Uber licence 'not renewed' in London - thoughts?

pogofish

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Personally I think it's a good thing, the black cabs are synonymous with London in the same way the cream cabs are in Berlin, and the yellow cabs in NYC.

Why is this a Motoring issue? Uber isn't a vehicle of any kind and its what people might use if they don't drive - so surely the existing threads in PT, Arms and Employment are all better placed than here?

Stoke

Mercdriver wrote: »

You could always do what people are recommended to do on holiday and if they aren't running a meter (something you can ask the dispatcher when you call) what the cost will be for your planned journey.

If they are overcharging they are breaking the terms of their licence and should be reported.

Ultimately, you're relying on the honesty of the taxi driver and also putting yourself in their hands to get you home safely.

It's very tricky. I've arrived at locations before and been told I owe 10 pounds more than we agreed originally. That can get very tasty. Doors locked, you're arguing with a guy who's in charge of a vehicle.

I've also been in the opposite situation where I've been quoted a price, paid up front and then been turfed out half a mile (sometimes more) away from my house.

And I've had the single extreme case where I was robbed by a taxi driver of a local company. I phoned their base and they laughed. I phoned the police who suggested I was just drunk.

And you want me to have sympathy with local companies for being undercut by a company who do it better?

CKhalvashi

Stoke wrote: »

OK, lot of content there, but just a few points. I have absolutely no reason to lie regarding what the driver told me about his yearly income. He said he earned 40 grand a year, so either he was trying to blow his own trumpet, or he was telling the truth. It's not a figure I made up. I remember it, because it made me think that all things considered, hard work aside, that's an excellent wage.

Also, you're wrong about the second point you make. It's 10p a minute, so 6 minutes was 60p.

By the sounds of it, you probably understand it a lot better than me, but it does sound like you have a vested interest to some degree. It seems odd that when I've spoken to Uber drivers about Uber, they've had nothing but positive things to say, while competitors have merely complained that they're being constantly undercut.

Perhaps I'm naive.

I have no vested interest in what Uber are doing.

I have had no dealings with the industry since Uber came into the UK and have never had interests in London of that nature.

I get fully that the driver has no reason to lie, but at the same time if you look at my broken down figures, how reasonable do they look to you?

I have no reason to lie either and my personal belief is that the driver in question has either got very lucky regarding what work they're doing, is underestimating their long term expenses due to newness to the industry (£1000+ repair bills aren't uncommon when you're doing 50000+ miles a year, 30000+ of those in town, even in the most reliable car) or is working absolutely ridiculous hours to make that sort of money.

tho_2

This is a money saving site. If there is a company willing to do the taxi service pretty much when you want them for £2.32, why would you advise someone to use a black cab for £5/£10? Up to the company and the regulator to sort it, which it looks like London is doing.

CKhalvashi

tho wrote: »

This is a money saving site. If there is a company willing to do the taxi service pretty much when you want them for £2.32, why would you advise someone to use a black cab for £5/£10? Up to the company and the regulator to sort it, which it looks like London is doing.

I've already answered that for you.

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Yes this is a money saving forum however we should never be paying so little for something that others are suffering as a result of it.

As I've explained (and fully broken down based on a 60+ hour week, 45 weeks a year) above, if the driver in question is earning that, the hours they're working for it would be going far beyond what is expected in 'normal' jobs and very likely far beyond what is healthy for anyone.

There's nothing wrong with saving money but I have a huge problem with big businesses promoting practices that are bordering on exploitation.

Stoke

tho wrote: »

This is a money saving site. If there is a company willing to do the taxi service pretty much when you want them for £2.32, why would you advise someone to use a black cab for £5/£10? Up to the company and the regulator to sort it, which it looks like London is doing.

It's consensual slavery.

Stoke

am I right in thinking that dominoes delivery drivers get paid the minimum wage? They're also required to use their own car to do lots of deliveries.... Short trips around town. Repair work not covered?

Now that IS technically below minimum wage........

Discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1618679

Black Cabbies Lives Matter

CKhalvashi

Stoke wrote: »

am I right in thinking that dominoes delivery drivers get paid the minimum wage? They're also required to use their own car to do lots of deliveries.... Short trips around town. Repair work not covered?

