Minicab licence suspension after an accident

TfL: what triggers a Notice under PHV(L)A 1998 sections 7, 8, 16 and 17

Inside Greater London the regulator is Transport for London under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. TfL's two operational powers after a collision sit in different sections of that Act and are exercised by different officials. The first power is to suspend the vehicle licence under section 8. A constable in uniform, or an authorised TfL officer in possession of their authority, may suspend the plate where they are satisfied that the vehicle is unfit for use as a PHV. The plate stays suspended until a notice from the authority directs that it is in force again. If the plate remains suspended for two months from the date of the original notice, the authority may revoke the licence outright under section 8(7). The driver gets a notice stating the grounds on the day the suspension bites; the suspension is effective from the day it is served on the owner.

The second power is to refuse, suspend or revoke either the driver licence or the vehicle licence under section 16. Section 16 is a broader power than section 8 and the procedural rules are in section 17. Standard rule: TfL must serve a written Notice stating the decision and the grounds, and the suspension or revocation takes effect at the end of a 21-day period beginning with the day the Notice is served. The licensee may use that 21-day window to make further representations and to put the case in better order. Override at section 17(3): where TfL forms the view that public safety requires the decision to take immediate effect, and the Notice contains a statement of that opinion together with reasons, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the Notice is served. The "without any further inspection" power - TfL's ability to refuse to issue a fresh plate without inspecting the vehicle - sits inside the broader section 6 / section 7 framework: a licence applicant has no automatic right to inspection, only to a reasoned decision on the application made. The practical answer is to take inspection out of the regulator's hands by submitting a complete independent-engineer evidence pack with the application.

TfL applies the fit-and-proper test on a published basis. The Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Policy (December 2021) sets out the matters TfL takes into account: criminal-conviction history, motoring offences, complaints history, safeguarding concerns, fitness of vehicle, complaints from passengers and operator reports. A non-fault collision does not, by itself, raise a fit-and-proper concern. What raises the concern is the underlying factual matrix: if the collision was caused by the PHV driver's failure to maintain the vehicle, by a medical episode that calls into question the driver's fitness to hold the licence, or by a pattern of behaviour indicating poor judgement, the section 16 power may be engaged on grounds that are wholly separate from the third-party-liability question.

Outside London: LGMPA 1976 sections 60 and 61 and procedural protections

Outside Greater London the regulator is the licensing authority of the district council in which the operator's base is located, acting under Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Section 60 is the council's power to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licence - the plate - on the grounds that the vehicle is unfit for use as a hackney carriage or PHV, on the grounds of any offence under or non-compliance with the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 or Part II of the 1976 Act, or for any other reasonable cause. Where the council exercises the power it must give the proprietor written notice of the grounds within 14 days of the decision. Section 61 is the equivalent power for the driver's licence: suspension, revocation or refusal to renew on conviction, fitness or other reasonable cause grounds, with the same 14-day written-notice obligation and a 21-day delay before the decision bites.

The procedural protections under LGMPA 1976 are slightly different from those under PHV(L)A 1998. The principal differences are three. First, the LGMPA regime separates the vehicle and driver powers into two distinct sections (s.60 for the plate, s.61 for the driver), while the PHV(L)A 1998 regime overlaps the two in section 16. Second, the LGMPA regime's 14-day written-notice requirement is more explicit on the face of the statute than the equivalent obligation under PHV(L)A 1998. Third, the immediate-effect power under LGMPA 1976 sits at section 61(2B) for the driver's licence and is broadly mirrored in council policy for the vehicle licence; the trigger is the same - the interests of public safety require it and the notice must contain a statement to that effect with reasons.

A second practical difference: most district councils delegate licensing decisions to a Licensing Sub-Committee of three elected members, who hear the officer's report and any representations from the licensee before taking the decision. The Sub-Committee is a creature of the council's own constitution rather than of statute and the procedural protections it applies - disclosure of the officer's report, the licensee's right to be heard, legal advice from a solicitor in attendance, the calling of witnesses - are governed by the council's standing orders. Inside London, TfL takes section 16 decisions through its own delegated officers without a sub-committee step. The Magistrates' Court appeal route is the same in both cases.

