Uber reportedly, spending 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars a day offering discounted fares.

      Is Uber Getting Ubered?

Uber is said to be planning to try and raise another billion dollars on top of the $8 billion it has already raised.

It's said, Uber is looking to raise its new funding round at a valuation of $60 billion to $70 billion. Its last funding round in July was done at a valuation of $50 billion.

Apparently Uber tells investors that the ultimate game plan is to become a delivery service like Fedex - using private cars to deliver parcels, shopping and meals. 

However it does not appear to have had any success with this aspect of its business.

To get into the China market, Uber is, reportedly, spending 'hundreds of thousands' of dollars a day offering discounted fares.

In August, leaked financial documents showed operating losses of more than $100 million in The second quarter of 2014

Rio de Janiero has declared the service illegal, London is looking tighter regulations and a couple of execs are being tried in France in a case deferred till February. Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam are considering regulation while numerous cities are investigating the controversial service.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1P6Ui9f
via IFTTT

TfL's Report On In Cab Mandatory Credit Card Payment Option

We did try to warn you. We said "be careful what you wish for." 

Reports of a secret meeting between the major credit card machine suppliers and TfL was all over social media. Taxi Leaks gave full details of the CC consultation. We also predicted the outcome, should apathy see drivers not bothering to fill it in. 

Well, it appears that only 538 taxi drivers out of a possible 25,000, were bothered enough to reply and now the writing is on the wall.

The consultation results are at this moment being manipulated to allow TfL to do as they like, as usual.

As TfL are stipulating that only approved equipment will be allowed, the major machine suppliers are allegedly rubbing their hands. At present they are offering free equipment, but will the situation change in the near future, when equipment becomes compulsory under conditions of fitness of our vehicle?

As TfL seem to love a statistic, at present, over 66 % of the major CC payment equipment suppliers add a surcharge of 10% to passenger accounts.

But, TfL are looking for the driver to pay this charge as they feel the customer should not be charged more than the price shown on the meter. 

Again it will be the driver, who will be forced to pay this premium to a third party. 

This email has been sent out to most of the people who bothered to fill in the consultation, leaving a valid email address. Already, you can see TfL starting to spin the consultation replies to fit with their agenda.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We recently consulted on proposals for passengers to pay by credit or debit cards for their journeys in taxis. Thank you to all those who took part 

We received 1,097 responses to the consultation. 49 per cent of respondents (538) identified themselves as taxi drivers – 45 per cent of these were All London drivers (497) and 4 per cent were Suburban drivers (41). 27 per cent of respondents (300) were taxi users. 

(That means that almost 256, approx 25% of those filling in the consultation were neither Taxi drivers or Taxi users. Should this not make the consultation null and void?)

86 per cent of respondents (939) supported the introduction of card payments in all taxis in London, with 68 per cent of respondents (743) supporting contactless payments. 

(But how many of these 939/743 replies were from non Taxi drivers/users ? If you were to take away the 'non Taxi drivers/users', would this show a different result percentage wise?)

We are now reviewing the consultation responses and hope to announce a decision on any changes in early 2016. We will contact you again once a decision has been made. 

(Looking at the legal implications contained in the report link below, seems a decision has already been made !)

A copy of the full consultation report and our response to issues raised can be found here >Click Here<

If you have any questions on the consultation, please contact me at consultations@tfl.gov.uk

Yours sincerely, 
Gary Murphy 
Transport for London
Consultation Team.

Have a look at the legal implications contained in the TfL report from the 22nd of this month.

'In order to enable passengers to be able to pay by credit and debit card in all licensed taxis it will be necessary to introduce a new requirement that taxi drivers must have an approved card payment device in their taxi when working -and- that device must meet the minimum requirements approved by TfL'

Funny, when we leaked this information a few months back, we were shouted down by certain third parties with conflicts of interest. We were also accused of trying to start malicious, untrue rumours !

The legal implications announcement goes on to state:

'This will be included as a requirement in the Conditions of Fitness, which set out the requirements that all vehicles must comply with to be approved for use as a taxi in London or for the taxi licence to be renewed.

The existing guidelines on electronic payment devices in taxis will also be updated to include the new requirements and all devices will still have to comply with these guidelines – companies wanting their devices to be approved will still be required to contact TfL and submit evidence confirming that their devices meets the relevant standards and also demonstrate where it would be fixed inside a taxi. The Cab Order will also need to be amended to make acceptance of card payments a condition of taxi driver licences.

A new policy will be published setting out what points will be considered and potential action taken when a complaint is received about a taxi driver refusing to accept a credit or debit card payment or not having a working credit or debit card payment device that complies with the relevant requirements.

Where a taxi driver is found to be using a taxi that is not fitted with an approved card payment device then the driver will be advised that the vehicle cannot be used as a licensed taxi until an approved card payment device has been fitted and this has been checked by an authorised officer or someone authorised to carry out this check on TfL’s behalf.'

Before this is finalised, perhaps TfL would like to inform the trade just what they consider to be an approved Card Payment system!

Perhaps TfL would care to explain further if/how they intend to make card payment acceptance mandatory, as at present the law (as it stands) doesn't allow this. There is talk that they will try to bring this in as part of the conditions of licensing of the driver.

Although it is our policy that more drivers should take card payments, we believe it must remain voluntary. We also firmly believe that drivers should be free to choose which system of clearance they want to use.

Verifone, TaxiWorld, CabVision, CabApp, iZettle, PayPall, Hand Held, Radio Circuits and other Smart Phone Apps are all viable options to most drivers and that's how it should stay. 

There must be no cartel formed: 

Which could then manipulate rentals and surcharges. 

Taxi Leaks roving reporters have been carrying out a covert survey, talking to and observing drivers on ranks. Our results, based on the figures returned, show that 7 out of 10 drivers now have some means of clearing card payments, be it machine or smartphone based. 

Over the last year, there has been a positive escalation in card payments acceptance which will continue to expand.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1MjJYFR
via IFTTT

TfL's Report On In Cab Mandatory Credit Card Payment Option

We did try to warn you. We said be careful what you wish for. We told you about the secret meetings between the major credit card machine suppliers and TfL. We informed you, when the CC consultation was taking place. We even predicted the outcome should drivers not bother to fill it in. 

Well, it appears only 538 taxi drivers seemed bothered enough to reply and now the writing is on the wall. The consultation results are at this moment being manipulated to allow TfL to do as they like. 

The machine suppliers are allegedly rubbing their hands. At present they are offering free equipment, but will that all change in the near future, when equipment becomes compulsory under conditions of fitness of our vehicle?

As TfL seem to love a statistic, at present, over 66 % of the major CC payment equipment suppliers add a surcharge of 10% to passenger accounts. But, TfL are looking for the driver to pay this charge as they feel the customer should not be charged more than the price shown on the meter. 

Again it will be the drivers, who will be forced to pay this premium to a third party. 

This email has been sent out to most of the people who bothered to fill in the consultation, leaving a valid email address. Already, you can see TfL starting to spin the consultation replies to fit with their agenda.

Dear Sir/Madam,

We recently consulted on proposals for passengers to pay by credit or debit cards for their journeys in taxis. Thank you to all those who took part 

We received 1,097 responses to the consultation. 49 per cent of respondents (538) identified themselves as taxi drivers – 45 per cent of these were All London drivers (497) and 4 per cent were Suburban drivers (41). 27 per cent of respondents (300) were taxi users. 

(That means that almost 256, appox 25% of those filling in the consultation were neither Taxi drivers or Taxi users. Should this not make the consultation null and void?)

86 per cent of respondents (939) supported the introduction of card payments in all taxis in London, with 68 per cent of respondents (743) supporting contactless payments. (But how many of these 939/743 replies were from non Taxi drivers/users ? If you were to take away the 'non Taxi drivers/users', would this show a different result percentage wise?)

We are now reviewing the consultation responses and hope to announce a decision on any changes in early 2016. We will contact you again once a decision has been made. 

(Looking at the legal implications contained in the report link below, seems a decision has already been made !)

A copy of the full consultation report and our response to issues raised can be found here.

.>Cick Here<

If you have any questions on the consultation, please contact me at consultations@tfl.gov.uk

Yours sincerely, 
Gary Murphy 
Transport for London
Consultation Team.

Have a look at the Legal implications contained in the TfL report from the 22nd of this month.

'In order to enable passengers to be able to pay by credit and debit card in all licensed taxis it will be necessary to introduce a new requirement that taxi drivers must have an approved card payment device in their taxi when working and that the device must meet the minimum requirements approved by TfL'

Funny, when we leaked this information a few months back, we were shouted down by certain third parties with conflicts of interest, and even some of their supporters attached to a certain Taxi representative group. We were accused of trying to start untrue rumours!

The announcement goes on to state:

'This will be included as a requirement in the Conditions of Fitness, which set out the requirements that all vehicles must comply with to be approved for use as a taxi in London or for the taxi licence to be renewed.

The existing guidelines on electronic payment devices in taxis will also be updated to include the new requirements and all devices will still have to comply with these guidelines – companies wanting their devices to be approved will still be required to contact TfL and submit evidence confirming that their devices meets the relevant standards and also demonstrate where it would be fixed inside a taxi. The Cab Order will also need to be amended to make acceptance of card payments a condition of taxi driver licences.

A new policy will be published setting out what points will be considered and potential action taken when a complaint is received about a taxi driver refusing to accept a credit or debit card payment or not having a working credit or debit card payment device that complies with the relevant requirements.

Where a taxi driver is found to be using a taxi that is not fitted with an approved card payment device then the driver will be advised that the vehicle cannot be used as a licensed taxi until an approved card payment device has been fitted and this has been checked by an authorised officer or someone authorised to carry out this check on TfL’s behalf.'

Before this is finalised, perhaps TfL would like to inform the trade just what they consider as an approved Card Payment system!

Verifone, TaxiWorld, CabVision, CabApp, iZettle, PayPall, Hand Held, Radio Circuits and other Smart Phone Apps are currently being used by almost 70% of drivers, although the driver mat not wish to make available 100% of the time. 

Perhaps TfL would care to explain further how they intend to make card payment acceptance mandatory, as at present the law (as it stands) doesn't allow this.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1MjDgj9
via IFTTT

Semtex Comments On The Uddin Case. "is It Really What The Public Wants Mr Daniels?"

This of course, is the reality of what our trade continue to scream about ! Who would you think is to blame for this tragic outcome ?

The illegal mini cab tout Matab Uddin who despite previous convictions for touting in the past, had reoffended and caused this tragic waste of a young man's life ? The Police, for their service who notoriously and generally list mini cab touting as a low priority crime, and therefore respond with inadequate legal enforcement ? The fatally injured Oliver Farrell himself, for knowingly getting into a vehicle that had not been legally hailed or pre-booked, and opting for a more dangerous and sadly fatal option ? Or Transport For London themselves, for continually failing to provide vigilant enforcement for the compliance of the licences that they sell like toffee apples from a market stall ?

In this sobering case, it appears that Uddin was an unlicensed tout, and therefore the very virtue that he had no licence to comply with in the first place, would legally exonerate TFL.

I believe that TFL, The Police Service and indeed the public themselves, should all take a portion of blame what has occurred here.

I also believe that with the massive influx of zero professionally trained drivers such as Uber, these incidents will be on the rise.

I have always said that it is only when fatalities occur, that the authorities will take notice.

As a family man with kids of Oliver Farrell's age, I can naturally imagine what heartbreak, devastation and eternal grief this death will cause his poor family.

But unless TFL, and the Police Service who constantly display a blasé unprofessional enforcement deployment attitude to mini cab touting, start to up their game, serious consequences such as these will be regular.

As for the travelling public who repeatedly accuse the professionally trained London Taxi Trade of being too expensive............I would bet my life on it that the grief suffering family of Oliver Farrell, would have paid anything to turn back the clocks, and seen their loved one hail down the world famous yellow light of a Professional, Safe, London Taxi Driver on that fateful night.

As I have said a million times before, you pays your money and takes your choice. If you want cheap and ill trained, then go ahead and roll the dice with your Uber ride. Its your choice, your decision and your pulse you are risking, nobody else's.

The London Black Cab Trade haven't lasted 400 years because we are too expensive. We have survived the ebbs and flows of economic turmoil simply because the yellow light on top of our cabs represents fairness, expertise, soundness, safety, reliability and platinum standard professionalism.

London is awash with illegally touting mini cabs every night of every week of every month. The harm that it is causing isn't just a tragedy to the reputation and image of our once great capital city, it is incredibly dangerous and an inherent failure to protect our travelling public.

Leon Daniels once replied to our concerns by saying "it's what the public wants."

Is it really Mr Daniels ? I wonder if Oliver Farrell's family would agree with that this morning ? 

Semtex.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1H7jgii
via IFTTT

Minicab Tout, Jailed For Causing Death By Dangerous Driving.

A convicted minicab tout who killed his passenger through dangerous driving has been jailed for eight years. 

Matab Uddin 59 (20.01.56) of Blackshots Lane, Essex was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and fraud. He was sentenced at Inner London Crown Court on 22 October.

The court heard how police were called on Sunday, 17 November 2013 at about 01:45hrs to reports of a man injured on Essex Road, N1.

Officers and London Ambulance Service attended and took the 27-year-old victim, Oliver Farrell, to the Royal London Hospital where he died three days later.

A post-mortem examination took place at Poplar Mortuary on Thursday, 21 November 2013 and gave the cause of death as head injuries.

Officers from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit launched an investigation. Mr Farrell had spent the previous evening celebrating his brother's birthday, and was making his way home from Old Street. He was picked up by Uddin, an unlicenced minicab driver, with previous convictions for minicab touting. 

A short while later, Mr Farrell got out of the cab to use a cash machine, however Uddin drove off, leaving Mr Farrell in Essex Road. 

CCTV showed Uddin returning a few minutes later, pulling up next to Mr Farrell, who leaned through the open passenger window. Uddin then drove away at speed, while Mr Farrell clung to the car. After being carried along for about 100 yards, he lost his grip and fell to the ground, suffering a fatal head injury. 

Uddin failed to stop at the scene and made off. However the incident was witnessed by a taxi driver, who happened to be driving behind Uddin, and took down his registration number. 

CCTV on Kingsland High Road caught Uddin making a dangerous manoeuvre, crossing a central reservation during his getaway. 

The car registration details taking by the taxi driver proved vital in identifying Uddin, who was arrested in connection with the incident after handing himself in at a north London police station later that morning. 

Detective Sergeant Chris Osborne of the Met's Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: 

"I would like to pay tribute to the Mr Farrell's family, who have retained the utmost dignity throughout the whole investigation and court case. My thoughts remain with them."

"This case highlights the dangers posed by unlicensed minicabs. People trying to make their way home, especially late at night should only use pre-booked licensed minicabs or black cabs. This is a tragic case for all involved and it stemmed from the unscrupulous actions of Mr Uddin. Our investigation showed he was illegally touting and on this occasion drove off without any regard for Mr Farrell's safety. He then failed to stop and made clear attempts to flee the scene."

On behalf of Oliver Farrell's family, his brother, Ben, said: 

"Having to experience nearly two years to arrive at this position has been a hugely traumatic and terrible experience for us all, however it is incomparable to the pain we have felt and will continue to feel from the fact that Oli's future has been taken from him and that such a bright light in our own lives will never be with us again. No punishment will ever bring Oli back, however we seek justice for the benefit of greater society to reduce the chances of other families having to experience what we have been through and will continue to go through. Oli was a fair man and would want nothing more and nothing less than this. 

"We would like to take this opportunity to thank the police and those present here today for the compassion they have shown us."

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1WfsDna
via IFTTT

The Battle For Bank Junction : CoL About To start A 12 Month Trial Of Bus And Bikes Only.

In his speech given at the 'Annual Dinner of the City’s Planning and Transportation', Michael Welbank, Chairman of the P&TC, launched 'The Battle for Bank’ 

This is a plan to remove all vehicles except buses from Bank Junction and restore it to its traditional role as a major public space in the Square Mile.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any crazier.

After witnessing daily/nightly gridlock, caused by the uncontrolled proliferation of private hire license, currently expanding London's minicab fleet by 650 extra vehicles every week,  which is resulting in London being named the most polluted city in Eirope, the city planners have dreamt up a scheme to reduce through traffic (in their back yard, namely the square mile - or the 1.12 sq mile to be precise), regardless of the impact it will have on other parts of the capital.

But will it be fair to all, or will the wealthy and well connected be afforded special privileges plus a get out of jail free card?

Can you really see the noble city fathers arriving at the Mansion house/Guildhall, on a bus! or, God forbid, on a bicycle. 

Perhaps their ostentatious fleet of Rollers and Bentleys (the ones that normally wait outside these events on double red lines, loading bays and zig-zags) will be replaced by rickshaw bikes, afforded the privilege of pedicab ranks!

Boris should be alright with it, he can often be seen giving his wife a backsie.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1ibvnVg
via IFTTT

Licence Renewals : An Open Letter From Sean Day.

Open Letter to:

Caroline Pidgeon Val Shawcross

Cc:

Helen Chapman Leon Daniels Garrett Emmerson Boris Johnson

I'm sure Ms Chapman would agree that civil servants have the job of ensuring that a contract is done properly - accurately - on time - and in accordance with the prescribed legislation - so any significant failure would solely be the responsibility of the civil servants.

With this, I am referring to Ms Chapman’s indisputable and corroborable defiance regarding her decision to not issue temporary licenses to taxi drivers who's Bill has been delayed by a backlog in applications made to the Disclosure & Barring Service (DBS). 

Are those affected to understand that Ms Chapman is acting against the Mayor’s behest, or can they assume it is merely the posturing and appeasement typical of what drivers have come to expect of Boris Johnson? 

TFL cannot absolve themselves out of this, the vast majority of renewals clear before the old license expires, and the DBS carrying out these checks have been put under enormous pressure by the recent increase of new Private Hire driver applications, currently running at a minimum of 600 a week.

TFL’s contribution to this backlog is therefore indefensible, who, despite the severity of the situation, vehemently refuse to cap PH licenses even when it is perfectly permissible for them to do so (despite their protestations). I’d like to know how Ms Chapman justifies such an illogical stance? 

Public safety is not a viable proposition when juxtaposed to the discrepancies that exist where cases cannot be subjected to a full and comprehensive police check. 

The risk involved in granting an interim license to a taxi driver who has completed the necessary paperwork, has remunerated the current licensing authority- a transaction that happens remarkably quickly- and is of previous good character, is miniscule.

Earlier this year, Taxi Leaks editor Mr. Jim Thomas wrote to Sir Peter Hendy drawing his attention the Transport Act of 1985 section 17 subsection(7).

The Act of Parliament states:

‘Where a person holds a licence which is in force when he applies for a new licence in substitution for it, the existing licence shall continue in force until the application for the new licence, or any appeal under this section in relation to that application, is disposed of, but without prejudice to the exercise in the meantime of any power of the licensing authority to revoke the existing licence’ 

There is no record of any amendments to Act section 17. This disambiguates any concerns and highlights that licenses continue until you either receive a renewal, this applies, even if a suspension or revocation is awaiting an appeal

Any unnecessary delay due to a grossly understaffed administration is no fault of the driver, nor should it be of any consequence. No one should be impoverished by a regulator who refuses to address an insoluble dilemma. 

How can Ms Chapman justify upholding mandatory prerequisites that are unachievable? This contradicts the very requirements that TFL themselves impose. Neither should Ms Chapman point the finger elsewhere, this desideratum is solely an insistence of TFL.

Any other organisation open to legitimate scrutiny would never condone such a diabolical administrative procedure. By this equation TFL are systemically failing in their duty to REGULATE, and such blatant dispossession of governance should be addressed in the first instance.

This deplorable situation could be helped if TFL relaxed pressure on the DBS by capping the number of private hire licenses. 

Again, it is disingenuous of TFL to state that they do not have the legal power to do so. This is absurd. The law- or its omission thereof- is innominate.

 Subsequently, there is nothing intractable that compels or prevents TfL issuing licenses. It’s a nonsense that is being passed off as obliging congruent procedures. Anyone that cares to check, the guidelines refer to a person meeting certain criteria that allows them to apply for a license. 

The emphasis is on eligibility. Submitting an application for a licence does not make issuing a license compulsory. Indeed, mitigating circumstances such as the inexorable increase in motor traffic congestion, the ensuing pollution as a result of increased motor traffic, and the insurmountable backlog of DBS applications, are all deterministic factors for capping licenses.

It is my opinion that the implementation of an unjustifiable caveat that is not included in the Transport Act, constitutes maleficence on the part of the licensing authority. Notable also, any adjustments made to the start date of new licenses issued, effectively showing a discontinuation, cannot be considered as anything other than unethical business and political practice.

I am advising drivers who's license renewal has been delayed relating to the above information, especially if the time period has exceeded 60 days, and if they are a member of the UCG, to give them a call. In fact, all drivers who are experiencing intolerable hold ups, I suggest contact representatives at the earliest opportunity.

Yours Faithfully Sean Paul 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1Me9mgb
via IFTTT