Taxi Driver Online

Fife Council’s handling of Uber objections raised with Scottish ministers

https://uberfife.com/news/fife-council- ... ministers/

EFTA has written to Kirsten Oswald, Minister for Victims and Community Safety, asking her to seek answers over Fife Council’s handling of Uber’s booking office application. Stephen Flynn, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, has been copied into the letter.

Hundreds of people objected. Around 25 were invited to address the licensing committee on 22 September, but when they arrived, Uber’s solicitor challenged the validity of the objections on signature grounds. The council accepted that argument and those invited were not allowed to present their concerns.

The application was subsequently approved.

Fife Council had held objections for 8 months. If it believed there was a problem with their signatures, there was time to tell people before inviting them to a hearing. Instead, objectors discovered the problem when it was too late to do anything about it.

There is also correspondence showing the council’s head of licensing telling an objector he was happy to accept their digital signature. How does that sit with what happened at the committee?

Our letter asks Ms Oswald to seek an explanation from the council, including what rules governed electronic submissions and whether the relevant requirements were applied consistently to Uber’s application and the public’s objections. We have also asked her to consider stronger national guidance and to meet representatives of the East Fife Taxi Association.

The council’s apology was welcome, but it did not answer those questions or give people back their opportunity to be heard.

Local businesses and residents are now raising money for legal advice and a challenge. That is money they should not have to find simply to establish whether their council administered a public process properly.

Whatever anyone thinks of Uber, people who take the trouble to participate deserve clear instructions and competent administration. Fife Council owes them a proper explanation.

We have asked the Scottish Government to help secure one.

This is the text of EFTA's letter, and the link to the original is at the bottom.

But it's interesting how this kicks off - obviously trying to politicise it with the reference to the Labour-controlled council. But, I mean, James Glen and Linda Holt won't want to draw attention to the politics of it all given their history as Reform UK candidates. And a slightly chequered history at that. And that's putting it mildly

But, I mean, what price quasi-judicial-ism, eh?

(And if you think the likes of Labour and the LibDems don't get on with Reform in London, I think the SNP are even worse )


Fife Council’s handling of Uber’s booking office application

Dear Ms Oswald,

I am writing on behalf of the East Fife Taxi Association to seek your support over Labour-controlled Fife Council’s handling
of objections to Uber’s booking office application.

Hundreds of residents and members of the taxi trade submitted objections. Around 25 objectors were invited to address
the licensing committee on 22 September, only for their objections to be rejected on signature grounds following an
intervention by Uber’s solicitor. The application was subsequently approved without those invited being allowed to present
their concerns.

The council had held objections for 8 months. Yet the alleged defects were raised at the hearing, when objectors had no
practical opportunity to correct them. Correspondence also shows the council’s head of licensing telling an objector that
he was happy to accept their digital signature.

How were members of the public supposed to navigate requirements that the council’s own advice appears to contradict?

There are serious questions about the paragraph 16A determination governing electronic submissions, whether its
requirements were clearly communicated, and whether the relevant signature and authentication rules were applied
consistently to the application and the objections.

An apology does not resolve those questions. Nor does it restore the opportunity people lost to address the committee.
Fife’s taxi businesses provide essential transport, support local employment and serve communities where alternatives are
limited. They are entitled to expect competent administration and fair treatment from their council. So are residents who
take the time to participate in a statutory process.

Confidence in the council’s handling has been badly damaged. The Scottish Government now has an opportunity to
demonstrate that local accountability means more than leaving residents to fund a legal challenge when legitimate
procedural concerns remain unanswered.

We recognise that individual licensing decisions are for the licensing authority, subject to the applicable legal remedies.

We are asking you to address the wider questions of public participation, consistent administration and confidence in
Scotland’s licensing system.

Specifically, will you:

1. Write to Fife Council seeking an explanation of its advice on digital signatures, the timing of its validity assessment, and
the paragraph 16A determination it relied upon?

2. Seek assurance that the relevant requirements were applied consistently to the applicant and objectors?

3. Consider whether national guidance needs strengthening so that alleged defects are identified promptly, rather than first
being raised at a hearing?

4. Meet representatives of the East Fife Taxi Association to review the supporting evidence?

We can provide the relevant correspondence, hearing invitations and committee records.

Whatever position anyone takes on Uber, the public should be able to trust the process by which a licence is granted. We
would welcome your support in securing clear answers and meaningful accountability.

Yours sincerely,

James Glen

East Fife Taxi Association

Cc: Stephen Flynn MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport

https://uberfife.com/documents/letter-t ... /download/

Worth looking at the original email document via the link, though, and that's where it gets a bit messy with a lot of their stuff - the letter is ostensibly from EFTA, but the signatures etc at the bottom are from their business vehicle St Andrews Taxis (hope someone likes the pun in there )

This does get to the crux of it, though


But, if anyone hasn't seen the relevant legislation posted in another thread a few weeks ago, it's paragraph 16A towards the bottom of this page. Which was inserted into the legislation years after the original enactment to encompass modern electronic methods of communication. Presumably.

But, as I've said about this previously, if you value your sanity, don't try to make sense of all the procedural stuff via this link

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/45/schedule/1

(And for legal pedants, although that stuff is part of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (which governs taxi licensing) the various, er, bits and pieces are referred to as paragraphs rather than sections and subsections. That's presumably because the above stuff is part of Schedule 1 rather than the main part of the Act. Or something like that )

Nothing new enough here to justify a new thread...and maybe better in an older thread...but will just put it here in the latest thread...

Anyway, most of the coverage so far has been in the Fife press, but this is in the Herald, which is based in Glasgow, and is more of a national title.

And it's the first time I've seen the dreaded 'ride-hailing' term used

And a slightly stronger comment than last time round on the blackballing - I wonder how that type of thing plays with the public??

And more interesting stuff from David Torrance, who's the MSP who wrote an opinion piece slamming Fife Council in very strong terms.

But it's rare to see someone so brazenly trying to ride two horses at the same time. First it's pure capture and vested interests. Then he's banging the drum for Uber

The latter may play well with the elements of the public, which I suppose is what he's trying to do. But as far as the trade is concerned, he's effectively demolishing his comments for the vested interests


Fife taxi drivers hit out at council over Uber licence

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/266 ... r-licence/

Scottish taxi drivers have said they will fight on as council bosses ignored 400 objections and granted American ride-hailing service Uber a licence to operate in Fife.

Owner of St Andrews Taxis Linda Holt described the council’s decision as “absolutely appalling.”

She explained: “Fife Council have completely disregarded the public's objections, despite the fact Uber has had multiple licensing problems in the past, for example in London, where they were at first, refused.

“The Fife taxi trades are united on this issue. Taxi firms, including us have called to blackball drivers who choose to work for Uber. The Dundee firms also did this and as a result Uber struggled to hire drivers, weakening their presence in the city.

“We are more than a taxi service. We support our community by serving charities, helping people and forming a relationship with our customers. You will not get that with Uber.”

Ms Holt said her taxi firm will be raising money to appeal against the council’s decision, with approximately £2,700 raised.

She said: “Fife Council chose to serve Uber over their own community. I do not think you can overstate the anger in the taxi trade towards the council about this.”

Tahir Muzammil, owner of Dunfermline city taxis, said: “Uber’s arrival is definitely going to change things and whilst it may offer passengers more choice, there are real concerns for local established businesses.

“We have invested heavily in our fleet and our reputation. We want to make sure all drivers operate fairly and to the same high standards that Fife passengers expect and deserve.”

Kirkcaldy MSP David Torrance said: “Taxi firms in Fife already have a shortage of drivers and this is a real problem.

“If companies are struggling to recruit now, and Uber hires more drivers, local businesses will struggle massively.

“Fife taxi companies have a place within their communities. Many of them have been there for decades, they serve charities and have contracts with schools, football clubs, local businesses, and the Fife Council.”

Mr Torrance said Uber could bring some benefits to Kirkcaldy high streets. He said: “I think the company will be good for serving the high street, specifically club and pub users, especially if you cannot find a taxi available during that time.

“Safety is a big concern for women at night, and it will be better to seek quick transport like Uber as opposed to waiting or walking.”

UberX functions as an app-based booking system, connecting the customer to the driver and providing fast convenience to those travelling around, typically costing lower fees than traditional taxi fares.

Uber is already available in Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

Fife council and Uber were both approached for comment.

Nakai Kwajiya is a student journalist

Again, that's where all the various horses and front organisations get a bit confused and conflated. Unless I'm missing something, it's not Ms Holt's firm that's raised the money. Nor is it even EFTA

And a few other things in the piece that could be nit-picked, but maybe that's enough for now

What is the point of writing to ministers? They can't overrule the local council's licensing decision.

It's worth pointing out here that Uber has done nothing wrong. They merely pointed out that those objections were not done in accordance with the rules.

Councillors were made aware of Uber's legal position; they took advice from their own legal officers and granted the application.

I'm really not sure where the trade goes with this, other than round and round getting nowhere.

_________________
IDFIMH