Saturday, April 14, 2018

We Need To Bring Them All Back To Answer Charges Of Alleged Malfeasance

In a statement yesterday on Periscope, chair of the London Cab Drivers Club Grant Davis said: "we need all TfL directors past and present, to answer charges!". 


Paul Coghlan on FaceBook. 
The proof that Uber are illegal is now so unequivocally abundant it is mind numbing. 

Uber BV do not and never have had  an operators license. Uber BV in Holland dispatch every job after it has been accepted by the driver (illegal) as only a licensed operator can accept a booking. They also process the payment therefore avoiding any tax liability in the uk. Uber London ltd have the operators license but take no part in the booking process. ULL are merely the company who are Uber’s public face. 

We've all seen the videos of the army of compliance officers, acting upon orders from TfL top brass, removing copies of a trade paper from Taxis, in a bid to stop drivers informing the public about UberRape.
One of the compliance officers suddenly disappeared from their ranks after it was alleged she had major connections with Uber drivers. 

They are responsible for the coverups of rape and gross misconduct by the company here in London. 
Freedom of information has revealed that TFL knew in 2013 that the booking process was non compliant. They actually instigated an IT architectural investigation by Deloitte that proved it to be so. 

TfL we’re about to act but Downing Street intervention quashed any compliance action. 
So for 5 long years TFL have knowingly sat on information that has caused 25k + self employed British men and woman to loose homes families and in the case of suicide their lives, in favour of an American tech company that contributes nothing, I repeat nothing, to our society other than an artificially low priced ride that will be 4x that price when all opposition is eradicated. 

The fight for justice continues as does the battle for survival. If you think it’s not you’re problem just remember this. These parasites will not stop with the Taxi industry. At the current burn rate they realise money will run out before self driving cars are ready en masse. They are looking to diversify into new areas. You could be next. Delete the app and support you’re local businesses.

           

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :
As Paul rightly says, Uber are looking to diversify as the money is running out. They already heavily subsidise every job dispatched. Uber have taken on Jump cycles in a bid to raise funds. They have leads devastated many small local businesses with Uber Eats. 
Ever business they are involved in has an affect on people's everyday lives. This below from the other side of the world:
 

A POPULAR Sydney burger chef has severed ties with UberEats and unleashed a scathing online spray against the “fascist” company after his business was hit by a wave of negative reviews from customers unhappy with cold food.

In a Facebook post on Tuesday, Burgers by Josh founder Josh Arthurs accused UberEats of “exploitation”. “To all our loyal customers who have had a bad experience with UberEats we APOLOGISE,” Mr Arthurs wrote.

“As both a customer and food operational partner of this fascist company I have seen first-hand just how bad [an] experience it is for both parties involved.”

He said the drivers were untrained in food handling and customer service and “any Joe off the street can join”, and the problem was made worse because drivers were “not paid much so they will take one job/food order and often stop in and get another along the way which results in customers getting cold food”.

“Now recently Uber changed its policy on refunds for customers and businesses,” he said. “Customers no longer have a call centre to call and they have to enter a complaint in via the app to be sent off overseas with an expected wait of 24 to 72-hour response time to then see if you are eligible for a refund.

Friday, April 13, 2018

LCDC Chairman Grant Davis Gives Update On Periscope, What's Next Everyone?....A Must Watch.


Grant Davis, chair of the London Cab Driver Club gives an update on where the club are in regards to the 360 pages of emails they are collating.

Plus more information about their legal inquiries with top judicial review and Licensing law specialist at Bindmans LLP, John Halford. 
You can read more about John Haliford in this months badge on page 20. Grant has republish an article from the Badge in 2014.


Grant has always said if the club had been supported by the other trade orgs back in 2014, he believes we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. 

Click the link below to see Grants periscope update

Maidenhead Council Officer Raises Fears Over Lack Of Control Of Uber Drivers And Blames TfL

Uber drivers are ditching their private hire licences with the Royal Borough and signing up for Transport for London (TfL) instead.

