CMT Press Release : Arro App Is Now Live

We are extremely excited to announce that our hailing app ARRO is officially live in London! 

As of today, ARRO is fully operational and available for passengers to download and use. Whether you have a CMT Tablet or a CMT Fixed Screen in your Taxi, you will be able to receive e-Hails and process ARRO Pay transactions. 

Both of these features are explained below, with links provided to our training guides.

The software required for ARRO to run in your Taxi has already been sent to your CMT payment system over the air, and in the vast majority of cases will have already been downloaded. For those Tablet Solution drivers who haven't yet received their download prompt, don't worry it will be with you very shortly.

First things first, what is the cost to you for using ARRO?

As is the case with your CMT FREEdom Solution there is a simple transaction fee with no minimum usage fee, data charges, or hidden costs.

OK, so what are the fees?

The fee for an ARRO e-Hail is 8%. This compares very favourably with the competition, especially when you consider there are no data charges and ARRO uses the CMT payment equipment already installed in your Taxi.

The fee for ARRO Pay is exactly the same as for normal card transactions, namely 3.75% plus 20p. 

ARRO Pay is explained in more detail below, but essentially it's a payment facility which allows passengers to confirm payment for their journey while the meter is running ... once you stop your meter the fare & tip will automatically be paid and a receipt will print for your reference. 

As with your card transactions, look for the AUTH CODE. The passenger will receive an emailed receipt, so the single merchant receipt that's printed is yours.

When will my ARRO work clear into my bank account?

Your ARRO work will follow exactly the same cashiering schedule as your card work. Whether you're on our Once Weekly, Twice Weekly or Daily Pay schedules your ARRO work will show on your regular cashiering emails and clear into your account along with your card work.

How do ARRO e-Hails work in my Taxi?

We have created guides for both the Fixed Screen system and the Removable Tablet system as, although both work in the same fundamental way, they do look different.

Fixed Screen Guide: https://is.gd/5ecX7Q

Tablet Guide: https://is.gd/EzwzlF

It is entirely your choice whether to make yourself available for e-Hails or not. 

The blue 'A' ARRO logo indicates you're available, while a maroon 'A' ARRO logo indicates you're not. Because your CMT payment system is linked to your meter, you will only be offered an ARRO e-Hail if you're in a For Hire state. For the same reason, all ARRO e-Hails will be metered. 

No fixed price fares.

If you're "For Hire" and available, a sound and on-screen message will alert you to an offer, with the ETA from your current location and street name of the pickup point.

You have 15 seconds to accept the offer. The job will be awarded to the most appropriate Taxi if multiple drivers accept.

Once you've arrived at the pickup point you press Arrived.

The passenger then has 3 minutes to get to you. Both you and the passenger can message each other through the App, or initiate a phone call (numbers masked).

If after 3 minutes the passenger doesn't show you have the option to select 'No Show'. If you do so, after having waited for 3 minutes, they'll be charged £5, £4.60 of which will go to you.

The 3 minute rule applies to cancelled e-Hails too. If the passenger cancels within 3 minutes of e-Hailing they're not charged. If they cancel after 3 minutes, they will be charged £5 and you are paid £4.60, as above.

When the passenger is onboard you start your meter.

The system will check the passenger's stored card to ensure it's valid.

Once you stop your meter the payment for the fare & tip will go through automatically, with a receipt printed for your records.

It's a quick and simple process that we are confident even those of you new to hailing apps will find easy and intuitive.

What is ARRO Pay?

ARRO Pay is a payment facility that's built into ARRO. Every trip creates a unique code which the passenger enters into their app ... these are passengers who have street hailed you or got into your Taxi from a Rank. 

Once the ride is completed ARRO Pay will automatically charge the passenger the metered fare, plus tip, as soon as you stop your meter ... so passengers can settle payment for their journey before it's finished! 

This is possible because ARRO runs through the CMT payment system in you Taxi, which is linked to your meter.

Who can use ARRO Pay?

Any passenger who gets into your Taxi who hasn't e-Hailed you. All they need is the ARRO app with a stored payment card in their profile.

We think ARRO Pay will prove extremely popular with commuters and business professionals who are in a perpetual rush, as there's almost no processing delay once the journey is finished.

Your regular customers and business accounts will love ARRO Pay too as it's quick, easy and they get receipts emailed to them for every fare.

There's no cost to the passenger and there's no increase in cost over a normal in Taxi card transaction to you. We think ARRO Pay will prove to be a big hit.

We will soon begin promoting ARRO via Supersides, Decals, Tip Seats and so on. 

If you're an Owner Driver who's interested in carrying Decals or Tip Seat advertising for ARRO please email uksupport@cmtgroup.com.

We have also produced Branded Receipt Rolls and will be making these available shortly. Boxes will be sent to Fleets and Owner Drivers can receive theirs from us at our Kendal Avenue facility. 

We'll also be making visits to various Ranks and handing them out there too. 

There are further training resources for you at www.cmt.london with FAQs, training guides and more.

We genuinely believe ARRO is a good product that's priced competitively and will prove to be a success. 

Things will be slow at the beginning, as with all new apps, but with your support and the coming advertising, ARRO will soon become a fixture of your day practice.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2w3I53X
via IFTTT

Full Article From Sunday Times : Plus Inspector Neil Billany's Letter To Helen Chapman.

Full article as published in the Sunday Times: 

Andrew Gilligan

 

August 13 2017, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

Uber has been accused by police of failing to report sex attacks and other “serious crimes” committed by its drivers, and of obstructing officers trying to investigate them.

The company, which operates in more than 20 British cities and 633 worldwide, faces a licence review in London, its biggest European market.

In a letter obtained by The Sunday Times, Inspector Neil Billany, head of the Metropolitan police’s taxi and private hire unit, said he had “significant concern” that Uber seemed to be “deciding what [crimes] to report”, telling police only about “less serious matters” that would be “less damaging to [its] reputation”.

Billany accused Uber of “allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public” by keeping from police crimes committed by drivers — including at least six sexual assaults on passengers, two public order offences and an assault.

In at least one of the sex cases, Uber continued to employ the driver, who went on to commit a more serious sex attack against a second woman passenger.

Billany said: “Had Uber notified police after the first offence, it would be right to assume the second would have been prevented.”

The victims complained to Uber and were left “strongly under the impression” it would tell police, but it did not do so, he added.

In the year to February 2017, Scotland Yard recorded 48 allegations of sexual assault involving Uber drivers, mostly reported by passengers but some made via the regulator, Transport for London (TfL).

Billany said Uber’s failure to report the public order cases meant the Met learnt too late to prosecute.

The letter — dated April 17 and sent to Helen Chapman, head of taxis and private hire at TfL — was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the chairwoman of the London Assembly’s transport committee, Caroline Pidgeon.

She said she was “deeply concerned”, adding: “This apparent cover-up of reports about such serious criminal activity is shameful.”

TfL said the failure was “totally unacceptable” and formed “part of the consideration” about whether it would extend Uber’s licence. It was renewed in May, but only until September 30, amid concerns about Uber’s operations. Billany’s letter may have played a part.

Billany said one incident was a road rage incident classified as a firearms offence. The Uber driver took “what the passenger believed to be a handgun from the glovebox and left the vehicle to pursue the other party on foot”, Billany said. The “gun” turned out to be “pepper spray . . . legally classified as a firearm”, whose possession “clearly appears to be a criminal offence”.

When police asked for the passenger’s name, Uber “refused to provide any further information” without a formal request under the Data Protection Act. Uber said the “pepper spray” was a legal can of criminal identifier spray. It did help police when asked and said the refusal was a misunderstanding. It reported all incidents to TfL, it added.

“We were surprised by this letter as in no way does it reflect the good working relationship we have with the police,” it said. “We advise people to report serious incidents to the police and support any subsequent investigations, but respect the rights of individuals to decide whether or not to make such reports.”

THE LETTER IN FULL

From Inspector Neil Billany of the Metropolitan police to Helen Chapman, Transport for London’s head of taxis and private hire

 

“Dear Helen,

 

Concerns with Uber not reporting Serious Crimes to Police

 

On the 4 March 2017 Uber have had contact from a passenger informing them of a serious incident involving an Uber (and TfL Licensed PHV) driver. The nature of the allegation was that during a booked journey a road rage incident has developed between the driver and another road user. During this incident the driver has taken what the passenger believed to be a handgun from the glovebox and left the vehicle to pursue the other party on foot. At this point the passenger has fled the vehicle in fear.

 

On becoming aware of this incident Uber have spoken to the driver and ascertained that it was in fact pepper spray he had taken from the glovebox and not a handgun. Pepper spray is legally classified as a firearm and every weapon carried on the street represents a threat to public safety.

 

At this point Uber have dismissed the driver and made LTPH Licensing aware. On becoming aware of this on the 10 April 2017 the MPS have opened an investigation into what clearly appears to be a criminal offence.

 

Further contact has taken place between the MPS and Uber in an attempt to identify the passenger (a significant witness) and also to find out why Uber haven’t reported this directly to police. Uber have stated to the MPS that they are not obliged to report this, or similar matters, and are only required to notify TfL as per regulations. Uber have refused to provide any further information unless a formal request under the Data Protection Act is submitted.

 

Another more worrying case took place last year. The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf.

 

On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger. Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, “strongly under the impression” that they would.

 

On the 13 May 2016 Uber have finally acted and dismissed the driver, notifying LTPH Licensing who have passed the information to the MPS.

 

The second offence of the two was more serious in its nature. Had Uber notified police after the first offence it would be right to assume that the second would have been prevented. It is also worth noting that once Uber supplied police with the victim’s details both have welcomed us contacting them and have fully assisted with the prosecutions. Both cases were charged as sexual assaults and are at court next week for hearing [sic].

 

“Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual ssault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police. While the process for sharing information between LTPH Licensing and the MPS works this clearly represents a further risk as it is reliant on more links in a chain.

 

In 2016 the MPS were made aware of 6 sexual assaults, 2 public order offences and 1 assault which were first reported to Uber and then subsequently to LTPH Licensing. The delay in the offence occurring and a report coming to the attention of police ranged from a matter of weeks to 7 months. The two public order offences mentioned above are subject to a 6 month prosecution time limit so subsequently both were taken no further as by the time we became aware of the offence we had no power to proceed, despite both having clear evidence of an offence taking place.

 

The significant concern I am raising is that Uber have been made aware of criminal activity and yet haven’t informed the police. Uber are however proactive in reporting lower level document frauds to both the MPS and LTPH. My concern is twofold, firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters/less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Neil Billany”

Share

Save

http://ift.tt/2uRWLhD

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2fC5xOL
via IFTTT

"MINICAB" Passenger Jailed For Raping Fellow "MINICAB" Passenger.

A man who said he had 'the right' to sexually assault a vulnerable woman after paying for her Minicab home has been jailed.

Jeetender Singh, 41 (09.11.85), of West Hill, SW15, was convicted of assault by penetration at Blackfriars Crown Court on Friday, 7 July following a five-day trial.

He was sentenced at the same court on Wednesday, 9 August to five years' imprisonment. He will also remain on the sex offenders register indefinitely.

On 14 February 2015, a 22-year-old woman called the Metropolitan Police to report that she had been sexually assaulted in the early hours of the same day.

The victim had been out with friends in Piccadilly Circus. During the course of the evening she began to feel unwell and decided to order a private hire car to go home.

Whilst she was waiting for her minicab, a man approached her and started chatting to her and said he would look after her. When the Minicab arrived he got in with her.

On the journey back the victim was sick in the car and was told she would have to pay more because of this. The man, who the victim knew as 'Hazim', offered to pay for the fare so they stopped at an ATM to get money. They then continued to the victim's home address in North Kensington. 

When they arrived Hazim followed the victim to her doorstep and again said he would look after her. The victim said she was fine and just wanted to go to bed. As she went through the door and attempted to close it, Hazim pushed passed her into her apartment. The victim kept asking him to leave but he refused.

The victim collapsed into her bed and woke up to find Hazim sexually assaulting her. She told him to get off her to which he replied "it's the least you can do for me, I paid for the mess in your minicab."

The victim then pushed Hazim off her and he left her flat.

When she contacted police, the victim gave a detailed description of the man who had attacked her to police.

Officers spoke with the Uber driver who identified the ATM they stopped at for the cash withdrawal. The suspect was later identified as Singh through CCTV and the bank details obtained from the ATM.

He was arrested on 6 July 2016 at Heathrow Airport after returning to the UK. He was interviewed and denied the offence, but was charged on 10 October 2016. 

Detective Sergeant Paula Hill, from the Met's Child Abuse and Sexual Offences Command, said: 

"This was a serious sexual offence committed with some element of planning by the defendant. Singh completely took advantage of a vulnerable female after a night out in central London. Once inside her home address on the context of helping her he refused to leave. 

"The victim was left distraught by this attack but has showed extreme bravery in attending court to give evidence. She is very pleased with the verdict and feels that she may have prevented Singh committing similar crimes on other women."

Unfortunately, when this was reported by the Met Police on their total policing webpage, they referred to the Minicab as a Private Taxi (1 time ) and Taxi (5 times). 

This is disgraceful from the Met who know the difference between Minicabs and Taxis. 

THIS MESSAGE TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE:

The problem of sexual assault and rapes in Minicabs is being hidden from the public by TfL and the Met who collude together to water down the statistics that show this problem in London is now at epidemic level. We've seen the evidence in leaked emails, where a special arrangement of tip offs have been set up by TfL, when FOI requests are made. This gives them time to massage the figures. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vsm515
via IFTTT

Plaza Executive Cars..."Taxi Service"...In Liquidation....Still Operating From Royal National Hotel?

Letter from Greenbadgejohn: 

As the race to the bottom continues to endorse illegality within the private hire systems (licensed or otherwise) 

In the case of the unlicensed car service at the Royal National Hotel, it only goes to show how low corrupted hotel concierge's will stoop to place their own well paid guests into unsafe vehicles for the devils shilling.

As hard as TFL tries to distance its self from illegal activities in reality TFL lost its moral compass the day it originally licensed Uber in London and now the fly by nights circle London with impunity licensed or not as anybody with half a brain knows that a yellow private hire disk holds not one iota of credibility as disclosed in a recent Freedom of Information Request. 

(FOI 0845-1718) 9th July 2017 Disclosed:

Legislation in London Allows licensed PHV's to be used for private purposes; They can therefore also be driven by unlicensed drivers.
It is not a regulatory requirement for vehicle owners, whether individuals or companies,to inform us when a PHV is used by a non licensed driver for private use nor do they need to request special permission to do so.

Melissa Nichols (FOI case officer)
General Council, Transport for London.

So there you have it, An extract from a recent FOI request clearly showing how unimportant a Private hire Yellow disk actually is on a private hire vehicle.

Anyone can use, borrow, or hire a private hire vehicle irrespective of their previous criminal past (as long as they hold a driving license) and TFL do not involve themselves one bit, so a central London hotel ducking and diving with illegal private hire services (unlicensed by TFL) is only apparently breaking one law..... not paying TFL a licence fee to do so!

The TFL crap continues to rise to the surface like an undigested curry... disgraceful.

Be Lucky, & keep up the good fight against this most corrupted regime.

greenbadgejohn (on twitter)

Comment From Len Martin ex chair of the UCG:

So, if the Hotel isn't a satellite office, it is offering a car service for which it can expect no compensation for providing such a service. 

So if it is offering to be an "arranger" of such a service wouldn't we expect it to offer a range of services from a selection of suppliers?

But it  seems to be an exclusive offering. 

So would it be unreasonable to anticipate some formal of reciprocation? 

Maybe not even cash, but something. This maybe direct or "in kind" it can't legally be a formal activity because we know they are not licensed. 

So is there any form of compensation taking place? 

How does this sit with the bribery act 2010? http://ift.tt/14JqMeM

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

UCG Say COs Have No Power To Confiscate Personal Property : Met Say COs Could Be Libel To Theft From Vehicle Charge

After yesterday's major bus crash, questions were asked about the driver. 

We wanted to know if the bus driver was also working as a PHV driver.

Not hard to check you would think. 

But again this is TfL after all.

As John McEnroe said " You cannot be serious.

It's now become crystal clear, that TfL are positively getting involved to cover up UberRape and also protect the name of this company from any bad publicity.

If this wasn't serious, it would be comical.

So TFL believe this headline is misleading and want it removed from Taxis. Surely they should be over the moon that a frequent predator has been taken out of circulation !

To Comply....Or Not ToComply....That Is The Question:

 

      

Compliance officers are still insisting Taxi drivers remove the Taxi news paper from view and in certain cases have entered Taxis (without invitation) and (in our opinion) illegally removed the drivers property from the vehicle.

The officers are told by their managers to say that this headline is misleading and must be removed....when in fact this story shown on the cover of a Taxi paper, is true and factual. 

This is no more than TFL protecting the name of its stakeholder partner. 

Why have our largest Taxi representative orgs not challenged the actions of compliance officers ???

It's there publication after all. Have they just supplied the bullets for someone else  to fire the gun!

At least the United Cabbies Group are up to date....

Taxi Leaks have asked TfLTPH Twitter account 65 times to be shown the legislated regulation, which gives a CO power to physically remove property (a news paper) from my Taxi ?

So far, TfL TPH have ignored every tweet. 

We would take it then that no such legislation or regulation is in place and that the COs are acting outside their authority. 

We have been informed by Metropolitan police that COs who confiscate these papers are guilty of theft from a motor vehicle. 

               Caught on Camera

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

Breaking News : Benchmark Capital To Sue Travis Kalanick For Fraud

The battle between Benchmark Capital and Travis Kalanick just went nuclear, with the venture capital firm suing the former Uber CEO for fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint was filed earlier today in Delaware Chancery Court.

Key graph, per the suit: "Kalanick, the former CEO of Uber, to entrench himself on Uber's Board of Directors and increase his power over Uber for his own selfish ends. Kalanick's overarching objective is to pack Uber's Board with loyal allies in an effort to insulate his prior conduct from scrutiny and clear the path for his eventual return as CEO—all to the detriment of Uber's stockholders, employees, driver-partners, and customers."

Why it matters: If Benchmark's suit is successful, Kalanick would be kicked off Uber's board of directors -- thus eliminating any faint hopes of him returning to the company in a substantial role.

What to know: Benchmark was an early investor in Uber, and has a seat on its board of directors. It also helped spearhead the move to have Kalanick resign in June, and tensions between the two have contributed, in part, to the slow pace of finding a replacement. Oh, and venture capital firms don't usually sue fellow board members of their single most valuable investment.

Complaint: The suit revolves around the June 2016 decision to expand the size of Uber's board of voting directors from eight to 11, with Kalanick having the sole right to designate those seats. Kalanick would later name himself to one of those seats following his resignation, since his prior board seat was reserved for the company's CEO. 

The other two seats remain unfilled. Benchmark argues that it never would have granted Kalanick those three extra seats had it known about his "gross mismanagement and other misconduct at Uber" — which Benchmark claims included "pervasive gender discrimination and sexual harassment," and the existence of confidential findings (a.k.a. The Stroz Report) that recently-acquired self-driving startup Otto had "allegedly harbored trade secrets stolen from a competitor." Benchmark argues that this alleged nondisclosure of material information invalidates Benchmark's vote to enlarge the board.

Moreover, Benchmark alleges that Kalanick pledged in writing -- as part of his resignation agreement -- that the two empty board seats would be independent and subject to approval by the entire board (something Benchmark says was the reason it didn't sue for fraud at the time). But, according to the complaint, Kalanick has not been willing to codify those changes via an amended voting agreement. 

What Benchmark wants: An invalidation of the June 2016 stockholder vote and related actions, which would effectively eliminate the three board seats. And, in so doing, remove Kalanick from Uber's board of directors. It also is asking the court for a preliminary injunction against Kalanick's ongoing involvement in Uber board matters which, if granted, would remove him from the CEO search process.

Stakes: Per the complaint, Kalanick currently holds around a 10% equity stake in Uber, which most recently was valued at around $70 billion. Benchmark holds approximately 13 percent.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2wym1vo
via IFTTT

Royal National Hotel Alleged To Be Offering Guests An Illegal, Unlicensed Car Service.

A London Taxi Driver picking up a Passenger at the Royal National Hotel, over heard the concierge taking a booking for their car service.

The driver spotted this list on the counter of the reception desk, giving prices from the hotel, to destinations around London. 

The price list also states it's car service is licensed by TfL and gives a licence number. We checked the number with the TfL website licence checker and found no such licence exists. 

TfL TPH Twitter account was asked to confirm if this was a legal car service and was the Hotel in possession of a PHV operators licence or licence variation for a third party operator. 

The TfL TPH Twitter account then came back with this reply. 

We also checked out Plaza Executive Cars Ltd and found that if this company exists, it's not licence by TfL 

So there you have it.

The Hotel has no such licence which makes this car service illegal. As all journeys are taken illegally, the passengers will be in the same position as if they had been touted in the street. 

We will be expecting TfL to visit the Royal National Hotel and take action to get them to stop illegally touting customers. We would also expect a prosecution in this case where the Hotel is allowing the public to be put in danger by their concierge use of an unlicensed service .... We expect this but, but going on TfL's poor performance in the area,we won't be holding our breath. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vlX3AK
via IFTTT