It's been alleged, that employees of a certain controversial smart phone app, may be inciting suburban drivers to break the law.
According to TfL, it is illegal for a suburban driver to accept a hiring/booking (pre booked or otherwise) while outside of the area they are licensed by TfL to operate inside. The journey would also not be covered by their insurance as this would be a case of illegally plying for hire. Driving without insurance is an arrestable criminal offence.
Uber promotional staff are visiting suburban ranks, encouraging Yellow Badge Drivers to sign up to the app.
We've been informed, that promotional staff are telling suburban drivers who sign up to Uber, not only will they receive a £50 incentive fee, but also (if they remove their IDs), they can wait around in Central London and can accept work.
This surely is an incitement to get others to break the law and could in itself be an illegal action?
But will TfL take Uber to court. The simplest thing to do is revoke their licence with immediate effect.
Or is this latest incident more proof of TfLs bias towards Uber.
Uber's should never have been licensed in 2012, as they did not conform to the conditions of fitness and were using a meter to calculate fares in contravention of the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998.
It should have been upto Uber's to go to court, to appeal against TfLs decision.
Why would a licensing authority, take the trouble and expence of going to court, to prove legality of an operator they themselves have already licensed. It just don't add up.
This whole Uber issue doesn't smell right and (in our opinion) requires an independent investigation to make sure corruption hasn't taken place, insuring Uber's licence was issued with no complications.
The LTDA should never have taken Uber drivers to court, they should have gone for TfL, for not acting responsibly as a Licensing Authority.
TfL under the watchful eye of Mayor Boris Johnson, Transport Commissioner Sir Peter Hendy and Managing Director of Surface Transport Leon Daniels have a duty of care to their licensees to operate in a clear and transparent manner.
Over the last 5 years this has not been the case and there have been instances were rules have been overlooked and bent to accommodate certain PH operators.
PH roundels were supplied wholesale to a West London minicab firm, without the need for their cars to be inspected. Ex Director of LTPH John Mason excused this action as just someone doing a friend a favour.
No one was ever prosecuted.
RD2 were issued multiple licence variations the same day they registered as a PH operator in contra to a TfL policy requirement that PH operators be in business for a minimum of one year before variations can be issued.
After a year of lies from Both the director and deputy director of LTPH, we were finally informed, TfL can do whatever they like and that TfL policy is no more than guidelines.
Now the scandal of Uber being Licensed without conformity or compliance to conditions of fitness.
TfL should be the true target of any legal action:
The Taxi trade orgs need to man up and take on TfL in the courts.
At present, they are chasing the wrong criminal.