Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:26 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:25 pm
Posts: 36973
Location: Wayneistan
Uber Sheffield ban: City suspends taxi app's licence after company fails to answer concerns

'We hope this administrative error can be quickly resolved so we can continue serving tens of thousands of riders and drivers,' says company

Sheffield City Council has suspended Uber's licence to operate in the city from 18 December after the company failed to respond to requests for information about its management.

Uber's existing licence is in the name of an employee who is leaving the company.

The ride-hailing app has already submitted a new application to be able to run minicabs in Sheffield, but the company faces not being able to operate in the city over the Christmas period if it is not processed in time.

A Sheffield City spokesperson said: “Uber’s licence was suspended last Friday after the current licence holder failed to respond to requests, made by our licensing team, about the management of Uber.

“It is legally allowed to operate up to 18th December, and if it chooses to appeal this suspension it can continue to operate until the appeal is heard. If it decides against an appeal the suspension will come into force.

“We received a new application, for a licence to operate taxis in Sheffield, from Uber Britannia Limited, on 18 October 2017 which we are currently processing."

An Uber spokesperson said the company informed the council on 5 October it needed to change the name on its licence.

But the council told the app it could not swap the name on the existing document "as most other councils have done", the spokesperson said.

Instead, Uber was told it needed a new licence, which it applied for on 16 October, the spokesperson said.

"While we are in regular contact with the council, we did not receive the correspondence the council refers to as they send the letters to an incorrect address," the spokesperson added.

"We hope this administrative error can be quickly resolved so we can continue serving tens of thousands of riders and drivers in Sheffield.

"If the new application can't be resolved by 18 December we will of course submit an appeal so we can continue to serve people in Sheffield."
UK news in pictures

Uber is still fighting a ban in London after it lost its licence there in September.

Transport for London (TfL) criticised the firm's record on reporting criminal offences and carrying out driver background checks.

TfL decided not to renew Uber's London licence after it deemed the firm "unfit" to run a minicab service.

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 97606.html

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 14517
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
The ride-hailing app has already submitted a new application to be able to run minicabs in Sheffield, but the company faces not being able to operate in the city over the Christmas period if it is not processed in time. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46118
Location: 1066 Country
Either Sheffield are making a meal out of this, or this is yet more spin from Uber.

Simple admin errors don't lead to suspensions. :-k

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 18332
Sussex wrote:
Either Sheffield are making a meal out of this, or this is yet more spin from Uber.

Simple admin errors don't lead to suspensions. :-k

It seems to be a nothing story because as UBER says, if the new license is not ready in time they will put in an appeal against the suspension so they will be able to continue.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46118
Location: 1066 Country
I’m told the old license is in the name of old boss Jo B.

She has gone and only she can appeal the suspension.

A new license can be issued to Uber, as it can to anyone, but I think the council are now requesting Uber answer the questions that made Uber withdraw from a number of areas in the North East,

Not surprisingly Uber yet again not giving the full picture.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 18332
Sussex wrote:
I’m told the old license is in the name of old boss Jo B.

She has gone and only she can appeal the suspension.

A new license can be issued to Uber, as it can to anyone, but I think the council are now requesting Uber answer the questions that made Uber withdraw from a number of areas in the North East,

Not surprisingly Uber yet again not giving the full picture.

Good points.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6197
Sussex wrote:
I’m told the old license is in the name of old boss Jo B.

She has gone and only she can appeal the suspension.


Presumably the licensee is the company Uber Britannia Limited and Jo Bertram was simply named as a director, or whatever?

Would have thought that a simple change of directors could have been accommodated without the need for a new licence.

That seemed to be what was intended to happen with the Taxify case under TfL, but it seemed that they weren't happy about the fit and proper status of a new director, which of course is a different issue.

Sussex wrote:
A new license can be issued to Uber, as it can to anyone, but I think the council are now requesting Uber answer the questions that made Uber withdraw from a number of areas in the North East,

Not surprisingly Uber yet again not giving the full picture.


Indeed, and that's a different issue to the change of personnel per se.

Maybe Sheffield just using change of directors as pretext to challenge Uber on other issues.

