Uber gets the boot in London

[CzarJunkie]

Give it 20 years and it will be a moot point as they will all be driverless. I can accept that as that's technology at work. People will move on to other jobs just as they always have. Don't see many horse shit pickers on the roads these days....we evolve and move on. Just make sure we do so orderly and fairly and safely, not too much to ask is it ?

Sent from my Elephone P8000 using Tapatalk

I'm not so sure about that. AI/Automation is replacing both our mechanical and cognitive skills. During the industrial revolution only our mechanical skills could be challenged by machines. Our cognitive skills have been largely unchallenged until recently. Driving is just one of many examples where our cognitive advantage will be wiped out, and sooner than we think, or certainly than politicians think.

With no mechanical nor cognitive advantage, what will we be good for? The only interesting argument I've encountered is our emotional advantage. This may lead to a vast expansion of professions such as nurses and those providing other care services. But could this sector of the economy really pick up the slack?

[Over Carl]

With regards to drivers/companies not paying proper tax, I've also previously agreed out current system is a shambles. But lets remember each company is out there to make as much money as possible (or in this instance maybe to avoid loosing more money than necessary while trying to establish international market dominance). I don't blame Uber at all for tax avoidance, I blame our government for letting it happen and I don't see why Uber is being singled out on this when there are much worse offenders. Also we need to remember with their current model of loosing money to gain market share, we wouldn't be getting as much tax as we might think (again is this a result of a broken tax system that allowed Starbucks to not pay tax as it was just ploughing money back into it's business?).

With regards to safety, I will start with a little quote from the FT, "Getting a taxi used to be an occasional extravagance. With Uber, it’s become the natural end point to millions of dinner parties, thousands of club nights." https://www.ft.com/content/adc2268c-...0-0b9f565a23e1

So for example if your daughter asks you for permission for a big night out, you might give her enough to cover a black cab home. But lets say your daughter has only got permission to stay at a friends house but is actually going out on the town (I'm not trying to offend your parenting or your daughter, but I'm sure you've heard of this kind of behaviour before), now she will be a lot more likely to end up walking back home or using public transport instead of an Uber cab. I'm even willing to accept for the sake of the argument that this will never happen with you and your daughter, but then you are putting loads of young women at greater risk to satisfy your ideals because that is what works in your house. This also still doesn't even consider that if the unthinkable happened, it would be hard to track down the offending black cab driver whilst with Uber there is a paper trail pointing us straight to the offender.

Before Uber, catching a cab was a luxury, however transport for everyone is a necessity. Before Uber, safe transport at late hours/dodgy areas was out of the reach of a lot of the public, and now it isn't.

[Bald Bouncer]

With regards to drivers/companies not paying proper tax, I've also previously agreed out current system is a shambles. But lets remember each company is out there to make as much money as possible (or in this instance maybe to avoid loosing more money than necessary while trying to establish international market dominance). I don't blame Uber at all for tax avoidance, I blame our government for letting it happen and I don't see why Uber is being singled out on this when there are much worse offenders. Also we need to remember with their current model of loosing money to gain market share, we wouldn't be getting as much tax as we might think (again is this a result of a broken tax system that allowed Starbucks to not pay tax as it was just ploughing money back into it's business?).

With regards to safety, I will start with a little quote from the FT, "Getting a taxi used to be an occasional extravagance. With Uber, it’s become the natural end point to millions of dinner parties, thousands of club nights." https://www.ft.com/content/adc2268c-...0-0b9f565a23e1

So for example if your daughter asks you for permission for a big night out, you might give her enough to cover a black cab home. But lets say your daughter has only got permission to stay at a friends house but is actually going out on the town (I'm not trying to offend your parenting or your daughter, but I'm sure you've heard of this kind of behaviour before), now she will be a lot more likely to end up walking back home or using public transport instead of an Uber cab. I'm even willing to accept for the sake of the argument that this will never happen with you and your daughter, but then you are putting loads of young women at greater risk to satisfy your ideals because that is what works in your house. This also still doesn't even consider that if the unthinkable happened, it would be hard to track down the offending black cab driver whilst with Uber there is a paper trail pointing us straight to the offender.

Before Uber, catching a cab was a luxury, however transport for everyone is a necessity. Before Uber, safe transport at late hours/dodgy areas was out of the reach of a lot of the public, and now it isn't.

Not sure if I am missing the point but correct me if I'm wrong but I see no argument as to why they should grant a licence to a company not abiding by the regulations a licence other than it saving people money and don't really see letting unregulated and unchecked drivers carry on as normal because women will walk home as a serious argument is it?

[Over Carl]

I believe you brought up the topic about women being safe and cabs, so I think I'm also entitled to also consider women being safe and cabs.

The guy I know who sometimes drives for Uber told me he had to go through the same rigmarole that all minicab drivers have to do in order for TFL to allow him to drive for Uber (apparently the days have gone where you didn't even need to speak English and a driving license was all that was required). In addition, I remember him telling me that Uber were very ultra strict about some silly detail, don't quote me as I might have remembered wrongly, but I think he told me Uber demand 2 MOT's per year (in addition to the PCO extra strict MOT style tests that all minicabs and black cabs have to do).

However as I've already mentioned, to me it make perfect sense that if a black cab driver wants to pick up people on the street with no records then there should be stricter background checks in comparison to an Uber driver who will have a paper trail linking him to every (pre-booked) customer he has every had.

