On 22/09/2017 13:58, wrote:
In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold
a private hire operator licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41358640

The full TfL statement has been on Twitter and the statement is at
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/pr.../licensing-dec
ision-on-uber-london-limited?intcmp=50167. Watch the wrap or use
http://tinyurl.com/y8h7ht6r.

The reasons seem pretty comprehensive to me as a former Licensing Committee
chair (albeit outside London where the law is a bit different). Uber have a
right of appeal to the courts and will no doubt do exercise it.

"Fairly comprehensive" - they've made a list of things they don't like
as grounds to refuse a license under "fit and proper". That sounds more
tenuous than comprehensive.

From what I've heard and read they do seem tardy at best in reporting
assaults, but I've no idea exactly what the regulations say they must,
by law, do. Care to enlighten us? And why taxi companies have this
responsibility when, as far as I know, other premises where the public
may interact with staff do not. And whilst an assault every 11 days
sounds horrific (and any assault at all is, IMO), how does that compare
to a similarly sized population group (I guess Uber drivers are approx.
90% male, so compared to a town of roughly 72000 in size).

The medical certificate piece is an argument about whether technology
can and should be used - whilst I believe the regulations require an
in-person visit, if that person reports nothing wrong is there a
requirement for specific physical examinations to take place, or can a
doctor rely on the applicants word? In which case, why does a video
consultation not suffice?

The DBS checks - as far as I know Uber do them, they just don't use the
same agency as TfL believe they can insist on - surely the regulations
just say they have to have been done and the applicant has to be in
possession of a valid certificate whilst employed - is there evidence
this has not been the case and Uber has ignored it?

The use of software to identify the equivalent of secret shoppers from
the licensing department is a dubious but arguably legitimate business
practice - unless of course the regulation prohibit it explicitly.
However, in this case all that Uber have failed to do is to explain what
it does to the satisfaction of TfL which could be argued as legitimate
to protect trade secrets (if for example they use the same software all
over the world where they don't have to describe it's potential or
actual usage and they believe that they can self-certify to TfL that
they haven't used it in breach of whatever regulations or law).