Pub Landlord’s Charity Cab Run Shut Down by Council Licensing Officers

Following news that a Kent pub landlord was offering  free cab service to regulars the pub has this weekend been forced to abandon the charity taxi service that raised hundreds of pounds for a motor neurone disease charity, after council licensing officers ruled it fell foul of private hire vehicle regulations.

Paul Hartfield, who runs the Shepherd Neame pub The Flying Horse in Smarden, had been offering customers lifts home in his own black cab since November, with passengers invited to make voluntary donations to the Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Association. The initiative raised more than £700, with around 100 patrons having used the service over several months.

Mr Hartfield launched the scheme after one of his regular customers was diagnosed with MND, and structured it so that anyone booking a table at the 18th-century village pub could indicate whether they needed a lift home at the end of their evening.

Ashford Borough Council intervened following local media coverage of the initiative, with licensing officers determining that the vehicle constituted a private hire vehicle under existing legislation. Despite the fact that Hartfield received no personal financial benefit from the arrangement, officers indicated that the potential for “commercial benefit” was sufficient to bring the service within the scope of licensing requirements.

Speaking following the ruling, Mr Hartfield expressed frustration at the outcome. “It’s mean-spirited,” he said, adding that the broader trading environment was already placing significant pressure on the licensed trade. He cited rising business rates and escalating operating costs as further burdens bearing down on pub operators across the country.

The pub owner described the service as little different from one friend driving another home, and said he was uncertain how to proceed in the wake of the council’s intervention.

The decision has drawn sharp criticism from locals. Regular customer Paul Upton, 55, called the ruling completely disproportionate, arguing that Hartfield had funded the initiative entirely from his own pocket — purchasing the vehicle, covering fuel costs and arranging his own insurance — all in service of a charitable cause.