I agree there should be stricter enforcement of taxes to really level the playing field (for the cab industry and all other industries), but I have a funny feeling Uber aren't breaking laws with regards to tax, as otherwise the news would have probably been about an HMRC investigation instead of TFL not renewing their licence.

I can accept that there can be numerous reasons for authorities to take action. However in this case, the Mayor of London stated, "TFL said Uber could not hold a private hire operator licence on the grounds of "public safety and security"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41369617

Because of this, I think we should focus the debate on this topic around public safety and security, and it appears many women share my opinion that this move will put them at greater danger while many women also would not even consider Uber due to safety concerns. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41365995 For the better off women who can afford to take a black cab it's all well and good, but what about those that can't? Consider that for the CPS to start a prosecution, they have to consider whether it is in the public interest. I honestly believe that if a few people dodging tax is needed to keep women safer, than that shows it is in the public interest to turn a blind eye unless a better affordable alternative can be used.

I have not looked into the details but I can believe Uber has failed to publicise serious crimes committed by a handful of it's drivers. However I can't really think of many companies that have advertised publicly when a few bad members of staff have fucked up. If TFL wish to implement better vetting of minicab drivers (including Uber drivers), then TFL are free to do so, but I find it very unrealistic for people to expect any profit making company to do more for public safety than it is legally obliged to do (unless for example a company is making a point of charging a premium for better safety like Volvo cars). Bottom line is if more regulations are required to keep the public safe, it's the (local) government's responsibility to implement and enforce these.

[Over Carl]

Can anyone find out the number of black cabs in the UK vs the number of Uber drivers in the UK? I just found a very interesting figure, but obviously we need numbers of both sides to be able to make any meaningful comparison.

"The latest figures indicate that sex attacks involving Uber drivers could now be running at almost one a week, with allegations having increased by 50 per cent in a year to 48 alleged offences.
In 2015, 126 London taxi drivers were charged with violent or sexual offences."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...or-sadiq-khan/

[Bald Bouncer]

I believe you brought up the topic about women being safe and cabs, so I think I'm also entitled to also consider women being safe and cabs.

The guy I know who sometimes drives for Uber told me he had to go through the same rigmarole that all minicab drivers have to do in order for TFL to allow him to drive for Uber (apparently the days have gone where you didn't even need to speak English and a driving license was all that was required). In addition, I remember him telling me that Uber were very ultra strict about some silly detail, don't quote me as I might have remembered wrongly, but I think he told me Uber demand 2 MOT's per year (in addition to the PCO extra strict MOT style tests that all minicabs and black cabs have to do).

Many of the drivers are not having checks or it's months after they are already working they are being checked, as I already mentioned the drivers’ annual turnover rate is around 50 percent so new drivers all the time.

However as I've already mentioned, to me it make perfect sense that if a black cab driver wants to pick up people on the street with no records then there should be stricter background checks in comparison to an Uber driver who will have a paper trail linking him to every (pre-booked) customer he has every had.

There should be criminal background checks in all cases BEFORE they start work, don't see how that can be stricter in either case

I can accept that there can be numerous reasons for authorities to take action. However in this case, the Mayor of London stated, "TFL said Uber could not hold a private hire operator licence on the grounds of "public safety and security"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41369617

I would say allowing a driver who sexually assaulted a passenger to strike again by not reporting the attack as well as other serious crimes and not checking the drivers properly was a clear case of public safety and security

Because of this, I think we should focus the debate on this topic around public safety and security, and it appears many women share my opinion that this move will put them at greater danger while many women also would not even consider Uber due to safety concerns. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41365995 For the better off women who can afford to take a black cab it's all well and good, but what about those that can't? Consider that for the CPS to start a prosecution, they have to consider whether it is in the public interest. I honestly believe that if a few people dodging tax is needed to keep women safer, than that shows it is in the public interest to turn a blind eye unless a better affordable alternative can be used.

Sorry I think it's ridiculous to turn a blind eye because people who want to save a few quid like it, why not turn a blind eye to nurseries who set up cheaper and don't abide by regulations after all they are cheaper, or not bother with clubs licencing door staff, silly fire regulations after all they would be able to build houses and flats cheaper, regulations are put in place in nearly every case as a safeguard as a result of something happening that could or should have been avoided so at what point do you stop turning a blind eye.

I have not looked into the details but I can believe Uber has failed to publicise serious crimes committed by a handful of it's drivers. However I can't really think of many companies that have advertised publicly when a few bad members of staff have fucked up. If TFL wish to implement better vetting of minicab drivers (including Uber drivers), then TFL are free to do so, but I find it very unrealistic for people to expect any profit making company to do more for public safety than it is legally obliged to do (unless for example a company is making a point of charging a premium for better safety like Volvo cars). Bottom line is if more regulations are required to keep the public safe, it's the (local) government's responsibility to implement and enforce these.

You are incorrect so moot point on the non reported crimes, it is not up to TFL to do the vetting it's Ubers responsibility under the regulations and they are not expecting them to do more for public safety than it is legally obliged to it is requiring it to to the checks it is legally obliged to the same as every other company and they are not.

[Over Carl]

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the lack of checks you describe may be an issue outside London, but here Private Hire Vehicles (Minicab/Uber/Chauffeur/Minibus, etc) need to have a drivers license from TFL. Part of getting the PHV license from TFL involves an enhanced CRB check. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...driver-licence

From what matey told me, Uber are very strict about ensuring all paperwork has been uploaded to them to show the driver meets all required obligations to perform PHV services and if anything is a day out of date, he can't drive until new paperwork is uploaded. (One of the benefits of an online platform vs an old school cab base still using pen and paper). Also what's the point if having a PHV license from TFL, if it means nothing and any prospective employer has to run the same set of checks TFL did all over again (+ check paperwork for the actual car)?

With regards to non reported crimes, I must admit this does sicken me. I haven't found such regulation but your post seems to suggest there is. Again imho, this highlights regulatory weakness. Surely they should be legislation to ensure anyone that knows about such behaviour (regardless of whether in a professional context) should obliged to report to the police or could face a "conspiracy to" or perverting the cause of justice charge, but just for example that would have taken down a lot of Catholic priests a while ago. (No offense intended to Catholics, it was just first example I thought of).

[Mickey]

I don't know why but on the Radio Leeds news yesterday say that the ruling in London does not apply to here.
surely what is right in one city should be the same all over

[Bald Bouncer]

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the lack of checks you describe may be an issue outside London, but here Private Hire Vehicles (Minicab/Uber/Chauffeur/Minibus, etc) need to have a drivers license from TFL. Part of getting the PHV license from TFL involves an enhanced CRB check. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...driver-licence

From what matey told me, Uber are very strict about ensuring all paperwork has been uploaded to them to show the driver meets all required obligations to perform PHV services and if anything is a day out of date, he can't drive until new paperwork is uploaded. (One of the benefits of an online platform vs an old school cab base still using pen and paper). Also what's the point if having a PHV license from TFL, if it means nothing and any prospective employer has to run the same set of checks TFL did all over again (+ check paperwork for the actual car)?

TfL informed Uber that background checks on thousands of its drivers were invalid, this is law and the responsibility is for the company to abide by this, there are also issues about falsified medical certificates, Uber had been secretly using a Greyball to deceive law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, Philadelphia, Boston, and Las Vegas, as well as France, Australia, China, South Korea and Italy so it is reasonable to assume they also use or used it in the UK, the ONLY argument I see and keep seeing for not removing their licence is they are cheap and people like them which is not and should never be a reason to grant a licence when a company is flouting regulations put in place to ensure public safty.

If a serious incident occurred in London and it was then revealed Uber had not been abiding by regulations and TfL was aware of this and still granted a licence there would not only be uproar from the public heads would roll and and law suits would follow rightly so, you should never allow any company no matter how big, powerful with the deepest pockets to flout laws and regulations just because they are popular this is something that boils my piss with companies like Ebay.

[Bald Bouncer]

I don't know why but on the Radio Leeds news yesterday say that the ruling in London does not apply to here.
surely what is right in one city should be the same all over

Other cities are following the outcome of the appeal in this case closely but each licence is granted by the relevant authority and this is not a legally binding ruling as in a court case TfL are just refusing to renew the licence.

[DavidF]

One safety issue is that many uber cars are on the road 27/7 in order to make a decent profit on top of the price of car loan insurance ECT. Now either their is more than one person driving under one I'd and he/she just never sleeps or people are car sharing and license sharing.'..hence the charge that many uber drivers are unchecked...I am in Canterbury and so 50 miles from London. The uber drivers find there way down here often and since uber doesn't have a license to operate down here then they should technically turn round after dropping off and return to London....They often don't. So then they illegally pick up a new punter and then drive uninsured to the next destination. The consequence being that when they are involved in an accident they are not covered not are the passengers ECT. There has been 5 accidents that I know of in Canterbury alone in the last year where the uber drivers were uninsured and unlicensed. God knows how what the real figures turn out to be.

Sent from my Elephone P8000 using Tapatalk

[Over Carl]

TfL informed Uber that background checks on thousands of its drivers were invalid, this is law and the responsibility is for the company to abide by this, there are also issues about falsified medical certificates,

Earlier this month Uber was told they had a 28 day grace period to sort out background checks because the checks used to obtain a private hire license were deemed to be unsatisfactory and invalid. https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-...new-DBS-checks

To me that sounds like TFL cocked up their background checks and rather than own up to their mistake and take responsibility they are pushing it to firms, yet still continuing with their failed scheme of giving out licenses that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. As I mentioned before, what's the point in have a private hire license if it doesn't mean shit? Surely these should ALL be recalled and renewed within 28 days instead? If they were given 28 days grace then surely they should be allowed 28 days grace? If people have been managing to incorrectly pass TFL vetting, should TFL be coming down on them like a ton of bricks? Or on the flip side, if there was no shady doings by the applicants and if TFL were just utterly incompetent, why aren't TFL being given the boot instead? Please remember while Uber is the one being picked on, I doubt many smaller cab bases would be performing background checks on a new driver when the new driver is able to produce proof that TFL have already just performed the necessary background checks.

Medical certificates are another issue, and I don't think Uber is the first or last time. I remember a mate at uni create a fake medical certificate to get an extension on coursework. As that was an isolated incident that was not encouraged in any way by the university, I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest all degrees issued by the uni should be made void, but say if the university was encouraging such behaviour then maybe that case could be made.

Uber had been secretly using a Greyball to deceive law enforcement officials in Portland, Oregon, Philadelphia, Boston, and Las Vegas, as well as France, Australia, China, South Korea and Italy so it is reasonable to assume they also use or used it in the UK, the ONLY argument I see and keep seeing for not removing their licence is they are cheap and people like them which is not and should never be a reason to grant a licence when a company is flouting regulations put in place to ensure public safty.

