Uber refused London licence - but it can continue to operate for now - MSE News

Astar1809

AdrianC wrote: »

One particular minicab company don't keep their licence.

Hey-ho. Plenty of other minicab companies out there.

As the person above has mentioned there is nothing else out there that offers the service AND the price.

You don't need to figure out where you are or the postcode as the map does it for you, you do not need to have cash on you, you can meet the car as it arrives due to the interactive map, you know exactly how much it will be without feeling like you are bartering with a controller.

The service is the major attraction of UBER, the price is great too but I would still use the model if it were not the cheapest option as it is by far the easiest.

motorguy

AdrianC wrote: »

One particular minicab company don't keep their licence.

Hey-ho. Plenty of other minicab companies out there.

I think you're underplaying the size, cost saving and ease of use of UBER there somewhat.

AdrianC

TooManyPoints wrote: »

There is a bit of a difference though, Adrian.

No, there really isn't.

Uber are a minicab company. No more, no less.

Or, in the technical London parlance, a private hire vehicle operator.
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing?intcmp=3521

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-operator-licence
This is the licence they've just failed to renew. Because they don't meet the standards that every minicab operator is required to.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2019/november/uber-london-limited-found-to-be-not-fit-and-proper-to-hold-a-private-hire-operator-licence

A key issue identified was that a change to Uber's systems allowed unauthorised drivers to upload their photos to other Uber driver accounts.

This allowed them to pick up passengers as though they were the booked driver, which occurred in at least 14,000 trips - putting passenger safety and security at risk.

This means all the journeys were uninsured and some passenger journeys took place with unlicensed drivers, one of which had previously had their licence revoked by TfL.

Another failure allowed dismissed or suspended drivers to create an Uber account and carry passengers, again compromising passenger safety and security.

TfL recognises the steps that Uber has put in place to prevent this type of activity. However, it is a concern that Uber's systems seem to have been comparatively easily manipulated.

Other serious breaches have also occurred, including several insurance-related issues. Some of these led TfL to prosecute Uber earlier this year for causing and permitting the use of vehicles without the correct hire or reward insurance in place.

So that's drivers who don't meet these standards...
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

The Uber business model seems to me (and I've used both) more flexible than traditional "minicabs". Uber operates where I live and when I'm out dining and boozing it is far easier to get an Uber late into the evening (which, for me is after 10pm!) than it is a traditional minicab. You can see instantly how far away your nearest car is and can decide whether to accept it or have another pint.

They're a minicab company who have a good app. No more, no less.

Where I live Black Cabs are non-existent and can only be seen picking up at the local railway stations. There's no way you could rely on hailing a Black Cab as you're leaving a pub or restaurant in my area.

Black cabs aren't PHVs/minicabs. They're "Taxis", in London parlance.

I guess there's room for all three. I certainly prefer a Black Cab when I'm in Central London. I like the idea that the driver has "The Knowledge" and that he does not rely on a sat-nav to negotiate the complications that Central London throws up. I use a pre-booked minicab to and from the airport or for any longer journeys I might have to make. But Uber seems to come into its own following an evening out.

Uber is just a different minicab operator to the one you book in advance for the airport run - one that have sufficient minicabs to offer the flexibility you're after for a short-term booking, and who have an app that makes it easy for you.

But then again I'm a bloke and I'm not usually alone when I travel.

It's not just about drivers getting a bit Worboys (and let's not forget he was a licensed black cab driver). Maybe the driver who can't get a PH licence doesn't actually have any driving licence. He certainly doesn't have any insurance, so if he does crash, you may well be completely out of pocket for your injuries and inability to work.

unholyangel

neilmcl wrote: »

Since when has a taxi service been public transport?

neilmcl wrote: »

Taxis are not and have never been defined as part of a public transport system, end of.

Taxis (not to be confused with Uber who are private hire vehicles and not taxis) are indeed public transport. They can ply for trade on the street, can use bus lanes and can only refuse fares for specific reasons.

neilmcl

unholyangel wrote: »

Taxis (not to be confused with Uber who are private hire vehicles and not taxis) are indeed public transport. They can ply for trade on the street, can use bus lanes and can only refuse fares for specific reasons.

Public transport, or mass transport systems does not include taxi services, whether they are private hire or otherwise, although taxis do complement the public transport network. One of the key markers of public transport is that they run on a timetable and to a fixed route, there are some taxi services around the world that do this and can be part of a public transport system, but generally standard taxis are not.

TooManyPoints

Yes I agree with all the points you make, Adrian. I'm well aware of Uber's legal status as a PH outfit (albeit with some bells and whistles that make their operation more attractive in some ways). But because of those bells and whistles their operation does appeal to some people more than a "phone a cab" option. But I totally agree that their regulation, particularly that of their drivers, needs to be rigorous and if they are found wanting they should lose their licence (properly, not just "subject to [another] appeal").

unholyangel

neilmcl wrote: »

Public transport, or mass transport systems does not include taxi services, whether they are private hire or otherwise, although taxis do complement the public transport network. One of the key markers of public transport is that they run on a timetable and to a fixed route, there are some taxi services around the world that do this and can be part of a public transport system, but generally standard taxis are not.

Trust me, I was familiar enough with the licensing laws surrounding them when my grandparents owned 2 taxi firms - they're public transport, but only taxi's and not private hire (which is why I highlighted private in my previous post, clue is in the name....whats the opposite of private? ). It has absolutely nothing to do with running to a timetable I'm afraid.

TooManyPoints

But there's nothing more "private" (or public for that matter) about a PH vehicle over a "Hackney" cab. Both can be hired by anybody, both will take you where you (and only you) want to go, both have a regulated fare structure. The sole difference is that Hackney cabs can ply for hire, PH vehicle cannot and a Hackney cab, once hailed, cannot refuse a ride within its regulated area (subject to a few exceptions). But that doesn't make them any more or less public.

AdrianC

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Yes I agree with all the points you make, Adrian. I'm well aware of Uber's legal status as a PH outfit (albeit with some bells and whistles that make their operation more attractive in some ways). But because of those bells and whistles their operation does appeal to some people more than a "phone a cab" option.

Just a nice app and a lot of brand recognition. That is the ONLY difference...

TooManyPoints

Just a nice app and a lot of brand recognition. That is the ONLY difference...

BUT....Part of the London Taxi Drivers' Association's objection to Uber being licenced is that they believe that the Uber App effectively facilitates their plying for hire. This is part of the argument made by Gerald Gouriet QC and Charles Holland representing the LTDA:

The London Taxi Drivers’ case is that Uber drivers/cars unlawfully solicit for custom, and it makes no difference that they do so via the Uber app rather than by a “for hire” sign displayed on the vehicles.

It is very true that they also object on thegrounds of them not being "fit and proper" etc. But their objection based on them plying for hire means that, in the eyes of the LTDA at least, there is a difference between Uber and traditional PH companies.