On 2017\09\22 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really?Â* And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners?Â* All
allegedly of course.

Uber drivers committed 2/3 of the minicab rapes, while only being 1/3 of
the minicab drivers, which makes their drivers 4 times as rapey as the
average minicab driver.

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\09\22 11:31, Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really?Â* And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and part
of well run companies that weren't involved in serious criminality
and/or used for laundering money by their criminal owners?Â* All
allegedly of course.

Uber drivers committed 2/3 of the minicab rapes, while only being 1/3 of
the minicab drivers, which makes their drivers 4 times as rapey as the
average minicab driver.

And I think that Uber has been negligent in reporting crimes committed by
its drivers.

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).

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
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

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and
part of well run companies that weren't involved in serious
criminality and/or used for laundering money by their criminal
owners? All allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been
some minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution
to getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to
communicate in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

The reasons given in the TfL press release look serious enough to me:

"TfL considers that Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of
corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have
potential public safety and security implications. These include:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks
are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that
could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app
and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties."

The fourth one (evasion of regulation) looks particularly serious and a
matter for criminal prosecution if proved. It will be interesting to see
what the courts say about that one at the appeal. They tend to take a dim
view of such practices.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being
left, literally, on the streets with no wage.

It will require firm evidence of radically changed practices by the Uber
management.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"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.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious matters,
especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal behaviour.

When I received training as a councillor for dealing with licensing appeals
the test we were advised to have at the heart of our consideration was
"would you believe that your wife or daughter would be safe in this man's
car?" The Uber record suggests one might not.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"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.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious matters,
especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual allegation
of use of such software.

In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"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.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious
matters, especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal
behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual
allegation of use of such software.

I agree there could be an innocent explanation for blocking regulators use
of the app. I'm sure the courts will be very interested to hear what it
might be.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Friday, 22 September 2017 11:18:38 UTC+1, 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

I wonder if the recent announcement of the impending retirement of the TFL Commissioner for Surface Transport and the withdrawal of Uber's licence are in some way connected.

DRH

wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 16:27, wrote:
In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

"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.

As I've commented elsewhere in this thread, those are very serious
matters, especially the fourth which appears to amount to criminal
behaviour.

Yet you choose to not debate the points with me, particularly the
fourth which was "failure to explain" rather than an actual
allegation of use of such software.

I agree there could be an innocent explanation for blocking regulators use
of the app. I'm sure the courts will be very interested to hear what it
might be.


The plot thickens:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs?shareToken=f14d27cfb9669def03c9774bbe7ba 501

Uber was repeatedly given a clean bill of health by transport bosses before
the sudden decision to ban it from London, The Times has learnt.

Inspections carried out by Transport for London between 2013 and the middle
of this year failed to find any major fault with the company, it emerged,
leading to claims that the cancellation of its licence smacked of
“political opportunism�.

Data released under the Freedom of Information Act showed that TfL
conducted ten inspections at Uber’s London headquarters and ruled that it
“satisfied regulatory requirements�.

In April Uber also successfully passed its annual compliance audit, which
is thought to have involved 20 officials from TfL’s licensing department
reviewing thousands of documents over two days.

Uber, which is used by 3.5 million people in the capital, was told on
Friday that its licence to operate would not be renewed when it runs out at
the end of this week.

Yesterday it emerged that Uber’s biggest competitor may be aiming to set up
in London. Lyft, which operates only in the US, has spoken with TfL five
times since last November.

This morning, Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, accused Uber of deploying an
“army� of PR experts and lawyers in an “aggressive� move to take TfL to
court to appeal against its suspension. He said the move contradicted
statements in the press saying Uber was ready to negotiate compromises to
get its licence back.

“You can’t have it both ways,� he told the BBC from the Labour Party
conference. “On the one hand, acting in an aggressive manor throwing all
sorts of things around, and on the other hand briefing journalists that
they want to do a deal.�

A public backlash against the licence decision was mounting with about
700,000 people signing a petition calling on Mr Khan to reinstate Uber.

Criticism has been made of the mayor for appearing to side with black cab
drivers and the GMB union, which has campaigned heavily against Uber.

TfL, which is chaired by Mr Khan, said on Friday that Uber was no longer a
“fit and proper� operator. It failed the company on four areas, including
its slack approach to reporting serious criminal offences and failing to
complete criminal record checks properly.

Uber, which will appeal against the decision at Westminster magistrates’
court, was given no warning of the concerns and only notified of the
decision five minutes before Friday’s announcement. It has had only one
previous meeting with senior management at TfL this year and bosses refused
to discuss the licensing process. A series of other meetings, including
some with Mr Khan, were cancelled.

TfL was asked yesterday to provide further information about the ruling,
including the basis on which it was made, but declined. A spokesman said:
“We have nothing further to add.�

Data released by TfL at the end of July showed that ten compliance
inspections had taken place at Uber in the past four years, the last of
which was in April.

Only one, in August 2016, showed that Uber was failing to comply fully with
its licence. However, in that instance TfL later said that Uber took “all
reasonable steps� and the breach was deemed outside its control.

Uber’s conduct has been criticised by others. Last year it was reported
that the Metropolitan Police investigated 32 drivers for the alleged rape
or sexual assault of passengers in 12 months.

In August, Inspector Neil Billany wrote to TfL warning that Uber was
failing properly to investigate allegations against its drivers.

Uber sources said that TfL had never relayed any concerns to the company.
It was given a temporary six-month licence when its previous five-year
licence expired at the end of May.

Tom Elvidge, general manager of Uber in London, said: “We’re always willing
to talk to Transport for London and the mayor. While we haven’t been asked
to make any changes, we’d like to know what we can do. But that requires a
dialogue we sadly haven’t been able to have recently.�

Uber has hired Thomas de la Mare, QC, to lead its appeal. It also drafted
in the law firm Hogan Lovells, The Daily Telegraph said. In a case this
year Mr de la Mare prevented two out of three restrictions being imposed on
Uber by TfL.

On 25/09/2017 10:47, Recliner wrote:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs?shareToken=f14d27cfb9669def03c9774bbe7ba 501


Uber has hired Thomas de la Mare, QC, to lead its appeal.

But was he hired using the cab-rank rule?



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK