Taxi Driver Online

Uber receives just a two-month London licence with new safety conditions

Uber on Tuesday received only a two-month London operating licence, failing to secure a maximum five-year term in a battle with the regulator which has previously stripped the app of its right to take rides.

Transport for London (TfL) rejected the Silicon Valley company’s licence renewal request in 2017 due to failings it said it found in its approach to reporting serious criminal offences and driver background checks, prompting legal action.

A judge in 2018 then granted Uber (UBER.N) a probationary 15-month licence, which expires on Sep. 25, after the firm had made several changes to its business model in London, its most important European market.

TfL said the new two-month licence comes with “new conditions to ensure passenger safety” and it wanted more details from the company.

“Uber London Limited has been granted a two-month private hire operator licence to allow for scrutiny of additional information that we are requesting ahead of consideration of any potential further licensing application,” said a spokesman.

The 2017 licence loss came just weeks after Chief Executive Dara Khosrowshahi took over and became a test of his ability to assuage regulator concerns as the app faced disputes with rival firms and the authorities in different markets.

Drivers of the city’s traditional black taxis have lobbied hard against a licence renewal, having long cited safety issues, working standards and the undercutting of their business model.

Uber says its roughly 45,000 drivers in the city enjoy the flexibility of their work and that it has taken several steps to improve safety for its passengers.

The new conditions set by TfL cover ride-sharing, appropriate insurance and driver document checks by Uber.

Uber received a five-year licence in 2012 but fellow ride-hailing service Ola gained just a 15-month right to operate earlier this year, in a possible sign that the regulator wants to have more power over new entrants.

Mayor Sadiq Khan, who is also the chairman of TfL, has long been critical of Uber, telling LBC radio last month that they need to play by the rules.

“You will know my track record which is standing up to the big boys, and they are boys, and make sure everyone plays by the rules,” he told listeners to a phone-in. “I don’t care how many lawyers you employ or how big your PR budget.”

_________________
IDFIMH

Does beg the question as to why TfL didn't ask for those details two months ago?

_________________
IDFIMH

Possibly did request the information but as Uber think they are bigger than everyone else did not supply it.

TfL's press release.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press ... g-decision

_________________
IDFIMH

the requirement to add 3 non executive directors ? Jobs for the boys ?

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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

They will get the 5 year license after the 2 month 'pretend to be strict ' decision !

Interesting piece from The Telegraph of all papers.

TfL should have come down harder on Uber – it's just kicking the can down the road

TOM HOGGINS

So Uber gets a stay of execution in London, albeit a brief one. Two years ago Transport for London denied the ride-hailing firm’s ability to operate in the city because of concerns over "public safety and security implications".

It was, at the time, one of the few cities to stand up to the Uber’s often flagrant attitude to background check on its drivers, how it reported serious criminal offences and the surreptitious use of its ‘Greyball’ software to avoid police stings. It was, said TfL, not a ‘fit and proper’ firm.

A judge granted Uber 15 months to clean up its act on appeal, during which time its drivers could continue to operate on the capital’s roads.

Despite Uber hoping for a full five-year renewal after good behaviour, TfL has given it just two months subject to “scrutiny of additional information” ahead of any further license application.

It is certainly a blow to the company, which felt it had done enough to appease regulators for a lengthier license, but the shortest extension ever granted suggests that the firm has failed its probation. And if that is the case, why is the transport body not coming down harder on Uber’s disregard for the rules?

As Steve ******** of trade union GMB said in response to the ruling, TfL has effectively ‘kicked the can down the road’. I am inclined to agree; if Uber hasn’t managed to get its house in order by now, what could it possibly do in these two months for TfL regulators to do another volte face and grant Uber the long-term license it craves.

You can understand Uber’s desire to appease the regulators and TfL’s reluctance to completely shut down the firm in the capital, with 3.5m Londoners reportedly using the service.

It is Uber’s biggest market in Europe and TfL said that its original ban had lead to the firm improving its ‘governance and culture’; including logging criminal complaints directly to police and more tightly regulating its drivers’ hours.

That’s all very well, but clearly TfL and London Mayor Sadiq Khan still do not trust the firm. Khan has remained critical of Uber in the run-up to this decision, while TfL are now demanding further checks on passenger safety, insurance and driver checks.

This seems a puzzling conclusion to arrive at after two years of coming down hard on Uber while the firm suffers continuous setbacks around the world that are often of its own making. Since that 2017 ruling, the company has grown its customer base but has otherwise suffered a calamitous few years.

It has seen its CEO Travis Kalanick resign over company culture, faced accusations of paying hackers to cover up a data breach and has been the subject of drivers’ strikes over its treatment of workers. In August of this year, Uber was hit with a £29,000 fine in the UK over uninsured drivers.

This does not necessarily paint a picture of a contritious company, or one that has its balances in check, despite Uber’s fairly bold spin that the two-month license "reflects the progress made in London".

All it seems to do is sow more confusion and mistrust over the company's right to operate in London. The list of transgressions that lead to the initial ban were not misdemeanours but serious concerns over safety that could have ramifications for both customers and Uber’s workers.

For its travails, Uber is unquestionably a trailblazing company that has fundamentally altered public transport and the gig economy alike, for better and worse. But like many outfits that position themselves as a tech company breaking into other sectors, Uber has made efforts to distance itself from responsibilities by marking itself as a ‘platform’ to connect its drivers and passengers while ‘owning’ very little.

That its drivers have started pushing back against the company suggest the gig is up, while Uber’s continued controversies and clashes with regulation means that it has much work to do if it wishes to continue on its path to global domination. That it has been allowed to grow so much while apparently skirting the rules followed by more established players in the sector is a regulatory conundrum affecting a great number of industries, not just in regards to Uber and transport.

What today’s ruling tells us, then, is hard to say. Its remarkably short length could be construed as a damning indictment of Uber or, as the company puts it, a suggestion that it is close to addressing TfL’s concerns. If it is the latter, though, what was the past 15-month extension for? Are we to believe that this new window will mean Uber will be compliant by Christmas - they just need a little more time, honest guv – or is it an act of hesitancy on TfL’s part as they fear any potential backlash?

“You will know my track record which is standing up to the big boys, and they are boys, and making sure everyone plays by the rules,” Khan told LBC ahead of the ruling this week. “I don’t care how many lawyers you employ or how big your PR budget.”

London seems to be baring its teeth, then, but isn’t quite ready to bite. Will it follow through if Uber fail to meet its demands?

I guess we’ll find out in two months. Or not. It really can be quite hard to tell.

_________________
IDFIMH

Some views on the two-month licence, with the usual suspects plus a London Assembly member who thinks Uber and Londoners are being hard done by.

This is all from TaxiPoint, so if anyone wants to read the full articles then please click on the links. But a lot of it is just rehashes of stuff we've read a million times before, so the stuff below is the most relevant extracts rather than the full articles:

Uber's London micro licence kicks up a storm amongst some of the industry's biggest private hire unions

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... ire-unions

Hitting social media within minutes of TFL's announcement, Mr ******** said: "Again TFL kick a real decision over Uber in to the long grass. 2 months for what to allow them several more months of court wrangling to avoid licence loss and ignorance or workers rights."

Chair of the Independent Workers Great Britain union (IWGB) James Farrar, said: "Once again, TfL's failure to regulate effectively and Uber's unwillingness to play by the rules has led to the jobs of 40,000 Uber drivers being thrown into uncertainty. Sadiq Khan must use this two-month license review period to insist Uber respect UK employment law as a condition of license."

Only 24 hours earlier, Taxipoint published an open letter from the United Private Hire Drivers union to the Mayor of London, which asked him to step in and take the necessary action needed to make sure the ride-sharing app adhere to UK tax and employment laws.

A TfL spokesperson said: “Uber London Limited has been granted a two-month private hire operator licence to allow for scrutiny of additional information that we are requesting ahead of consideration of any potential further licensing application.”

A Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Assoociation (LTDA) spokesperson said: “Granting Uber a two month temporary licence clearly shows that the firm has failed its probabation and is still a huge threat to public safety.

“Over the last 15 months Uber were supposed to change its operations for the better, but the firm has continued to shirk its responsibilities. The granting of the shortest operator’s licence ever shows the Mayor doesn’t trust Uber, and neither should Londoners.

“It’s time the Mayor pulled the plug on Uber’s immoral operation for good.”


Two month Uber licence is a “non-decision by TfL”, says London Assembly

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... n-Assembly

The London Assembly looked less favourably on the decision taken by the capital’s regulators, questioning what will be learnt during the short eight week licence.

The Chair of the London Assembly Transport Committee, Florence Eshalomi AM said: “This is a non-decision by TfL. What will it learn in two more months that it didn’t learn in the last 15 months?

“If Uber hasn’t provided the information that TfL needs then that is a concern that needs to be addressed and clarified by TfL.

“Uber may have upped its game in terms of culture and governance, however, such a short extension is evidence they still have some way to go.

“The London Assembly agreed with TfL’s decision not to renew Uber’s license, as politicians from across the political spectrum were highly concerned about its working practices and safety record.

“We look forward to further information on this extension. The safety of Londoners must come first.”


Londoners “frustrated” with short Uber licence stalling “exciting plans for the London market”, says Boff AM

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... ys-Boff-AM

Andrew Boff said via Twitter: “Londoners will rightly be frustrated to learn that the Mayor has once again kicked the can down the road when it comes to Uber’s licence.

“The livelihoods of thousands of hardworking Uber drivers will continue to hang in the balance, while all those millions of Londoners who rely on Uber to travel around our city will remain in dark about how long they will be able to use the service.

“Uber have exciting plans for the London market – including investing in green vehicles and new charging points – but this move will entirely remove any incentive for the company to pursue these changes and improve their service for Londoners.

“It’s time for Sadiq Khan to finally get off the fence and, for the sake of millions of Londoners, keep London moving by getting behind this enormously valued service.”


United Private Hire Drivers union says TfL is not up to the job of regulating Uber who run rings around them

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... round-them

In a tweet, the union said: "Uber is digital & TfLTPH is 1970s era analog & way out of depth. TfL is set up to regulate individual taxi & PH drivers & clownish operators associated with the LPHCA.

"TfL is simply not up to the job of regulating Uber who run rings around them. Needs a complete management overhaul."

The attack on the capital's taxi and private hire regulator comes just days after they granted Uber a two month licence extension - a decision which has left many flabbergasted.


Regulator is reluctant to put public safety before all else say taxi action group

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... tion-group

A spokesperson from UTAG responded to the decision by saying: “This award of a further 2-month window in order to give ULL a third chance to ‘get their house in order’ is further testament to the reluctance of TfL to put public safety before all else.”

UTAG earlier this year took Westminster Magistrates Court to a High Court Judicial Review, based around the decision to grant a probationary licence to Uber in 2018. The group lost the review which was based around a conflict of interest and flawed reasoning.

The UTAG spokesperson went on to add: “After seeking advice we remain ready and waiting for the decision in 2 months. Be assured we will take the correct action at the right time, including challenging any decision that is made. Now is not the time.

“We remain totally committed to holding TfL to account in court for the damage caused to our trade through inept and cowardly regulation that is seemingly biased in favour of a well-funded but unfit operator.”

Can't disagree with that.

In fact my second post on this thread said just that.

Which makes this incredibly interesting and intriguing, or an incredible waste of everyone's time.

_________________
IDFIMH

it's simple

Uber gives a couple of directors jobs to the right people and then TFL can give them their license as they will have their people in a position of influence

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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

Interesting article on TaxiPoint website.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/highl ... n-taxi-org

“Highly likely” unlicensed drivers have gained access to the Uber platform says London taxi org

Following a Freedom of Information request (FOI) by London's biggest taxi org, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA), details of the extra conditions that have been imposed on Uber during their 8-week licensing extension have now been released.

According to sources at the LTDA, the FOI obtained from Transport for London (TfL) shows there are six conditions that centre around vehicle insurance and, in particular, Uber's online insurance checker and who has access to Uber's app.


Steve McNamara, General Secretary of the LTDA said they already knew that TfL had run prosecutions against Uber for permitting vehicles to be used without insurance, and says it now appears that it is "highly likely" that there have been instances of non-licensed drivers gaining access to their driver platform.

"We have also learned that Uber is ignoring court directives in Germany, which we believe is indicative of their disregard for regulators and courts and we contend that this attitude in Europe has to be relevant to TfL's licensing decision here in London," he added.

LTDA lawyers have again written to TfL highlighting the situation in Cologne asking, how, if Uber London’s parent company Uber BV (Holland) is not ‘Fit and Proper’, and a company that ignores court rulings cannot be, then how can its subsidiary, here in London, be deemed ‘Fit and Proper’?

In September, Uber were granted a two month licence to continue operating, a decision which raised a few eyebrows in the industry.

A TfL spokesperson said: “Uber London Limited has been granted a two-month private hire operator licence to allow for scrutiny of additional information that we are requesting ahead of consideration of any potential further licensing application.”

_________________
IDFIMH

‘Extraordinary’: TfL criticised over Uber licence extension

Transport for London made Uber promise to verify drivers’ identities and ensure their documents are genuine in exchange for a temporary licence to operate, in a deal that drew an incredulous response from the trade body for black-cab drivers.

The ride-hailing firm was granted a two-month extension to its licence in September after TfL refused to issue it with a full permit to operate in the capital amid concerns over the company’s attitude towards the safety of passengers.

The temporary extension came with several new conditions attached, according to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

One condition, headlined “driver identity”, demands that the company put in place systems to ensure that any drivers using the app are licensed by TfL and registered with Uber. TfL asked for the pledge after a case in which a woman in Leeds was raped by a man using his brother’s login details to drive an Uber, which is not permitted by the app.

Among other new conditions is a requirement that Uber ensure that drivers do not use “fraudulent” documents for their licence or insurance.

In a letter to TfL, seen by the Guardian, the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association (LTDA), which represents black-cab drivers in London, said it was “extraordinary” that such conditions needed to be imposed in the first place.

“It should go without saying that London private hire vehicle operators … should have robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that drivers are who they say they are, and that they have the requisite valid licences and insurances in place,” lawyers for the LTDA wrote.

“It is extraordinary that [Uber] needs to be told to undertake appropriate checks to verify that documentation provided by drivers is legitimate and to notify TfL where potentially fraudulent documentation is submitted.”

They said the content of the conditions fuelled concerns that Uber’s enthusiasm for innovation was “not matched by any corresponding interest in dealing with the public safety pitfalls such innovation causes”.

Uber said it had made “significant changes” to its business over the past two years, amid mounting concern about the risks that its business model poses to passengers.

“This includes launching new safety features for riders, introducing better protections for licensed drivers and we’ve improved our corporate governance and compliance,” said a spokesperson.

A TfL spokesperson said: “We have granted a licence to Uber London Limited to operate for two months while we request additional material from them and will consider that information as part of any future licensing decision.

“As with other operators, we have attached a number of conditions to Uber London Limited’s licence, which we consider necessary and appropriate to ensure passenger safety and security.”

The ride-hailing app is expected to seek a permanent licence or another extension at the end of the two-month period.

_________________
IDFIMH

Perhaps TFL could provide a system similar to the online driver's licence sharing thing to allow companies to verify that documents are in fact genuine. We've got a couple of PH ops here, have any of you contacted the LA to check the validity of a licence?