. they are purpose-built vehicles as is the case in many of our cities. (Department for Transport Best Practice Guidance, section 8.12)

What happened

15. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
16. The Council reviewed its Hackney Carriage and PHV policy in 2023 with a view to amending it. One proposed change was to stop new PHVs from being white in colour, to distinguish them from Hackney Carriages – which must be white.
17. The Council held four drop-in sessions for the Hackney Carriage and PHV trade to discuss any suggestions they had.
18. The Council held a 12-week consultation period on the proposed changes, inviting comments from the licensed trade, statutory public bodies, Ward Councillors, and members of the public. The Council wrote to all licence holders in August 2023 with a copy of its consultation letter. This was in the form of a survey. A question in the Council’s consultation was “Do you agree that hackney carriage vehicles should be white and private hire can be any colour other than white?”
19. The Council received 163 responses from licensed drivers.
20. The Council’s Licensing and Safety committee (the committee) met in February 2024 to discuss the proposed policy change and to vote on it. The committee discussed the consultee responses and, on whether Hackney Carriages should be white, and PHV can be any colour other than white, 65% of respondents agreed. 30% of respondents disagreed. Members had the choice to adopt the policy and allow existing PHVs that are white to remain on the road until the end of the life of the vehicle. Any new vehicles would need to meet the policy. The Council therefore did not consider the policy change would result in any cost implications. The committee approved the policy change on that basis.
21. Mr X emailed the Council on 5 February 2025 proposing a change to the policy to allow PHV drivers to buy white cars and attach stripes to them to distinguish them from Hackney Carriages. He said PHV drivers had suffered huge loss because there are so many white cars on the market. He asked the Council to include his proposal in the next committee meeting for members to consider it.
22. The Council said it added Mr X’s proposal to the discussion at the Private Hire Association meeting. However, the Councillor chairing the meeting did not feel Mr X’s suggestion was an option, or that it was necessary to take it back to committee for a decision at that time. The Council only took the decision to change the policy stopping PHVs from being white a year ago, and existing white vehicles can stay licensed for the duration of their life. Drivers buying new vehicles have the choice to spray or wrap them to change the colour, or buy any other colour.
23. Mr X said he had a right to put his suggestion to the committee and if the Council refused, he would like to speak at the meeting. He would also like to complain to the Ombudsman. He recognised the policy had only been in effect for a year, but it was in the past year that drivers noticed the loss they experienced. He asked the Council to put the matter through its complaint procedure and respond so he could complain to the Ombudsman.
24. The Council repeated that it discussed Mr X’s suggestion with the Private Hire Association, but decided it was not an option to progress at that time. The Council said once its committee agrees a policy, a period of three years usually has to pass before any review. The Council also said it carried out full consultation with the trade and public before the policy took effect. The Council said once it had dates for the upcoming committee meetings it would let Mr X know so he could make a written submission if he wished. The Council signposted Mr X to its complaint process.
25. Mr X said the chair of the committee had no right to refuse his proposal which was on behalf of the trade. As such Mr X said it should be put forward to the committee. Mr X said the Council had to consult all taxi drivers, proprietors and individual shops but to save money it only recognised a few people, like Mr X, to represent the taxi trade. He said most of the taxi trade was not aware of what had gone on, and banning white coloured PHVs caused extreme loss to the trade which they had now recognised. He said the Council should ignore the three-year rule it mentioned. Last, Mr X said the Council should treat his email as a formal complaint and put it through its complaint procedure.
26. The Council sent its stage three complaint response on 24 February 2025. It said this would enable Mr X to take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
27. The Council said the merit of restricting white PHVs was formally debated when the committee made its decision. It said it understood many councils seek to differentiate the look of Hackney Carriages and PHVs so the public can easily tell the difference. It said this approach was in accordance with the Department for Transport best practice guidance which confirms licensing authorities requiring taxis to be a particular colour should prevent PHVs from being that same colour, unless they are easily identifiable. For example, purpose built vehicles as is the case in many cities. As such, the Council said its decision to ensure a difference between the two was not unreasonable.
28. The Council said its licensing service considered adding Mr X’s proposal to reverse that decision to the agenda for the committee to consider. However, following a discussion with the chair of the committee, it was decided it was not appropriate to bring the idea forward at this time. The service said it would not be usual for the Council to reconsider a recent decision so quickly. The Council said this ensured contentious issues were not debated time and again. However, the Council said Mr X’s proposal was raised as part of the regular discussion with the Private Hire Association but again, it was decided not to take the proposal forward. The Council also said Mr X can still raise the issue as a question at the committee meeting if he chooses.
29. Mr X said he did not want his complaint to go straight to stage three and asked the Council to put it through the correct procedure. He also asked the Council how many other authorities had the same kind of policy where PHVs cannot be white. Mr X argued PHV drivers with white vehicles can differentiate them from Hackney Carriages by adding stripes, which is lower cost than having the vehicle sprayed a different colour. He asked why the chair of committee refused to add his proposal to the next meeting agenda.
30. The Council said stage one of the complaint process is an informal initial complaint stage. Stage two is where a formal response is given by a service manager, and this was sent to Mr X on 14 February. Mr X then stated he wanted to progress to the Ombudsman, so the next step was a stage three review by the Council which was sent to Mr X on 24 February.
31. At a full meeting of the Council on 15 October 2025, Mr X asked why the Council was proposing that in future, white cars will not be allowed for private hire use.
32. The Cabinet Member for Communities and Environment provided Mr X with a response. They confirmed the reason for the proposal was to ensure that members of the public can clearly distinguish between Hackney Carriage and PHVs.
33. The Member said this proposal was in line with the Department for Transport Best Practice Guidance issued in 2023 which states that licensing authorities which require taxis (Hackney Carriages) to be a particular colour should prevent private hire vehicles from being that same colour, unless they are easily identifiable, i.e. they are purpose-built vehicles as is the case in many of our cities. The Council requires all Hackney Carriage vehicles to be white in colour, therefore, in accordance with the guidance it should not be licensing white PHVs.