Greg Nelson, the council’s trading standards lead, told a meeting of the Royal Borough’s Licensing Panel on Tuesday that the switch means the council has less control over drivers operating in the area.

While Uber has an operating licence with the council, regulations do not prevent drivers signed up to the transport app from being registered with TfL but working elsewhere.

Mr Nelson said: “I’m not particularly happy with this because the whole purpose of licensing is we have some degree of control on the vehicles operating in our area.

“If Uber drivers are waiting somewhere in the Royal Borough, parked illegally, there is nothing we can do about their physical presence.”

Mr Nelson added that by relinquishing their licences, Uber drivers would not have to comply with the council’s proposed safeguarding training for Hackney Carriage and private hire drivers.

Cllr Maureen Hunt (Con, Hurley and Walthams) said: “Our taxi drivers are going to have to pay for this safeguarding training but Uber won’t.

“We have to look at the fairness of this.”

During the meeting at Maidenhead Town Hall, panel members recommended that private hire drivers registered with the council should pay for mandatory safeguarding training.

Royal Borough taxi driver Mohammed Yasin said after the meeting: “I’m not against the training but the cost shouldn’t be placed on the drivers.

“This is for public safety, why can’t the council locate funds from the public purse?

“Otherwise, this is an extra tax for taxi drivers.”

The cost of the training was discussed in part two of the meeting, which the public and press are not able to attend.

Uber expands settlement with FTC related to cyberattack

Question: What happens when you get caught out in a coverup, again?

Answer: Put more money on the table....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Thursday the ride-hailing company Uber Technologies Inc had agreed to expand its proposed settlement with the agency over charges it deceived consumers about its privacy and data security practices. 

The FTC said the expansion of the proposed settlement comes after the commission learned Uber had failed to disclose a “significant” breach of consumer data that occurred in 2016 affecting nearly 50 million U.S. riders and compels Uber to disclosure future incidents.

The settlement does not impose any fines but said Uber could face civil penalties if it fails to disclose future incidents.

The FTC said Uber in November 2016 learned that intruders had again accessed consumer data the company stored on its third-party cloud provider’s servers but did not disclose the incident for a year. The company said it had no evidence of fraud tied to the data breach.

The FTC said intruders used the access key to download from Uber’s cloud storage unencrypted files containing more than 25 million names and email addresses, 22 million names and mobile phone numbers, and 600,000 names and driver’s license numbers of U.S. Uber drivers and riders. 

“After misleading consumers about its privacy and security practices, Uber compounded its misconduct by failing to inform the Commission that it suffered another data breach in 2016 while the Commission was investigating the company’s strikingly similar 2014 breach,” said Acting FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen. “The strengthened provisions of the expanded settlement are designed to ensure that Uber does not engage in similar misconduct in the future.” 

The FTC noted that Uber failed to disclose the breach immediately, even after it paid the intruders $100,000 through its third-party “bug bounty” program.

The new FTC order requires Uber to retain records related to bug bounty reports regarding some vulnerabilities.

In November 2017, Uber Chief Executive Officer Dara Khosrowshahi disclosed the data breach that affected 57 million people around the world and said the two individuals who led the response were no longer with Uber.

Uber Chief Legal Officer Tony West said in a statement Thursday that during his first week on the job in 2017 Uber publicly disclosed the incident. 

For more on cybersecurity, check out the Decrypted  podcast:

“I am pleased that just a few months after announcing this incident, we have reached a speedy resolution with the FTC that holds Uber accountable for the mistakes of the past by imposing new requirements that reasonably fit the facts,” Uber Chief Legal Officer Tony West said in an emailed statement

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :

Meanwhile, there are so many of them in London, they're smashing into each other. Another blue on blue in Greenford Road.

Thursday, April 12, 2018

City Of London To Try To Fool Commonwealth Heads ...Will You Answer The Call And Seize The Days?


London Taxi drivers are up in arms as the City of London Fathers admit the closure of the bank junction to traffic other than bus and cycles, could potentially put the heads of the Commonwealth gathering in London for the government forum in grave danger !