Post-accident vehicle inspection: DVSA MOT plus the licensing PHV inspection

Two layers of inspection are normally engaged after a serious collision. The first is a DVSA Class 4 or Class 4A MOT. A Class 4 MOT is the standard private car MOT and applies to most PHVs by reference to the gross weight and seating category. A Class 4A inspection adds a seatbelt-installation check that applies where the vehicle has more than eight passenger seats - relevant for larger MPV and 9-seat PHVs. A collision that has affected the chassis, suspension, steering, brakes, lights or seatbelts will, in most authority areas, trigger a fresh MOT before the vehicle can be returned to service, even if the existing certificate has not yet expired.

The second layer is the licensing authority's own PHV inspection. Inside London this is conducted at an authorised SGS centre to the standard set out in the TfL Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Inspection Manual. Outside London, the inspection is conducted at a council-approved garage to the standard set out in the council's PHV licensing policy. Both inspections are broader than a routine MOT. They check the structural integrity of the bodyshell, the condition of upholstery and trim, child-seat anchorages where the vehicle is used for school contracts, the integrity of the rear PHV plate and roof-sign fitting, the operation of the taximeter where one is fitted, the legibility of the licence-condition signage in the rear of the vehicle, and (in the wake of recent operational changes) the operation of the cabin-camera where the operator requires one.

A failure on any inspection line is a ground to refuse or suspend the plate. The remedy is straightforward in description and tedious in execution: take the vehicle to a PAS 125 / BS 10125 accredited bodyshop, repair to manufacturer specification, document the work with photographs and replaced-part part numbers, obtain the bodyshop's PAS 125 written sign-off, instruct an independent engineer to inspect the repaired vehicle and produce a written report on structural integrity, present the repair pack and the engineer's report at the re-inspection, and wait for the licensing authority's notice that the plate is back in force. The full cycle commonly runs to six to twelve weeks even where the damage is moderate; on Cat S salvage the cycle can extend to three or four months.

The appeals route: Magistrates' Court within 21 days under s.25 / s.77

The statutory appeal route against any refusal, suspension or revocation under either regime is the Magistrates' Court. Inside London the route is section 25 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; outside London it is section 77 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which incorporates the appeal procedure in sections 300 to 302 of the Public Health Act 1936. The deadline in both cases is 21 days from service of the Notice. The appeal is by way of complaint under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, meaning the licensee files a complaint at the local Magistrates' Court for an order setting the licensing authority's decision aside. The court issues a summons; the parties enter into a directions timetable; disclosure follows; the final hearing is listed.

The standard of review at the Magistrates' Court is not the public-law Wednesbury-rationality standard that governs judicial review. The court conducts a full rehearing on the merits - it hears the witnesses, sees the documents, and reaches its own view on whether the licensee meets the fit-and-proper standard or whether the vehicle is unfit. Both sides may call evidence. The licensing authority leads with the officer who took the decision, the inspection sheet and the engineer's report if one was relied on. The licensee responds with the independent engineer's report, the bodyshop's PAS 125 sign-off, character witnesses (operator manager, long-standing customers, family doctor), and any relevant medical evidence. The standard of proof is the civil balance of probabilities throughout. The court applies the same fit-and-proper test as the licensing authority but reaches its own decision.

Evidence needed on a typical post-collision appeal: the original Notice with the grounds, the inspection sheet from the licensing authority's examiner, the bodyshop's repair file (estimate, work-in-progress photographs, completion photographs, replaced-part part numbers, PAS 125 sign-off), the independent engineer's report on the repaired vehicle's structural integrity, the V5C logbook, the latest MOT certificate, the certificate of motor insurance, the operator's letter confirming the driver's standing on the platform, and a witness statement from the driver setting out the collision narrative and the steps taken to remedy any concern raised by the regulator. Costs are at the court's discretion: the licensing authority may be ordered to pay reasonable costs of the appeal where the appeal succeeds, and the licensee may be ordered to pay where the appeal fails.

Insurance interaction: a suspended plate cannot carry hire-and-reward cover

A motor insurance policy is rated and underwritten for a defined use class. A specialist UK PHV insurer - Zego, Inshur, Markel, Acorn Insurance, an Aviva-backed scheme - rates the policy on the basis that the insured vehicle holds a current PHV plate and is being used to carry fare-paying passengers under an operator booking. When the plate is suspended, the vehicle is no longer a licensed PHV. It is, for use-class purposes, a private motor vehicle that happens to have a hire-and-reward policy on it - and the use class on the policy no longer reflects the actual use of the vehicle.

Most specialist PHV insurers manage that mismatch by letting the policy be paused or mid-term-adjusted on production of the licensing authority's written suspension notice. A pause sets the premium debit on hold for the period of the suspension and the policy resumes when the plate is restored. A mid-term adjustment downgrades the use class to social, domestic and pleasure for the period of the suspension and re-rates the premium accordingly. Both routes require the driver to tell the insurer about the suspension as soon as the notice is served - failure to do so can prejudice the cover when it most matters.

What the driver cannot do is keep carrying fare-paying passengers in the vehicle while the plate is paused. That is uninsured driving for the purposes of section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 because the vehicle is no longer being used in a way that meets the policy's use class. Section 143(2) makes that a six-points-plus-fine offence and it voids the policy as to first-party and third-party damage. The driver who carries a single fare during a plate suspension is exposing themselves to the full personal financial consequences of any collision that occurs. The disciplined route is to stop carrying passengers immediately on receipt of the Notice, pause the policy in writing, and not resume hire-and-reward use until the licensing authority has confirmed in writing that the plate is back in force.

Cat S salvage and PHV relicensing: structural integrity and council policy

Under the ABI Code of Practice for the Categorisation of Motor Vehicle Salvage a damaged vehicle is graded Category A (scrap), Category B (break for parts), Category S (structural damage, professionally repairable) or Category N (non-structural damage, professionally repairable). A vehicle graded Cat S can be returned to the road for ordinary private use after professional repair, a fresh MOT and a V5C update marking the salvage history. Whether that vehicle can be relicensed as a PHV is a wholly separate decision for the licensing authority.

Inside London, TfL's published practice is that where a vehicle has failed inspection on potential Cat S grounds the owner should email the PHV vehicle policy team, repair the vehicle to a recognised industry standard, and obtain TfL's written confirmation that the vehicle is authorised to proceed through the licensing process before resubmitting. Outside London the position is set by each district council's PHV policy: the general rule across the larger councils is that a Cat S vehicle cannot be relicensed as a PHV without an independent engineer's structural-integrity inspection in addition to the council's own inspection; some councils require a manufacturer-approved bodyshop's sign-off as well; a meaningful minority of councils refuse Cat S relicensing outright on public-safety grounds.

The commercial calculation for a driver offered a Cat S total-loss settlement is therefore not the simple repair-versus-settlement calculation a private motorist faces. It is a three-way decision: (1) accept the settlement, buy a fresh PHV from the open market, replate at the licensing authority's inspection, accept the inevitable downtime; (2) retain the salvage at a deduction, repair it, present it for relicensing - and risk a refusal that leaves the driver with a repaired vehicle they cannot work; (3) retain the salvage, repair it, sell it on as a private vehicle, buy a fresh PHV from the proceeds. Option (2) is the highest upside and the highest risk. It should not be taken without the licensing authority's published policy on Cat S relicensing in hand and, where possible, a written indication that the authority is content in principle with the vehicle's pre-repair state.

How CityGrip Accident Claims supports the licensing layer

CityGrip Accident Claims is an accident management company, not a firm of solicitors. We do not represent the licensee at the Magistrates' Court - that is the role of an SRA-regulated specialist licensing solicitor or counsel. What we do is build the technical evidence pack that the solicitor relies on: instructing a panel independent engineer who is familiar with both DVSA Class 4 / 4A inspection points and licensing-authority PHV inspection points; coordinating the bodyshop work at a PAS 125 / BS 10125 accredited facility and ensuring the photographic and replaced-part documentation is captured to evidential standard; liaising with the operator on the contractual suspension while the regulatory process plays out; pausing the hire-and-reward policy in writing on production of the Notice; and arranging a like-for-like licensed replacement PHV from a specialist fleet where the driver licence remains valid.

For the appeal itself we refer the matter to an SRA-regulated panel solicitor who specialises in PHV licensing. The referral terms - including any referral fee paid by the solicitor - are disclosed at the point of referral. The panel solicitor's own retainer governs the legal work and the panel solicitor takes instructions directly from the licensee. The licensee remains free to instruct a solicitor of their own choice. Our role is the technical and operational layer around the appeal: the engineer, the bodyshop, the operator dialogue, the insurance pause and the replacement vehicle.

We are honest about our regulatory positioning. CityGrip Accident Claims is a UK accident claim management business that operates outside the FCA claims-management regulated perimeter. Where any activity would require FCA authorisation as a claims management company - or SRA authorisation as a solicitor - we do not undertake it; we introduce the customer, with their explicit written consent, to an authorised partner. The full position is set out in our Terms of Business and on the Complaints Policy page.

Continue inside the minicab vertical

The licensing layer sits inside the wider UK minicab claim. The driver-side, vehicle-side and platform-side pages each give the specialist breakdown for their part of the file. Start at the hub if you have not already done so.

• UK minicab accident claims (hub)
• Driver claims after a minicab accident
• Minicab write-off claim
• Minicab engineer inspection
• TfL private hire licence and accidents
• Local authority PHV licence and accidents

Adjacent topics on the wider site

• Engineer inspection
• Private hire accident claims

How to appeal a TfL Notice of Refusal in 5 steps

1. Step 1

   Read the Notice and identify the deadline and the grounds

   Diary the 21-day appeal deadline from the day the Notice was served under section 25 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. Identify the grounds in the body of the Notice - fit-and-proper, unfit vehicle, failed inspection, conviction, complaint - and pin down which subsection of section 16 (driver) or section 8 (vehicle) is being relied on. Confirm whether section 17(3) immediate-effect language is in the Notice; if it is, you are off the road from the date of service even though you have 21 days to appeal.

2. Step 2

   File the complaint at the Magistrates' Court within 21 days

   Lodge a complaint at the local Magistrates' Court for an order setting the licensing authority's decision aside. Under section 25 the appeal is by way of complaint and the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 procedure applies. Pay the court fee. Serve the complaint on TfL (or on the district council outside London). The court issues a summons setting the date for the first directions hearing.

3. Step 3

   Build the evidence pack - engineer, repair, character, medical

   Instruct an independent engineer to inspect the vehicle and to produce a written report on structural integrity, repair scope and (where applicable) post-repair condition. Obtain PAS 125 / BS 10125 documentation from the bodyshop, replaced-part part numbers and photographs. For driver-licence appeals, build a character bundle: DBS, references from operators, any medical certification from a treating GP or specialist. Disclose the evidence pack to the licensing authority on the directions timetable.

4. Step 4

   Prepare for the hearing - full rehearing on the merits

   The Magistrates' Court conducts a full rehearing - it is not a judicial review and is not limited to the material before TfL. Both sides call witnesses. The licensing authority leads on the grounds for refusal or revocation; the licensee answers and calls supporting witnesses (engineer, operator manager, GP, character witnesses). The standard of proof is the civil balance of probabilities. The court applies the same fit-and-proper test as the licensing authority but reaches its own decision.

5. Step 5

   If the appeal fails - consider judicial review or a Crown Court route

   Where the Magistrates' decision is itself unlawful, irrational or procedurally improper, an application for judicial review to the High Court under section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 may lie. The route through the Crown Court applies in limited circumstances. Take specialist licensing-counsel advice quickly because judicial review is subject to a three-month longstop and to the discretion of the High Court. Where the Magistrates' decision turns on a finding of fact properly open to the court, judicial review is unlikely to succeed and the practical route is to remedy the underlying ground (repair the vehicle, address the fit-and-proper concern) and reapply.

The five-step pattern above is the PHV(L)A 1998 section 25 route inside London. The equivalent route outside London is under LGMPA 1976 section 77 with the same 21-day deadline and the same Magistrates' Court forum. The intermediate Licensing Sub-Committee step described above sits between the council officer decision and the section 77 appeal.