My investigation

34. Mr X told me he did not accept the Council’s claim it carried out proper consultation.
35. Mr X said PHV drivers make up 80-90% of the trade, but the Council failed to directly consult most licence holders. He said Hackney Carriages make up a much smaller proportion of the trade.
36. In previous consultations, Mr X said the Council wrote directly to all licence holders using the contact details it already holds. It did not follow this approach here, and instead relied on trade representatives.
37. Mr X said he put forward a reasonable counter proposal that would have allowed white PHVs to be clearly distinguished at minimal cost by applying visible markings or striping. He said the Council did not give this proper consideration and dismissed it without meaningful discussion.
38. The Council told us the reason for the decision to stop white PHVs was, all Hackney Carriages are white, and have been for a very long time. To change Hackney Carriages would be an additional cost burden to the trade. However, to stop allowing new PHVs to be white does not put a financial burden on them and the decision did not affect existing licensed vehicles.
39. The Council provided us with a copy of its consultation letter to licence holders, sent on 30 August 2023. This was in the form of a survey. It told us it did not just consult with all licensed drivers, it consulted licence holders. The Council no longer had proof of postage or copies of the emails it sent attaching the consultation letter, but it still has its list of contact details for licence holders which it used for the consultation. I checked this list and it contains Mr X’s details and the details of 5,589 licence holders in total.
40. The Council also provided us with evidence of the responses it received, including 163 from licensed drivers.
41. The Council told us the policy decision was taken by its Licensing and Safety Committee, and members are asked to consider all consultation responses when making their decision.
42. The Council said there was consideration of the cost implications for vehicle proprietors, and it provided us with a link to a recording of the committee meeting dated 14 February 2024.
43. The Council said the potential cost impact on the trade was considered during the policy making process. Some consultation respondents raised the issue, but did not provide any quantitative evidence demonstrating that prohibiting one colour would impose significant costs on vehicle owners. It said the decision of the Licensing and Safety Committee was based on the merits of the policy.
44. I viewed the recording of the committee meeting and noted the following:
45. On whether Hackney Carriages should be white, and PHVs should be any colour other than white, 65% of respondents agreed. 30% of respondents disagreed. While this does not break down how many of PHV owners were for or against the idea, the Council has shown all PHV owners had the chance to comment and object. It could not only target them, or single them out, as the scheme affected Hackney Carriage owners too.
46. The reason for the Council’s proposal was so the public can clearly distinguish between a Hackney Carriages and PHVs. The consultation results show most respondents agreed there was merit in this.
47. Hackney Carriages in Kirklees are not like they are in London for example, where they are clearly identifiable. Hackney Carriages in Kirklees do not have to be a particular shape, size, model etc. They can be anything as long as they are white.
48. A committee member at the meeting asked about what happens with current PHVs in the system that are white, and the cost implications this may have on the drivers in getting them out of the system.
49. Members were given the option to adopt the policy and allow existing PHVs that are white to remain on the road until the end of the life of the vehicle. Any new vehicles would need to meet the policy.
50. One of the trade representatives at the meeting asked about drivers going to another authority to get a licence for a white PHV, and then coming into Kirklees. The Council confirmed there was nothing stopping drivers from doing this.
51. A member asked a taxi operator at the meeting for their views on the proposals. They said they were on the fence and not too bothered.
52. A member mentioned cost implications for new PHV drivers, and then asked if there was a cost implication in general. The Council did not believe there were cost implications, as it was giving what it called ‘grandfather’ rights, for current white PHVs to remain in the system. It only thought there would be cost implications if it did not allow that right.

