Friday, March 03, 2017

Uber Lose English Tests Appeal In The High Court, But It's Not All Good News

Uber loses court case to block English-language test in London. The instant hail app was attempting to halt Transport for London demand that drivers pass language test to obtain licence

The minicab app Uber lost a court battle on Friday to stop plans for strict new rules on the need for its drivers and those of other private hire services to prove their reading and writing skills in English to operate in London. 

San Francisco-based Uber, which allows users to book journeys at the touch of a button on their smartphone, has faced bans and protests around the world as regulators play catch-up with technology disrupting traditional operators. 

Uber launched legal action in August after public body Transport for London (TfL) said that drivers should have to prove their ability to communicate in English, including to a standard of reading and writing which Uber said was too high.

"TfL are entitled to require private hire drivers to demonstrate English language compliance," said Judge John Mitting as he rejected Uber's claim.


Apparently it's not all over yet, as Uber say they are to appeal this decision. 

If Uber can appeal then TfL should appeal the parts they lost. But I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.


One rule for them....and a different one for us of course. 



Anonymous said...

What about the 120,000 migrants already licenced by TFL?
It's a bit like the driving test to be introduced, existing license holders will no doubt be exemp!

tony harvey said...

TFL will be celebrating well into the early hours with their maiden victory over uber apart from Leon Daniels who will be waiting for the call from jo summoning him to uber hq to explain himself and why they paying him with free uber rides that uber lost a case and what he's going to do to rectify this miscarriage of justice

Anonymous said...

What's Uber up in armsa about, they're just a internet technology company - it's not like the people concerned are their employees...


DMS0001 said...

Those that recently stated that, judges, courts, entire judicial system is the enemy of the British people are correct. How could anyone allow on/off insurance, even if it existed?

it opens itself immediately to abuse, which is the reason we have regs, so as to prevent abuse. History has shown how it was abused until they put in place, the reqiurement for full 24HR 365days insurance.

These alleged (Yes, I have said that, Alleged, laughable aren't they)judges, along with the rest of the motley supporters of Low End poober, totally disregard this aspect.

Which will be to the detriment of travelling public, should they be involved in accidents, whilst being transported by these inexperienced, uninsured, low end transport people.

You could be forgiven for believing, the PH full time insurance, is far more important than english speaking ability, obviously, these alleged, intelligent, knowledgable, legal experts, that call themselves M'Lud don't agree with the majority of the population.

Of course those same anti fairness, pro unlevel playing field, Judges expect complainants to use the official channels, with no satisfaction, they're then expected to use the justice system. Which having had some experience, is a total load of excrement. Run for the benefit of those employed by it, at the detriment of those that pay for it, you & me. As in this case.

Who benefits? the same bunch of nonsenical failures that work within it, Solicitors, barristers, Judges, plus the lesser mortals, who generally dofer, gofer for the previous lot.

No, i have very little respect for this execrable, fecal system. This judgement maakes them a laughable, joke. I've experienced it first hand,It's not as good as they enjoy telling you. i got fed up with them telling me, it was the best system in the world, it's not, but, they love to hear the sound of their own voices.

Don't expect them to give a stuff about individuals or anyone for that matter. they are well protected in their insular ivory towers.

Remember, Low end, it's what he called his own business! No insurance, even lower end!

lee ward said...

On / Off insurance is a load of rubbish and how the court agreed to it is beyond me, except for one thing...

Benson v Boyce stated that once a vehicle is licensed then it is always licensed for the duration of that

Unless TfL require the return of the Roundel if the vehicle has swapped insurance because it is not working, then it is always licensed. You can not by law have two insurance policies on one vehicle. I am also certain that the insurance brokers will not want to keep swapping the insurance around on any vehicle...

So the court have pretty much put this back in TfL's hands on how they deal with the insurance side...