Taxi Driver Online

Uber's licence to operate in Brighton and Hove has been revoked

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16197107 ... _and_Hove/

Uber's licence to operate in the city has been revoked.

The Brighton and Hove City Council licensing panel concluded the operator is not a fit and proper entity to hold such a licence.

Councillors pointed to a 2016 data breach carried out by American hackers as a key reason behind their decision.

Uber will appeal. Uber drivers licensed elsewhere will continue to be able to operate in the city.

A council statement said: "The unanimous decision was taken as the members of the panel were not satisfied that Uber Brittania Limited are a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold an operator’s licence under the terms of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the council’s licensing objectives.

"The panel considered all circumstances relating to the application and the factors operating in Brighton & Hove.

"This included a number of issues raised by those objecting to the application, which they found to carry very little or no evidential weight.

"However, the panel did have significant concerns about the company’s data breach and UBL’s lack of commitment to use only Brighton & Hove licensed drivers in the city. These formed the basis of the decision to not renew the licence."

Chair of the licensing panel, Councillor Jackie O’Quinn, said: “When making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire operator licensing decisions, our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence in the city.

“All Brighton & Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for.

"In the original application in 2015, UBL gave a firm commitment to adhere to the standards set out in the Blue Book and only to use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers.

"We do not feel the spirit of this commitment has been kept to. In the panel’s view, large numbers of taxis operating in the city that do not meet our Blue Book standards puts the safety of residents and visitors at potential risk.

“We recognise there are strong feelings on this issue and would like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions to the hearing.”

A spokesman for Uber said: "This is a disappointing decision for the thousands of passengers and drivers who rely on our app in Brighton and Hove. We intend to appeal so we can continue serving the city.”

MARATHON MEETING

Last Monday a seven-hour meeting of the licensing panel heard that UBER was "a company for the fit and able" in the words of Green Councillor Lizzie Deane.

Representatives of the taxi-hailing app defended the firm in the face of allegations it was not a fit and proper entity to hold a licence to operate in Brighton and Hove, at the meeting of the city council panel to review its licence.

Uber promised it would have twenty wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in its fleet by the time it reaches 100 cars in the city, although spokesmen failed to provide concrete plans for how they would achieve that. Uber currently has 62 drivers licensed by the city but no WAVs.

The meeting heard warm praise for Uber from customers and fierce criticism from the taxi trade.

Sunetta Kiarie, 25, a Brighton charity worker told the Hove Town Hall meeting she had always found taking an Uber to be a safe, professional and clean experience.

Resident Claire Alcock praised its convenience, real-time tracking and accountability.

But Gerald Gourier QC, speaking for the city's taxi firms, said Uber has operated in Brighton "in such a way as to drive a coach and horses through local licensing controls" since it started operating in October 2016.

Brighton and Hove has some of the toughest taxi licensing rules in the country, known as the Blue Book, which include a requirement for cars to have CCTV and a quota for WAVs.

But Mr Gourier said there was "no point" having the Blue Book when Uber allowed cars licensed in other authorities with less stringent rules to operate in the city.

Andy Peters of the GMB union, Mark of the Brighton and Hove private hire association, and Sean Ridley of the Unite union also criticised the practice and the fleet's lack of WAVs.

They slammed Uber for its 2016 data breach in which customers' names email addresses and mobile phone numbers were stolen by hackers.

The licensing panel of Councillor Jacqui O'Quinn (Lab), Councillor Lynda Hyde (Con) and Councillor Lizzie Deane (Green), interrogated the speakers.

None of the three councillors has the Uber app or has ever hailed an Uber.

Defending his client, Uber barrister Philip Kolvin said the company was not trying was not trying to “skirt round” the city’s regulations but had recently regionalised its business to prevent London-licensed drivers from operating in the city.

It has also created a £1,000 incentive scheme to get drivers licensed in Brighton.

Uber drivers have provided lifts to more than 200,000 people in Brighton and Hove since it started operating 19 months ago.

At the meeting panel chairwoman Councillor Jacqui O'Quinn said Uber drivers licenced elsewhere would continue to be able to operate legally in the city.

The council's decision letter can be read here:

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/ ... Signed.pdf

Good.

I take it sussex will finish his tug before he posts his delight.

this won't stop them they'll just send vehicles licensed elsewhere

oh silly me they're already doing that anyway

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

A huge amount of effort has gone into this from the local trade.

My main suggestion to any other local trade who wants to deal with Uber is stay united, work non stop, but above all else educate councillors and give them reasons to review, revoke and not re-license.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's a long battle, but be in no doubt the local trade are working on other areas.

As mentioned above, it's all down to councillors. Educate them and you have a chance.

_________________
IDFIMH

I'm very biased, but I'm not sure a court will over turn those decisions by elected members.

The data breach, or more so the failure to report, is a clear enough reason that can't be challenged really as it's factual and the ICO has yet to punish Uber for it.

As for the local conditions issue, the QC, on behalf of the local operators, made a few good points that the Higher Courts have supported councils who have made decisions based on local requirements.

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber can stay if it plays fair, says taxi firm boss

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16204561 ... firm_boss/

THE owner of a taxi firm has said he would welcome Uber remaining in the city as long as they play by the same rules as the taxi trade.

Andy Cheesman, owns Southern Taxis which runs Brighton and Hove City Cabs, South Coast Taxis and Premier Taxis.

He told The Argus: “I would like Uber to get its house in order and to run as we have to run.”

On Tuesday, the city council’s licensing panel announced it had found Uber Britannia Ltd was not a fit and proper person to hold a licence for private hire vehicles in Brighton and Hove.

Yesterday Mr Cheesman said: “Tuesday’s decision was very good for the local drivers.

“It was a very fair and open and transparent meeting by the councillors and the officers, which allowed everyone to have their say good and bad.

“All we’re asking for is a level playing field.

“We have to commit to the licensing conditions in Brighton and Hove’s Blue Book or we’re not allowed to work.

“Uber came along and said we’re not going to have CCTV, we don’t care about your rules and regulations, we’ll use Brighton cars when we can but when we can’t we’ll use them from anywhere.”

“I would like Uber to get its house in order and to run as we have to run.

“And if they’re going to run the same as we run, then I’ve got no problem with that.

“I own Buddies restaurant, I’ve got a Burger King just up the road.

“I’ve got no problem with competition.

“But if the restaurant next door can open from nine til midnight and I can only open for a few hours, that’s unfair.

“We want a level playing field.

“The other thing people don’t realise is the council sets the taxi fares, to give a fair living wage.

They take into account fuel, insurance, the cost of buying and maintaining a car, they put it all in and it comes out how much a taxi drivers should earn at X hours a week with Y jobs.

“And that gives them a living wage which people in Brighton say they want people to have.

“Brighton cabs aren’t allowed to change their pricing model, we’re regulated.”

An Uber spokesman said: “Uber abides by the same rules and regulations as all other private hire operators.”

The licensing panel’s decision was criticised yesterday by an industry expert who accused one councillor of a “staggering confusion” over elements of the testimony related to data security.

Uber will appeal against the decision.

While they do so, Uber drivers licensed in the city can still ply their trade.

After the appeal concludes, Uber drivers licensed elsewhere will still be allowed to work in Brighton and Hove.

This is yesterday's piece referred to in the above article (which was published today).

'Staggering mistake' by Uber councillor

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/16201918 ... ouncillor/

ONE of the three councillors who ruled Uber should not be allowed to operate in Brighton and Hove has been accused of “staggering confusion” by an industry expert.

Meanwhile a petition to save Uber in the city has already been launched.

In 2016 Uber was hacked by American cyber criminals and names, email addresses and phone numbers of account holders were stolen, although never released in public.

Green Councillor Lizzie Deane, explaining the unanimous decision of the city council licensing panel on Tuesday, said: “The panel had a number of concerns, mainly relating to passenger safety and security.

"In particular, we heard of a major breach where over 57 million Uber users had their personal data compromised.

“Sadly, our fears that this may happen again have been realised, with news this week revealing that tens of thousands of Uber usernames, passwords and bank details have been hacked from UK accounts and sold on the ‘dark web’, enabling unauthorised users to make fraudulent journeys charged to other people’s accounts.”

She was referring to a BBC South East story last week, which showed Uber accounts were available to buy online, with criminals then able to charge their journeys to other people’s accounts.

But the security weakness which created that criminal opportunity was not within Uber’s systems.

The “hacked accounts” being sold online were accessible by two main means.

An Uber user could have clicked on a “phishing” email sent by a cyber criminal and unwittingly sent their log-in details to a fraudster.

They could also have use the same password for many accounts and log-in data from another website was compromised.

When that happens, criminals find out what other accounts and services they can get into with the leaked usernames and passwords –including Uber.

Sam Dumitriu, from Brighton, is head of research at the Adam Smith Institute. His research specialism is the gig economy.

He said: “That is staggering, that she would make that confusion, that such a mistake would be made by someone with the power to regulate the service.

“What that shows is that local councils shouldn’t be enforcing data regulations.

“It’s clearly an area of policy where we need a high level of expertise.”

An Uber spokesman said: “We remind our users to always use unique passwords for different online accounts. When people use the same password on more than one site and one of those accounts is compromised, anywhere else with the same log-in details can also be accessed.

“It is not possible for anybody who logs into an Uber account to access credit card details and we have made significant changes to reduce the ability for criminals to take trips on compromised accounts. We are always enhancing the ways we protect our users, and will refund trips a customer didn’t book or take.”

Cllr Deane said: “One of the biggest concerns the licensing panel had was data security. This was after councillors heard the detail of a breach that last year saw 57 million drivers and users of Uber have their personal information exposed. I stand by these concerns. A week after the original panel hearing ended, a BBC South East investigation into fraudulent Uber rides stated that ‘the app is easily hacked.’ Anyone would find that alarming.”

A petition to save Uber in the city has already received more than 150 signatures in under 24 hours.

I thought they lost their license to operate not just because of the breach
of data but by not reporting the data breach to regulators and their customers.

Indeed, but when did facts get in the way of a two bob baby reporter’s article?

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber appeals against licence loss in Brighton & Hove

Uber has launched an appeal against Brighton & Hove City Council's decision to strip the taxi app of its licence.

The city's licensing panel turned down a renewal application after "significant concerns" about a data breach by the car hailing app in 2016.

It was also concerned about Uber's lack of commitment to use only Brighton & Hove licensed drivers in the city.

An Uber spokesman said: "We want to continue providing more choice and competition... in the city."

Brighton & Hove City Council confirmed the appeal had been submitted and said Uber could continue to operate in the city, regulated by the council, until the appeal is determined.

Uber is licensed in 80 areas across the UK but has recently been refused permission to operate in York and London, as well as a brief suspension in Sheffield.

On 1 May, Brighton & Hove City Council said the decision not to renew Uber's licence was unanimous, following a meeting on 23 April.

Chair of the licensing panel, Councillor Jackie O'Quinn, said at the time: "Our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and... we were not satisfied that UBL are a fit and proper person to hold an operator's licence in the city."

_________________
IDFIMH