TO BE, OR NOT TO BE .... SHOULD WE PROTEST IN JANUARY?

The ITA have called a number of protests later this month, against TFL's decision to allow an unlicensed Private Hire eHailng app to carry on working with the public, after refusing to relicense the compan who they consider to be not fit and proper. 

The article below was first published on the Dads Defending Daughters website on Monday 1st of January 2018. 

Let’s not forget Uber are still operating as they have been for the past five or so years. In that sense, what has changed?

Despite the following, TfL have allowed Uber to continue to operate under appeal:
• Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences including a rise in sexual assaults & rapes.
• Uber's approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
• Uber's approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
• Uber's approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
• An increase in road traffic accidents.
• VAT avoidance allowing 'Uber' the ability to directly undercut taxi drivers regulated fare*

*Orthodox licensing looked at the licensable activity and didn't concern itself with the financial background; R v Warrington Crown Court, ex p CC of Cheshire:
http://ift.tt/2CgYzVT

However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:
http://ift.tt/2CgYzVT

And see Hanif v East Lindsey:
http://ift.tt/2CL8Vye

(a) Why should Taxi drivers have to fund a VAT case against 'Uber' when TfL have the legal tools to ensure Uber pay their correct taxes?

(b) If TfL decided that 'Uber' was not a 'fit & proper' company on public safety grounds they had the power to revoke Uber's license without allowing them to operate while under appeal on public safety grounds [s 17(2) 1998 PH act].

(c) Was TfL's decision not to renew Uber's license a financial decision or a public safety decision?
Given the fact point (b) granted TfL an immediate right to revoke Uber’s license on public safety grounds, we believe that the Mayor took the option not to protect the public, but instead to protect TFL financially – If the Mayor had revoked Uber’s license on public safety grounds and not allowed them to operate while under appeal, TfL would be exposed to a financial claim for any losses should Uber have won the appeal.

(d) So ask yourself, does TfL really want a legal battle with Uber?

(e) If the answer to (d) is Yes, then why didn't TfL revoke Uber’'s license and protect the public while the appeal process was carried out?

(f) TfL instructed Deloitte to undertake a review of Uber's 'booking process'; they claim that the driver accepts the booking before the operator. If TfL believe this to be the case, why are they still allowing them to operate illegally?

(g) Uber’s T&C's claim that the driver is contracted to Uber BV, the customer pays their fare to Uber BV, the customer’s receipt is provided by Uber BV.

If TfL/Deloitte are correct it'd suggest that the booking investigation would confirm (1) the customer makes the request to; (2) the unlicensed Uber BV, who  are making the provision for the invitation of the booking (3) the driver accepts the booking (4) Uber London do nothing, and just record the booking after the driver has accepted.

(h) If we are not going to peacefully protest over this illegal process, what happens when we are steamrollered byTaxify, Lyft or any other Private Hire tech company who want to break the rules and operate here. After all, Taxify have already admitted the driver accepts the job before the operator.

Editor's note:

Will this email to Mike Brown, ever receive a reply?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2Cjj98f
via IFTTT