London Banter - View Single Post

JNugent[_5_] · October 6th 15, 03:45 PM posted to uk.transport.london

On 06/10/2015 01:09, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

In particular, it is far from clear that Uber's sub-contractor
drivers *are* licensed, even as "private hire" drivers.

Uber themselves claim to do the vetting (and, IIRC, to provide hire
and reward insurance). None of that is necessary in the normal run of
things (the drivers have to deal with these things direct to TFL) and
the fact that Uber claim it undermines any theory that all the
drivers (and their vehicles) are even known to the authorities.

Are the drivers local authority (or PCO) licensed or not? They are illegal
if not.

Quite so.

On the information so far available, either could be the case.

But why on Earth would Uber claim to do any "vetting" when they would
know - if they were a licensed operator - that the vetting is done by
the licensing authority - and may not be avoided?

On the Occam's Razor principle, the drivers are not licensed (which
means not vetted by any competent authority) and Uber expect to get away
with it.