TfL Have Revoked 42 Operator Licenses So Far This Year. Guess Which One Is Not On The List?

TfL have always come under fire over their alleged unsavoury relationship they have with the ride-share app Uber.

This week has seen TfL employees, in an act of censorship, openly removing news papers from a Taxi. The newspaper's headlines and inside story, informing the public of an Uber Driver who was sentenced to 12 years in jail for raping a passenger after cutting away her underwear with a knife. 

The employers said the headline on the front page of Taxi newspaper, was "misleading". 

It has now been alleged that TfL have been purging Uber's competitors at an unprecedented rate (42 since the beginning of 2017). 

Reasons given for the revocations of operators licences in TFL's own words are:

• Company ceased trading.

• Failing a compliance inspection(s)

• Failing to meet the fit and proper Pearson criteria.

With Uber....

• Failing to provide a landline from the time of initial licence request, up till the time TfL changed to regulation to favour Uber.

• Operating knowingly from unlicensed premises in N1, which also had no planning permission from Islington council

• Had drivers operating with no insurance, some with fictitious ( in the words of TFL's Leon Daniels) on-off insurance

• An unprecedented number of road traffic accidents

• An unprecedented number of driver related passenger serious sexual assaults including rapes, which have escalated last year by 50% to one a week

• Fake medical checks, 

...surely it would be fair to say Uber would snugly fit into two of the above categories for the location of operators license. 

We've also heard this week that while TfL have refused to meet with Taxi trade orgs over the last eight months, arrangements were made by TfL management to meet with Uber on a quarterly basis.

This whole situation regarding the unsavoury partnership between TfL needs to be investigated as soon as possible 

WE NEED A PUBLIC INQUIRY AND WE NEED IT NOW.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vc6jFP
via IFTTT

Sadiq Khan, Stop Telling Us What You Can't Do And Tell Us What a You Can.....by I'm Spartacus

In another bizarre week for the cab trade, the launch of what I call the Lotto electric cab (over 70K to own it after 5 years on the strap) plus the increased insurance and other running costs, as the man said on the tennis court 'you cannot be serious'!

Another lot of nonsense was the CO's at Harrods 'making themselves busy' over a headline in a trade paper, commenting on the veracity of the story and what TfL's 'beliefs' are, is the clearest case of when your in a hole stop digging, I can't find anything that casts doubt on the headline.

Anyhow enough of all that and onto the main topic. The rationale of the congestion charge was to reduce congestion (I.e. the throughput of vehicles) by dissuading non essential users, reducing pollution as well.

Over time due to calamitous policy mistakes (PH numbers, uncoordinated roadworks etc and lest we forget the empty bus epidemic) congestion and therefore pollution has rocketed.

So the answer as some see it is electric powered congestion!

Nay, nay and thrice nay Mayor Khan, the phased introduction of electric vehicles (provided both the charging grid and National grid are up to it sometime soon) is secondary as the congestion issue hasn't been dealt with.

TfL, the Mayor et al are very keen to tell us what they can't do (control PH numbers, stop Pedicabs, Cross border etc.) how about a refocus on what you can do?

1. 24/7/365 Double yellow lines in the CC zone, more disabled bays and perhaps short term permits for those attending places of worship on a Sunday as that issue has come up before.

2. Rearranging the bus routes to some kind of sanity and usage increases thereof.

3. CC charge payable by PH and the CC to operate until midnight, there is ready availability of taxis in the CC zone, you don't need another class of vehicle as all cabs take CC or cash, people don't need a smartphone and wheelchair users have full accessibility.

4. PH can only enter the CC if on the way to a prebooked job, what other reason would they need to enter, they can't ply for hire can they?

Howls of bogus protests will ensue, protectionism, monopoly etc from offshore entities and their expensively lobbied toadies.

Well in fact there isn't a monopoly, any current PH driver can become a taxi driver, any current PH operator can 'onboard' (what a shocking phrase) taxis.

TfL have a stated objective to maintain the two tier differential so that's what's being protected, every cab driver has 20k competitors we just need a level playing field.

Price is another red herring as some are supplying services below cost, even a PH driver said that picking people up from a Michelin Starred restaurant in Mayfair should attract a premium not a discount!
Property and meal pricing does, these clients won't be down the food bank if it happens and some may even feel better paying the right rate for the task.

Consumers have a choice, taxi, bus or if they must pay for someone to come into the CC in a PH.

So reduce congestion and reduce pollution Mr Mayor, without these actions the take up of ZEC cabs at any kind of meaningful level will be as slow as the bus along Oxford Street.

All this can be done tomorrow, you have the powers already, don't tell us what you can't do, tell us what when your going to do what you can? 

I'm Spartacus

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2v8iKUJ
via IFTTT

TfLTPH Twitter Account, Alleged To Be No More Than A Benign, Biased Sham...by Gerald Coba.

         GJ62XOC, parked on a Licence Taxi Rest Rank in Conduit Street W1

Putting aside the arrogance shown by the recipient of the TfL letter below who feels he should be given the same status as a Taxi driver because he pays Tax and NI contributions, again we see more proof that the TfLTPH Twitter account is no more than a sham. 

Night after night taxi drivers compromised their safety by confronting private hire drivers contravening parking regulations which clearly state they must not park, wait on, pick up or drop off...on a licensed Taxi rank or standing.

It's been puzzling that the same vehicles are breaking the regulations, night after night.

Taxi drivers regularly put themselves in danger collecting hundreds of photographs and report to the TfLTPH Twitter account. This has always been done in good faith, that after confronting angry aggressive PH drivers, recording all necessary data and sending to TfL, the matter would be dealt with, in accordance with the legislated regulations.

It now appears this is not the case and that all that happens is the offending drivers just receive an acknowledgement in the form of a very friendly reminder with a caveat pegged on the end stating:

"If there is anything I can help you with, please reply to this letter or you can phone me on .....".

This isn't good enough from our licensing authority. Our Taxi ranks should be kept clear or PHVs and we need TfL to take stronger measures as these drivers are currently taking no notice of the regulations. 

The problem has become so bad at weekends that one of our representative groups is using subscriptions from their members to finance rank marshals. This is money that should not have to be spent by the trade, this should be dealt with by TfLTPH.

Private hire drives have no need to park on Taxi ranks while waiting to pick up, the Law is actually in their favour. 

Under a ruling in the high court, Taxis and PHVs have the right to wait (for as long as it takes) for a pre booked passenger on any single or double yellow line, 'regardless of the streets restrictions'. 

However, they can't park on disabled bays, loading bays, zigzag lines or Taxi ranks. It's very clear and every PHV should be made aware of this by TfL. If they continue to carry on contravening this regulation they should face much harsher penalties. 

If this sham Twitter account carries on acting with a benign biased, we could see violence on our streets in much the same way we see from other countries facing similar problems. 

The High Court case is shown below, and has a very interesting comment in conclusion by parking expert Barry Segal. 

http://ift.tt/2wh8uIx

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vA3ktj
via IFTTT

Letter To Taxi Leaks : More Proof That TfL Staff Are Making Up The Regulations As They So Please.

Taxi Leaks recently posted a letter from a reader which claimed he had to attend 230 Blackfriars Road and pay a fee to get a temporary licence to be able to go to work. 

I asked TfLTPH why they were charging money for a temporary licence that according to Director of Surface Transport Leon Daniels was unnecessary under the Transport Act of 1985 sec17(7).

http://ift.tt/2var9b8

This was their reply:

So I wrote to the reader (Greenbadgejohn) and asked him to explain in detail what exactly had happened at 230 Blackfriars Road.

Here is his reply:

Having seen the recent story on Taxi Leaks, including a copy of a private hire drivers re-application being approved 'before CRB details have been concluded', I am thoroughly disgusted as to how I was treated on my renewal last year.

I diligently waited for the renewal pack to arrive some 4 months before the current license expiry date only to be disappointed it hadn't arrived, and so I called TFL who said "it was posted last week... but I will send another in case it got lost in the post".

 A week later a pack arrived, ..and I got busy filling it in and getting an 'E' number from the post office, ..then TFl sent me another pack (presumably the lost one...you make up your mind!) 

As I counted the weeks and months away...still no sign of my new bill, I got a call from TFL @6 weeks later by Jonathan who politely stated that there were severe delays at DBS but I am on the system and they would keep me informed, and so they did.

Georgina called 2 weeks later, Karen 1 Week Later, and then Stewart called who called himself the Temporary Licence Manager, he was very Jack the lad-ish with a Northern Irish accent who virtually said I will not be receiving my licence on time due to delays, and I reminded him that I played no part in the delay's and therefore cannot (or should not) be held responsible in any way, but he didn't necessarily agree because there are three ways to re-apply on the form TFL sends you (MCH/203R)

on section B, If you tick B1, "I have applied for a new enhanced DBS disclosure" you tick the box and state your E-number and this is how I and all cab drivers I know have always done it.

But...There are 2 other options.

B2, "I have an existing DBS disclosure which I would like to use as part of this application"..... of which I obviously do not have, 

Or... B3, "I am DBS update service subscriber and do not need to apply for a new disclosure" ... Which again I am not, so this didn't apply to me either.

And Importantly you can only tick one option!

But Stewart was having none of it, and said that unless I joined the DBS "update service" at a further cost of £13, I would not get a temporary measure license which could be issued in the likely event that my DBS was not returned in time before my bill soon expired.

So (I asked), a DBS initial cost of £56.85 has already been cashed, and because a delay has occurred at your end (he blamed the Met Police), I have to pay to join a separate duplicate system for the right to work? 

He replied, "That is the only way or means a Temporary measure licence can be Issued".

I was livid, and complained bitterly to him stating that I would not be forced or coerced into paying any more for what should have been already been processed and informed him that I was going to take this to a higher level... (he didnt give a fig)...and so we ended the call.

I subsequently contacted my GLA Representative Andrew Dismore (who I have Met before on other occasions when he was my MP and contacted his office and explained that through no fault of my own, I could not go to work because of severe delays through my licensing authority (TFL) and hoped their office could help, and rightly enough they contacted TFL... and obtained a senior level response a few hours later From Andrew Hatch, Communications and Engagement TFL Managing Directors office who' reply was very revealing....

Mr Hatch stated that whilst he had escalated my details to the Met Police to ensure it was processed straight away, He said I had also been contacted prior, to arrange for a Temporary Licence to be issued but I had refused to accept this because I would not join the "Up date service"... which is a "mandatory" requirement!

There is nothing anywhere in writing to state that a "Mandatory" status exists on this service particularly when you fill in the renewal application form they send you (MCH/203R) .... it clearly states;

"Please tick only 1 option" 

and I made a clear un-ambiguated choice and moreover paid £56.85 for the 3 year DBS usual choice, its as simple as that.

It is absolutely abhorrent to see any TFL system licensing delays (whoever its partners are) to be somehow levelled an extra cost toward you the applicant for no contributory reason is exactly what happened and wrong.

Andrew Dismore's office advised me to pay £13 now so as to negate any losses which I could not recoup, but continue to complain to TFL about such an awful level of service, which meant that I had to travel at my own cost to southwark stn and see a member of TFL staff to obtain a means to work.... none of this was ever my fault.

The Temporary licence lasted 14 days, and on the 14th day I angrilly called TFL to ask if they really expected me to make another long journey down to southwark for a second temporary licence?

No need they said, they were informed my proper new license was in the post and If I was stopped by a compliance officer or Police just inform them to contact TFL for authorisation...so there you have it, you dont really need a licence on you if they say so?

The appalling nature of how TFL both conducts our business of licensing is so poor and lacking in quality towards the client (us) because its make it up as you go along policies and is one very good reason how Uber has snuck in under the radar of TFL and the lower pay-graded staff it employs....But climb up the ladder of TFL authority and ask pertinent questions and all you get is smoke and mirrors...never clear concise explanations and that is why we the Taxi trade will never surrender to such a despicable bunch, who always call lies 'mistakes or errors'. 

Dads defending daughters latest Private hire letter of non conformity to DBS rules only goes to show how or who is really responsible for such an appallingly high level of private hire sexual abuse and convictions because how many unchecked private hire drivers are working tonight under the auspices of the dark and dangerous admission of that letter?

In all my life, I have never seen such appalling mismanagement in a local government office, but I am absolutely certain things will have to come to an abrupt end.

Responsibility and common decency within TFL has long left the building, but was it ever there at all after the Metropolitan Police gave up charge and control in 1997?.... don't be daft!

Keep up the fight and watch out for breaking news soon to hit the headlines!

greenbadgejohn (on twitter)
 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2v7Cgz5
via IFTTT

Fellow Cabbies, One Of Our Colleagues Needs Bit Of Help.

 

  

This is Keith Barber a London cab driver of over 20 years, Keith as been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, and can't work whilst being treated. 

Keith is one of life's good guys anyone who knows Keith will vouch that he will do anything for anyone to help in their hours of need.

Keith needs our help now, as he's fallen behind on rent and bills and although he has payed he's taxes all he's life the social security give him nothing.

I'm hoping that all cab drivers can find it in their hearts to donate what they can as little as a £1.00 will really help. 

We have tried to collect for him at the airport but unfortunately we have to wait up to 6 weeks. 

So please find a £1 and help one of life's good guys.

Just click here : http://ift.tt/2v7fRCc

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vq3K5F
via IFTTT

John Cox Resigns From The LTDA And Joins The LCDC.

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

Uber Rented Hundreds of Faulty Vehicles to Drivers and at Least One Blew Up

Let’s all say it together: Ugh, Uber, ugh! We’re like five minutes into the company’s “180 Days of Change” apology tour and more awful Uber news is already coming out. The Wall Street Journal reports that the multi-billion dollar startup rented dangerously faulty cars to hundreds of drivers in Singapore, after the model had been recalled. According to internal messages obtained by the paper, Uber knew about the recall, too.

The brazen behavior really fits well with the “move fast, break things” mantra. Essentially, Uber made Singapore the first Asian city where its service would be available, but the company had trouble finding drivers, because owning a car in Singapore is prohibitively expensive. As a slapdash solution, Uber then reportedly set up a separate company that bought cars in bulk from shady importers who operate in a grey area of the law. The cars were cheaper this way. 

We haven’t even gotten to the bad stuff yet. Last year, Uber apparently bought over 1,100 Honda Vezels from one of these gray-market companies, even though the model had been recalled for a faulty electronic component that could overheat and cause a fire. You can guess what happened next. The Journal describes an incident in January 2017:

Uber driver Koh Seng Tian had just dropped off a passenger in a residential neighborhood in Singapore when he smelled smoke in his Honda Vezel sport-utility vehicle. Flames burst from the dashboard, melting the interior and cracking a football-sized hole in his windshield.

Thankfully, the driver wasn’t injured, but Uber quickly heard about the incident. Did they pull all of the faulty vehicles off the road? Nah, that would be too expensive. Instead, the company allegedly told drivers with Honda Vezels to take their vehicle in for service without specifying the problem. In February, when Uber threw a party celebrating the conclusion of the PR and safety nightmare, the Journal reports that “65 percent of the defective Vezels still hadn’t had the faulty parts replaced.” Uber says all of them are fixed now.

But man, what a mess. This isn’t your typical Uber-is-a-shitty-company story, either. If these claims are true, it seems Uber actually put people’s lives at risk in order to save money. The company reportedly gambled with minivans that could spontaneously combust, because it would be a big pain to fix them, and well, the drivers and passengers would probably be fine. Then it had a party while these explode-y cars were still driving people around! (If you haven’t deleted your Uber account already, today’s a great day to take action. Here’s how.)

We’ve reached out to Uber to see if it cares to comment on the Journal’s story and will update this post if we hear back.

Update 4:55pm - Uber sent us the following statement:

As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet catching fire, we took swift action to fix the problem, in close coordination with Singapore’s Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts. But we acknowledge we could have done more—and we have done so. We’ve introduced robust protocols and hired three dedicated experts in-house at LCR whose sole job is to ensure we are fully responsive to safety recalls. Since the beginning of the year, we’ve proactively responded to six vehicle recalls and will continue to do so to protect the safety of everyone who uses Uber.

Source Gizmodo 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2v28fSV
via IFTTT