Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Wed Oct 14, 2026 8:42 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2026 5:39 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 58057
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
particularly the hand-shaking

If members of the Uber team approached council officials to shake their hands, then it would have been incredibly rude for them to refuse.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 30, 2026 6:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19527
Sussex, I'm not actually sure if it's been granted yet, or if that was still to be decided after the meeting.

It was reported in the press that because the all the objections were invalid then the application went through unopposed:

Dunfermline Press wrote:
Following a lengthy recess, committee convener Councillor Tom Adams moved that the objections should be disregarded which resulted in the application going through unopposed.

But the councillor who made all the thinly veiled digs at officialdom in the article further up the thread posted this on her Facebook page (this is just a broadly similar version of that earlier press article):

Councillor Carol Lindsay wrote:
Following today’s Regulation & Licensing Committee, and the consideration or otherwise of the ‘Uber’ application, I came away with questions about how we ensure both the public and councillors are properly supported through what can be a complex licensing application process.

A procedural legal issue was raised at today’s hearing concerning whether objections received by the Council met the statutory requirements to be considered as objections.

That immediately raised a question for me about preparation. If there were potential issues around the competency of such a large number of objections, could these have been identified earlier in the process, including through the normal preparation and agenda planning discussions involving officers and the Committee leadership?

That isn’t about prejudging the application or criticising anyone for raising a legitimate legal argument. It is about asking whether our processes could be more robust.

Members of the public who take the time to engage with a Council process should have confidence that their representations are processed properly and, where they meet the legal requirements, that their views can be heard and where they many not. That they will be advised how to make them ‘legal’.

Equally, councillors sitting on regulatory committees need sufficient information before us to separate fact from assertion, fact from myth, and matters that are legally relevant from those that are not.

Today demonstrated to me why both matter.

I am not expressing a view for or against the application, which remains a live matter. My concern is about the process and what lessons we need to learn from today’s experience.

Whatever the eventual outcome, Fifers should be able to have confidence that our licensing procedures are clear, robust and fair, and councillors should have the information necessary to carry out the responsibilities placed upon them.

So she's saying it's still a live matter, which I took to mean that because there were no valid objections then it would be delegated to officials to decide (which would be what normally happens - it normally only goes to committee if there are objections raised, as far as I know).

But maybe she just means that it's still disputed and/or subject to appeal, or whatever.

Or maybe she's just spinning a line. Or something like that [-(

But I'm just leaving them all to get on with it. In the meantime, at least 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2026 6:53 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 58057
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
So she's saying it's still a live matter, which I took to mean that because there were no valid objections then it would be delegated to officials to decide (which would be what normally happens - it normally only goes to committee if there are objections raised, as far as I know).

She is talking rubbish.

Uber made the application, which officials passed on to the committee to decide on.

The committee deemed that there were no lawful objections, so passed the application unopposed.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 03, 2026 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19527
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
The taxi owner added that a number of companies have also agreed not to employ any drivers who work for Uber.

Not the brightest thing to say to the press. #-o

Came across this that a driver had posted on social media about why Uber hadn't gotten going in Dundee :-o

Not sure what the source of this is - it's got a kind of AI vibe about it (although it falls down a bit right at the end...). And obviously the thing about cross-border enforcement isn't unique to Dundee, and applies across the whole of Scotland:



Despite Uber opening a physical dispatch office at the Flour Mill complex in Dundee city centre, the app has effectively remained a "ghost town" with constant "no availability" messages for users. Which is a textbook example of a highly successful local trade blockade.

The strategy used by Dundee taxi firms worked due to several unique factors:

1. The "Us or Them" Ultimatum

Local Dundee taxi companies recognized that Uber relies entirely on recruiting existing, locally licensed drivers to launch quickly. By issuing a strict ultimatum—if you log onto Uber, you are permanently banned from our circuits—they leveraged the drivers' financial security. Drivers knew that leaving an established local firm for an unproven app could mean losing their steady, guaranteed income with no way to return if Uber failed.

2. Tight-Knit Local Networks

Unlike massive cities like London or Manchester, Dundee has a highly consolidated taxi market with strong, unified representation (like the Dundee Taxi Association). Because the driver community is smaller and close-knit, enforcing a collective boycott against the app was incredibly effective.

3. Strict Council Enforcement

Dundee City Council enforces stringent local licensing boundaries. Uber cannot easily bypass a local driver shortage by flooding Dundee with out-of-town drivers, because Scotland's cross-border hiring laws prevent drivers licensed in places like Edinburgh or Glasgow from picking up local fares inside Dundee.

Why this Matters for Fife

This exact "Dundee Model" is precisely what taxi operators in Fife are looking at right now. Local drivers in Fife have explicitly pointed to Dundee as living proof that even if Uber wins the legal right to a booking office from the council, they cannot operate without wheels on the ground. If Fife's local firms can replicate Dundee's driver boycott, Uber's app in Fife may face the exact same oh and the cross borders applies right accross Scotland


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sussex and 2158 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