Again I suspect there is a regulatory issue. Currently a retailer is not obliged to sell items/services at an advertised price, it is merely considered an invitation to treat and therefore any retailer can decline any prospective purchaser without even being obliged to state why. Change these regs and Greyball would be a whole different story.

To me it is quite apparent that your feeling is that Uber are failing to conform to many regulations, whilst my feeling is that they are exploiting weak legislation. If your opinion is shown to be correct over the appeal that is one thing, but is my opinion is shown to be correct, then it will be obvious TFL are heavily biased to supporting the black cab monopoly and against Uber. If I was running a legitimate company and the relevant regulator was using dirty tactics to put me out of business, then I think trying to avoid contact with the regulator as much as permitted by law would be the most sensible thing to do. Also if these regulators can't figure out a way to defeat something like Greyball, again this leaves me wondering which party is the incompetent one.

With regards to DavidF's points, I must admit these are valid and interesting points. However I suspect these same points apply to other minicab firms as well. The differences being that Uber has become a lightning rod for all the hate in the trade, and that Uber has become large enough for the name to keep popping up, as opposed to say 5 uninsured accidents in Canterbury all with different firms.

[Bald Bouncer]

Earlier this month Uber was told they had a 28 day grace period to sort out background checks because the checks used to obtain a private hire license were deemed to be unsatisfactory and invalid. https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-...new-DBS-checks

To me that sounds like TFL cocked up their background checks and rather than own up to their mistake and take responsibility they are pushing it to firms, yet still continuing with their failed scheme of giving out licenses that aren't worth the paper they are printed on. As I mentioned before, what's the point in have a private hire license if it doesn't mean shit? Surely these should ALL be recalled and renewed within 28 days instead? If they were given 28 days grace then surely they should be allowed 28 days grace? If people have been managing to incorrectly pass TFL vetting, should TFL be coming down on them like a ton of bricks? Or on the flip side, if there was no shady doings by the applicants and if TFL were just utterly incompetent, why aren't TFL being given the boot instead? Please remember while Uber is the one being picked on, I doubt many smaller cab bases would be performing background checks on a new driver when the new driver is able to produce proof that TFL have already just performed the necessary background checks.

I have no idea who they got to do the background checks in the first place they deemed unsatisfactory do you, I don't have a great deal of knowledge on this and rely on information gleaned from the internet but would be interested in how you come to the conclusion the checks deemed to be unsatisfactory and invalid to incompetence by TfL?

Medical certificates are another issue, and I don't think Uber is the first or last time. I remember a mate at uni create a fake medical certificate to get an extension on coursework. As that was an isolated incident that was not encouraged in any way by the university, I don't think it would be reasonable to suggest all degrees issued by the uni should be made void, but say if the university was encouraging such behaviour then maybe that case could be made.

Don't really see the point here, is the defense 'well that's what people do so it's ok?'

Again I suspect there is a regulatory issue. Currently a retailer is not obliged to sell items/services at an advertised price, it is merely considered an invitation to treat. Change these regs and Greyball would be a whole different story.

You are correct but it is the implication of such action when deciding if a company is fit and proper to hold a licence and the sheer fact they deliberately introduce software to avoid regulators being able to inspect the service brings serious doubts to that issue.

To me it is quite apparent that your feeling is that Uber are failing to conform to many regulations, whilst my feeling is that they are exploiting weak legislation. If your opinion is shown to be correct over the appeal that is one thing, but is my opinion is shown to be correct, then it will be obvious TFL are heavily biased to supporting the black cab monopoly and against Uber. If I was running a legitimate company and the relevant regulator was using dirty tactics to put me out of business, then I think trying to avoid contact with the regulator as much as permitted by law would be the most sensible thing to do. Also if these regulators can't figure out a way to defeat something like Greyball, again this leaves me wondering which party is the incompetent one.

I have no axe to grind here, I do however feel you seem to have a personal issue with this action and company perhaps a step back from that might change your view, I just see people blinded by the fact they like them and they are cheaper while there is a great hatred for black cabs these to me are two totally separate issues that should not cloud judgment as it appears to be doing, you may be correct they may get their licence back but if as you suggest TFL are heavily biased to supporting the black cab monopoly the licence would never have been issued in the first place and before you start leaping to the defense of Uber I would do a bit of reading this wonderful 'legitimate company' and victim of 'dirty tactics'

[Over Carl]

I have no idea who they got to do the background checks in the first place they deemed unsatisfactory do you, I don't have a great deal of knowledge on this and rely on information gleaned from the internet but would be interested in how you come to the conclusion the checks deemed to be unsatisfactory and invalid to incompetence by TfL?

I must admit I think we are both in the same position - neither of us are in the trade and we are both just reading up on the net to gain a better understanding, but here are a couple of interesting bits I found(links were already supplied by me in this thread).

