EXCITING NEW TAXI TRADE POLITICAL GROUP : DADS DEFENDING DAUGHTERS (3D)

DADS DEFENDING DAUGHTERS IS A STRANGE NAME FOR A POLITICAL GROUP

Especially since it has female members, fathers without daughters, people without children, and a whole diversity of life.

3D came to life through two Licensed London Taxi Driving Grandfathers, who had five daughters. Their concern was for the welfare of their loved ones travelling in cabs.
A fight against a government supported conglomerate 'Uber', brought to light the danger of a poorly regulated system, where rape, sexual assault and physical assaults had gone through the roof, at the behest of those who stand to gain financially from deregulation.

We live on the edge of Greater London, were Private Hire is more prevalent than Black Taxis.
The more we looked into the poorly regulated system, the more we knew we had no choice but to take the fight to the enemy. A powerful enemy, worth billions of dollars, with many governments in their pockets.

It is our opinion that the general public are our strength.
Why would they care about cab law, meters, plying for hire, or even hire and reward insurance?
But like my co conspirator and myself, they do care greatly about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones.
We are fathers first - taxi drivers second.

#dadsdefendingdaughters

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1TXPR5c
via IFTTT

UCG Press Release : Rumours, Smears and Dud Bullets...

I have seen recently a carefully crafted smear campaign that has someone’s fingerprints all over it. I can’t be controlled and I won’t walk into any obvious traps. So when you can’t beat someone with honest debate and reasoning, “Smear them”

So let's look at what’s being said. I am accused of applying for a senior role in TfL, this is absolutely TRUE. Over a year ago the role of Head of Compliance was advertised on the TfL website. This ultimately was the job that Matt Bell got.

Yes I applied for it, I met the necessary criteria for the initial paper sift and I was invited for interview. I wasn’t good enough on the day and the job was given to Matt Bell an "ex" very senior policeman. We know he has since resigned and left leaving a vacuum of speculation.

But this is being spread around as if it were yesterday or indeed that I should be ashamed or in some way regret this…. The only thing I regret is not being good enough on the day to get the job.

My reasoning for applying for that role is that I really believe I could have made a difference, I will not shy away from what I believe is right… I always follow my conscience. I wanted so much to do that job, a “night man” of nine years, I have seen so much and know what is going on out there at night.

Who among you wouldn’t relish the chance of actually sorting out the touts that are stealing our livelihoods? Would you rather a bureaucrat who has never driven a Taxi or PHV vehicle in their life, who understands nothing about our trade head-up the compliance team? Or a “night man” who lives with the consequence of light touch enforcement and compliance?

No, my regret isn’t that I applied, it’s that I wasn’t given the chance to try to fix it from within TfL instead of the wall of silence we are met with by our regulator.

So for the record, YES I did apply for head of compliance, YES I did get an interview, NO I wasn’t a good enough candidate on the day…. That is my regret…. that I let down the trade by not getting the job and trying my best to fix the problems we face.

I make this promise: I would have worked like a dog to fix this mess.

So....If you could apply because you had the right qualifications, would you stand back and let a bureaucrat get the job without even trying to get that job if you met the criteria? and how would you reconcile knowing that you could have done something but instead done nothing?

The committee of the day (This was over a year ago, not the current committee) were fully aware and informed I had applied and was to be interviewed BEFORE The interview not afterwards, I met each one individually and explained my reasoning for applying, I met no objections.

My regret….. I wasn’t good enough on the day. 

And why has this been raised now? Because I won’t go along with them over tariff reviews? Credit card mandating and the issues this has raised? Because I won’t have the wool pulled over my eyes?

When they can’t control you, they will instead try to control how others see you………..

My job is to stay focused on challenging TfL and pushing back with the resources I have, so I say this, do your worst, leak personal information about me, the more you leak, the more I know I’m on the right track and getting under your skin. (but beware, I will not hesitate in reporting data protection issues to the information commissioner, and someone will be removed from office)

360 years of history doesn’t stop because overpaid jobsworth bureaucrats can’t do their job properly…. The battle continues....

FOOTNOTE

I have been informed this morning that a TfL employee (Enforcement officer) is walking along ranks telling people that I applied for the Head of compliance, firstly this was over a year ago when the political landscape was very different. And secondly, I don't believe an enforcement officer would have known.TfL either deliberately or otherwise are leaking personal information. If this leak is an employee releasing personal data to discredit individuals, that's a very serious offence. 

If it is an authorised leak by TfL senior management then it is criminal and a vexatious leak of personal information that is punishable with a fine of up to £500,000. You want them telling who ever they want about personal information about you ? Someone released my response to City AM about the credit card consultation fiasco before the consultation ended to discredit me and now this. They think this is a game?

TfL think the ICO won't come after them? The ICO was set up to go after people like them! Today I am registering a formal complaint with the ICO. If it's going to get dirty then I am happy to play by whatever rules they choose.

Len Martin

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1TDJvY2
via IFTTT

More than 40 men arrested as taxi driver protest against Uber turns violent

Private Hire Requirements Consultation Receives Over 20,000 Responses.

New regulations to modernise and improve the private hire industry will be considered by the Transport for London (TfL) Board next week. 

The measures, which follow an extensive consultation process have attracted over 20,000 responses and are aimed at making travelling by private hire safer and more convenient for customers.

The changes the TfL board is being asked to agree include increased insurance requirements making sure a policy is in place for the duration of the vehicle license. The ease in which "anyone" can get a fully TfL plated vehicle (even without Hire and Reward insurance) has recently been highlighted by an investigation carried out by a reporter from LBC.

An understanding of the English language will also be a requirement. Last year TfL closed 15 testing centres, when it was found applicants were being allowed to sit tests in their own native langue and were also given the answers alongside the questions. After a sample of 200 applicants were made to take a retest, less than 30% actually passed. 

There will also be a requirement of advanced fare estimates and operatorswill have to keep improved records for enforcement purposes (not a new requirement, just unenforced by TfL compliance at present)

Private hire operators will also be required to ensure customers can speak to someone in the event of a problem with their journey (although Uber office staff, presently only work office hours of 9-5)

These changes, represent the first significant amendments to the private hire regulations since they were first introduced in 1998 and follow an unprecedented increase in private hire driver and vehicle numbers.  

The number of private hire drivers has increased from 59,000 in April 2010 to around 100,000 today and is increasing at a rate of over 700 per week, contributing to issues such as congestion, pollution and illegal parking.

The Mayor believes more action must be taken to address the impacts of these increasing numbers, particularly on congestion and air quality.  

The Government has been reluctant to introduce legislation to allow TfL to restrict the number of drivers and vehicles on the roads in London (although many areas outside London have successfully capped their PH and Hackney Taxis numbers, using a supply and demand initiative).  

In response, the Mayor has instructed TfL to investigate the potential effects of removing the Congestion Charge exemption currently given to private hire drivers fulfilling a booking, in order to see whether this may make a difference in those areas of concern. Big talk from Boris who is about to leave office. None of the leading Mayoral candidates have the removal of this concession on their manifesto.

TfL estimates that the number of private hire vehicles operating within the central London Congestion Charge zone has increased by over 50 per cent in the last two years.  This means that during the day, 1 in 10 vehicles entering the zone is now a private hire vehicle. This situation changes dramatically on weekend nights when London's WestEnd and City are swamped with minicabs bringing the roads to near complete gridlock. 

Garrett Emmerson, TfL’s Chief Operating Officer for Surface Transport (pictured), said, during the consultation process, Londoners, made clear the improvements they want to see in the private hire industry. 

The package of changes being taken to the Board includes more robust insurance requirements when vehicles are licensed and a formal English language requirement for drivers. Both of these requirements should have been firmly in place when the act of 1998 was first put together.

Also customers should receive quotes for before their journeys. How this will apply to Uber is anyone's guess as they use a Taxi meter based on time and distance which in most cases results in the fare having no relationship to the estimate. 

All operators will need an easier process for customers to complain if they need to. This requirement is already in place when first applying for an operators licence, but was somehow dropped unexplainable when Uber and RD2 both first applied for their licenses back in 2012.

It's hoped that these new(ish) requirements will help ensure a modern, flourishing and safer private hire industry, and will provide choice for customers alongside London’s iconic and world-class taxi service.

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

London Assembly committee flags up concerns over policing a 24-hour transport system

Don't Say 'No One at old Me'... Demo No2 23rd March....Whitehall

  

   

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

Reading Borough Councillors Turned Down Uber's Application For A Private Hire Operators Licence

The Uber smartphone minicab dispatch app will not be appearing in Reading any time soon.

Reading Borough Council's licensing committee turned down an application by a Mr Thomas Elvidge on behalf of Uber Britannia for a private hire operating licence.

The committee rejected the application to establish the company in the town because:

• there was insufficient evidence of demand
• no clear evidence about the number of vehicles that would be operating in Reading
• no clear indication of how or by whom the Uber office would be manned.

Licensing officer Jean Champeau raised concerns there was no “safe and lawful place” for the vehicle to park if Uber’s office was based in Davison House in The Forbury.

Mr Elvidge explained the Uber model to councillors, talking them through the process by which a customer can get straight through using an app on their mobile phone.

Customers can track their minicab as it drives through town, receive photo identity of their driver and their journey to their destination is also tracked.

But councillors were curious about the self emp,owed drivers and wanted to know:

a) Where the private hire drivers would be parked when they were not driving? 

b) Why the office would only be open from 9am to 6pm?

c) Who would be in charge of it?

Clr Jeanette Skeats was particulary keen to find out how licensing officers or the police would be able to find a manager at night if there was a problem.

She wanted to know where Mr Elvidge would be and discovered that he was in charge of a massive area surrounding Greater London.

Cllr Marian Livingston questioned Mr Elvidge’s claim there was a demand because 20,000 people in the Reading area had already downloaded the app.

She suggested Uber might just be “trawled by phone app junkies who if they don’t have their phone in their hand they think they have had an amputation”.

Opposed

The application was also opposed by chairman of Reading Taxi Association Asif Rashid who raised concerns about the Uber surge pricing which uses a computer algorithm to increase prices during periods of high demand to attract more drivers to the area.

Mr Rashid questioned Mr Elvidge as to how much more than the regular fare Uber’s prices could rise to - he asked if it was possible they might rise to five times the standard rate.

Mr Elvidge said that twice the rate was more usual but it could go as high as five times.

Mr Rashid said someone who had “drunk too much” could easily find themselves paying much more than they realised.

He was also concerned that drivers could come in from other borough and from as far away as London to answer calls to the app in Reading.

But his key argument was that there was no significant unmet demand in Reading for cabs.

Mr Rashid was able to point to the strong evidence from the three-year independent survey on unmet demand, which has to carry out if the council continues to cap the number of Hackney carriage licences it allows to be operating in the borough.

The independent consultants CTS, which carries out exhaustive surveys throughout Reading counting taxis at ranks all over the town, concluded: “There is no evidence of unmet demand for Hackney carriages either patent or latent which is significant at this point in time in Reading area.

“The committee is therefore able to retain the current policy and limit at the present level and defend this if necessary.”

Editorial Comment:

In London, we've been told on countless occasions that there would need to be a national law change to introduce a cap on Private Hire vehicles licenses. It would appear from the above statement from Reading council that this is indeed not the case.

It appears that TfLTPH's compliance department don't seem to be concerned that Uber cannot be contacted outside normal office 9-5 time (which is when the majority of customer safety concerns are presented)

It would appear that Reading Council think more about members of the public being ripped off by extortionate surge pricing than TfLTPH management.

It would also appear to be of no concern to TfLTPH that the massive over supply of Uber vehicles, illegally park all around the WestEnd and City causing major nocturnal congestion. 

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