Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:39 am

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
So how does this work, then?

TfL plated cars and drivers couldn't just migrate elsewhere if Uber has lost its TfL operator's licence, presumably?

Suspect this article largely nonsense - based on a false premise, as some might say :-s


South Essex taxi drivers on alert over Uber fears

https://www.southendstandard.co.uk/news ... ber-fears/

CABBIES say they must stand together to ensure taxi hail firm Uber does not take over south Essex after Transport for London opted not to renew the firm’s licence to work in the capital.

TFL took the decision over safety and security concerns.

As part of the decision, the authority said “several breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk” were identified while it also found 14,000 trips were made with drivers who were different to the ones shown on the app.

The firm’s existing licence expired yesterday, but it will be allowed to continue to operate pending an appeal.

Tina Denney, 58, from Canvey, who works as an independent taxi driver as well as a driver for Steve’s Taxi, in Benfleet, said: “They are already operating in south Essex and I wouldn’t be surprised of they start to work in our area more.

“As licensed drivers we must all stick together and make sure they do not work more in our area.

“I hope that cabbies would all club together and stop this from happening.

“We do not want them working in our patch.

“If they want to come here, they must be licensed and we should all be working to the same standards.”

Geoff Bradley, 66, an independent taxi driver based in Benfleet, said: “I think there is a danger to the public if they come here because of complaints and issues in London and elsewhere.

“If they do decided to target our area if will be a bad thing.

“I could impact drivers who have a dual license with firms.”

David Harrison, Wickford Independents chairman of Basildon Council’s neighbourhoods and public spaces committee, added: “I think there will be some that try and operate in Basildon but the council will be quick to act and stop it.

“I think the cabbies in Basildon will be quick to tell the council and it will act swiftly.

“I think it will be the same with all councils in our area.”

Uber boss Dara Khosrowshahi tweeted: “We understand we’re held to a high bar, as we should be. But this TfL decision is just wrong. Over the last 2 years we have fundamentally changed how we operate in London. We have come very far — and we will keep going, for the millions of drivers and riders who rely on us.”

Uber was contacted for comment on the concerns in south Essex.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Quote:
David Harrison, Wickford Independents chairman of Basildon Council’s neighbourhoods and public spaces committee, added: “I think there will be some that try and operate in Basildon but the council will be quick to act and stop it.

“I think the cabbies in Basildon will be quick to tell the council and it will act swiftly.

“I think it will be the same with all councils in our area.”


But presumably Uber would have to be granted an operator's licence and all the cars and drivers re-plated?

Which would take time, obviously and is hardly a foregone conclusion.

Cabbies 'clubbing together' to stop Uber is just huffing and puffing.

And if the Essex local authorities denied Uber a licence, what does that say about the councils elsewhere who currently do licence Uber as an operator?

But, as per what I said in the other thread, suspect this is all academic, and Uber will just make the requisite improvements in London, and things will carry on pretty much as before.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 13365
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
I suspect the majority will still work in the London area just without the ops license as they do in some other areas but unbranded :wink:

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:56 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Suspect this article largely nonsense - based on a false premise, as some might say :-s

Indeed.

I load of old pony as they say in the smoke.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
This from elsewhere in Essex is maybe a bit more realistic about the threat from Uber. This is basically the statement from the Thurrock TDA, and I've missed out the rest of the article about yesterday's TfL process.


Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association react to news that Uber loses licence to operate in London

https://www.yourthurrock.com/2019/11/25 ... te-london/

Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association (TTDA) has reacted to the news.

A spokesperson said: “The Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association welcomes the news that TfL have decided to not renew Uber of their London operators licence. We have been battling for over a year to highlight the illegalities of their practice particularly encroaching into Thurrock without an operators license to work in the area.

"Uber have been using their London license to work in over 40 boroughs outside of London without operators licenses in those areas.

"TfL's decision today confirms that Uber are not a “fit and proper” operator and that operating unlawfully catches up to operators of all sizes eventually.[…]

“With this news it will hopefully protect the livelihoods of Taxi firms, their drivers in all areas like Thurrock, Brentwood and Basildon”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, to the degree that I suspect Uber will retain its TfL licence then the above is more wishful thinking than the likely outcome.

But slightly more realistic than assuming that ex-TfL Uber drivers would simply have flooded into Essex :-s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
More reaction from the provincial trade, this time Southampton.

This is just the most relevant part of the article, rather than the London rehash bit:


Southampton taxi drivers call for review on Uber in the city

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/180627 ... uber-city/

Now Southampton taxi drivers are calling on the council to review Uber's license in the city.

Southampton Hackney and Private Hire Association and Unite the Union have asked Southampton City Council (SCC) to take a look at Uber in Southampton and to not issue any more licenses.

Ian Hall from Southampton Hackney and Private Hire Association said: "This review would be long over due.

"There are lots of concerns in Southampton, the council needs to review it and we would like to see no more licenses issued.

"If the Capital of this country can get rid of Uber, I think we should have some concerns too."

Perry McMillan from Unite the Union cab section added: "Surely as a customer you'd have some concerns about what they have discovered in London.

"If the Capital don't deem them as good and proper, why should they be allowed to operate here?"

Unite the Union are calling on all councils across the south coast to review Uber's licenses including Portsmouth and Bournemouth.

A council spokesperson said: "SCC note the decision by Transport for London to refuse to renew the Operator Licence for Uber in London and the reasons given. This is a decision Transport for London has reached based on the evidence it has of how Uber operate in London.

"We accept there are similarities on the operating model, but it must be acknowledged that in London Uber operates under different legislation and conditions to Southampton.

"We will continue to monitor all of the operators in the city, and take action where appropriate.

"As the legal argument unfolds in London we will continue to assess whether any matter raised materially affects the position in Southampton."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Quote:
A council spokesperson said: "SCC note the decision by Transport for London to refuse to renew the Operator Licence for Uber in London and the reasons given. This is a decision Transport for London has reached based on the evidence it has of how Uber operate in London.

"We accept there are similarities on the operating model, but it must be acknowledged that in London Uber operates under different legislation and conditions to Southampton."

Can't see what relevance the different legislative frameworks have to some of the issues identified in London :-s


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Now this from Newcastle. As previously, I've just included the relevant bits.

But like the Southampton one, this all seems to be missing the point a bit, and simply trying to sidestep the issues with a bit of PR spiel, reminiscent of Wolverhampton when they're on the defensive if criticisms are made of their processes.

Not that I'm blaming the councils here - they certainly won't do anything until Uber's appeal mechanisms are exhausted, one way or the other.

So if there are any more similar articles, it's highly likely they'll say largely the same things, and they were pretty predictable anyway until the London process is done and dusted.


Newcastle council bosses address Uber's future on Tyneside after taxi app loses London licence

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/no ... l-17320517

Civic centre chiefs say they will consider Transport for London's rationale for refusing Uber a new licence, with the firm able to operate in Newcastle until 2021

The service arrived in Newcastle in 2015, since when the number of taxi drivers in the city has soared , and the firm said earlier this year that it was “proud of the positive impact we have had in Newcastle”.

City council officials say they will now examine the TfL decision on Uber, which is currently licensed to operate in Newcastle until 2021 , and defended their vetting procedures for taxi drivers.

A spokesperson for Newcastle City Council said: “We will consider the rationale behind the reasons for the refusal to renew the private hire operator licence of Uber by Transport for London.

“Applications are submitted in person to the Licensing Authority and thereafter vetting procedures are completed and applications determined and processed in direct consultation with the Disclosure & Barring Service and external agencies.

"Enhanced certification, bespoke medical forms and photographic identification must all be presented by the prospective licensee to Council Offices. Safeguarding awareness training and one to one applicant knowledge assessment must also be satisfactorily completed with Officers of the Council.

