| Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/ |
|
| Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29739 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Aug 24, 2016 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber drivers of not playing by the rules over V Festival fares A respected Chelmsford cabby has accused controversial transportation firm Uber of not playing by the rules after claiming several drivers picked up V Festival revellers. Ian Vernon, 55, a former chair of the Chelmsford Taxi Association, said there were claims Uber drivers were loitering in side streets near Hylands Park at the weekend. He explained this was "against the rules" because private taxi hire companies are only allowed to pick up customers who have pre-booked a fare in advance. "The only people allowed to queue in taxi ranks are Hackney carriages. If a driver working for a private hire company does it, that person is breaking the law," said Ian, a taxi driver of 15 years. "I'm not saying Uber drivers were doing that, but they can afford to exploit certain loopholes and take advantage of certain opportunities. "The answer is all about enforcement. If someone has made a legitimate booking, that is fine, but it's when private hire companies sit on the side of the road waiting for pick-ups that we get frustrated. "They loiter in the street. Our livelihoods are being threatened. It's up to the licensing authorities to sort this out but I don't know how much manpower the council has or how big their budget is." Uber is essentially an app that connects drivers with passengers directly, instead of through a centralised booking service or just hailing a car in the street. The app, available on Android and iOS, pitches itself as a safe and reliable way to get on-demand rides in most of the world's major cities – including London. Using GPS technology, it detects a customer's location and connects you with the nearest driver. But it has courted controversy because Uber drivers can significantly undercut taxi and Hackney Carriage drivers as they do not have the same regulations and fees imposed on them. Uber is established in several cities in the UK, including London, while Chelmsford taxi firm Happicabs has produced a similar app. "We feel under threat because some companies aren't playing by the rules," Ian added. "When V is on, because of the magnitude of it, it is like a magnet to drivers because they can double their money in a night. "Chelmsford taxis can't venture into Basildon, for example, because we're not licensed there. So it's unfair when people from London start coming into our territory." The potential completion with Uber comes almost a year after Chelmsford taxi bosses complained about the city council dumbing down its entry exam for aspiring cabbies. The test can take three months to pass and costs around £300, with applicants asked to identify streets or landmarks in Baddow, Danbury, South Woodham Ferrers and the city centre without referring to a map, much like London's famous knowledge exam. An Uber spokesman said: "Uber is not currently planning to launch in Chelmsford, but we are always looking for opportunities if the demand is there and people want to use our services. "There may well have been some cars in the area this weekend due to the V Festival, however, all trips are pre-booked." Read more at http://www.essexlive.news/chelmsford-ta ... ijwRWQu.99 |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Wed Aug 24, 2016 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
What has happened to the famous Rose v Welbeck court case. Councils should be following the lead in this case,either prosecute them for plying for hire if loitering on the highway with driver sat in vehicle,this is also applicable to out of town vehicles working on a private hire circuit. Enforcement must be carried out for the needs of Public Safety,Police and Enforcement Officers have no excuse not to move on any licensed vehicle if it cannot prove it has an imminent booking. All that is required is the will to do the job they are empowered to do. |
|
| Author: | captain cab [ Wed Aug 24, 2016 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
heathcote wrote: What has happened to the famous Rose v Welbeck court case. Councils should be following the lead in this case,either prosecute them for plying for hire if loitering on the highway with driver sat in vehicle,this is also applicable to out of town vehicles working on a private hire circuit. Enforcement must be carried out for the needs of Public Safety,Police and Enforcement Officers have no excuse not to move on any licensed vehicle if it cannot prove it has an imminent booking. All that is required is the will to do the job they are empowered to do.
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Thu Aug 25, 2016 8:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
I think TfL needs to start acting like a proper licensing enforcement unit. Currently they are allowing the spread of cars licensed by them to work 100% of the time outside of their licensing area. That's not acceptable. One cheeky c*** even works and advertises down here. Hopefully the new licensing criteria will help weed out some of the riff raff, but TfL need to get a grip. |
|
| Author: | Midlife martyr [ Fri Aug 26, 2016 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
Councils should be following the lead in this case,either prosecute them for plying for hire if loitering on the highway with driver sat in vehicle,this is also applicable to out of town vehicles working on a private hire So if a Ph drops someone of and there's another booking in the area in the next five minutes the drivers not allowed to turn his engine of and read the paper or whatever are you seriously suggesting they should drive around aimlessly wasting fuel and creating unessacary pollution, another good one people trot out is drivers should return to base after clearing so a couple of dozen cars returning and parking up near a town centre base would be a piece of cake and definetly would not cause any congestion and if they did that they would no doubt be accused of forming a rank I sometimes get the feeling some Hackney drivers have got it in for Ph drivers or maybe I'm just paranoid
|
|
| Author: | Sussex [ Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
Quote: Councils should be following the lead in this case,either prosecute them for plying for hire if loitering on the highway with driver sat in vehicle,this is also applicable to out of town vehicles working on a private hire But Uber cars have no markings, other than the TfL disc which in all fairness people outside of London know nothing about. To prosecute for plying you need to have evidence that the vehicle, with the driver in, enticed the punter. Can't see that with a Uber car. |
|
| Author: | heathcote [ Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
Check the court cases,you will find PLYING FOR HIRE does not need a punter as you put it for a successful prosecution,it needs the law enforcers only to do the job they are employed to do. Wonder if we can cause a stink if the enforcement officers were accused of dereliction of duty whilst holding a public office position.It would appear lots of Councils do not take licensing seriously. |
|
| Author: | grandad [ Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Chelmsford taxi boss accuses Uber |
heathcote wrote: Wonder if we can cause a stink if the enforcement officers were accused of dereliction of duty whilst holding a public office position. Would that be classed as "public office"? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|