Taxi Driver Online

Quite a catalogue of misdemeanors, TfL's 62 page letter of rejection.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-decision- ... r-2019.pdf

TfL's decision note.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-decision- ... r-2019.pdf

_________________
IDFIMH

Lads at Taxi-Point give a very brief synopsis.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/tfl-l ... -in-london

_________________
IDFIMH

What do you think the chances are of any criminal charges being brought against either UBER or the drivers concerned?

_________________
Grandad,

Slim at best.

Most of the driver stuff was at least six months ago so no charges can be laid now.

Fraud stuff could be a consideration but I’m not sure that’s going to happen.

In defence of Uber their only bad deeds are stupidity and ignorance, which in this instance isn’t really criminal.

_________________
IDFIMH

And of course Uber have been fined a few quid for operating vehicles without the required insurance.

_________________
IDFIMH

Ignorance is not a defence in law.

Correct, but ignorance is not of itself, a crime.

_________________
Chris The Fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mc ... re=related

Well can't see me wading through those 150 or so pages

But was wondering why they've made this public at this stage. This would appear to be their reasoning:

Uber licensing decision - 25 November 2019

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-p ... tcmp=34231

On 25 November 2019, Transport for London (TfL) notified Uber London Limited (ULL) that it would not be issued with a private hire vehicle (PHV) operator's licence at the expiry of its licence. The reasons for our decision are summarised here.

ULL made an appeal against TfL's decision to Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13 December 2019, and the first procedural hearing will take place before the Chief Magistrate at 10am on 13 February 2020. In advance of that first procedural hearing, redacted versions of TfL's internal decision note together with the letter notifying ULL of the decision are available below.

We are making available our reasons for our decision to third parties which is the approach taken in the appeal by ULL against TfL's 2017 decision. However, we are providing them on our website at an earlier point in the appeal process due to separate legal proceedings challenging ULL's ability to continue to operate pending the outcome of the appeal. Redactions to the documents have been made on the basis of commercial confidentiality, as well as signatures.

What action is that, and who is taking it?

Maybe it's been featured on here, but I've kind of lost track. Or lost interest

So 13th February is U DAY

the day on which the future of the taxi trade in the uk is placed into the hands of a magistrates bench

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

Having read the decision note TfL answer your question a bit more fully than my previous attempt.

102. After carefully considering ULL’s submissions, TfL prosecuted ULL for the
offences of “causing/permitting the use of a motor vehicle on a public road
without insurance” and “failing to comply with statutory record keeping
obligations”. In total, ULL faced four criminal allegations, in relation to two
drivers. The two ULL drivers concerned were also charged with using a motor
vehicle on a public road without appropriate motor vehicle insurance. On 31
July 2019, ULL pleaded guilty to each of the four offences and were fined a
total of £28,800, ordered to pay TfL’s costs of bringing the prosecution of
£22,470 and a victim surcharge of £170. Each of the drivers also pleaded
guilty at the same hearing and were also fined and ordered to pay costs.

103. At the hearing, the judge said that ULL should have learned the lessons from
the previous conviction arising out of an insurance breach in 2014 and that
the offences were regrettable and avoidable.

104. The various aspects of this matter which call ULL’s fitness and propriety into
question are:
a) This is the second time that ULL has been prosecuted in relation to
insurance offences. As noted by the judge at the hearing, ULL should
have learned the lessons from the previous conviction and the 2018
offences were regrettable and avoidable. Although only two drivers were
prosecuted, there were 12 drivers in total who were drivers for ULL
between early 2018 and October 2018 that were found not to have hire
and reward insurance in place and those drivers potentially undertook
thousands of trips with passengers. This has significant safety
implications for passengers and other road users.

TfL has considered the circumstances of each case and considered whether enforcement action is
appropriate. In some cases, the limitation period for prosecution had lapsed by the time they
came to the attention of ULL and in others, it was not considered in the public interest to
prosecute.

_________________
IDFIMH

I suspect that's from one of the hackney drivers unions/associations.

_________________
IDFIMH

It will be a District Judge (Mags Court), and it will be procedural.

_________________
IDFIMH

Having read the decision note in full (yes some sad c*** had too), I can see why TfL have the hump.

A lot of license transgressions have had to be dragged out of Uber, despite the commitments they have made to the courts and to TfL.

It would seem decisions are being made by junior staff who have no idea as to what is required by licensing regulations.

Updates to the app for other countries are allowing local drivers to avoid licensing safeguards which has led to 1000s and 1000s of unlicensed/uninsured jobs taking place.

Uber say their third party insurance covers such abuses, but clearly their guilty plea at court indicates otherwise.

In short Uber's UK management is not up to running a huge PH circuit, IMO. And there much acclaimed Board of overpaid names are merely there for show.

Else they wouldn't be in the mess they currently find themselves in.

The top firm that checked out Uber's processes and app, is less than flaterning about Uber. They say that Uber's cyber security is ok but nothing special, but their IT processes, and checks and balances, are below what one would expect from a major global company.

_________________
IDFIMH

Another thing that stuck me is the huge number of complaints Uber get in respect of their TfL drivers.

A tad under 600,000 in a six month period.

That equates to 20 complaints about every single driver per year. I don't think I've had that in 30 years.

And 27,000 of those were serious safety based complaints.

I'm amazed anyone in London uses them.

_________________
IDFIMH