Taxi Driver Online
https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder Uber
https://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35026
Page 1 of 1

Author:  StuartW [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder Uber

For what it's worth there's some photos on TaxiPoint which couldn't be included here, including that car parked improbably close to the wall while the driver is asleep, and one apparently of a driver sleeping in his luggage space :?


Union rep pulls no punches over Uber problem of out-of-town drivers flooding the south coast

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/union ... outh-coast

Since Uber's arrival to the UK, there has been a constant battle with licensing authorities, taxi and private hire unions and of course local taxi drivers, who have questioned the legality of their business model and their code of ethics.

Tens of thousands of men and women signed up to the dream of good working conditions, good pay and a bright future behind the wheel of a Toyota, or a vehicle alike - but not all dreams come true.

Secretary of GMB Brighton and Hove Taxi Section, Andrew Peters, says he has witnessed first hand the devastating impact the ride-sharing app has had on the local taxi and private hire industry, as well as some of those drivers who have chosen the Uber way.

Speaking openly and honestly to Taxipoint, Andrew Peters pulls no punches in his eye opening first hand experience with what he claims is the truth behind the over saturated industry, which is leaving most wondering how long Uber and traditional taxi and private hire services can actually continue to co-exist.

Mr Peters, said: "Since Uber came to the city in 2016 the local trade immediately saw the problem of cars from Wolverhampton, Sefton and such like with lower licensing requirements coming to the city to predominantly work here for the ride-sharing firm.

"In fact Wolverhampton has issued over 6,000 licences to drivers most of which never work in Wolverhampton, so local check-ups and enforcement never takes place.

"Unfortunately some of these drivers were sleeping in their cars night in and night out on the seafront and in car parks, which is not only no good for their own welfare but also for the safety of the customers. We highlighted this issue to Uber at trade meetings and provided evidence with videos and photos.

“Now we have cars from Southampton, Portsmouth, Havant, Chichester, Fareham, Lewes and elsewhere predominantly working in the city on the Uber platform, where Brighton & Hove City council are unable to instigate enforcement for checkups, although we are pleased to say that via the trades request the council does now have some powers on the Lewes cars working here but this has got to be at financial cost to the local trade in local licensing fees.

"However we are now being flooded with these out of town drivers and have seen a lot of them sleeping in their cars.

"It hasn't helped when authorities remove the knowledge test for PHV drivers. Southampton did this last year which has created a lower licensing requirement and 'soft spots' where drivers get a licence.

"More worrying is that we were recently very alarmed at finding a Southampton Uber driver sleeping not only in the car but actually in the boot. This was in the car park of the Swan Pub by Sussex University in the early hours of the morning.

"We contacted Southampton City Council (and copied in Brighton & Hove City Council) to alert them of this driver and we are hoping that the council have spoken to him and warned him of the dangers of doing this not only for his own wellbeing but also for the safety of the Uber customers with having a driver not properly rested and refreshed to be in a proper state of having the responsibility of driving passengers.

"We even have hackney carriages from Horsham predominantly working here now on Uber.

"And just to make it clear that Uber does not have a Horsham Operator licence and I will explain the anomaly here - whilst local authorities control hackney carriage fares, any hackney can work outside its own licensing area undertaking private hire jobs and charge whatever the driver wants which is how these hackneys work under Uber.

"Because a hackney carriage does not need to work under a separate Operator licence... unlike PHVs... a hackney carriage can work under Uber but not in the same area that Uber holds a respective Operator licence.

"For example Uber holds a Lewes Operator licence. But a Lewes Hackney cannot take any job in Lewes under Uber because of the councils controlled fares. But a Lewes hackney can work full time in Brighton because once it leaves Lewes any rate of charge can be made.

"So just because Uber may not hold an Operator licence in a particular area it doesn’t mean that a hackney carriage in such an area cannot work under Uber in a different area.

"One important factor about Horsham is that it has a limited policy for hackney carriages which means no more licences have been issued for some years, yet drivers of these hackney carriage are leaving Horsham and working here full time instead.

"The main purpose of a hackney carriage is to work the ranks and streets of the area it is licensed in and not work predominantly in another area.

"We have informed Horsham council about this and have strongly suggested that it should impose an 'Intended Use Policy' which can be a condition of licensing for hackneys.

"This policy was introduced by Brighton and Hove Council two years ago so if I use my hackney carriage predominantly in another area I could risk the vehicle licence being revoked. And quite right too!

"We did convince Lewes to have the same policy which was introduced this year but will only apply to each Lewes hackney upon its renewal. But so far this hasn’t stopped those Lewes hackneys with this new condition from predominantly working here such is the appalling lack of enforcement by Lewes DC.

"No doubt the excessive surging system is very attractive for out of town drivers to work here in the city because whilst local councils control hackney carriage rates.. once a hackney leaves its licensing area it can charge the Uber rates.

"This is why not only are we are flooded out of town PHVs but we are also flooded with Lewes hackneys working here who ironically cannot work under Uber in Lewes.

"Whilst Uber may be considered by some to be the trendy way to get a cab... when Uber destroys the local trade in Brighton & Hove, which has always had fares controlled by the council, those trendy Uber users will eventually end up paying more.

"Uber is just an App and most local cab companies have had their own Apps for some time now with the same facility of cashless transport but using a local cab company doesn’t seem to be hip and trendy.

"Having stated that we are slowly seeing customers returning to use local companies when they are stung by the Uber surge at the first drop of rain. Unbelievably Uber was on 4x surge during Brighton pride. Some may consider this as profiteering.. but I couldn’t possibly comment!

"Changes to taxi and private hire legislation for cross-border hiring were recommended this year by an all party ‘Task & Finish’ report and the trade was optimistic that this would have been included in the recent Queens Speech but this has been ignored."

Author:  StuartW [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Bright rep pulls no punches on cross-border U

Quote:
“Now we have cars from Southampton, Portsmouth, Havant, Chichester, Fareham, Lewes and elsewhere predominantly working in the city on the Uber platform, where Brighton & Hove City council are unable to instigate enforcement for checkups, although we are pleased to say that via the trades request the council does now have some powers on the Lewes cars working here but this has got to be at financial cost to the local trade in local licensing fees."

Which is presumably after Uber implemented its geofencing policy, which meant the cars from really far away like Sefton and Wolverhampton disappeared, but obviously didn't stop cross-border working. Or at least meant they were working over fewer borders, and less distance from their licensed area :shock:

Quote:
"For example Uber holds a Lewes Operator licence. But a Lewes Hackney cannot take any job in Lewes under Uber because of the councils controlled fares. But a Lewes hackney can work full time in Brighton because once it leaves Lewes any rate of charge can be made."

I'm sure I maybe asked this before, but why precisely would Uber need a Lewes operator's licence if it's only using Lewes-plated HCs? #-o

Author:  Karga [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Bright rep pulls no punches on cross-border U

StuartW wrote:
I'm sure I maybe asked this before, but why precisely would Uber need a Lewes operator's licence if it's only using Lewes-plated HCs? #-o


Uber can't use Lewes HCs in Lewes due to them being in zone. They'd be operating outside their licence by charging surge prices on jobs within their metered area. So the Lewes ones will work in another zone instead.

It's probably using Lewes PH drivers for the Lewes work (and HC/PH from other areas)

Author:  StuartW [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Bright rep pulls no punches on cross-border U

Karga wrote:
It's probably using Lewes PH drivers for the Lewes work (and HC/PH from other areas)


That's roughly what I was thinking, but wasn't sure if Uber actually serviced Lewes. But given how easy it was (I think) in the past to get HC badged and plated in Lewes, at last actually a good reason for drivers to run PH there :roll:

Another possibility I suppose is that if Lewes Council is making it more difficult to run an HC then that would also make the PH more of an obvious option locally.

Author:  Sussex [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Quote:
Which is presumably after Uber implemented its geofencing policy, which meant the cars from really far away like Sefton and Wolverhampton disappeared, but obviously didn't stop cross-border working. Or at least meant they were working over fewer borders, and less distance from their licensed area :shock:

I suspect it's the same drivers now having to license in nearer, yet equally sh** criteria, councils.

Author:  Sussex [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Quote:
I'm sure I maybe asked this before, but why precisely would Uber need a Lewes operator's licence if it's only using Lewes-plated HCs?

But they are not, they are using both HC and PH Lewes licensed vehicles.

Author:  Sussex [ Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Quote:
Another possibility I suppose is that if Lewes Council is making it more difficult to run an HC then that would also make the PH more of an obvious option locally.

Lewes Council are hopeless. They don't know whether they are coming and going.

But seem very happy to take the Uber coin.

Author:  StuartW [ Mon Jan 29, 2024 6:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Not sure if this has ever been mentioned on here before (it sort of rings a bell, or maybe it's just the article above I'm thinking about), but this is a GMB paper on cross-bordering, written by Mr Peters from Brighton and Hove. Can't be bothered reading it just now, but it seems to be suggesting that an 'intended use' policy could be imposed by any local authority and applied to private hire, not just HCs :-o

(Possibly one of these things I'll intend reader later, but never actually get round to it...)

But which, slightly ironically, is on the Mid-Sussex Council website:

https://midsussex.moderngov.co.uk/docum ... Policy.pdf

Only came across it via a recent official House of Commons FAQ on buses and taxis. Which doesn't say much about 'taxis', but does answer the question 'Why are so many taxi and PHV drivers licenced in Wolverhampton?'

And which cites the council's official view on technology and efficiency used in the licensing process, and as a counter-point links to the GMB paper.

Which is fair enough for general readers, but the pedant in me notes that the question in itself is a false premise, because it's obviously using the t-word in the HC sense, and I can't really recall any real mention of HC licensing in Wolverhampton, for obvious reasons. And, indeed, the question doesn't address that point at all. So it's not clear whether whoever wrote the answer to the question has just brushed over the HC/PH distinction, or whether they've not really fully understood the answer :-o

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/re ... /cbp-8734/

Author:  mancityfan [ Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Community Safety and Accreditation Scheme (CSAS).
The new powers also allow officers to better tackle private hire vehicles that have been licensed by another authority, known as cross-border hiring, and address the increased safety risk that such private hire vehicles can pose.

Author:  Sussex [ Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Mr Peters is no longer involved with the GMB.

As for the issue, I'm still not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt ( :D ) that the 'intended use policy' can't be used for PH.

But it appears the powers that be disagree with my view. :sad:

Author:  grandad [ Tue Jan 30, 2024 8:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Our licensing team say they are powerless to do anything about UBER working in the town on the grounds that if they have a booking then they are able to do the job. However I have been watching the UBER cars on the passenger app in our town and it is clear that because they are driving around the housing estates from the town centre or vise versa and going from one street on one side of town to another street elsewhere in the town that these are not fares booked on the UBER platform or the cars would dissapear from the screen when on a job. In my opinion these drivers are either picking up fares without a booking or they have given people their own phone number to be called to do a job without going through UBER or any other operator.
Now surely our Council could act on this if they could be bothered to actually come out and see for themselves.

Author:  Sussex [ Tue Jan 30, 2024 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: TaxiPoint: Brighton rep pulls no punches on crossborder

Sometimes the drivers move to surge areas.

But I suspect they are carding punters, as they don't want to pay Uber's cut.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/