Uber allowed to continue operating in English capital after winning appeal against Transport for London
- Reference: 1601292601
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/28/uber_wins_tfl_appeal/
- Source link:
The ruling is the culmination of a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court that ran a fortnight ago from 14 to 17 September, with deputy chief magistrate [1]Tan Ikram declaring today : "Despite [Uber's] historical failings, I find them, now, to be a fit and proper person to hold a London PHV (private hire vehicle) operator's licence."
He added that he did, however, "wish to hear from the advocates on conditions and on my determination as to the length of a licence". Uber had itself wanted a five-year licence.
The company has yet to comment publicly.
The head-to-head between Uber and TfL kicked off in [2]September 2017 when the authority said private operators needed to meet "rigorous regulations" that are "designed to ensure passenger safety", and Uber had fallen short of these.
This related to a hole in Uber's systems that allowed unauthorised drivers to upload their pictures to official drivers' accounts. Thousands of passenger journeys were undertaken in which the passenger thought their driver was someone else and that driver was not insured. Trips were also made by drivers TfL had previously banned as another hole in the system allowed them to create new accounts with Uber.
The way enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks were carried out had also concerned TfL, and the authority claimed Uber had failed to detail its use of Greyball software that could block regulatory bodies from getting full access to its app.
Tim Ward, QC for Uber London Ltd, said during the court proceedings that the company had made technical improvements, including to its governance and document systems.
Judge Ikram said that Uber had presented "no real challenge to the facts as presented by TfL" but he reckoned Uber "challenged the suggestion that breaches were not taken seriously and any suggestion of bad faith on their part".
He added that in respect of document and insurance fraud, "Uber now seem to be at the forefront of tackling an industry-wide challenge."
Unsurprisingly, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA) [3]branded today's decision a "disaster".
"Uber has demonstrated time and time again that it simply can't be trusted to put the safety of Londoners, its driver and other road users above profit. Sadly, it seems that Uber is too big to regulate effectively, but too big to fail.
"By holding up their hands and finally accepting some responsibility, Uber has managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the court and create the false impressions that it has changed for the better. A leopard doesn't change its spots and we are clear that Uber's underlying culture remains as toxic as it has ever been."
The App Drivers and Couriers Union (ADCU) claimed the decision had secured the jobs of 43,000 drivers employed by Uber, but it wants to see Uber and TfL learn lessons from the case.
"Uber drivers pay the company 25 per cent of every fare and in return are entitled to expect the company to operate the business in a safe and compliant manner," said Yaseen Aslam, ADCU president. "Instead Uber has put profit first and placed the livelihood of 43,000 workers at risk.
"It is time for the Mayor of London to break up the Uber monopoly by limiting the number of drivers allowed to register on the Uber platform. The reduced scale will give both Uber and Transport for London the breathing space necessary to ensure all compliance obligations – including workers' rights – are met in the future."
Following TfL's 2017 rejection of Uber's operator's licence applications, the biz was granted a 15-month provisional licence in June 2018, and a further two months were granted in September 2019 before [4]TfL decided in November last year that Uber shouldn't get that licence back. ®
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8780485/Uber-London-licence-court-ruling.html
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2017/09/22/uber_stripped_of_licence/
[3] https://twitter.com/TheLTDA/status/1310516852989231104?s=20
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/25/uber_loses_licence_to_operate_in_london/
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: I still don't get...
This appeal was to allow them to keep the London Private Hire Vehicle operator's license - so yes, treating them exactly the same as a minicab operator.
A leopard doesn't change its spots
Was this insightful legal perspective delivered over the shoulder of an in-progress cabbie on a rant about the death penalty?
Re: A leopard doesn't change its spots
Name one company that has improved itself after a ruling like this.
Choice:
- Commercial service, operated by app, where the car arrives in minutes, lets you track the entire journey, takes you to your destination, charges a pittance and rates the drivers.
- Wait until you can hail a cab, or use an inferior app that they only released reluctantly, then have an argument about "Sowff of da rivver?" and charge a fortune (including having to sustain the cab via only a single approved company that can repair/maintain/test them that does nothing else, and rules on what cabs are allowed or not).
I've had far more refusal-to-carry in black cabs than ANYTHING else - minicabs, Ubers, etc. My disabled-ex and I tried to use black cabs until one day an entire taxi rank refused us because they were "about to knock off" for going from one tube station to another. She didn't even have her wheelchair, just a stick that day. They all refused.
Sure, I should have reported them but post-reporting doesn't solve the fact that we had to travel by other methods because we'd have been late otherwise. Provide me deliberate bad service, and I go to a different service, rather than complain - it's that simple.
Had the same several times, and a few years later with a non-disabled ex. They basically all said screw you because they didn't want to drive from a suburb into London.
Uber - I've never had a refusal. Never had a safety issue (but, I'm sorry, just because you're with a black cab driver doesn't mean you're safe anyway!). I know I'm not going to be run round on an expensive diversion unnecessarily.
But more importantly - they just work, and they are cheaper. "Safety" has never been something I've worried about in a vehicle where I desire a random stranger to drive me from A to B - minicabs are no different and sustain an entire industry of their own for the last 50 years. If you're in that position, and you're worried, you tell someone where you're going from and to and text the reg to a friend before you get in, surely? Uber lets you do that inside the app itself.
Two members of my family are black cab drivers. Sorry, lads, but I'll use Uber every time. You want to compete, then compete. You want me to pay a premium just to facilitate your historical lifestyle, I'm afraid I have better things to do with my money.
I still don't get...
...why we just don't regulate them in the same way as minicabs.
Am I missing something?