Because of the fear that the Commonwealth heads could be in danger, stuck in the utter gridlock and pollution of the surrounding areas....in their wisdom, they (the city fathers), have decided to re-open the Bank Junction to all traffic....but only while the Commonwealth heads are gathered here in London for their forum. 

They obviously want to give the false impression that all is well in the City..... But, we know that's far from the truth. 

As soon as they leave, the CoL will resume the Bank Junction scheme again and the pollution causing gridlock will be reimposed on the citizens of this once great city. 

Seize the day, 
Will the Taxi trade unite and take this opportunity to demonstrate against the unfair, unjust Bank a Junction scheme?
The ball, as they say, is in your court !




First Trade Org to come forward with support for the ITA's proposals for protests in the City of London is the London Cab Drivers Club (LCDC)

Chairman Grant Davis had this to say earlier today:
"So the issue over “Public Safety” is ignored for the 3 days?
What hypocrisy!
 I am sure our members will be supporting any action that is called by the ITA."




Looney Toons Council Plan Pedestrianisation Of Upper Street

Or "how to kill off local businesses in one foul swoop".


An artist's impression of what a pedestrianised Upper Street may look like. Picture: Zaha Hadid Architects

One of the world’s leading architects has tabled a radical plan to pedestrianise Upper Street.

Zaha Hadid Architects said removing traffic from Islington’s signature shopping street would help make it a cleaner and less dangerous place.

It’s part of the Clerkenwell firm’s “Walkable London” project, a more ambitious take on mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s pledge to pedestrianise Oxford Street.

Instead of just one street, Zaha Hadid has called for entire pedestrian networks of major roads in the capital. And that involves a pedestrianised Upper Street, including Islington High Street and Goswell Road towards the City.

Melodie Leung, senior associate at the architects, told the Gazette: “If Upper Street people want to get behind this, we should talk.”

Speaking of Patrik Schumacher, Zaha Hadid’s director, Ms Leung said: “His proposal is to think grand: really long, continuous avenues that would allow walking to be a viable form of transport across the city. Upper Street means a lot to him, as he used to walk that route a lot.

“It would be fruitful for the shops and restaurants in the area. Pedestrianisation would be a natural opportunity for them.

“Upper Street is also so congested with vehicles and buses. If pedestrianised, it would be a really efficient link between the north and south of the city.

“Islington is a very residential community. If Upper Street was used for walking to school and walking to work, it would be a safer and healthier place.”

The 182-page Walkable London plan is in its early stages, but Ms Leung added: “It’s a provocative proposal and there would obviously be a lot of community engagement.” She suggested one way forward would be to do temporary closures of Upper Street, in order for the “community to test the outcomes”.

Steph Palmer, from Islington Living Streets, which campaigns for pedestrian safety, said: “It’s a lovely idea. In theory, I’m all for it. But in practice, what would happen to the streets either side that would take all the traffic?

“I’ve been in Upper Street when there’s no traffic and it’s so much nicer for shopping and seeing people. So it’s certainly something to look at



Source : Loony Toon's Islington Gazzette 

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :
What they are saying on Twitter 





Uber's chief admits the company failed to support drivers and favoured investment in growth of the business globally

Uber's chief executive has admitted that the ride-sharing company failed to support its drivers, favouring instead to invest in growing the business globally.

"We focused too much on growth but not enough on drivers," he said during a press conference. 

The app, which refers to the drivers it relies on to offer its service as "partners", has been criticised for treating them unfairly and refusing to offer basic employment rights. 

But Dara Khosrowshahi today said he hoped a brand new app for drivers would prove the San Francisco giant was committed to meeting their needs "at every moment of their journey". 

This includes improved ways for drivers to see how much money they are making through trips and how close they are to the goal they have set, as well as an improved profile section. 

Dara Khosrowshahi pictured during his time as Expedia chief executive before taking over from Travis Kalanick, who founded Uber.