Analysis

53. I found no fault by the Council in terms of its consultation. It provided evidence it consulted all licence holders and collated their responses ready for consideration by the committee.
54. The Council also provided evidence it considered the cost implications for drivers who currently own a white PHV. The Council will allow PHV owners who currently have a white car to keep it. The Council did not believe there would be cost implications for PHV owners buying a new vehicle in any other colour.
55. Anecdotally, and from looking at vehicle manufacturer websites, I found white cars are generally slightly cheaper for brand new cars. When buying a brand-new car, I found manufacturers usually charge more for colours other than white. This was usually several hundred pounds more. However, if the vehicle is bought under a finance agreement (typically lasting three or four years), the difference in the monthly payment between a white car or a colour option would be minimal. And, I also found there would be no cost premium for a colour versus a white car when bought second hand. In addition, when buying a car there is the chance to negotiate or ask for discounts, so there may be no cost impact by choosing a colour other than white, or it may not be possible to measure. I also did not see evidence for Mr X’s claim that white cars are more readily available.
56. Any current PHV owner who has a white car will not have to replace it, so they will be unaffected in the short term. And when they come to replace their car, it is not certain whether they will have to pay any more for getting a car in colour rather than in white.
57. I have not seen evidence there is a proven significant additional cost to drivers purchasing a ‘new’ (either brand new or second hand) PHV in a colour other than white, which would override or outweigh the Council’s policy objectives. If there was clear, quantifiable evidence presented to the Council of significant higher costs buying a car in colour rather than white then that might be different, but I did not find that was the case here.
58. The Council’s policy objectives are in line with relevant law and guidance, which prioritise public safety, and confirm councils can require Hackney Carriages to be clearly distinguishable from PHVs.
59. In terms of Mr X’s complaint about discrimination, taxi drivers, or PHV drivers, are not a protected group under the Equality Act 2010. The decision may be seen by Mr X as unfair towards them compared to Hackney Carriage drivers, but that does not mean it is wrong or that the Council was not entitled to make it. As above, I found the Council consulted all licence holders, took account of responses received, and considered the impact on current PHV drivers. I did not find evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the policy, and I also did not see evidence the decision caused any significant financial harm to PHV drivers.
60. Mr X said the policy is unique and unjustified. According to the Council, it is not unique. Calderdale Council have the same policy. This was discussed in the committee meeting, as well as ways other local councils differentiate between Hackney Carriages and PHVs. And I did not find the policy is unjustified, as it is in line with law and guidance permitting councils to differentiate between Hackney Carriages and PHVs.
61. Mr X said the Council ignored his alternative proposal about having stipes on white PHVs. Mr X did not put forward his proposal as part of the consultation process, but around a year later. I did not find the Council ignored his proposal. It considered it, but decided not to take it forward, which it is entitled to do. The Council also gave Mr X an explanation of the reasons for the policy in response his question at a Council meeting.

Back to top

Final Decision

62. I found no fault in the Council’s decision-making process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman