Friends In High Places...by I'm Spartacus

Good piece on the landline, but it goes deeper, much deeper.

If anyone would care to visit politico.eu you'll find an article on there from a chap called Daniel Korski which is a list of reasons why Brexit triumphed leading to the demise of Cameron.

Daniel Korski is a self confessed policy wonk and free marketeer (although quite who is made free has never been clear to me apart from the rich free to pay the poor less), anyhow this chap worked for Cameron in number 10 on policy matters at a senior level.

The second paragraph in his article stated that they (Cameron and the In campaign) used Uber's 'customer' base for propaganda in some way yet explained.

We know from FOI that this chap Korski was on the circulation list of correspondence about Uber from Leon Daniels of TfL and that Leon attended meetings with Korski.

Why is a TfL official copying him in?

We know again from FOI there was significant telephone and email traffic to and from 'Dear Jo' at Uber from Daniels including on a Sunday morning.

These are the facts as we know them.

So we can attempt in a vacuum to join the dots up, we can reasonably speculate that these conversations weren't about inadequate driver checks, non insurance, tax avoidance etc etc and the need to stop this.

Any answers Leon?

We can speculate that that the licensing authority seemed happy to risk the livelihoods and living standards of many thousands of their licensees and endanger the public for someone's short term political gain.

Again Leon, we are not alleging anything just seeking clarity.

It certainly makes the call for a high level parliamentary enquiry essential and to have Korski, Daniels, Bertram and if need be Cameron before the committee.

That is certainly something both us and PH must call for TODAY, this is about democracy, rule of law and the possible subversion of the impartial quasi judicial licensing process, again we allege nothing but we seek the truth.

What of Korski and Cameron?

Cameron has been described as the worst prime minister for a hundred years (that is saying something!) and he is disappearing into well heeled obscurity, but it's the obscurity he won't like but it's well deserved.

Korski remains active, obviously an intelligent chap but on reading his article, he doesn't seem to have the wisdom to truly grasp the dynamics at play and makes the common mistake of politicos blaming the delivery of the message for the failure rather than the fundamental flaw of the message.

We're still here, bloodied but unbowed, we will still be here when the EU, Cameron, Daniels, TfL and  Uber are long forgotten.

Why?

We're just much better at our jobs than they are or were!

I'm Spartacus

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2eeF1uE
via IFTTT

TfL To Drop Requirement For Private Hire Operator To Have A LandLine. Ignoring Consultation Result

Someone pinch me please....is it really 2016.

After reading be latest diatribe spewed out from Blackfriars, I'm truly beginning to think we a stuck in 1984, or living in North Korea. 

For 4 1/2 years TfL have continued with a light fingered approach and ignored, Uber's reluctance to conform to regulations set down by acts of Parliament in a number of Hackney Carriage acts, Cab Orders and the PHV act 1998. 

Number one on the long list of noncompliance must be the failure to insure their drivers were fully insured, closely followed by them never having an accessible landline for pre bookings and customer contact (a requirement for licensing as a PH operator and covered by the PHV act 1998)

Let's not forget the jaw dropping sage as Managing Director of Surface Transport Leon Daniels explained to a benign GLA Transport committee, all about a mythical on off insurance policy (which according to the Association of British insurers never existed in the first place). 

This then lead on to more lies about Uber's landline which when asked by GLA members to supply, he said 'haven't got it to hand right now', then on a subsequent occasion,  supplied the private number of Uber's director of operations, saying it was the illusive pre booking line. 

When pointed out who was at the end of the line, Daniels added 'it wasn't mentioned in the act that the landline had to be a permanency'. Much concern has been shown over this issue, so TfL in their infinite wisdom, held a consultation. 

Now we find in light of the consultation, even though the majority voted to keep the landline requirement, TfL have decided to drop it, saying they feel the consultation could have been filled out by aggrieved Taxi drivers. 

Meanwhile we've had to watch PH applicants licensed with fake medicals, fake topographic test passes, not being in possession of Hire and Reward insurance.

While we've been harassed for over ranking, we've seen compliance walk by PHV's openly plying for hire, sometimes sitting on licensed Taxi ranks....and while all this has been going on, Licensed Taxi regulations have been updated and will be vigorously enforced by a new army of compliance, no prisoners will be taken. 

We've been told:

 •You will take CC

 •You will take contactless payments

 •You will absorb transaction and incidental charges

 •You will gave a paper, printed receipt

 •You will remove all previous stickers 

 •You will replace with TfL authorised stickers

 •You will buy a Purpose built electric Taxi vehicle

The list seems to be never ending. 

If all this wasn't ridiculous enough, we come to yesterday's unbelievable edit from TfLTPH, who now informs us 

You cannot refuse Scottish notes

News to the Bank of England's banking code on legal tender.

 Can you see the pattern unfolding here?

As Taxi regulation are aggressively tightened up, private hire regulation has being relaxed. And where legislation seemed to be solid, TfL top officers have coached Uber on how to circumnavigate you regulations. 

So why do we find ourselves in this uncomfortable position?

Uber's licence runs out in the spring of next year. TfL and the Mayor office are reluctant to take any action that may halt issue of a Uber's renewal. So any action against uber will be postponed until after they are relicensed. 

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

Taxi Vigilante Catches Two Uber Cars (Licensed by TfL) Illegally Working Egham Railway Station, in Surrey.

Salvatore Barrile has been a Hackney Carriage driver for 16 years in Surrey - and said the situation was bigger than many might think

A self-styled "vigilante Uber hunter" has been filming himself as he takes-on what he claims are illegally-parked taxi drivers parking in disabled bays.

Salvatore Barrile, alongside a group of taxi drivers "fighting for their livelihoods", has been challenging private hire drivers parking illegally in taxi rank bays at Egham Railway Station, in Surrey. 

The 46-year-old, who has been a Hackney Carriage driver for 16 years in Runnymede borough, said the situation was bigger than many might think.

"It isn't just parking on non-authorised taxi bays."

Mr Barrile has documented his woes with drivers over the months, taking pictures and video of various cars parking in both disabled and taxi bays, 

A spokesman for the national taxi hailing mobile app said he "believed" both taxis featured in Mr Barrile's videos were "Uber Partners".

Meanwhile, the Transport For London Taxi and Private Hire vehicle checker was able to verify both taxis in the video are licenced in London, meaning the two drivers caught on camera were carrying out trips in the Runnymede area.

A spokesman for Uber added the company "will remind drivers that have carried out pre-booked trips from Egham Station where they are able to park".

Uber drivers fall into the Private Hire Vehicles category of taxi licencing rules which means that, once a licence is obtained, the holder can "take pre-booked jobs in an area covering a radius from that borough" according to advisory literature on the Runnymede Borough Council website.

This means in boroughs which do allow Uber drivers to operate such as Windsor, Maidenhead, London Boroughs and Woking, the holder can then use their licence in "a radius" from that area.

But Mr Barrile believes these rules make a "mockery" of the licencing system.

"As a taxi licenced by Runnymede, I have to follow all the regulations including a topographic knowledge test of the area, proof that I can drive safely by doing a driving test too," he said.

A self-styled "vigilante Uber hunter" has been filming himself as he takes-on what he claims are illegally-parked taxi drivers parking in disabled bays.

Salvatore Barrile, alongside a group of taxi drivers "fighting for their livelihoods", has been challenging private hire drivers parking illegally in taxi rank bays at Egham Railway Station, in Surrey. 

The 46-year-old, who has been a Hackney Carriage driver for 16 years in Runnymede borough, said the situation was bigger than many might think.

"We are getting flooded by Uber drivers coming from all over," he said. "It is going on every day. I just hope people understand the effect Uber is having on our livelihood

And in the meantime, all those drivers coming from outside the area don't have to follow any of these regulations."

He also claims Uber is "overworking" its drivers by making them work "over 16-hour days", an allegation refuted by an Uber spokesman.

"Licensed private hire drivers who use the Uber App are independent contractors who are free to log into the app when and where they choose," he said. 

The spokesman added the average number of hours a driver has logged onto the Uber app is 28 hours-a-week.

