TfL Revocation of a PCO Licence over Alleged Account Sharing Set Aside on Appeal to the Crown Court

Director, Morgan Hill Solicitors | Registered Foreign Lawyer (SRA No. 661462) | Called to the Bar of England and Wales, Lincoln's Inn (2022) | Advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan

Morgan Hill Solicitors acted for a London private hire driver whose licence Transport for London (TfL) revoked after alleging that his ride-hailing account had been used by someone else. On a further appeal to the Crown Court, the court allowed the appeal and set aside TfL's decision, restoring our client's licence.

The outcome

Our client, whom we refer to as Mr A, holds a London private hire vehicle (PHV) driver's licence, still widely known as a "PCO licence" after the former Public Carriage Office. TfL revoked that licence under section 16 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act") on the basis that it was no longer satisfied that he was fit to hold it, following an allegation that his account with a ride-hailing operator had been shared with another person. Mr A denied that allegation throughout.

The statutory route of challenge runs first to the magistrates' court and then, on a further appeal, to the Crown Court. Morgan Hill Solicitors represented Mr A on his appeal to the Crown Court. Having heard the evidence and the submissions of both parties, the Crown Court allowed the appeal and set aside TfL's decision to revoke his licence. Under section 25(7) of the 1998 Act, TfL must give effect to the court's order.

Two points should be kept in mind about what the result does and does not mean. First, the restoration of a TfL licence is distinct from the reactivation of an account with any particular ride-hailing operator: whether an operator reinstates a driver is a separate matter between the driver and that operator. Second, a successful appeal does not erase the licensing history. Where a driver is later asked about previous regulatory decisions, for example on a renewal or a fresh application, the revocation and the successful appeal should both be disclosed accurately.

Background: why TfL treats account sharing seriously

Account sharing, meaning a licensed driver allowing another person to carry passengers under his identity on an app, raises obvious public safety concerns: the person actually driving may not have been vetted, licensed or insured. The issue came to prominence in November 2019, when TfL concluded that Uber London Ltd was not fit and proper to hold an operator's licence, citing among other things a change to Uber's systems that had allowed unauthorised drivers to upload their photographs to other drivers' accounts, affecting at least 14,000 trips.

Uber succeeded on its appeal in September 2020. That outcome reflected the magistrates' court's assessment of Uber's fitness at the date of the appeal hearing, taking account of the improvements Uber had made by then; it was not a finding that TfL's original concerns were unfounded.

Operators now use a range of identity checks, which may include selfie-based facial verification, and an alert from those checks can lead an operator to deactivate a driver and notify TfL. These checks are an important safeguard. Like any evidence, however, an alert is best understood in context. Depending on the facts, matters such as changes in a driver's appearance, image quality, the device used or technical issues may warrant investigation before conclusions are drawn. Whether any such explanation is relevant is a question for the evidence in each individual case.

The legal framework

Suspension and revocation

Section 16(1) of the 1998 Act allows TfL to suspend or revoke a licence for any reasonable cause. For a driver's licence, section 16(4) includes the ground that TfL is for any other reason no longer satisfied that the holder is fit to hold the licence (section 16(4)(b)), as well as grounds based on relevant convictions and failure to comply with licence conditions or other obligations under the Act. Account-sharing cases are usually put on the fitness ground.

Under section 17, TfL must give the driver notice of its decision and the grounds for it. Ordinarily the decision takes effect 21 days after service of the notice. Under section 17(2), however, where TfL considers that the interests of public safety require it, and the notice states that opinion with reasons, the decision takes effect when the notice is served. Where a revocation has immediate effect, lodging an appeal does not permit the driver to continue private hire work while the appeal is pending.

The right of appeal

Section 17(4) confers the right of appeal to a magistrates' court against a decision under section 16 to suspend or revoke a licence. Section 25 governs the procedure: the appeal must be brought within 21 days of service of the notice of decision (section 25(4)); any party may appeal the magistrates' decision to the Crown Court (section 25(6)); and where an appeal court varies or reverses the decision, TfL must give effect to its order (section 25(7)).

How the appeal court approaches the case

An appeal of this kind proceeds by way of rehearing: the court considers the evidence afresh, including evidence that was not before TfL, and decides whether TfL's decision was right. General licensing authority supports the approach that the court should give careful consideration to the licensing authority's decision and reasons, and that it is for the appellant to persuade the court that the decision was wrong. The leading statement is that of the Court of Appeal in R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31, building on Sagnata Investments Ltd v Norwich Corporation [1971] 2 QB 614. Hope and Glory concerned premises licensing under the Licensing Act 2003 rather than PHV driver licensing, but its statement of principle is of general relevance to licensing appeals.

The ultimate question is the driver's fitness to hold a licence, assessed on the civil standard. In the taxi and private hire context, the courts have accepted that the assessment may take account of material that would not be admissible in a criminal trial (McCool v Rushcliffe Borough Council [1998] 3 All ER 889), and that the focus is on protecting the public rather than on the driver's personal circumstances or the hardship that loss of the licence may cause (Leeds City Council v Hussain [2002] EWHC 1145 (Admin)). The regime is protective, not punitive. National guidance on taxi and private hire licensing likewise emphasises that passenger safety is paramount, so a case that is evenly balanced will not be enough to justify holding a licence.

The practical consequence is that a driver who challenges a revocation must engage fully with the evidence and present a clear, credible and well-supported case. Simply pointing to the absence of any particular type of evidence is unlikely to be sufficient, because circumstantial evidence can be persuasive. What matters is a careful assessment of all the evidence available.

How we put Mr A's case

Our submissions to the Crown Court focused on whether, on all the evidence then before the court, TfL's conclusion about Mr A's fitness was correct. In summary, we argued that:

• the material on which TfL relied, properly examined in context, did not support the conclusion that Mr A had allowed another person to use his account;
• Mr A's own account, together with the evidence supporting it, provided an explanation that had to be weighed against that material; and
• taking into account his licensing history and record as a driver, the evidence as a whole showed that he was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside TfL's decision. As with any licensing appeal, the outcome turned on the evidence in this particular case.

Why this decision matters

• Alerts must be assessed in context. Identity-verification alerts are an important safeguard, but they form part of the evidence to be weighed and should be examined in context rather than treated as conclusive.
• The appeal is a genuine rehearing. A driver may put his full case, including new evidence, before an independent court, which will decide for itself whether the decision was right while giving careful weight to TfL's reasons.
• Preparation is decisive. The court will be persuaded by evidence that is clear, consistent and properly supported, not by assertion.
• Each case turns on its own facts. TfL's role in protecting the travelling public is important and is respected by the courts. Its decisions can be overturned where they are shown to be wrong, but the result of one appeal is no guide to the result of another.

Practical guidance for drivers facing an account-sharing allegation

1. Act immediately. An appeal to the magistrates' court must be brought within 21 days of service of TfL's notice. The time limit is strict.
2. Do not drive if the decision has immediate effect. Where TfL has invoked section 17(2), you cannot carry out private hire work while your appeal is pending. Doing so may be a criminal offence and is likely to invalidate your insurance.
3. Respond to TfL if invited to do so. If TfL asks for your comments before making a decision, take advice and respond fully and in writing.
4. Preserve your evidence. Keep your phone(s), app records, screenshots, trip histories, earnings statements and messages with the operator, and make a note of anything that may be relevant to how and by whom your account and device were used.
5. Ask for the material. You can make a subject access request to the operator for your personal data, and ask TfL for the material behind its decision. A subject access request gives access to your personal information, subject to legal exemptions and restrictions; it will not necessarily produce every internal document or technical detail. Requesting information does not extend the 21-day appeal deadline.
6. Gather supporting evidence. Evidence of your driving history and character references may be relevant to the question of fitness.
7. Take specialist advice early. These appeals turn on evidence and its presentation, and early preparation makes a real difference.

Genuine account sharing, which involves letting an unvetted and possibly uninsured person carry passengers under another driver's identity, is a serious matter, and TfL is entitled to act firmly where it concludes that a driver is not fit to hold a licence. The point of the appeal process is that such a conclusion must rest on a proper assessment of the available evidence, which the driver is entitled to test before an independent court.

How Morgan Hill Solicitors can help

Morgan Hill Solicitors advises private hire drivers, operators and vehicle owners in London on TfL licensing matters, including:

• responding to TfL information requests and proposed decisions;
• appeals to the magistrates' court and the Crown Court against suspension, revocation and refusal of licences;
• decisions given immediate effect on public safety grounds; and
• obtaining personal data from operators.

Our team includes lawyers and caseworkers who speak Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali, Arabic and Hindi. If you have received a decision from TfL, or your operator has deactivated your account, please contact our Ilford Head Office as soon as possible: time limits are short.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts, and the outcome of one appeal is no guarantee of the outcome of another. Our client's name has been withheld and the case account is published with his consent. Morgan Hill Solicitors is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 669684).