Thursday, September 22, 2016

Did TfL Relax Regulation On Landline To Assist Uber's Modus Operandi And Get Daniels Off The Hook ?... By Jim Thomas

In the light of the plethora of evidence published in trade journals about the collusion between certain TfLTPH officials, allegedly bending over backwards to help Uber circumnavigate the requirements laid down by the Private Hire Act 1998, you would have thought there'd be no more skeletons left in the TfL closet. But you'd be wrong!

It's now crystal clear that LTPH have been secretly massaging and amending said legislation. 

Below is an email sent to one of our readers by TfL after he repeatedly asked about Uber's original licence application. 

He claims TfL only replied when he copied in his MP.

Part 1....

Part 2....

Apparently, TfL have a new "interpretation" of the requirement for a PH operator to have in place a landline for taking bookings.

TfL are now claiming it's no longer a regulatory requirement for an operator to "maintain a landline once they are licensed an operational"....REALLY ?

If that's the case, then this interpretation makes the initial PHV act laughable. 
It's like saying when you have your vehicle licensed, you must wear a red tie. But after the vehicle is plated, you can then discard that item. 

Many Taxi drivers are now concerned that this part of the act has been massaged by TfL to facility Uber's continuance as a PH operator, helping them operate independently of statutory legislation which, every other PH operator has to adhere to.

The old interpretation seemed to be firmly in place, until Leon Daniels was found to have lied to the GLA transport committee. Daniels presented the GLA with what he said was Uber's public landline number. Turned out to be Jo Bertram's private line.

Now it seems, the requirement from the act of 1998 has been reinterpreted.
Again, drivers are concerned that this was done to get Daniels off the hook, and to keep Uber compliant.

The information recieved by our reader, was also past on to the LTDA back in June. 
Not only have they said nothing about this, they didn't even reply to the driver who copied them into the emails. 

Personally, I can confirm that this issue was not bought up by the LTDA at the all trade representative meeting at Taxi House, called to discuss how our trade should go forward, in light of the Toronto verdict, which I attended on the 3rd of August.
Minutes of this meeting will be posted later this week.

Uber update : Joint initiative yesterday.
TFL Compliance and Met police in Camden. 
 • 74 vehicles stopped. 
 • 64 phvs and 10 Taxis. 

56% of phvs were found to be non compliant, i.e. no insurance.

Yesterday's operation shows without doubt, Uber drivers are not taking the PHV act, regulations seriously. 


Unknown said...

A local requirement in sheffield is that a fire extinguisher must be fitted for the vehicle to be licensed as a PHV.

If I remove that extinguisher after the vehicle is plated, then I would have my plate suspended.... What's the difference ?

TfL should be taken to court for this, and be made to suffer.

I'm Spartacus said...

This is subverting the will of parliament!

The intention of the provision of a landline is for a public benefit not to suit the cost savings of an offshore based predator.

We can speculate on the reasons for all those 'Dear Jo' e mails and phone calls but surely Val Shawcross can't ignore this?

That need for an enquiry gets louder!

Larry Long Legs said...

But all this is the same old same old, IF the only Org with the cash to take a case to court is the LTDA then thats that .... it wont happen.

The LTDA members must know what their like by now and dont give a fuck.

Anonymous said...

We all had a chance to put a few quid in the pot and take tfl to court. Did it happen no. So what's the point of saying tfl done this wrong that wrong if our own drivers don't care. The biggest problem we have is the taxi drivers not tfl. If we stuck together we could of taken tfl to court got answer to question like this. Also I still do t know what happened to the money I gave.

Anonymous said...

what a disgraceful state of affairs

if only a fraction of the effort, that they are putting into, trying to force us to have, dangerous to use, credit card machines, was used to ENFORCE, the Rules & Regulations,, there wouldn't be this absurd situation

colin said...

Uber's hanging in there till the driverless market,everything's draging along till then.

Bottled It said...

And our response is:


Anonymous said...

Not sure why constant reports of what TFL DONE OR DIDNT DO? becoming boring, what's the point of constant accusations when absolutely jack is being done!! If accusations are true ORGS get your finger out and expose it if not why bother this nonsense of accusations

Editorial said...

Dear Anonymous 9:28

Any monies left in the campaign fund (and weren't withdrawn) for the failed Uber JR were used to fight tfl against the CC mandate to make cabbies pay the passengers' cc fees.

The Court passed judgement in July and unfortunately we weren't successful getting a JR.

The accounts are in the process of being audited and we hope these will be available in the next few weeks.

Money collected in the buckets at Taxi ranks and the Airport were donated to two trade charities, the Euro Disney trip and the Albany Taxi charity.