"It has been revealed in The Times that 13,000 Uber drivers in London will have to undergo new Disclosure Barring Service checks as it has been deemed that the DBS checks used to obtain a private hire drivers license are unsatisfactory and therefore no longer valid"
https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-...new-DBS-checks


"In order to be licensed, you will need to meet the following criteria:

• You must be at least 21 years of age at the time of applying. There is no upper age limit, as long as you meet the other licensing requirements
• You must hold a full DVLA, Northern Ireland, or other EEA state driving licence that's at least three years old
• You must have the right to live and work in the UK
• You must be of good character. To establish this you will be required to undertake an 'enhanced' criminal records check from DBS through our service provider - GBGroup
• You must be medically fit which means meeting the DVLA Group 2 standards. In most cases, this will mean that you will have to undergo a medical examination with someone who has access to your full medical history
• You will need to undertake a topographical skills assessment from an accredited assessment centre"

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...driver-licence


Now either that Taxipoint article is misleading, or Uber have been relying on TFL to screen drivers. From reading the above I think you can see why although it's not explicitly stated I am going with that assumption, otherwise as I've said numerous times, what is the point in TFL issuing Private Hire licenses? Now the only scenarios I'm picturing that have led us to this are that drivers are somehow falsifiying information to pass, in which case one should assume TFL (the regulator) should be coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Either that or GBGroup have not been competently carrying out these checks (or even possibly TFL is not correctly forwarding all information from applicants to GBGroup).

As GBGroup is the company appointed by TFL and drivers have no choice to choose other companies, naturally if the checks are inadequate the responsibility should lay with TFL for not choosing an appropriate service provider, or for GBGroup for cocking up, but I'm really struggling to understand how responsibilities for cock ups by the regulator or companies acting on behalf of the regulator have become Uber's fault. Imho when Uber were given 28 days grace to sort out this mess they should have told TFL to fuck off and ask TFL to confirm within 28 days whether Uber driver's private hire licenses are valid or not.

Don't really see the point here, is the defense 'well that's what people do so it's ok?

My point is that say for example if Uber are helping unfit drivers to pass, then they should be automatically struck off. If say 1 in 10000 drivers manage to get dodgy paperwork to go through, then we have to be realistic and accept shit happens, and responsibility should lay with the driver. However say for example Uber weren't even bothering to look at medical evidence and something like 1 in 10 drivers had gotten away with submitting dodgy paperwork, then it would be correct to see if Uber has acted lawfully. If Uber did act lawfully then regs need to be tightened or if it was found Uber was not acting lawfully then they should be struck off.

However I don't know why I didn't link this back to the TFL licensing issue. If TFL are checking a driver's fitness to drive as part of issuing a private hire license (please see above), then if a driver has a recent and valid license, then shouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that the driver is indeed fit to drive? If a driver obtains a license from the regulator while being unfit to drive, imho firstly that shows incompetence by the regulator, and secondly the regulator only serves to confuse things for honest firms by stating an unfit driver is actually fit to drive by the act of issuing a private hire license.

You are correct but it is the implication of such action when deciding if a company is fit and proper to hold a licence and the sheer fact they deliberately introduce software to avoid regulators being able to inspect the service brings serious doubts to that issue.

I have no axe to grind here, I do however feel you seem to have a personal issue with this action and company perhaps a step back from that might change your view, I just see people blinded by the fact they like them and they are cheaper while there is a great hatred for black cabs these to me are two totally separate issues that should not cloud judgment as it appears to be doing, you may be correct they may get their licence back but if as you suggest TFL are heavily biased to supporting the black cab monopoly the licence would never have been issued in the first place and before you start leaping to the defense of Uber I would do a bit of reading this wonderful 'legitimate company' and victim of 'dirty tactics'

If you go back to post 15, I added an edit showing that TFL seem to think black cabs are more important than even the emergency services. Something really stinks with TFL and black cabs. I would love to say I have the exact answer but I don't.

As mentioned in post 32, if it turns out that Uber have been acting unlawfully, then you have a great point about how Uber have been using technology to evade justice. (Could this come under an "obstructing a constable" charge if a copper was assisting the regulator in an investigation hindered by Greyball?) However if Uber have not been acting unlawfully then I would say hiding from a bent regulator is not dishonest, and the real issue lays with the bent regulator creating a need for a legitimate company to hide. To date we haven't got any evidence to prove Greyball has been used by Uber in the UK. I will say I do not consider Uber to be an ethical company but ethics and law often end up going off in different directions.

I think we both have a hatred of injustice. Maybe I'm a tin pot loony, but despite having no hard evidence, I am convinced the bigger injustice Londoners face is being ripped off by the black cab monopoly who are being assisted by the regulator. Again I have no hard evidence but I am convinced if TFL put similar efforts into investigating black cabs and decided to openly publish these, we would have a whole different picture emerging.

Edit: I must admit my opinion of TFL being bent is probably partially derived from helping friends/family fight PCN's issued by TFL. (They can issue PCN's for some traffic infringements in London, but they appear to show utter disregard for the actual relevant legislation often when issuing tickets, and even when replying to appeals).

[MHP]

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand I don't want to see people working for low wages, no pension, no sick pay etc (companies seem to use the freelancer/contractor method to avoid employment law now a days).
However, my own experiences with Uber have only been positive. The drivers often mention the poor rates but this doesn't seem to be a deal breaker for them. All of the drivers I have spoke to have been checked and they all do other driving jobs, so I am assuming these checks are valid for conventional mini cabbing and chauffeur work. I've been using Uber for a while and I have yet to come across a dodgy looking sex pest in a clapped out Bluebird.

Have the black cab drivers influenced this decision? I use Uber because it is convenient, efficient and the drivers are great and they a have good cars. I don't use them because they are cheap. For me Uber has replaced mini cabs, not black cabs and this seems to be the case for me and all of my friends and colleagues. Black cabs in London are a bit of a enigma. They are used by the wealthy, the desperate and by tourists. Black cab drivers need to face up to reality, they are the transport equivalent of Beefeaters.

Perhaps the real question here is the political one, how does this decision benefit Sadiq Khan...

[Bald Bouncer]

I must admit I think we are both in the same position - neither of us are in the trade and we are both just reading up on the net to gain a better understanding, but here are a couple of interesting bits I found(links were already supplied by me in this thread).

"It has been revealed in The Times that 13,000 Uber drivers in London will have to undergo new Disclosure Barring Service checks as it has been deemed that the DBS checks used to obtain a private hire drivers license are unsatisfactory and therefore no longer valid"
https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-...new-DBS-checks


"In order to be licensed, you will need to meet the following criteria:

• You must be at least 21 years of age at the time of applying. There is no upper age limit, as long as you meet the other licensing requirements
• You must hold a full DVLA, Northern Ireland, or other EEA state driving licence that's at least three years old
• You must have the right to live and work in the UK
• You must be of good character. To establish this you will be required to undertake an 'enhanced' criminal records check from DBS through our service provider - GBGroup
• You must be medically fit which means meeting the DVLA Group 2 standards. In most cases, this will mean that you will have to undergo a medical examination with someone who has access to your full medical history
• You will need to undertake a topographical skills assessment from an accredited assessment centre"

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-an...driver-licence


Now either that Taxipoint article is misleading, or Uber have been relying on TFL to screen drivers. From reading the above I think you can see why although it's not explicitly stated I am going with that assumption, otherwise as I've said numerous times, what is the point in TFL issuing Private Hire licenses? Now the only scenarios I'm picturing that have led us to this are that drivers are somehow falsifiying information to pass, in which case one should assume TFL (the regulator) should be coming down on them like a ton of bricks. Either that or GBGroup have not been competently carrying out these checks (or even possibly TFL is not correctly forwarding all information from applicants to GBGroup).

As GBGroup is the company appointed by TFL and drivers have no choice to choose other companies, naturally if the checks are inadequate the responsibility should lay with TFL for not choosing an appropriate service provider, or for GBGroup for cocking up, but I'm really struggling to understand how responsibilities for cock ups by the regulator or companies acting on behalf of the regulator have become Uber's fault. Imho when Uber were given 28 days grace to sort out this mess they should have told TFL to fuck off and ask TFL to confirm within 28 days whether Uber driver's private hire licenses are valid or not.

My point is that say for example if Uber are helping unfit drivers to pass, then they should be automatically struck off. If say 1 in 10000 drivers manage to get dodgy paperwork to go through, then we have to be realistic and accept shit happens, and responsibility should lay with the driver. However say for example Uber weren't even bothering to look at medical evidence and something like 1 in 10 drivers had gotten away with submitting dodgy paperwork, then it would be correct to see if Uber has acted lawfully. If Uber did act lawfully then regs need to be tightened or if it was found Uber was not acting lawfully then they should be struck off.

However I don't know why I didn't link this back to the TFL licensing issue. If TFL are checking a driver's fitness to drive as part of issuing a private hire license (please see above), then if a driver has a recent and valid license, then shouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that the driver is indeed fit to drive? If a driver obtains a license from the regulator while being unfit to drive, imho firstly that shows incompetence by the regulator, and secondly the regulator only serves to confuse things for honest firms by stating an unfit driver is actually fit to drive by the act of issuing a private hire license.

If you go back to post 15, I added an edit showing that TFL seem to think black cabs are more important than even the emergency services. Something really stinks with TFL and black cabs. I would love to say I have the exact answer but I don't.

As mentioned in post 32, if it turns out that Uber have been acting unlawfully, then you have a great point about how Uber have been using technology to evade justice. (Could this come under an "obstructing a constable" charge if a copper was assisting the regulator in an investigation hindered by Greyball?) However if Uber have not been acting unlawfully then I would say hiding from a bent regulator is not dishonest, and the real issue lays with the bent regulator creating a need for a legitimate company to hide. To date we haven't got any evidence to prove Greyball has been used by Uber in the UK. I will say I do not consider Uber to be an ethical company but ethics and law often end up going off in different directions.

I think we both have a hatred of injustice. Maybe I'm a tin pot loony, but despite having no hard evidence, I am convinced the bigger injustice Londoners face is being ripped off by the black cab monopoly who are being assisted by the regulator. Again I have no hard evidence but I am convinced if TFL put similar efforts into investigating black cabs and decided to openly publish these, we would have a whole different picture emerging.

Edit: I must admit my opinion of TFL being bent is probably partially derived from helping friends/family fight PCN's issued by TFL. (They can issue PCN's for some traffic infringements in London, but they appear to show utter disregard for the actual relevant legislation often when issuing tickets, and even when replying to appeals).

Not sure without knowing the details but I suspect they used a 'questionable firm to perform the checks and are now being forced to use the TFL approved site, I don't pretend to know the details and hope someone else could clarify it but can't see how they have given them an approved company to check then said 'It has been revealed in The Times that 13,000 Uber drivers in London will have to undergo new Disclosure Barring Service checks as it has been deemed that the DBS checks used to obtain a private hire drivers license are unsatisfactory and therefore no longer valid.'

I don't have any experience of TFL so can't really comment on a personal level, I get your point on a 'bent regulator' but this is not a defense for want of a better word, it may be accepted by a man on the street but it holds about as much water as claiming police planted evidence, I have no doubt what so ever they often do but there is a presumption of honesty and being impartial even if it is not the case they are granted that status or privilege so claiming you did something to avoid or evade checks to ensure you are abiding by licence regulations alone would be grounds to claim you not fit to hold a licence.

On a personal level looking in from the outside and reading some of the tricks Uber have been up to worldwide I find them to be a very sinister company with little or no regard for workers, workers rights or even human welfare which is why it somewhat surprised me you fighting there corner knowing your views from posts on similar companies.

[Over Carl]

Not sure without knowing the details but I suspect they used a 'questionable firm to perform the checks and are now being forced to use the TFL approved site, I don't pretend to know the details and hope someone else could clarify it but can't see how they have given them an approved company to check then said 'It has been revealed in The Times that 13,000 Uber drivers in London will have to undergo new Disclosure Barring Service checks as it has been deemed that the DBS checks used to obtain a private hire drivers license are unsatisfactory and therefore no longer valid.'

Unfortunately I can't read all of The Times' article as it's behind a paywall, but I can see it says "Transport for London (TfL), which licenses taxis in the capital, is writing to at least 13,000 minicab drivers — more than a tenth of the total — telling them their background checks are no longer valid. The drivers will be given 28 days to make new applications for vetting or be taken off the road, TfL said. They work for several companies but the largest number are Uber drivers."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4...5-06bf2f3d8649

What you say could be possible. However despite the headline being about Uber, we can see the problem isn't limited to Uber, but Uber's number of drivers on the road will obviously make it account for a large proportion of minicabs. Strangely I can't seem to find any info to confirm one way or the other whether what you suggested or what I suggested is actually the case. Either way they were given 28 days grace to resolve this issue and I don't think 28 days has expired yet.

On a personal level looking in from the outside and reading some of the tricks Uber have been up to worldwide I find them to be a very sinister company with little or no regard for workers, workers rights or even human welfare which is why it somewhat surprised me you fighting there corner knowing your views from posts on similar companies.

As I've said earlier, I don't consider Uber to be an ethical company. If the thread was about new legislation being introduced to combat abuses of zero hours contracts, "self employment", etc. I would have had different things to say.

However the official reasons given for shutting them down just don't quite seem right to me. I suspect they are behaving legally. Instead of shutting them down using underhand methods, I believe the better option is to review legislation. This way other workers in similar situations (for example "self employed" courier drivers) may also see some benefit.

Also I have admitted I have considered London black cabs (and previously minicabs) to be overpriced. I cannot deny I prefer the lower minicab prices we have now but without Uber things would probably return to how they were. With better regulation, Uber would probably cost a little more and minicabs would probably increase a little as well, which I think would be reasonable to make sure everyone is on a level playing field.

[Bald Bouncer]

Unfortunately I can't read all of The Times' article as it's behind a paywall, but I can see it says "Transport for London (TfL), which licenses taxis in the capital, is writing to at least 13,000 minicab drivers — more than a tenth of the total — telling them their background checks are no longer valid. The drivers will be given 28 days to make new applications for vetting or be taken off the road, TfL said. They work for several companies but the largest number are Uber drivers."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4...5-06bf2f3d8649

What you say could be possible. However despite the headline being about Uber, we can see the problem isn't limited to Uber, but Uber's number of drivers on the road will obviously make it account for a large proportion of minicabs. Strangely I can't seem to find any info to confirm one way or the other whether what you suggested or what I suggested is actually the case. Either way they were given 28 days grace to resolve this issue and I don't think 28 days has expired yet.



As I've said earlier, I don't consider Uber to be an ethical company. If the thread was about new legislation being introduced to combat abuses of zero hours contracts, "self employment", etc. I would have had different things to say.

However the official reasons given for shutting them down just don't quite seem right to me. I suspect they are behaving legally. Instead of shutting them down using underhand methods, I believe the better option is to review legislation. This way other workers in similar situations (for example "self employed" courier drivers) may also see some benefit.

Also I have admitted I have considered London black cabs (and previously minicabs) to be overpriced. I cannot deny I prefer the lower minicab prices we have now but without Uber things would probably return to how they were. With better regulation, Uber would probably cost a little more and minicabs would probably increase a little as well, which I think would be reasonable to make sure everyone is on a level playing field.

Not a great deal of info on it but it is as I suspected 'TfL accepted these certificates until this year. However, it said this weekend that 'following a recent review of policy' it would no longer accept them from Onfido or any other 'third-party provider' but only its own contractor. TfL declined to describe its concerns about Onfido and other providers.'

The 28 days was given to the drivers not the company and as you say not just exclusively Uber drivers and they have not changed this but it does sound very much like a couple of dodgy companies 'getting the DBS check for drivers no problem', the cynic in me say's these are fly by night companies that take a nice fee to get you the paperwork no questions asked no matter your background and directly or indirectly new drivers with 'issues' have been pointed to Onfido and possibly other companies to get them clean checks.

[Over Carl]

An FT article I read seems to say the situation is even more bizarre than either of us thought. According to them, TFL were responsible for the background checks. The problem seems to be that Uber performed ID checks in house rather than externally. I could understand TFL asking for ID to be rechecked externally but I can't make any sense of them demanding background checks should be performed again.

However this seems to be quite different to what you have found, so I will quote and link what I read and I would be most grateful if you could please provide a link for your quote.

Spoiler:

London accused of ‘bogus’ Uber ruling

TfL’s threat to revoke ride-hailing app’s licence called politically motivated
Transport for London is facing accusations that its decision to revoke Uber’s licence in the British capital was politically motivated rather than based on safety concerns after it was revealed that the regulator was responsible for two out of the four failings it gave for cancelling the licence.

The capital’s transport regulator partly based its decision on the ride-hailing app’s safety record, questioning how the company obtained background checks and medical certificates for its drivers. But TfL is responsible for both vetting the backgrounds of all private-hire drivers in the capital and ensuring they are medically fit through its preferred provider before issuing them with a licence.

“A lot of people don’t know that drivers are background-checked and licensed by TfL. Uber does not get a say on who gets licensed in the capital,” one person close to Uber said. “Without the TfL licence, they can’t come and drive on the Uber app.”

James Farrar, an Uber driver and representative of the United Private Hire Drivers trade body, who is embroiled in a lawsuit with the US company on drivers’ employment status, said the system had been politicised.

“To me this reeks. It’s a bogus charge from TfL. Uber will be able to remedy this in court immediately because DBS [Disclosure and Barring Service] and medical certification are prerequisites for drivers getting their licences from TfL,” he said.

TfL said Uber had conducted identification checks itself rather than through a third party. It added that this resulted in TfL writing to 13,000 drivers informing them to retake “enhanced DBS checks” that had not been cleared by the regulator’s approved contractor.

TfL told Uber four months ago to “get its house in order” and return in September with proof that it was tackling concerns over vetting its 40,000 drivers and the security of its 3.5m passengers.

A person close to City Hall said that Uber had previously encouraged drivers to use an online GP service to do medical checks via video link. TfL had rejected those reports and instead insisted on in-person medical checks. “Uber only stopped promoting this service following intervention from TfL,” this person said.

Another person close to Uber said TfL had in recent weeks resisted requests to meet to discuss potential remedies, adding that it had met the regulator only once this year, when officials refused to discuss the licence.

But a City Hall aide disputed the claim, saying: “As far as I know it’s them who were being very, very awkward in terms of answering questions. If they are now keen to meet and put out olive branches then so much the better.”

The person denied suggestions that Sadiq Khan, the London mayor, had timed the announcement to occur on the eve of the Labour party conference in Brighton, giving him a burst of publicity.

TfL’s decision was backed on Sunday by senior Labour figures including John McDonnell, shadow chancellor, who called Uber a “disgrace”, but the company has been defended by some Conservatives including former culture minister Ed Vaizey.

While it is TfL that is responsible for issuing Uber’s operating licence, the regulation of the company has been subjected to political pressure in the past.

In late 2015, Boris Johnson, then London mayor, drew up ideas to protect black-cab drivers from growing competition from private-hire cars using Uber. But only three months later he dropped several of the most controversial ideas, including forcing customers to wait for five minutes between requesting a car and beginning a journey.

This came after both David Cameron, the former prime minister, and George Osborne, the former chancellor, texted Mr Johnson to ask him to reconsider, a former official at City Hall told the Financial Times.

On Wednesday morning, drivers in the IWGB union will stage a public demonstration outside TfL’s offices on Blackfriars Road, the same day they return to court to challenge Uber on its employment practices.

“Our members wish to express their dissatisfaction with how TfL handled this decision and its refusal to engage directly with any dedicated trade union representing only private hire drivers,” said Jason Moyer Lee, IWGB’s general secretary.

A petition at change.org to reverse the decision has already gathered more than 650,000 signatures. City Hall on Saturday issued emails to all the signatories in an attempt to explain its own position.“

The ball is in Uber’s court. They now have the time and space to start playing by the rules, and start doing what the law and the regulations require them to do, and then they can keep going,” said a mayoral aide.

https://www.ft.com/content/5f1918d4-...f-7f5e6a7c98a2

Edit: I found you are quoted The Times article, I found a link to it that isn't paywalled.

http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2017...r-drivers.html

That article doesn't suggest any issues with the service provided by Onfido, however it mentions TFL have changed their policy to only allow checks from their nominated service provider.

Unless TFL wish to indicate why Onfido was unsatisfactory, I would consider it reasonable to allow current licenses to elapse, and ensure all renewals were done with the new provider.

If TFL have found major flaws or concerns about Onfido then I would consider it reasonable to give us some idea of the have a 28 day grace period to let all drivers sort out their paperwork.

[Bald Bouncer]

Edit: I found you are quoted The Times article, I found a link to it that isn't paywalled.

http://taxileaks.blogspot.co.uk/2017...r-drivers.html

That article doesn't suggest any issues with the service provided by Onfido, however it mentions TFL have changed their policy to only allow checks from their nominated service provider.

Unless TFL wish to indicate why Onfido was unsatisfactory, I would consider it reasonable to allow current licenses to elapse, and ensure all renewals were done with the new provider.

If TFL have found major flaws or concerns about Onfido then I would consider it reasonable to give us some idea of the have a 28 day grace period to let all drivers sort out their paperwork.

I wouldn't expect any open accusations against Onfido or other providers or the video link medical checks it would not only be unprofessional it would also compromise any action, potential action and leave them open to legal action, they have an appeal so TfL will have to back their decision in this and if it was just a case of creating a money making monopoly for TfL insisting on a nominated checking agent I can't see why they would then insist on a recheck within 28 days if it didn't have grave concerns about the validity of the checks and are looking to be proactive rather than reactive after an event.