“Safeguarding and proactive enforcement are fundamental to ensuring licensees are and remain fit and proper to hold licences and we further this through our established partnerships with Northumbria Police and other enforcement bodies to ensure the travelling public have confidence when using private hire operations licensed by Newcastle City Council.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 11:07 pm
Posts: 2551
Location: Hampshire (HC)
"Hello,

You are no doubt aware of today's decision by Transport for London (TfL) to 'refuse to renew' Uber's Private Hire Operator's Licence on the grounds that Uber has ceased to be 'Fit and Proper' in order to hold a licence. This of course comes as the culmination of various events that TfL clearly consider to have proved that Uber poses a threat to "Public Safety".
For your information, it is being widely reported in the press, thus;
Helen Chapman, Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging at TfL, said: "As the regulator of private hire services in London we are required to make a decision today on whether Uber is fit and proper to hold a licence. Safety is our absolute top priority." "While we recognise Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured." "It is clearly concerning that these issues arose, but it is also concerning that we cannot be confident that similar issues won't happen again in future."
London Mayor Sadiq Khan praised the Uber ruling. He said: "Only in the last few months it has been established that 14,000 Uber journeys have involved fraudulent drivers uploading their photos to other driver accounts - with passengers' safety potentially put at risk getting into cars with unlicensed and suspended drivers."
The link following contains a copy of a statement from, and broadcast by - the London Mayor, on 'twitter'. In this statement, Mr Khan goes further to reinforce his support for TfL's decision and to reiterate his concern(s) regarding Uber and "Public Safety". https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/11 ... 1548171264
With all of the aforementioned in mind, would you kindly confirm on behalf of Fareham Borough Council, that you will be carrying out an immediate review and re-appraisal of Uber's current Private Hire Operator's licence with urgency, given the issues highlighted by TfL and the London Mayor. This, together with the knowledge that it is a matter of fact that all "Uber" incarnates are linked by ownership and management and perhaps more worryingly, they regularly sub-contract bookings between their member companies.
Can the Council be satisfied that Uber remains 'fit and proper' to hold a licence to operate in Fareham? Can the Council say with any conviction that similar issues with the Uber service do not exist and have not existed within Fareham?
I await your response.
Kind Regards,"

The response:

The Council are aware of the ruling published in part. You will probably be aware that should the company appeal the decision to the Magistrates court (which it has said it intends to do), it can continue to operate until the matter is determined, there are of course further rights of appeal after the Magistrates Court, so it could be a while until a definitive decision is made.

Not much of the detail has actually been published from a reliable source as yet, I understand that UBER took issue with some of TfL licence conditions, which haven’t been an issue with Fareham as yet.

We will of course be watching the situation closely, as we would any decision of this type and take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

I trust the above is helpful.

Kind regards



I trust that these LOs will be prepared to face their public when their negligence leads to yet another incident with an unlicensed driver that could have been prevented.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:02 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Quote:
A council spokesperson said: "SCC note the decision by Transport for London to refuse to renew the Operator Licence for Uber in London and the reasons given. This is a decision Transport for London has reached based on the evidence it has of how Uber operate in London.

"We accept there are similarities on the operating model, but it must be acknowledged that in London Uber operates under different legislation and conditions to Southampton."

Can't see what relevance the different legislative frameworks have to some of the issues identified in London :-s

Indeed, a rather pathetic statement from a council that doesn't give two f***s as long as licensees pay their fees. [-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
More reaction from local authorities. Some saying a bit more than others, but the pattern should be obvious by now. So won't be posting any more unless there's something a bit different, as per Manchester in the new thread.


Uber review in Birmingham in 2020 will examine London licence loss

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/m ... 0-17313040

Birmingham City Council has announced that it will be reviewing the decision by Transport for London not to renew Uber's license in the city - though the company's renewal hearing in Birmingham is not due until next year.

Birmingham City Council will be reviewing the decision by Transport for London not to renew Uber's licence in the city, it has been announced.

But the taxi app service will continue to operate in the city until at least next year, with a review of its licence not due until the end of January.[…]

Uber has been operating in Birmingham since 2015, with a spokesperson for the company saying they had been 'humbled' by the reaction from the city at a licensing renewal hearing earlier this year.

And, with its next renewal due on January 31, Birmingham council said it would be considering Transport for London's decision when hearing the application.

