This week the LCDC attended a meeting with Tfl regarding Licensing and Compliance. Mark White represented the LCDC at the meeting and afterwards, he was so disgusted with the meeting that he sent Tfl this email the same day. The LCDC works tirelessly to represent the cab trade and every taxi driver who reads this will be under no illusion that instead of playing to the gallery, we work on policy and holding Tfl to account
Subject: Failure of the Licensing & Compliance Forum
Subject: Failure of the Licensing & Compliance Forum, Lack of Transparency on Compliance Issues, and Long-Standing Institutional Failings
To:
Andy Lord – Transport Commissioner
Helen Chapman – Director of Licensing, TfL
Graham Robinson – Head of Compliance, TfL
Elly Baker – Chair, London Assembly Transport Committee
Cc:
Trade Representatives – LTDA, LCDC, UCG, Unite, RMT
Dear all,
I am writing to raise a formal and urgent complaint regarding the continued failure of the Licensing and Compliance Forum to function as a serious or effective mechanism for stakeholder engagement. The two most recent meetings—held in March and April 2025—have both failed, in their entirety, to deliver the Compliance section of the agenda. This omission cannot be written off as an administrative oversight or timekeeping issue. It reflects a structural and systemic breakdown in how Transport for London (TfL) engages with the taxi trade.
Both meetings were attended by senior TfL Compliance leads—Babatunde Owolabi-Ajao in March, and Dean Giannasi in April—yet on both occasions, neither was given time to speak, present data, or respond to any questions. No Compliance reports were shared. No update was provided. No queries were answered. In fact, no Compliance section took place at all.
This is not a trivial matter. Compliance is central to public safety, to maintaining the integrity of the licensing system, and to protecting the public interest. Taxi drivers operate under some of the most stringent regulations in the country. It is insulting, therefore, that the very officials responsible for enforcing those standards are repeatedly sidelined in what is meant to be a formal engagement forum. Meanwhile, the agenda and floor time continue to be dominated by Private Hire-related concerns—many of which, while important in their own right, are wholly distinct from the challenges facing the licensed taxi trade.
The current 45-minute virtual format is simply not fit for purpose. Before the pandemic, these meetings were three hours long, structured, chaired, and held in person. They facilitated real dialogue. Today’s sessions feel more like tick-box exercises: superficial, imbalanced, and entirely lacking in strategic value.
1. Clarification Requested on “Gone Away” PHV Operators
One of the most pressing issues we are unable to raise in these truncated forums is the appearance of “gone away” PHV operators in your own compliance reporting.
In Period 12 of the 2024/25 operational year (2 February – 1 March 2025), your data shows that of 430 Private Hire Operators inspected, 66 (15.35%) were classified as “Category 7 – Gone Away.”
We are formally requesting a full written explanation of what this designation means.
It is understood within the trade—and appears to be accepted operationally—that “gone away” refers to licensed PHV operators who are no longer trading from, or contactable at, the address listed with TfL. If this is correct, it raises fundamental questions:
• Are these operators still licensed to dispatch bookings, even when untraceable?
• What happens to affiliated drivers, trip data, insurance records, and complaints when an operator disappears?
• What safeguarding and auditing systems does TfL have in place to prevent such operators being used as shell companies or booking fronts for informal or illegal work?
If our understanding of this category is incorrect, please clarify. If it is accurate, then we ask: how has TfL permitted a licensing regime where over 15% of inspected operators can simply vanish with no public revocation, suspension, or follow-up action?
No other regulated passenger service model in London—bus, rail, or air—would tolerate such a scale of unaccountability. That TfL is allowing this under the Private Hire regime, while increasing the burden of compliance on the taxi trade, is indefensible.
2. EV Infrastructure Failures and the Withheld 2020 TOPS Meeting Notes
We must also register our continued objection to TfL’s failure to release the notes from the February 2020 Taxi Operational Performance Seminar (TOPS). This was a pivotal meeting at which representatives from across the taxi trade raised urgent concerns about the Electric Vehicle (EV) strategy being imposed on drivers without infrastructure or support.
The seminar was attended by Lucy Hayward-Speight, who was informed directly that the Mayor’s Electric Vehicle Taskforce had no formal taxi trade representation, despite the sector being mandated to transition to zero-emission capable vehicles from January 2018 onwards.
That seminar also highlighted the complete lack of EV charging infrastructure at key operational sites such as Heathrow, where even then, drivers were being failed by inadequate facilities. Five years later, those warnings have not just been ignored—they’ve been vindicated.
3. Heathrow: The Ultimate Case Study in Strategic Failure
Nowhere are these failures more concentrated and visible than at Heathrow Airport.
In December 2016, during a Licensing and Compliance meeting chaired by TfL, Lilli Matson, then Head of Strategy and Outcome Planning, told those present that we would be “falling over charge points at Heathrow.” This was published in The Badge (LCDC, December 2016) and is a matter of public record.
Today, in 2025, the reality is this:
• There are only seven charge points at the Heathrow Taxi Feeder Park.
• Just three are currently working.
• The other four are being cannibalised for spare parts to keep the functioning ones operational.
• A further 19 charge points have been “promised”—but not until 2026, a full decade after the promise was made.
• And now, TfL is proposing a new EV Hub at Hatton Cross, miles from the existing Taxi Feeder Park and wholly impractical for rank-based operations.
This is not simply poor planning—it is regulatory negligence. TfL’s repeated claim that Heathrow is “private property” and thus not its responsibility does not withstand scrutiny when:
• Taxi ranks are regulated by TfL.
• Heathrow-specific policies (such as the Feeder Park) are tied to TfL licensing conditions.
• Taxi fares to and from Heathrow are set by TfL.
• Enforcement of touting and rank abuse at Heathrow is handled by TfL officers.
TfL cannot claim authority when it suits them, and abdicate responsibility when it doesn’t.
Electric taxis were mandated by TfL, without adequate infrastructure, without transitional support, and without serious planning for how drivers would charge vehicles in one of the busiest and most strategically sensitive locations in the country. Heathrow has now become a case study in policy failure—and we raised it in 2016, 2020, and now again in 2025.
4. Institutional Failings and Erosion of Trust
The pattern is clear:
• Promises are made in meetings, but not followed through.
• Notes from key seminars are not published.
• Officers are invited to attend forums but not allowed to speak.
• Compliance issues are shelved.
• The taxi trade is told it must modernise—then denied the tools to do so.
Meanwhile, the Private Hire sector continues to expand, under-regulated and inadequately monitored. Taxi drivers are subject to ever-higher costs, electric vehicle breakdowns, and punitive enforcement—while PHV operators vanish into the system and illegal number plates and touting continue to flourish.
This is not just frustrating—it is demoralising and unsustainable.
5. What We Now Require
To restore even a basic level of confidence in TfL’s governance of the licensed taxi trade, we require the following actions:
• An immediate return to in-person, Taxi-only Licensing and Compliance meetings, chaired, structured, and lasting no less than three hours.
• A full written explanation of what constitutes a “gone away” operator, what their licensing status is, and what enforcement action is taken.
• The immediate release of the notes and outcomes from the February 2020 TOPS meeting.
• A strategic update on Heathrow EV infrastructure and an explanation for the lack of working charge points at the Taxi Feeder Park.
• A public commitment to include taxi trade representatives on all future EV policy and infrastructure bodies, including any update to the Mayor’s EV Taskforce.
Failure to act on these points will only reinforce the growing view that TfL is no longer a neutral regulator, but an absentee authority presiding over a system of double standards and deteriorating trust.
We look forward to your response.
Kind regards,
Mark
Mark White
London Cab Drivers Club (LCDC)
