TfL have responded to our recent FOI request about Uber.
There have been 822 complaints since June 26 2018: 30% of which were Inappropriate Behaviour!
Its important to note the questions TfL REFUSED to answer:
Just what are they hiding?
UTAG will now appeal to the ICO
See UTAG’s FOI below:
Dear Ms Clarkson
Our Ref: FOI-1513-1920
Thank you for your request received on 20 August 2019 asking for information about Uber London Ltd (ULL).
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked:
1. Since June 26th 2018
(a) how many complaints have Transport for London received about Uber
(b) what was the nature of those complaints?
With more than 100,000 licensed private hire drivers and more than 23,000 licensed taxi drivers in London, millions of taxi and private hire journeys are made every year.
The vast majority pass without incident but where a complaint is made we will investigate and take action as appropriate.
We have had 822 complaints logged relating to Uber between 26 June 2018 – 20 August 2019 (date of request).
Please note that the majority of these complaints relate to Uber drivers, and not the company itself.
Please see the table below showing the categorisation assigned by our agents when recording the cases.
Driver, Inappropriate Behaviour
Driver, Dangerous driving
Driver, Intimidating/Threatening Behaviour
Driver, Devious/Unplanned Route
Driver, Fare Refusal
Driver, Fail to complete hiring
Lost Property, Left item (Lost Property)
Driver, Disability Discrimination (DDA)
Driver, Compliance with TFL Procedures
Driver, Offensive Behaviour
Driver, Attitude/Rude Behaviour
Driver, Racial/Homophobic Abuse
Driver, Guide Dog Refusal
Driver, Poor/Dangerous Driving
Driver, Refuse Pick Up
Driver, Illegal parking / parking obstruction
Customer Service Centre, Complaint Handling
Driver, Plying for Hire Outside Area
Other service issues, Compliance with TFL Procedures
Driver, Violent Behaviour
TfL Policy, Other
Driver, Fares Issue
Other service issues, Other
Customer Service Centre, Knowledge/Information
Driver, Sexual Harassment
Safety support from TfL, Interventions
On-board: Built Environment, Ambience
Billing / Charging Issue, Other
Driver, Refusal to Admit Wheelchair
Revenue Inspector, Other
Other service issues, Failure to Arrive
TfL Policy, Compliance with TFL Procedures
Customer Service Centre, Offensive Behaviour
Driver, Passenger behaviour
Billing / Charging Issue, Dispute Journey Fare
Driver, Vehicle Compliance
Penalty Fares, Penalty Fares
2. What action has Transport for London taken to scrutinise Uber's adherence to the conditions laid down in the granting of a 15-month licence?
3. How many Breaches of Conditions laid down in the granting of Uber's 15-month licence have been reported, become apparent to, or investigated by Transport for London?
4. What was the nature of any breach?
5. What action was taken by TfL (if any) of any breach of the conditions of the probationary licence or the complaints (see question1)?
In accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the information requested as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 31(1)(g), which relates to information where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes listed in subsection 31(2) of the FOI Act, specifically, ‘(2)(c)the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise’.
In this instance the exemption has been applied as the information is held only for the purposes of ascertaining whether a Private Hire operator is complying with the regulations, in accordance with our responsibility for regulating the private hire trade in London.
This information contains details which otherwise would not have been made available to us and the exemption applies to protect our ability to clarify and confirm details on specific issues regarding general licensing concerns.
The prejudice would be caused by disclosure because it would affect our ability to engage with the taxi and private hire trade and would inhibit the free flow of information, particularly where there is disclosure of information about confidential and commercially sensitive data.
Effective working between the trade and the regulator relies on a safe space where information can be shared at a sufficiently early stage to avoid the need for formal enforcement action.
This benefits the public as it enables greater oversight of private hire operators and better scrutiny of services by the regulator and our benefit because proactive discussion avoids costly enforcement activity, delayed access to information and increased bureaucracy.
The use of this exemption is subject to an assessment of the public interest in relation to the disclosure of the information concerned. We recognise that there is a public interest in understanding the scope of regulatory activity, and whether concerns have been sufficiently addressed. However we feel the balance of the public interest supports the exemption in order to enable the effective and timely sharing of information between ourselves and the taxi and private hire trade.
If this is not the information you are looking for please feel free to contact me.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Senior FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :
Here again we see TfL protecting Uber and it’s drivers, not only in the questions they’ve refused to answer but also in the questions they have answered.
In the response above TfL take the trouble to point out that the majority of complaints they’ve reported refer to the drivers and not the company.
They say: “Please note that the majority of these complaints relate to Uber drivers, and not the company itself”.
But as we all know, a majority of 822 could still mean that there have been 412 complaints against Uber the company, as TfL haven’t specified who did what !