"The licensing legislation governing private hire operators is different in London to the majority of the rest of the country," a spokesperson said.

"We will review the decision made by TfL, although it is not binding on any other licensing authority and is still open to appeal and will not take effect (or not) until any appeal is determined.

"The Uber licence issued by Birmingham City Council is not due for renewal until 2020. Each case must be considered on its own merits."


No review planned of Uber in Walsall

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/loc ... n-walsall/

Uber will be allowed to continue to operate in Walsall despite a ruling in London not to renew the firm’s licence in the capital.

Licensing chiefs said the private hire operator has a permit to work in the town until 2023 and Walsall Council said there were no concerns raised against the company to prompt a review of the agreement.[...]

As a result of this decision, Birmingham City Council confirmed it would consider the London decision when Uber’s licence is up for review in January 2020.

In Walsall, Uber was issued a five year private hire vehicle operators (PHVO) licence to Uber on November 16 last year.

A Walsall Council spokesman said: “The licensing regime in London differs to the rest of the country and, while any action taken against a PHVO is of interest, the decision made by Transport for London is not binding on Walsall Council.

“The scale of the operation of Uber in Walsall is significantly smaller than that of London and other large cities, nonetheless, the council does insist on the highest standards possible from our trade.

“The council is not aware at present of any complaint or concern raised against Uber in Walsall that would necessitate a review of its licence.

“All drivers driving for Uber in Walsall, under the provisions of their PHVO, must have a private hire driver’s licence issued by Walsall Council.

“Before issuing a licence, Walsall Council licensing service carries out a number of checks on all applicants which include criminal record checks with the DBS and checks on their DVLA driving licence.”



Thought the headline on this one looked quite interesting, but could only find *one* paragraph that isn't about London :lol:

Indeed, the most interesting thing turned out to be the rogue apostrophe in "Council's". In fact the 'c' shouldn't be capitalised either [-( [-X

Yorkshire Council's speak out on future of Uber after firm refused new operating licence in London

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/tr ... 1-10121540

Sheffield City Council and Leeds City Council both stated they will "closely monitor" the situation, while York City Council said there were no changes to its decision back in 2017 when the licensing committee did not consider Uber "fit and proper" to hold a licence in the city.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Quote:
Sheffield City Council and Leeds City Council both stated they will "closely monitor" the situation...

If they'd all just said that it would have summed things up adequately.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:31 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 44131
Location: 1066 Country
cabbyman wrote:
"Hello,

You are no doubt aware of today's decision by Transport for London (TfL) to 'refuse to renew' Uber's Private Hire Operator's Licence on the grounds that Uber has ceased to be 'Fit and Proper' in order to hold a licence. This of course comes as the culmination of various events that TfL clearly consider to have proved that Uber poses a threat to "Public Safety".
For your information, it is being widely reported in the press, thus;
Helen Chapman, Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging at TfL, said: "As the regulator of private hire services in London we are required to make a decision today on whether Uber is fit and proper to hold a licence. Safety is our absolute top priority." "While we recognise Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured." "It is clearly concerning that these issues arose, but it is also concerning that we cannot be confident that similar issues won't happen again in future."
London Mayor Sadiq Khan praised the Uber ruling. He said: "Only in the last few months it has been established that 14,000 Uber journeys have involved fraudulent drivers uploading their photos to other driver accounts - with passengers' safety potentially put at risk getting into cars with unlicensed and suspended drivers."
The link following contains a copy of a statement from, and broadcast by - the London Mayor, on 'twitter'. In this statement, Mr Khan goes further to reinforce his support for TfL's decision and to reiterate his concern(s) regarding Uber and "Public Safety". https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/11 ... 1548171264
With all of the aforementioned in mind, would you kindly confirm on behalf of Fareham Borough Council, that you will be carrying out an immediate review and re-appraisal of Uber's current Private Hire Operator's licence with urgency, given the issues highlighted by TfL and the London Mayor. This, together with the knowledge that it is a matter of fact that all "Uber" incarnates are linked by ownership and management and perhaps more worryingly, they regularly sub-contract bookings between their member companies.
Can the Council be satisfied that Uber remains 'fit and proper' to hold a licence to operate in Fareham? Can the Council say with any conviction that similar issues with the Uber service do not exist and have not existed within Fareham?
I await your response.
Kind Regards,"

The response:

The Council are aware of the ruling published in part. You will probably be aware that should the company appeal the decision to the Magistrates court (which it has said it intends to do), it can continue to operate until the matter is determined, there are of course further rights of appeal after the Magistrates Court, so it could be a while until a definitive decision is made.

Not much of the detail has actually been published from a reliable source as yet, I understand that UBER took issue with some of TfL licence conditions, which haven’t been an issue with Fareham as yet.

We will of course be watching the situation closely, as we would any decision of this type and take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

I trust the above is helpful.

Kind regards



I trust that these LOs will be prepared to face their public when their negligence leads to yet another incident with an unlicensed driver that could have been prevented.

What drivers or driver's associations should be doing is not just pointing out to councils what's happening with Uber in London, but asking those councils what they are doing to stop what TfL accuse Uber of happening there, from happening locally.

Merely pointing out the London issue gives councils an easy out by saying that they note what's happening and will await what happens. Whereas if those councils are asked what they are doing to prevent Uber doing locally what they are doing in London, firmly puts the onus on those councils to act in some way or another.

Don't let councils off lightly.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Some of this was included in an earlier piece, but maybe a couple of interesting comments worth highlighting.


‘Uber news is boost for taxis’

https://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/ ... ost-taxis/

Thurrock taxi drivers are hoping Transport for London’s decision not to grant Uber a new licence will not lead to Uber drivers looking for trade outside of the capital.

The decision has been welcomed by the Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association which has campaigned against Uber for more than a year.

Their issue with the company centred around its use of a virtual boundary in the app, known as a “geofence”. This boundary categorised Thurrock as being part of Greater London.

A Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association spokesman said: “The Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association welcomes the news that TfL have decided to not renew Uber of their London operator’s licence.

“We have been battling for over a year to highlight the illegalities of their practice particularly encroaching into Thurrock without an operator’s license to work in the area.

“Uber have been using their London license to work in over 40 boroughs outside of London without operators’ licenses in those areas.

“TfL’s decision today confirms that Uber are not a ‘fit and proper’ operator and that operating unlawfully catches up to operators of all sizes eventually.

“It has been found that TfL investigation showed that over 14,000 trips had been done with drivers who uploaded pictures to their account for which they were not registered to drive.

“With this news it will hopefully protect the livelihoods of Taxi firms, their drivers in all areas like Thurrock, Brentwood and Basildon.”

The Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association dismissed concerns about potential jobs losses, adding that “there are plenty of cab firms in Thurrock wanting to hire drivers from all backgrounds”.

Despite the association alleging that Uber has been operating illegally in the borough, a council investigation found no evidence that this was the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 4824
Quote:
A Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association spokesman said: “The Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association welcomes the news that TfL have decided to not renew Uber of their London operator’s licence.

“We have been battling for over a year to highlight the illegalities of their practice particularly encroaching into Thurrock without an operator’s license to work in the area.

“Uber have been using their London license to work in over 40 boroughs outside of London without operators’ licenses in those areas.

“TfL’s decision today confirms that Uber are not a ‘fit and proper’ operator and that operating unlawfully catches up to operators of all sizes eventually.

But cross-border working not actually illegal, and TfL's decision had nothing to do with that, but why let the facts get in the way of a statement to the local press.

Quote:
The Thurrock Taxi Drivers Association dismissed concerns about potential jobs losses, adding that “there are plenty of cab firms in Thurrock wanting to hire drivers from all backgrounds”.

Ah, I see, it's not about how many drivers are working in the area, it's making sure they work for local firms rather than Uber. Which may matter to the proprietors of the firms, but makes no difference to the drivers.

Who'd have thunk that?

Quote:
Despite the association alleging that Uber has been operating illegally in the borough, a council investigation found no evidence that this was the case.


Well, duh :-|


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group