"Denis McMahon" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:46:33 +0100, tim..... wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...

The law is clear.

"Services" such as Über cannot operate lawfully unless:

(a) each vehicle is tested and licensed before commencing operations,

(b) each driver applies for a licence, is investigated and not found
ineligible, before commencing operations, and

Uber will claim that they do do (a) and (b)

(a) and (b) might refer to licenses issued by the local authority or
other delegated body, in addition to any licensing requirements simply to
drive a vehicle on the road.

This would mean that Uber drivers and vehicles would be subject to
relevant local authority licensing regimes.

It seems to me that Uber is acting as a Private Hire operator. In doing
so, it should be subject to the same regulatory regime as other private
hire operators.

I don't think anyone disagree with that:

What the discussion is really about is should those rules be deliberately
written in such a way as to exclude anyone from operating as a "cab" company
unless they either :

1) have done "the knowledge" or

2) operate as a one man band out of an office in Haringey (or whatever).

Whilst it is clear that individual drivers have to be insured, run safe
cars, be CRB checked etc etc etc what possible reason could there be for
e.g. banning the operation of the "one man cab" out of an office in Slough?

I can see that there are general consumer issues with contracting a service
from a company who operates from a foreign base, but what is there that
makes a taxi company different here? There aren't rules in place than
forbid other types of service being sold by other foreign companies (and for
companies within the EU such rules would be illegal). It for the consumer
to decide if he wants to take thus risk in return for a "better" product.

Of course part of this argument is about the extra costs of
obtaining/running a "ply for hire" cab against the costs of running a
pre-booked cab, when the pre-booked cabs try to find ways of operating as
"ply for hire" in fact without doing so in law. But this problem should be
approached for what it is.

And one issue here is the problem of disability access. If all "ply for
hire" cabs have to conform with the disability act and provide equal access,
then all "contract hire" cabs should as well. This is one area where Uber
is deficient that he should be MADE to comply with.

tim