Taxi Driver Online

Uber wins right to legal challenge over TfL English test for drivers

Uber has won the right to take Transport for London to court over "stifling" rules which would see private hire drivers forced to take a £200 English exam.

The company had applied to the courts over TfL's new regulations, which kick in from October 1.

Uber had said the legal action was a "last resort" and accused TfL of "moving the goalposts" when it announced the rules earlier this year.

And today at the High Court, a judicial review was granted over forcing Uber's drivers to take an English test, ordering it to open a 24-hour call centre in London and forcing the company to notify TfL of any changes to its operating model.

Following the announcement, Tom Elvidge, general manager of Uber London, said: “We’re pleased that the judge has decided this case deserves a hearing.

"TfL’s plans threaten the livelihoods of thousands of drivers in London, while also stifling tech companies like Uber”.

The company claims making drivers from non-English speaking countries was unfair as the test was harder than the British citizenship questions.

It also claimed that being made to inform TfL of changes to the Uber app would slow down innovations and new features.

But dozens of London minicab firms had called on Uber to abandon the legal action, saying the new regulations would "level the playing field".

A Transport for London spokesman said: “We note that the court has refused permission for judicial review of the principle and standard of English language test, the requirement for hire and reward insurance and the ability for customers to speak to someone by telephone.

“The changes to private hire regulation were made to enhance public safety and we are determined to create a vibrant taxi and private hire market, with space for all providers to flourish.

"We look forward to the remaining issues being resolved in due course.”

source: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpor ... 34816.html

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

Am I right in thinking the JR was refused and therefore uber lost, yet the press spun the story?

I don't know London ph law, but anyone can take a council to court for changes to conditions in the provinces

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

I really do hope they lose it sets a dangerous precedent that could lead to english people having to become multilingual just to live in our own country

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Section 51 LGMP Act 1976

A district council may attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary.


This legislation is apparently out of date - so much so they spent half a million on the law commission - yet time after time the legislation proves able to deal with situations.

I wonder what the London act states?

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

Section 13 Private Hire Vehicles(London) Act 1998

any further requirements prescribed by the Secretary of State are met

an applicant may appeal to a magistrates court against refusal to grant or any conditions attached to license.

TFL. are the substitute Secretary of State granting licenses and have cart Blanche under the Act to attach what ever condition or criteria to an application which then has to be met.

providing its reasonable......

but in effect uber haven't won anything they weren't legally entitled to do anyway - its all spin

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

You are correct Captain.

It appears all Uber have been allowed to challenge is in relation to the local call centre matter.

Uber can have their spin, and can have their challenge on the lesser of those issues, but they have lost out big time.

_________________
IDFIMH

The word reasonable does not appear in the London Act section 13 covering drivers licenses.

TFL. can put what ever ludicrous requirement they wish and it is then up to the licensee to challenge it in the magistrates court.

Uber could never mount a challenge to conditions or requirements attached to drivers licenses as they are a licensed operator of sorts not a driver.

Agree lost out big time.

Just who does run the Lunatic Asylum in London..the Patient or the Authority?

It's worth pointing out here that anyone can challenge anything.

Clearly the weight to that challenge is an issue for the court in their deliberations, but it is open to Uber to challenge anything that they believe will effect their business.

_________________
IDFIMH

wasn't there a case from Swansea that basically allowed anyone to challenge local authorities?

Swansea City & County Council v Davies [HC QBD] 2000

References: Times 07-Jul-2000

Ratio: A hackney council vehicle licence holder had sufficient locus standi as a person aggrieved to appeal against a condition sought to be imposed by the local authority on the licensing of private hire vehicle licenses. Accordingly the Magistrates should hear his complaint and objection. The statute was not narrowly drafted so as to exclude the applicant, although it was not limitless.
Statutes: Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 48

Last Update: 03-Sep-16
Ref: 85579

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

Indeed, and the above case is relavant to the taxi/PH trade.

It always tickles me when certain brain dead individuals say that the setting of taxi fares has nothing to do with PH drivers.

However taxi fares are open for anyone to object to, in the review process, and sadly for some anyone includes those heathen PH drivers.

_________________
IDFIMH