Friday, June 29, 2018

Open Letter From Jim Thomas To TfL Commissioner Mike Brown.

Open letter to Mike Brown

Dear Mike, can you please tell us how many laws you will allow Uber to break before revoking their London Licence under the terms laid down in the recent court case by Judge Emma Arbuthnot. 

Uber have been granted a probationary 15 month license in the same way as a convicted felon being let out of prison on licence. One hit and your out. With the felon, first further arrest and back to the nick, so with Uber, one serious complaint about the company and the licence should automatically be revoked. But Mike, is this really the case, will you act on a one hit and your out basis with Uber?...or will all contraventions be dealt with, by a nod and a wink from TfL, as with the 13,000 Uber driver fake DBS certificates...Will the Taxi trade have to take TfL to court to get you to do your job???

The day after Uber were given their probationary license, they carried on breaking the law by picking up passengers outside the Met Police district of Greater London -such as Stanstead and Gatwick Airports, using the Uber app- Under the terms of cross border hiring they can only do this if the customer has requested a trip with a licensed operator in these areas, then the booking is subcontracted over to Uber.... this isn’t happening...Uber are still plying for trade with their app directly in the vicinity of these areas, as they do in many other areas they are not licensed to operate in. 

Will TfL now revoke their licence with immediate effect....?


Also Mike, can you tell me why Graham Rodinson is refusing to answer my question in the recent email I sent him (5 times over the last six weeks).

Uber in Southend: From the Southend

UBER has been told to stay away from Southend after it won the right to operate in London again. Uber cars could regularly be seen picking up at Southend Airport.

The controversial minicab firm was awarded a temporary licence for the capital this week after previously being denied a five year licence over safety fears for passengers.

The company accepted it had made “serious mistakes” and Transport for London was correct in its September decision. 

But it told an appeal hearing this week it had made reforms. Although the reforms haven’t actually been made public, we just have their word on this. 

Tony Cox, conservative councillor for Shoebury, has been a fierce opponent to Uber due to being concerned about the safety of the the taxi service.

He said: “It’s a hollow victory.

“I was saying long before TFL took notice that Uber wasn’t fit for purpose or to hold an operator’s licence.

“I was shocked it took them so long to do something about it.

“They compromised people’s safety.

“You actually cannot get an Uber car in Southend itself now.

“They are not welcome here and if they ever want to come here I will campaign heavily against them.

“It’s good riddance.”

Uber was asking for a five-year licence when TFL rejected the application but the judge issued the shorter one with stringent conditions after concluding the firm had made “rapid and very recent” changes.

Under the licence, Uber must inform the Metropolitan Police of criminal allegations, face regular independent audits and not employ anyone who has helped evade law enforcement.

Even though Uber won the appeal, they unusually offered to pay  TfL’s £425,000 legal costs.

John Watson, managing director of Southend-based AC Taxis, said: “We as a trade are disappointed with the ruling as there are clearly lots of public safety issues in the way Uber operate.

“These haven’t been addressed, for an example they will be operating in areas where the local enforcement officers will have no authority over them.

“As for Southend, Uber does not have a Southend licence so had decided two months ago to geo-fence their app meaning TFL cars are unable to work in Southend.

“Our view is that Uber is welcome to work in Southend as long as they have a Southend licence so their drivers are kept to the high Southend Safety Standards.”

Mark Flewitt, cabinet member for public protection, added: “We understand Uber has been given a short term licence to continue to operate in London, and we will be monitoring the situation for further developments.”



colin said...

Mike Brown is no more than Uber's man on the inside,as for still operating outside London come out to Holloway College Egham & just watch them,they form ranks outside Egham station & are now a daily sight in Bracknell,so will the App be geo fenced around London i think there's more chance of the state pension being scrapped.

Corrigan Roy said...

I hope this letter has actually been sent to all those concerned with #ubergate? And I hope that someone is collating and reporting all future #uber offences - cos we know there will be many!

Anonymous said...

that's a Brilliant letter to Mike Brown - have you got several 1,000 PAYING members, expecting such action? WHY didn't the 'orgs' do that? - in fact, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?

Mark Jennings said...

Just a little clarification here.
A customer can be anywhere when they request a car from a PH operator.
The acceptance of the job can be made anywhere, i.e. a server on Mars.
When the operator accesses that info it must be inside it's licensed area.
The operator must make provision in the area it is licensed only.
The operator can only use cars that are licensed by the same authority.
When the job is despatched both the operator and driver MUST be inside that geographically fixed licensed area.
Once that legal requirement has happened and the driver has accepted the job from the operator, there is no restriction on where that journey starts or ends.

Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd v Newcastle City Council 2012

"8. The operation is geographically fixed in the operator’s licensing area: that area must be where the operator’s premises are located, bookings made and from which vehicles are dispatched"

N.B. Justice Hickingbottom says "Vehicles are dispatched" not jobs but vehicles.
The operator can only legally despatch a job inside it's licensed area and as a consequence a driver can only accept the job from it's operator inside that same licensed area, NOT outside.

If an operator was to despatch a job outside of it's licensed area it can only do so by sub- contracting that booking to another operator, as per section 11 of the deregulation act amendment to the 76 act see section 55a.

This is the current legal restriction on controlled districts that have adopted the miscellaneous provisions act of 1976.

So to clarify not only has Uber drivers been illegally accepting 2 million bookings a week, They have also been breaking section 46 (1) (a), (b) & (d) of the 76 act, by accepting jobs in a controlled district without an operators licence (46 1 d) and making themselves available for hire in controlled districts they are not licensed for (46 1 a & b)

This is just the 76 act, don't get me started on the town and police clauses act or the criminal justice and public order act or the private hire vehicles London act, we'll be here all night.