Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Oct 02, 2026 3:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2026 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19419
This is a bit like the committee member's criticism of the council from last week. Only a bit more pointed :-o

But he's the same party as the councillor, and also represents the Kirkcaldy area :?



David Torrance MSP: Uber licence decision was scandalous

https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/politi ... us-9233323

Last week's handling of the Uber licensing application was an embarrassment for Fife Council and a serious failure of public administration.

The application by Uber Scot Ltd attracted 431 objections from local taxi operators, drivers, businesses and residents.

All of these people took the time to submit representations and prepared to make their case before the Regulation & Licensing Committee, yet when the meeting began they were told that their objections were legally incompetent and could not be considered. The application was subsequently approved.

Residents and business owners are not expected to be experts in licensing law and rely on council officers to guide them through these processes and most importantly, to inform them when something is wrong.

If there were problems with these objections, why were they not identified months ago? Why were people not contacted and given an opportunity to correct any errors? More importantly, why were individuals reportedly being contacted in advance about attending and speaking at the hearing if their objections were not to be considered?

All of these questions need to now be answered by Fife Council. When more than 400 people invest their time and energy into submitting objections, only to discover at the start of the meeting that your objection has been ruled out, is nothing short of scandalous.

The fact that concerns have now been raised about whether the competency issues could have been identified much earlier only adds to the sense that something went very badly wrong. This was a serious administrative failure which has left the public paying the price.

The people of Fife are entitled to know how this happened, who was responsible, and what lessons will be learned. Regardless of whether you supports Uber's arrival in Fife, I think we can all agree that residents and local businesses deserve far better than this.

Fife Council now owes the public a full, transparent explanation and a commitment that such a shambolic handling of a licensing application will never happen again.

I have written to Ken Gourlay, Chief Executive of Fife Council, asking what investigation will now take place and what action will be taken to restore confidence that those responsible for administering these processes are doing so competently.

I look forward to his answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2026 4:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19419
This is the minute of the meeting via the link below (subject to approval).

The 'recess to obtain legal advice' lasted the best part of an hour :-o

This was the 'decision':

Fife Council licensing minutes wrote:
Decision

The committee agreed, having taken legal advice, that there were no competent
objections to the application, and the licence was granted.

https://www.fife.gov.uk/_services/share ... emId=85031


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2026 4:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19419
Well this was quite amusing - don't know if it's just me and my laptop, but often if copying and pasting from pdf docs only part of the copied bit appears when pasted. This was what was actually pasted of the above quote, cut off at a very appropriate point :lol:

I actually needed a double take, thinking that this was what the minutes actually said :D

Fife Council licensing minutes almost wrote:
Decision

The committee agreed, having taken legal advice, that there were no competent
objections to the app


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 01, 2026 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57993
Location: 1066 Country
The MSP is doing the typical bandwagon-following politician thing.

Even if what he is saying is correct.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2026 2:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 19419
Both the councillor and her SNP MSP colleague are on the defensive about it all.

And making sure the blame is shifted so it lies firmly with officialdom.

There's obviously a degree of capture in it all historically, and they won't want to be seeing to be siding with a Silicon Valley-based behemoth financed by billions of Wall Street dollars :-o

But if I was a councillor so-minded and cynical, then in a way I'd be quite pleased with how it's turned out - knowing that the application had to be rubber-stamped, effectively, but the way it worked out means they can shift the blame towards officials, because they didn't have to vote on it.

On the other hand, they're unlikely to persuade the vested interests in the legacy trade in that regard - all they see is cowardly councillors and officials cowering at the feet of Uber and its lawyers. And, of course, the brown envelope stuff :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 753 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