The announcement followed a crushing defeat for Uber's in the European Courts of Justice, which on Tuesday morning upheld France's ban of the app, claiming that it was a criminal offence for the company to operate there. 

The decision will likely have ramifications across the EU for the under-fire ride-hailing company and set a precedent across the bloc as the EU’s top court said member states could use criminal law to “prohibit and punish” illegal transport activities without telling the European Commission first.

Uber France argued that it should be classified as an “information society service” rather than a taxi company, which judges rejected.

The brand new Uber app for drivers Credit: Uber

Such services qualify for EU protection designed to boost innovation, which require national governments to notify the commission before taking action against tech companies. The law was written before Brussels’ attitude towards US tech giants hardened over data protection and concerns over how little tax the companies pay.

The French government banned the UberPop service because it broke a 2014 law prohibiting taxi platforms from using unlicensed drivers carrying fewer than 10 passengers. Uber’s lawyers argued the failure to notify the commission should cancel the French ban and appealed the decision.

French judges referred the mater to the Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice, which said Uber did not qualify as an information society service.

In December 2017, EU judges said that Uber was a transport company and not an information platform in a similar case involving Uber Spain.

A Uber spokeswoman said: "This case is about whether a French law from 2014 should have been pre-notified to the European Commission and related to peer-to-peer services, which we stopped in 2015. As our new CEO has said, it is appropriate to regulate services such as Uber and so we will continue the dialogue with cities across Europe.”

"HMRC has been waiting to see which way the ECJ went on this test case to determine whether it should also consider Uber as a VAT supplier of transport services. The likely VAT liability for Uber in the UK could be over £40 million in back taxes, and a 20% VAT rise in rides going forward. Action by HMRC is now highly likely," said Richard Asquith, global indirect tax expert at Avalara. 

Damien Geradin, a partner at Brussels law firm Euclid Law, said the decision was a missed opportunity. "The pre-notification procedure aims to protect players active in the digital sector against discriminatory or disproportionate rules," he said.

Tuesday’s ruling is the latest setback for the controversial US company, which is appealing Transport for London’s decision to strip it of its operating licence.

The capital’s transport authority plans to introduce regulations limiting the hours ride-hailing app employees can drive.

Uber has been controversial in other EU countries, such as Belgium, where the UberPop service is banned but protests against the firm continue. The company now only works with professional drivers in a majority of EU countries. 

In March, the company reached a settlement with the family of a woman killed by an Uber Technologies self-driving vehicle in Arizona.

Despite the controversies, the service remains popular. 


TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT

The decline and fall of the Taxi trade trade continues. 

The following figures are for week ending 08-04-18

Private hire driver licences

113,596 down 49

117 are new

Private hire vehicle licences

87,702 down 219 

332 are new

Taxi driver licences 

23,800 

down 26 

0 are new

Taxi vehicle licences 

20,974 

down 52

9 are new.

What they are saying on Twitter:





Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Uber Can Only Operate Until April 15 In Philippines : While In London, TfL Jump Through Hoops To Aid Relicense.


The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board says Uber should resolve its issues with the Philippine Competition Commission before closing down – 'the sooner, the better

HEARING. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board holds a special hearing on the renewal of Uber's accreditation on April 11, 2018. Photo by Aika Rey/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – By April 16, patrons of ride-hailing services will be left with only Grab as their choice.
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) ordered Uber to close down before April 16, in a hearing on the company's accreditation as a transport network company (TNC) on Wednesday, April 11.

Uber's TNC accreditation expired in August 2017.
"The sooner as possible that you are able to resolve your concerns with PCC (Philippine Competition Commission), the better. Therefore, in the interest of all TNVS (transport network vehicle services) and the riding public, we are giving you until April 15 to exist as a TNC," LTFRB Board Member Aileen Lizada said.
"Upon April 16, you cease and desist to exist as a TNC," she added.

The ruling came despite the PCC order for Uber and Grab to continue operating separately beyond April 8, the date when Uber was supposed to have closed and transitioned its operations to Grab. The PCC gave the order as it launched a review of the Uber-Grab deal.
When the PCC ordered Uber to continue running beyond April 8, Grab said it would shoulder the cost of the extension but only until April 15.

Uber and Grab face a P50,000 to P2-million penalty per violation for failure or refusal to comply with the PCC's order. But both companies will be given a chance to explain their side.
The LTFRB earlier said it would rather that Uber close down by April 8, citing the lack of manpower on the company's backend to handle customer services.

Many patrons of Uber slammed the deal with Grab, arguing that the latter has "monopolized" the ride-hailing market.


The LTFRB has yet to approve 4 new ride-hailing apps

Monday, April 09, 2018

Rogue TfL Registered Uber Minicab Touts Still Operating In Southend


Uber cabs are still picking up fares in Southend illegally - and are mainly targeting the airport.

And it is feared some of the drivers are taking cash jobs.

This is despite measures being put in place by Uber bosses to stop them operating outside London.

Last month Uber changed its app to let passengers know Transport for London (TfL) had licensed their driver, alongside information such as their name, photo, private hire licence number and car registration. Previously the message would simply state a driver was being found.

This means passengers in Southend, and elsewhere outside London, can no longer request an Uber cab via the app as it is “geo-fenced” which prevents the driver operating outside a GPS area where they are not licensed.

The move came as Uber appealed a decision by Tfl to withdraw its operating licence over concerns about Uber drivers operating outside London.

Despite the restrictions, it appears Uber drivers are still picking up fares in Southend, particularly at the airport. Doing so is illegal and puts them outside the authority of local councils as hackney carriage licensing authorities and outside Uber’s meagre controls.

Tony Cox, councillor responsible for transport said: “I am aware of this problem and have met with taxi drivers. If anyone sees this sort of activity we want to know about it. We need the evidence and then we will act on it.


“With geo-fencing Uber can restrict where one can order a car from and also their drivers and where they can accept jobs. If they are doing cash jobs or doing jobs outside the Uber platform it is even worse than before.

“Uber drivers can’t take cash from a paying fare. It has to be pre-booked. A private hire vehicle acting as a taxi in this way is illegal. They have plunged the private hire business into the wild west.” Passengers in Southend have been left puzzled by the situation.

Simon Freeman, 25, from Westcliff said: “I was going to book one last week for the first time in two months, but strangely the app kept saying no cars available, which I hadn’t seen before in Southend.

“I have seen plenty of the Ubers driving around town and picking people up so they are still working in Southend. So it’s pretty odd, and frustrating that you cannot use the app, I thought using the app was the whole point of Uber?”

Taxi drivers in south Essex are irate about Uber drivers continuing to flout the rules.

Speaking to the Echo, Rochford taxi driver Paul Lawrence said: “I was at the airport yesterday and I saw four of them. They are still operating here. I see them every day. I thought they weren’t supposed to be at Southend Airport.

“We have to learn the local knowledge, to pay to be licensed and be CRB checked but there’s absolutely no precautionary checks with these people. They swan around and do what they like with no penalty.”

Mr Lawrence, 54, from Benfleet added: “The police won’t touch it because they say it’s a civil matter.”

Cliff Short has been Southend taxi driver for 30 years.

He said: “I see them on a daily basis. They are at the back of the Holiday Inn. They park up wherever they can.

“They also work at the nightclubs. We had a survey a couple of years ago to see if we needed any more taxi licensed in the area and we didn’t so with them out there as well it is harder for us.”

Mr Short, 62, from Leigh, added: “If anyone gets webcam footage of Uber drivers here they should send it to the council.”

TAXI LEAKS’ EXTRA BIT:
A spokesman for Uber, Mike Chisholm said: 
As Southend Airport is a London Airport, we are allowed to work there....
You really couldn’t make this up !!!
Mind you, they also believe The Netherlands is part and parcel of the UK




To Represent Or Not To Represent That Is The Question. Or, Why Are Our Leaders Not Shaking Spears At Mike Brown's TfL?