Suspect Uber's lawyers will be crawling all over this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46118
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Presumably the licensee is the company Uber Britannia Limited and Jo Bertram was simply named as a director, or whatever?

Would have thought that a simple change of directors could have been accommodated without the need for a new licence.

That seemed to be what was intended to happen with the Taxify case under TfL, but it seemed that they weren't happy about the fit and proper status of a new director, which of course is a different issue.

I'm told Sheffield only give operator's licenses to people, not to organisations. Hence the issue at hand.

What Uber should have done was have more than one person on the operator's license, then Jo could have gone and the license would still run it's course.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46118
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Maybe Sheffield just using change of directors as pretext to challenge Uber on other issues.

Suspect Uber's lawyers will be crawling all over this.

Absolutely certain of both the above.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6197
Sussex wrote:
I'm told Sheffield only give operator's licenses to people, not to organisations. Hence the issue at hand.


That sounds very odd.

If it's a sole trader running the operation then fair enough. But if it's a partnership or company then surely that entity should be the licensee, not an individual.

And that would be consistent with other legal matters such as taxation, negligence and the criminal law.

Suspect it's an open goal for Uber's lawyers. ](*,)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 46118
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
That sounds very odd.

If it's a sole trader running the operation then fair enough. But if it's a partnership or company then surely that entity should be the licensee, not an individual.

And that would be consistent with other legal matters such as taxation, negligence and the criminal law.

Suspect it's an open goal for Uber's lawyers. ](*,)

Page 16 is quite clear, its a person and only a person.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/da ... Policy.pdf

Not sure Uber would have a leg to stand on, as the 21 days to appeal conditions on the license lapsed 11 months ago, and the time limit for a Judicial Review lapsed 5/6 months ago.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6197
Sussex wrote:
Page 16 is quite clear, its a person and only a person.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/da ... Policy.pdf



But if the quoted section is from the Act then why would Sheffield's interpretation of it be any different from any other local authority?

I assume that the 'person' referred to in section 55 of the Act refers to any entity with 'legal personality' or whatever the phrase is, so it would include things like partnerships and companies as well as individuals like ye or me?

Which is surely consistent with how other local authorities deal with the matter?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 1996
StuartW wrote:
Sussex wrote:
I'm told Sheffield only give operator's licenses to people, not to organisations. Hence the issue at hand.


That sounds very odd.

If it's a sole trader running the operation then fair enough. But if it's a partnership or company then surely that entity should be the licensee, not an individual.

And that would be consistent with other legal matters such as taxation, negligence and the criminal law.

Suspect it's an open goal for Uber's lawyers. ](*,)



1976 Act states that the Council can only grant an operators license to a PERSON.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:13 pm
Posts: 426
It has been explained to me that j.bertrum has not responded to any correspondence ,she is the named operator therefore it's doubtful she will appeal ([edited by admin] off).A new application has been put in October in another name.since other councils have started to have doubts about poobers operating (booking) legallity' and they themselves standing up in court and saying the driver initially receives the booking then it seems Sheffield has also grown a pair of balls.It has also been stated by Sheffield poobers drivers that at their recent get-together the poobers staff said absolutely nothing about the issue, claiming there was no issues!.Now I'm sure the tech is good but,God the management are BENT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Uber Sheffield ban
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 6197
heathcote wrote:

1976 Act states that the Council can only grant an operators license to a PERSON.


Where does it say that?

If the Act refers to a 'person' applying it probably doesn't just mean an individual like you or me, but also companies and partnerships.

Therefore what is in law called a 'legal person':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person

If you look at any application form for an operator's licence (there are plenty available online) then it will probably have a section asking for the names of the partners if it's a partnership, or the directors and company secretary if it's a limited company.

By the same token, if you look at a council's licensing register for private hire operators (also some available online) then it'll very probably contain the names of companies and partnerships as the licensees as well as individuals.

As far as Sheffield is concerned I suspect all this stuff about only a named individual being allowed to apply for an operator's licence is wrong and a red herring as far as the dispute with Uber is concerned.

Of course, there will be named individuals involved in the application who will be responsible for the conduct of the operator, but legally the operator will be the company Uber Britannia Limited, not any particular individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group