Friday, January 05, 2018
Letter To Editor : This Whole Business Of Uber Carrying On Operating Is Beyond A Farce - by Laurence Green
Thursday, January 04, 2018
LONDON (Reuters) 4 Jan, 2018 5:21pm-
Uber submitted an appeal in the northern English city of York on Thursday to overturn a decision by the council not to renew its licence over concerns about a data breach and the number of complaints it had received.
An Uber spokesman said :
“While we have today filed our appeal, we are also seeking to meet with York City Council in order to address their concerns."
The firm can continue to operate until the appeals process is exhausted.
Uber is also battling to keep its cars on the streets of London, its most important European market, after it was stripped of its licence to operate.
Its London appeal will be formally heard in court in June
At the same time more than 5000 Taxi Drivers used the Point Cab website to write to their MPs who in turn wrote to the Prime Minister demanding a Public Inquiry following the exposure of the corruption.
Why has the Mayor taken no action?
TFL are accountable to no one which in itself is something which should be investigated in the format of a Public Inquiry. The Mayor is Chair of TFL and therefore could not conduct an independent investigation. The GLA are supposed to be able to scrutinize the decisions and policies of TFL but have no statutory power to take action about TFL failures.
A GLA report in 2014 which deemed TFL to be ‘Woefully Inadequate’ has been ignored.
Why has the Department of Transport taken no action?
Formal complaints have been made to the DFT over a number of years and even though this is a national issue they have continually stated that they have no jurisdiction over TFL and that it is a matter for the Mayor to deal with. The Mayor is Chair of TFL so therefore cannot taken independent action.
What are the requirements of Public Law ?
It is a requirement of Public Law that decisions made by a Public body or someone in Public Office follow correct procedure, are rational and evidence based, for proper purpose, proportionate and properly reasoned. These criteria exist to ensure that decisions made by a Public Body result in effective policies and strategies. It is extremely important to acknowledge that these criteria are not just an obligation they are legal requirements and the failure to comply with these requirements is the reason why TFL’s decisions and strategies have failed.
The legal requirements for a Public Body are to
1/Follow correct procedure
2/ Be Rational and Evidence based
3/Have proper purpose
4/to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights
5/To be Proportionate
6/To be properly Reasoned
TFL have failed to comply with these requirements.
Wednesday, January 03, 2018
• Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences including a rise in sexual assaults & rapes.
• Uber's approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
• Uber's approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
• Uber's approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
• An increase in road traffic accidents.
• VAT avoidance allowing 'Uber' the ability to directly undercut taxi drivers regulated fare*
However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:
And see Hanif v East Lindsey:
(a) Why should Taxi drivers have to fund a VAT case against 'Uber' when TfL have the legal tools to ensure Uber pay their correct taxes?
(b) If TfL decided that 'Uber' was not a 'fit & proper' company on public safety grounds they had the power to revoke Uber's license without allowing them to operate while under appeal on public safety grounds [s 17(2) 1998 PH act].
(c) Was TfL's decision not to renew Uber's license a financial decision or a public safety decision?
Given the fact point (b) granted TfL an immediate right to revoke Uber’s license on public safety grounds, we believe that the Mayor took the option not to protect the public, but instead to protect TFL financially – If the Mayor had revoked Uber’s license on public safety grounds and not allowed them to operate while under appeal, TfL would be exposed to a financial claim for any losses should Uber have won the appeal.
(d) So ask yourself, does TfL really want a legal battle with Uber?
(e) If the answer to (d) is Yes, then why didn't TfL revoke Uber’'s license and protect the public while the appeal process was carried out?
(f) TfL instructed Deloitte to undertake a review of Uber's 'booking process'; they claim that the driver accepts the booking before the operator. If TfL believe this to be the case, why are they still allowing them to operate illegally?
(g) Uber’s T&C's claim that the driver is contracted to Uber BV, the customer pays their fare to Uber BV, the customer’s receipt is provided by Uber BV.
If TfL/Deloitte are correct it'd suggest that the booking investigation would confirm (1) the customer makes the request to; (2) the unlicensed Uber BV, who are making the provision for the invitation of the booking (3) the driver accepts the booking (4) Uber London do nothing, and just record the booking after the driver has accepted.
(h) If we are not going to peacefully protest over this illegal process, what happens when we are steamrollered byTaxify, Lyft or any other Private Hire tech company who want to break the rules and operate here. After all, Taxify have already admitted the driver accepts the job before the operator.