TFL licensing stats from last week

TfLTPH issued 275 PHVs (455 previous week, staff are on holiday) while the Licensed Taxi trade lost 12 drivers, with only one new licence being issue. 


And now conformation (as if were needed) that there's a definite cull of Taxi drivers and TfLs promise to promote the Taxi trade through the knowledge was just another lie. 


Another week where TfL have allowed an unlicensed company (UberBV) to illegally dispatch journeys direct to the driver for acceptance, before any details are taken (also illegal under current regulations), while the leader of our largest representative group is off swanning about, promoting a vehicle that allegedly the trade can't afford with current work levels. 

So we asked the LTDA:
In light of Tim Fenton’s evidence posted on Zelo Street Blog, when are Steve Mc and the other leaders in the UTG, going to demand Uber’s illegal operation be shut down ?"

The LTDA disregarded the issue in question (Tim Fenton's evidence) and answered with their letter to TfL concerning Uber LL's relicensing....not quite what was asked.
This is their answer: Click link below !
Notice that page two is blurred out!!!

We then asked the LTDA:
Why no mention of UberBV and the TfL cover up since 2013?
They came back with:

"Uber BV was in our objection to licence letter"...???

They went on to say, "only two trade orgs actually objected!!!"
Yes we know that!

Carrying on they said : "Until Uber are proven not fit and proper in court, there is no case against TfL- just because some idiot on twitter says it’s easy, it ain’t!"

Nothing however about TFL's cover up alleged by Mr Fenton and backed up by FOI recovered emails!
This has obviously gone unnoticed by the LTDA legal team

God forbid we might expect the LTDA to do anything other than easy!!!
So we thought we'd offer some advice:

"As you're finding this too difficult... let me spell it out for you 
• All jobs are being dispatched illegally by Uber BV and not Uber LL.
• UberBV are operating without a licence
• TfL closed down Taxify for operating through a third party! 
• If they can close done Taxify, they can close down Uber BV"

Easy enough?

But apparently the LTDA are not finding it easy enough and replied:
"No! Tfl say they “are minded to believe” this is the case! 
Very different from a statement of fact!!
Get yr own lawyers if it’s so easy."

Carrying on the conversation, the LTDA were asked this question by another driver:
"If it’s the driver that’s accepting the booking then surely it must void their insurance, why haven’t TFL revoked the license, also what’s happening with them committing perjury in court ?"

To which they replied:
"Yes, if, as we say, the driver accepts the booking. That’s what will be determined in the court! 
As for allegations re evidence given in meter case, we have written to LCJ, DPP and Police, replied from all, police investigating our allegations."

Hold on a second "Yes, if, as we say, the driver accepts the booking"
It's actually not 'as you say', Uber have already admitted on oath in two court cases that it is the driver who accepts the booking..... But also you have the fact that Uber London Ltd (whom TfL licence as operator) do not dispatch the jobs ..... It's unlicensed Uber BV a company based in the Netherlands.

This being the case, you can now understand why the LTDA's reply below to another driver, has again left us puzzled at the attitude (or lack of it) towards this issue with TfL!

Question left unanswered !

Over half the trade are members of this, the largest trade representative org, or an associated representative group or union under their wing..... will this conversation make you feel relaxed that everything possible is being done to save and protect your livelihood?

Or are you now of the opinion that in the background....actually not much is happening?

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: from John Reid 
Surely when Mr. Brown is on such friendly terms with the management of the trade organisations, it cannot be a good thing for the trade. 

We, after all, are trying to stop UBER illegal plying for hire and TfL are trying to keep there trading partners in work illegally. 

Yes I too have heard the saying well if it is that easy get your own legal team and you do it, but why should I when I have already paid handsomely to be represented. It would seem to me that we have all been waiting far too long for something to happen, dont these organisations relise if the real trade go so do they! 

The situation we seem to find ourself in is the work seems to gets less and less and the cost of a new taxicab is twice what the last one was and just ask yourself what will happen if TfL manage to get UBER relicensed.... there is a good chance that the trade could be threatened.