Now that IS technically below minimum wage........

Discussed here:
https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1618679

Black Cabbies Lives Matter

Not necessarily a good guide, but possibly it isn't in law.

For full-time, which I believe the poster in question probably doesn't work:

58 multiply 225 = give or take 13000 miles.

10000 x £0.45 = £4500
3000 x £0.25 = £750
£4500 + £750 = £5250 or about £100 a week. Divide that by 225 = £23.33.

'Actual cost' = £26.10, so a technical loss of £2.77

https://www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-travel-mileage

There is nothing there saying that mileage rates have to be paid at the advised rates and there therefore may be a technicality in the law there.

In short, I think it's probably technically legal even if I don't necessarily agree with it. There will also be likely the value of a free pizza (so anywhere up to £15 with the company I use, which isn't Dominos and they're probably more expensive) to take into account.

[Deleted User]

CKhalvashi wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with saving money but I have a huge problem with big businesses promoting practices that are bordering on exploitation.

I appreciate that Uber isn't perfect, but I find it incredibly difficult to stomach this kind of hyperbole about exploitation. It's essentially an app that allows people to make money out of their car. Calling it exploitation makes about as much sense as calling Air BnB exploitative. If drivers don't want to do it then they won't do it.

What's far more objectionable to me (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread) is that the established taxi services have been able to get away with blatant protectionism for decades. The Knowledge is a textbook example of that: an entirely redundant three year process (for most people) that serves little purpose beyond acting as a barrier to new drivers and protecting the positions of those who already have a licence (which is good for these drivers, bad for absolutely everybody else, first and foremost customers).

This has always been the way these industries operate if they aren't regulated properly: they claim that for safety reasons employees need incredibly extensive training simply to prevent other people from being able to break into the industry, thereby protecting their positions/incomes. It took Uber to finally break the stranglehold they held over the industry in London and they've been trying to concoct a way to force them out of town ever since.

What we actually have with Uber is a political lobby for a certain group of people (cab drivers, other private hire firms) constantly pushing a line about exploitation, passenger safety, tax avoidance and other apparently noble concerns to try and run a business out of town that they find it hard to compete with. I understand why they're doing it and if I were a black cab driver I'd probably be doing the same thing, but whatever actual concerns exist with Uber can clearly be addressed without banning them from the city entirely. If it were actually about safety then they'd come up with a solution on that basis, but it was never about safety, it was about getting rid of competition.

daveyjp

gordon_harris wrote: »

I appreciate that Uber isn't perfect, but I find it incredibly difficult to stomach this kind of hyperbole about exploitation. It's essentially an app that allows people to make money out of their car. Calling it exploitation makes about as much sense as calling Air BnB exploitative. If drivers don't want to do it then they won't do it.

What's far more objectionable to me (as someone mentioned earlier in the thread) is that the established taxi services have been able to get away with blatant protectionism for decades. The Knowledge is a textbook example of that: an entirely redundant three year process (for most people) that serves little purpose beyond acting as a barrier to new drivers and protecting the positions of those who already have a licence (which is good for these drivers, bad for absolutely everybody else, first and foremost customers).

This has always been the way these industries operate if they aren't regulated properly: they claim that for safety reasons employees need incredibly extensive training simply to prevent other people from being able to break into the industry, thereby protecting their positions/incomes. It took Uber to finally break the stranglehold they held over the industry in London and they've been trying to concoct a way to force them out of town ever since.

What we actually have with Uber is a political lobby for a certain group of people (cab drivers, other private hire firms) constantly pushing a line about exploitation, passenger safety, tax avoidance and other apparently noble concerns to try and run a business out of town that they find it hard to compete with. I understand why they're doing it and if I were a black cab driver I'd probably be doing the same thing, but whatever actual concerns exist with Uber can clearly be addressed without banning them from the city entirely. If it were actually about safety then they'd come up with a solution on that basis, but it was never about safety, it was about getting rid of competition.

This completely misses the main bodies who have concerns about Uber - the Met and City of London Police.