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

A Quick Break From The Normal Gloom And Doom......The Italian Job...by I'm Spartacus.

Here we are folks at Naples airport, everywhere posters for the fixed price scheme into town, its popular with drivers and riders alike and ALL the work goes in cabs.

For those concerned about the age limit, hers an open top cab in Capri, looks great.

Any sign of U know who? Not a sniff, Italian licensing authorities support their drivers.

Anyhow see the poster and discuss trade orgs and Unions please?

Report soon from the Balkans.

I'm Spartacus 

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

Bus Use In London Falls To Lowest Level In Decade, As Buses Slow Down To Walking Speed.

DfT says London recorded its first drop in bus use since 2012 as congestion increased rapidly this year. Nothing to do with the CSH and 110,000 minicabs then?

Transport for London (TfL) said it expected new "Hopper" fares to reverse the decline.

Campaigners blamed congestion ( surprise, surprise), which they said has slowed the pace of buses to almost walking speed, for the decline.

Bus fares have increased 1.8% but the DfT said this was "similar" to other price rises in line with the 1.6% Retail Price Index of inflation. Funny that, Taxi fares increase by 0.6% and everyone's shouting for us to slash our fares. 

There were 4.5 billion journeys made by bus in England in 2015-16, the lowest figure since 2006.

In the capital, bus usage was down 3% in a year, to 2.29 billion journeys.

Lianna Etkind, public transport campaigner at the CBT, said: "The news that bus use is falling in London is worrying, but as buses are now moving only marginally faster through the city than the average adult can walk, it's hardly surprising. 

    BLOOMSBURY 11:45 pm...

"Congestion is bringing London to a standstill and needs to be urgently tackled." 

Gareth Powell, TfL's Director of Strategy for Surface Transport, said there had been a "small reduction" in bus journeys due to congestion caused by a number of factors, including development across London and "increased internet delivery traffic". Again, nothing about the CSH or the every increasing numbe of private hire vehicles, presently roping 110,000. I'm surprised they didn't try to blame Taxis over-ranking  (Is Gareth on the list for a £120,000 golden handshake yet? if not...he should be)

    LONDON BRIDGE MIDNIGHT MADNESS.

He went on to say "bus network reliability has now stabilised," he said, and the completion of major road projects and the introduction of a "Hopper" fare was expected to have a positive effect on passenger numbers. Well Gareth, licensing minicabs was intended to drastically cut their numbers from 30,000 in 1998. 

A DfT spokesman said: "We provide some £250 million a year to support bus services in England and about £1 billion is spent annually to give nearly 10 million older and disabled people in England off-peak bus travel."

Only way now to dramatically encourage bus use, is to speed up the traffic. Take some of the £250m subsidy and rip up the segregated cycle lanes which are causing congestion pollution which is killing thousands of people in the capital. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2dmN7j5
via IFTTT

With Mandate Looming, Taxi Leaks' Has Serious Questions That Need Serious Answers

As we approach the deadline for a mandate which forcibly implements Credit Card acceptance on every Taxi driver, there are still many questions that TfL have repeatedly failed to answer. 

We are told that under an act written in the 19th century, they have the right to attach certain conditions to issue of licenses. We are also told that the London Cab Order 2016 facilitates the necessity to take all the credit cards by an applicant for a Taxi drivers licence. 

Funny though, in the infamous Uber meter case (where TfL argued heavily in favour of Uber's right to use a mobile phone as a Taxi meter) when pointed out that in the private hire act 1998 and previous London cab orders, Hackney Carriage acts going back to the mid 1800's, it stated quite clear that only licensed Taxis can use a meter using both time and distance to determine a fare...TfL argued that Smartphone technology wasn't available when these acts/orders were written so didn't apply. 

Well we would argue that under the act TfL are now using to enforce the CC mandate, Credit Card technology wasn't available when he act was written. So how can TfL use the same act that was written ore technology to enforce one issue but argue in court that they can't use a ore technology act to enforce against another issue....is this is just TfL showing and agenda against the Taxi trade and bias towards its friends at Uber?

Then we have the new conditions of fitness being imposed on Taxi owners (and drivers).

1) What legislation gives TfL the right to stop Taxi drivers being able to work, should you choose not to install a machine fitted by one of their authorised partners?

2) what legislation gives TfL to force a Taxi driver to stop working, should his machine develope a fault?

3) How can TfL completely disregard the driver, siting the machine in a position where safety can be easily compromised.....do Taxi drivers lives not matter?

4) What legislation gives TfL the right to insist a Taxi driver cannot pass on transaction costs to passenger, and yet minicab drivers can (and do) ?

5) Who's job was it, to take the measurements to produce the new partition window sticker ?

We are not minicabs, most of our pick ups are unrecorded strangers....this is why we have attack shields between us and the passenger. We also have the right to lock ourselves in the vehicle. This will all be compromised with rear fitment of CC readers. 

When asked the question on driver safety and security at the the LCDC AGM, neither Helen Chapman or Peter Blake could give examples of any data of research on this issue....they didn't give the driver a second thought, putting this together. 

Don't want to pay 5% transaction charge plus a weekly or monthly rental fee....then get iZettle, CabApp or PayPal say TfL....but if you do remember, there is a 90% chance that next year, TfL will mandate meter connection to all CC machines, leaving drivers who have made the £400+ investment, high and dry.

Apparently 83% of TfL's consultation want to see all drivers taking cards.....as I do, but NOT under these crazy incompetent and chaotic regulations. 

The whole issue needs a serious rethink.   

So, at present, where is the legislation to back TfL/T&PH up on this? 

TfL/T&PH issue a form of drivers licence. This licence does not entitle the driver to do anything other than drive a taxi. It does not entitle the driver to trade or be a merchant, so I am at a loss as to why TfL/T&PH have amended the London Cab Order 1934 by adding the London Cab Order 2016 s4 Debit and Credit Card Acceptance.

(1) The following is added after article 31 of the Principle Order –

31a Debit and Credit Card Acceptance.

(1) Every cab-driver’s licence shall be granted subject to a condition that, if so requested by a passenger, the licensee shall accept payment by credit or debit card using a payment device approved by Transport for London”.

It states in the Metropolitan Public carriage Act 1869 s9(1) For regulating the number, of persons to be carried in any hackney or stage carriage, and in what manner such number is to be shown on such carriage, and how such hackney carriages are to be furnished or fitted:

s3 For fixing the rates or fares, as well for time as distance, to be paid for hackney carriages, and for securing the due publication of such fares; provided that it shall not be made compulsory on the driver of any hackney carriage to take passengers at a less fare than the fare payable at the time of the passing of this Act:

s4 For forming, in the case of hackney carriages, a table of distances, as evidence for the purpose of any fare to be charged by distance, by the preparation of a book, map, or plan, or any combination of a book, map, or plan :

Therefore any furnishings or fittings must come under the Metropolitan Conditions of Fitness and there is nothing in this legislation giving TfL/T&PH the powers to dictate how the fare is paid. 

The form of payment is determined when the verbal contract is struck between the driver and customer; it has nothing to do with any other person including TfL/T&PH.

London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907 

s1. The Secretary of State shall have power by regulations made under section nine of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, to fix the fares to be paid for the hire in London of cabs fitted with taximeters, either on the basis of time or distance or both, and so as to differ for different classes of cabs and under different circumstances. Provided that the fare fixed for horse cabs fitted with taximeters shall not be less than at the rate of sixpence for every mile so far as the fare is fixed on the basis of distance, and of sixpence for every twelve minutes so far as the fare is fixed on the basis of time, and that no fare shall be less than sixpence. 

(2) Regulations made under this section, so far as inconsistent with any enactment relating to the fare to be paid for the hire of cabs in London, shall take effect notwithstanding that enactment, and any enactments relating to cabs in London shall, as respects cabs for which fares are fixed under this Act, be construed as if a reference to the fares so fixed were substituted for a reference to the fares fixed under any of those enactments.

Nothing there to suggest how the payment should be made.

London Cab Act 1968 s1 Power to regulate fares for non-obligatory journeys.

(1)The power of [Transport for London] under paragraph (3) of section 9 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 and section 1 of the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907 (regulations governing cab fares in London) shall include power to prescribe fares for the hire of cabs in respect of all journeys in London whether or not the journey is one which the driver of the cab is obliged by law to undertake.

[(1A)The power conferred by subsection (1) of this section is subject to paragraph (4) of the restrictions specified in section 9 of the said Act of 1869.]

(2)In this section “cab”, “fare” and “London” have the same meaning as in the said Act of 1907, and for the purposes of this section a journey shall be treated as a journey in London if it begins and ends there.

s2 Power to increase length of obligatory journeys. 

(1)[Transport for London] may [by London cab order] direct that for the reference to the distance of six miles in section 7 and paragraph (2) of section 17 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1853 (being the length of a journey which the driver of a cab is by law obliged to undertake) there shall be substituted a reference to such greater distance as appears to [Transport for London] to be appropriate.

(2)[A London cab order] under this section may be limited so as to apply only in relation to hirings in respect of journeys which begin, or which end, at such places as may be specified in the order, and may substitute different distances in relation to such hirings or any of them and in relation to other hirings.

(3)The power to make [London cab orders] under this section includes power to vary or revoke a previous [such] order. . . .

(4)Before making [any London cab order] under this

section [Transport for London] shall consult with such bodies appearing to [Transport for London] to represent the owners and drivers of cabs as [Transport for London] considers appropriate.

Nothing there either, to suggest how the payment should be made.

It is the responsibility of the cab proprietor regarding the vehicle, not the driver and therefore should the driver be refused under London Cab Order 2016 s31a a form of licence issued by Transport for London, then that should be challenged in a court of law.

The fact that the driver may also be the proprietor is neither here not there. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2eg4Ln6
via IFTTT

A Giant Vote Of No Confidence In TfL's Current Administration.

There was a stark difference set around yesterday's demo. This protest manifested purely from driver momentum. 

The words on everyone in the trades lips:

"should TfL ignore this action, it will be at their own peril".

Today's message was a giant vote of no confidence in the current TfL administration.

Well over 5,000 taxis assembled at two separate pre-planed objectives, causing gridlock first outside Palestra, then on a second front at Tenison Way, Waterloo. Reports came in that most of the city had been paralysed trying to get south over Blackfriars and Waterloo bridges.

The disruption saw TfL desperately trying to diverted their buses, but there was nowhere for them to go, as SE1 ground to a halt. 

The demo had a lighthearted atmosphere with the officers policing the demo, who mostly said they supported our stance. Leaflets were given out to passers by, many of whom were actively deleting the Uber App.

Just before 6pm, on a given signal from the organisers, attention focused on Parliament square, completely catching the police off guard.  By 7pm all approach roads into the square were solid, buses caught in the chaos emptied, as passengers made an exodus towards the tubes. 

TfL's director of surface operations Peter Blake told the Standard, " there is no need for this protest, we urged the organisers to call it off. The mayor has recently launched a comprehensive Taxi and Private Hire action plan that is aimed at driving up standards and improving services". 

Is this man for real?

If TfL are worried about safety, why are they refusing to publish the minicab related sexual assault/rape statistics recorded across the 32 London boroughs for the year Feb 2015-Feb2016 ?

Why are TfL slowly dismantling the Private Hire Act 1998 in favour of a company that has circumvented regulation and legislation to suit it's self at every opportunity. 

Instead of enforcing existing regulation, TfL are now openly revising regulation to protect this company. 

Over the last few months, there has been a mounting of evidence showing collusion from TfL's top level of management. It's time the government got involved and held a public inquiry into the alleged corruption and open bias from TfL.

Yesterday protests saw a new era in style of demonstrations, no egos, no recruitment drive, just driver lead momentum. 

The Independent Taxi Alliance (ITA) organisers have today stated that should TfL continue to ignore the Licensed Taxi Trades grievances, then this type of action will be escalated and could eventually become a daily event. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2dw5Irf
via IFTTT