Saturday, May 26, 2018

Uber Lose Judicial Review Against TfL’s Voice Contact Requirement.

The Court of Appeal decided yesterday, TfLs requirement on Private Hire operators to have a voice contact capability for customers is lawful.


From 1st October all Private Hire Operators must be contactable by Phone.

TfL brought in the requirement back in 2016 to make it easier for passengers to complain or contact the operator in the event of an emergency. 

Hold on a minute didn’t TfL’s Leon Daniels go before a GLA transport committee and say that Uber actually provided the customers with a voice/phone contact ?

Didn’t Leon Daniels give out the phone number in front of a packed gallery of irate taxi drivers?

Was TfL’s  Leon Daniels lying to the GLA transport committee?


After the regulation was bought in, Uber took TfL to court and won the case to have the  requirement removed. 

Yesterday, the appeal by Transport for London was heard in the Court of Appeal and the original High Court judgement was overturned.

The Court of Appeal held that Mr Justice Mitting was wrong to rely on the distinction between an emergency requirement and the voice contact facility, which was not raised in the consultation or suggested as a less burdensome alternative by ULL. 

It accepted TfL's evidence introduced on the appeal that an emergency requirement would not be practicable, would not achieve the same benefits, and would not necessarily be less burdensome. The Court of Appeal also held that, because the emergency requirement would not achieve the same benefits as the voice contact requirement (speed of response and customer comfort outside emergency situations), it was not a less burdensome alternative. 

It rejected ULL's arguments that the benefits outside of emergency situations were negligible.”

Hold on a minute!

Haven’t we been shown evidence by journalist Tim Fenton that the Uber app is actually serviced by Uber BV and not Uber LL?

Haven't we been shown evidence that TfL have known about this since 2014, but said nothing and failed to stop the illegal operation ?

Does this mean that Uber BV can carry on disregarding any or all of TfL’s regulations?

Again, Uber can appeal this JR decision, but it’s highly after stating publicly they are making efforts to conform to regulation and move forward, the last thing they want to do is make enemies in the justice system with their current licence appeal is running.

Oh what a tangled web they weave....etc.

Should Daniels And Co Have To Face The Court
To Explain Lies He Told To Support An Illegal Operation???


Option 1.... Rape line
Option 2.... Sexual assault line
Option 3.... Account hack line
Option 4.... Guide dog discrimination line
Option 5.... Gender discrimination line
Option 6.... Accident line
Option 7.... Journey direction complaint line
Option 8.... Driver mastibation line.
Option 9.... Driver watching porn whilst driving line
Option10... Talk to a live operator in Mumbai

No comments: