CO Powers, TfL Advertising Policy and the TAXI newspaper. By Vaughn Williams

I've been reviewing TFL's Guidelines for Advertising on Licensed London Taxis with regard to the TAXI newspaper issues with COs.

The Introduction states that the guidelines apply to :

" Advertising that appears on or in taxis and includes information presented to passengers ( " taxi advertising " ) "

This is important, as " information presented to passengers " could be taken to include any materials in the passenger compartment, e.g. a newspaper. This renders ineffective, in this instance, the argument that a newspaper is not an advertisement.

As regards legality, TfL claims that the guidelines are issued pursuant to the GLAA 1999 as they are " conducive or incidental to its ( i.e. TfL's ) functions "

The guidelines also refer to the LCO 1934, which says that " a licensee shall not, otherwise than in accordance with the directions of TfL ... cause any object to be displayed.. by way of advertisement ".

I would suggest that this section may not apply to the CO/TAXI issue, as it refers to advertising only. It doesn't matter if the guidance includes any object, the 1934 legislation is about advertising, you can't work backwards !

Nonetheless, TfL would appear to have the power to dictate what is displayed in cabs and the guidelines therefore seem to have legal force within their own terms and conditions.

The guidelines then refer to the TfL Advertising Policy, and state that :

" taxi advertising * will not be permitted unless it complies with the Advertising Policy and these guidelines "

* as you have seen above, this includes " information presented to passengers " 

Moving on, the " compliance " section then says that :

" a relevant person ( e.g. a driver ) is not required to seek prior approval from TfL for any advertisement ... unless .. ( basically unless it's a new electronic system or in a foreign language ) "

" however if TfL considers an advertisement may not comply with these guidelines, TfL may request a copy be sent to TfL ... after considering the information TfL shall determine whether the advertisement complies with these guidelines ... if TfL considers the advertisement .. does not comply.. TfL may require that an advertisement .. be removed either immediately or within a specified period "

but :

" if TfL considers that the advertisement should be removed , TfL will inform the relevant person of its decision on writing and will provide reasons ... "

The decision as to whether or not an advertisement complies is down to the " relevant custodian nominated (by TfL ".

And again :

" if the advertisement is rejected the notification ( above ) shall include details of the reasons why the custodian considered that the advertisement did not comply with the standards contained in this policy "

Rather confusingly, presumably in the wake of hundreds of cabbies driving around with " Totally failing London " or anti-app roundels, TfL in 2014 issued Notice 06/14, which is concerned with " Unauthorised Signage ". 

This states that :

" anyone wanting to display or provide any printed or written material on the inside or outside of their vehicle or to passengers , which does not meet the advertising guidelines, is required to seek prior approval from TfL before doing so "

As the arbiter of whether the guidelines apply is " TfL's reasonable opinion " then it is not clear how someone who plans on making material available in a cab is supposed to know whether the guidelines would be met or not, so whether prior approval is required or not. There will obviously be some cases where it is clear, there will be others where it is not. 

So we are down to process .

1) it would appear that TfL does have the right to require removal of materials it doesn't like, either by using the powers in the guidelines or by issuing new notices.

BUT

2) there is a formal process. If a driver reasonably considers that his materials are in compliance with TfL's advertising guidelines, but TfL do not, a reasonable decision has to be made by the appointed TfL custodian and that decision, and the reasons for it, have to be notified to the driver in writing .

The only one of the prohibitions in the guidelines that appears to have any relevance to the " TAXI " case would appear to be where :

" the advertisement contains negative references to TfL's services "

( e.g. a " Totally failing London " roundel )

It is highly debatable whether a newspaper headline stating that an Uber driver had got 12 years for rape is a " negative reference " . It is fact, not opinion, and facts are neither negative nor positive, they are just facts. It would not, therefore, appear to be unreasonable to assume that such materials do not require prior approval by TfL. 

So it would appear that a CO is exceeding his/her authority if he/she requires immediate removal of such materials for breach of guidelines. They do not have the authority to make the decision that an object is non-compliant with those advertising guidelines. That decision rests with the appointed custodian and has to be notified to the specific driver in writing on each occasion with reasons. In cases where a driver was very obviously in breach of the guidelines, he could presumably face action, but it is hard to see how that could happen if he genuinely believed ( not unreasonably ) that a newspaper was not in breach.

So if faced with a CO who runs an " Unauthorised Signage " argument, the answer is to say :

" could you tell me in what way you believe the materials clearly breach the advertising guidelines, Sir ? ... I do not believe that they do, so I do not believe that advance approval was required. If you believe that they are in breach, the process is for TfL to ask me to submit the materials to the authorised custodian within TfL for his reasonable determination, followed by his decision in writing, with reasons. Would you like my address so the relevant authorities in TfL can consider the appropriateness of such a request ? " .

I understand that Taxileaks has asked TfL some 85 times for clarification of its policy in the case of TAXI, and has received no reply. It cannot be said, therefore, that the cab trade did not attempt to put itself in a position to know whether, in the reasonable opinion of the custodian, the display of the TAXI in question was a breach of guidelines or not. If the relevant custodian at TfL made public a reasonable opinion that the TAXI newspaper was in breach of guidelines, with reasons, then I presume that drivers would no longer be able to claim that they believed it was, and COs would presumably be able to ask drivers to remove the offending object immediately. 

I hear that some COs are trying to run with the " any misbehaviour " prohibition in LHCA 1843 S28. The section says that Cabbies should not be drunk, indulge in insulting or abusive language, insulting gestures or " any misbehaviour ". The context clearly implies that such misbehaviour would be of a similar nature to the other prohibitions, i.e. some sort of " improper " conduct. While overenthusiastic rearrangement of one's trouser contents might well be considered as " misbehaviour " in this context, it is difficult to conclude that a genuine attempt to warn passengers of the dangers presented by PHV drivers, as graphically illustrated by the recent alarming figures from the Metropolitan Police, is at all " misbehaviour " ... quite the reverse. 

So the response :

" I am afraid that your statement is contextually inaccurate and no misbehaviour, as contemplated by the legislation, has occurred. " 

is called for. 

Finally, COs are not allowed forcibly to remove your property. If they genuinely believe that they have a right which they do not, then it may not be theft under the Theft Act, but it'll be illegal some way or other and they should be warned that they are committing a criminal act . 

The above is a layman's reading of the rules, legislation and practice. I don't pretend to be a lawyer, these are just " I reckon " musings and I accept no liability in their respect !

Taxi Leaks Extra Comment :

Let's remind ourselves how this issue first came to our notice.

    

And this below, is how much it's escalated

    

Taxi Leaks has asked TfLTPH via their Twitter account 85 times over two weeks, to explain what powers the CO have in regards to this issue and which legislated regulation(s) back up these powers. As yet TfL have failed to answer!

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

Earnest Ice Cream Admits Teaming Up With Uber Was A Massive Mistake

In case you haven’t heard, Vancouver’s in the midst of the biggest ice cream scandal since Bella Gelateria abruptly closed their doors a few weeks ago.

What was supposed to be a joyous day full of free ice cream from Uber, has turned into a day of public outrage due to shortages of Earnest Ice Cream’s delicious cold bars.

Yesterday, Uber announced it would be offering two free Earnest Ice Cream sandwiches to anyone in Vancouver using the ride sharing service’s app during an allotted timeframe beginning this morning – but supplies were low, and people’s spirits were even lower.

It seems the shortage has not only created negative feedback for Uber, but also for the ice cream providers themselves, Earnest Ice Cream. 

So much so, it seems, that the beloved local purveyor took to social media to apologize for making “a mistake.”

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

Alleged TfL Registered PHV Driver, Injures Police In Terrorist Attack At Buckingham Palace.

Unconfirmed reports that the Buckingham Palace terror suspect who drove at police yelling 'Allahu akbar!' was driving a TfL registered Prius.

TfL roundels seen in the rear of the terrorist's Prius.

The suspect was seen waving a 4ft sword before three unarmed hero police officers wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him with CS spray.

A terror suspect drove at police outside Buckingham Palace and yelled 'Allahu akbar' while reaching for a 4ft sword before he was arrested by three unarmed officers.

The 26-year-old from Luton was wrestled to the ground and incapacitated with CS gas by the officers, two of which suffered injuries, at about 8.30pm last night.

Metropolitan Police said the suspect had been arrested under the Terrorism Act and was currently in custody in a central London police station. 

The force revealed how the man had deliberately driven at a police van parked near the Mall roundabout in front of the palace, before stopping in front of the vehicle.

As three unarmed PCs exited the van and approached the blue Toyota Prius, the suspect reached for a 4ft sword in the footwell.

Following a struggle, the suspect and two officers were taken to hospital to be treated for minor injuries, while the third officer did not require treatment. 

Commander Dean Haydon, the head of the Met's Counter Terrorism Command, said: 'I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and professionalism of these officers who quickly brought this incident under control.

'Their vigilance, courage and the swiftness of their response demonstrates how our officers are protecting the public at this time.

'Officers from the Counter Terrorism Command are now investigating and searches are being carried out in the Luton area today.

'We believe the man was acting alone and we are not looking for other suspects at this stage.

'While we cannot speculate on what the man was intending to do - this will be determined during the course of the investigation - it is only right that we investigate this as a terrorist incident at this time.

'I would urge anybody who witnessed the incident or has any information or images that may assist the investigation to contact the confidential hotline on 0800 789 321.'

Commander Haydon added: 'This is a timely reminder that the threat from terrorism in the UK remains severe. 

'The police, together with the security services, are doing everything we can to protect the public and we already have an enhanced policing plan over the Bank Holiday weekend to keep the public safe.'

But with 120,000 TfL licensed Prius' driving round London, parking wherever they please unchecked, TfL have handed the terrorists anonymity. They don't even need to go through the process of becoming a Private Hire driver, they just turn up with the money and buy rent a registered Prius.

As we've said before on Taxi Leaks:

How long before we see this happening in Central London ?

   

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

Addison Lee Given Six Months Temporary Licence By TfL.

Addison Lee's TfL Private Hire operators licence has been extended for just six months as Transport for London considers increasing the cost of operating in the capital for mincab firms.

London's transport regulator is mulling an increase of costs for private hire vehicles with the rising number on the road and the increasing resources needed to regulate them since the arrival of Uber in the city.

Funny enough, TfL have given no thought to raising the price of a private hire drivers licence, as with over 120,000 now on the road, money has come flooding in!

Addison Lee's five year licence was up for renewal at the end of August and has now been granted for just six months, until the end of February. 

Uber's licence was extended for four months earlier this year.

“Addison Lee's licence has been routinely renewed as part of the usual course of business. The length of the licence is at the discretion of Transport for London," a spokesperson for the cab company said.

"We have been informed by the licensing authority that the six-month duration is purely to allow TfL time to consider the results from a public consultation on licence fees.”

Transport for London is holding off on renewing private hire operators licenses for the usual five-year term as it works on proposals for new rules that would drastically increase the cost of operating large fleets for such companies.

It expects the costs of enforcing rules on minicabs, the number of which has jumped by 74% since 2014, to £30m over the next five years, up from previous estimates of £4m. TfL is looking to increase the cost of the licence for firms to plug that hole as it seeks to become self-sufficient by 2019 with cuts to government funding.

The industry is awaiting the results of a public consultation on the matter, although TfL have form for taking no notice of public opinion and mostly disregard such consultation results 

TfL is also under pressure from black cab drivers, who argue Uber's license should not be renewed over the growing number of alleged rapes and serious sexual assaults by its drivers on passengers. 

TfL are currently protecting Uber's reputation by hanging on to the FOI requested stats on the massive amount of road traffic accidents involving Uber cars, until after a decision to relicense has been made.

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

TFL's Work Experience Traffic Modellers, Come Up With Nightmare Scheme...Have Your Say!

Just when the thought it couldn't  get any crazier... Just when you were thinking...'How could they possibly make congestion any worse?'.

The work experience six formers in charge of Traffic planning at TfL (not normally allowed unaccompanied on the actual streets) have played with their computer model and come up with this new harebrained scheme which we know (as professional drivers who actually spend our day caught up in the mess they create) will cause an almighty catastrophic mess 

TFL's minions say they are proposing road safety improvements on Grosvenor Place between Duke of Wellington Place and Wilton Street (but we know different from experience)

Their proposals include ridicules  pedestrian crossings at the top of Grosvenor Place and measures which they say are designed to reduce collisions involving turning vehicles. I'm surprised they didn't look at just closing the road completely. But then there would be no fines from drivers confused by unclear signage. You only have to look at the confusion currently costing £50m a year at the bank junction.

The proposal will force traffic, wanting to access Eaton Square and the Kings road and south west areas, down towards the already overused junction with Buckingham Palace Road. We predict this will cause massive queues back along Grosvenor Place to Hyde Park Corner! 

Through Traffic to that area will (for now), still be able to use the already over subscribed Grosvenor Crescent. But this will see a nightmare knock on affect along Duke of Wellington Place, similar to the traffic queues created when the road space where Knightsbridge meets Hyde Park Corner, was narrowed.

3 lanes reduced to 2, to improve traffic flow ??? They actually get paid to create this type of chaos all over London.

Game For A Laugh? ...

IN THEIR OWN WORDS:

Analysis of collision data shows that there have been a number of instances involving right turning vehicles and straight ahead northbound traffic on Grosvenor Place. To minimise the potential for such collisions, we are proposing to prohibit some of the currently permitted turns for vehicles.

We’re also proposing to make it easier for people to cross Grosvenor Place by providing new signalised crossings and a larger island on Grosvenor Place, close to the junction with Duke of Wellington Place.

Our proposals fall into five categories:

1) Banned vehicle movements to improve safety

In order to reduce potential conflicts involving right-turning vehicles, we propose to ban the following turns for all vehicles:

• No entry from Grosvenor Place into Chapel Street. We would ban the right and left turns for vehicles. Traffic counts show a maximum of 164 vehicle movements in the morning peak and 279 vehicle movements in the afternoon peak for right turning vehicles and a maximum of 31 vehicle movements in the morning peak and 36 vehicles in the afternoon peak for left turning vehicles
• Right turn from Grosvenor Place into Chester Street. Traffic counts show a maximum of 62 vehicles in the morning peak and 98 vehicles in the afternoon peak making this turn. We would also extend the existing traffic island opposite Chester Street, which would also physically prevent vehicles turning right into and out of Chester Street
• Right turn from Wilton Street onto Grosvenor Place. Traffic counts show at least 50 vehicle movements every hour between 09:00 and 19:00 - sometimes reaching 70 – 80 vehicle movements

As well as reducing the potential for collisions, the changes would also improve traffic flow along Grosvenor Place southbound.

2) New crossings and more space for pedestrians at Duke of Wellington Place
New fully accessible, signalised, surface pedestrian crossings and a larger pedestrian island at Duke of Wellington Place would provide an alternative to the existing subways, which are not accessible for mobility impaired people and are closed overnight. The larger island would also encourage drivers to slow down when approaching the gyratory

3) Larger vehicle waiting areas and lane widening

• Extend the right turn pocket into Wilton Street by 59 metres from 26 metres to 85 metres to accommodate vehicles waiting to turn onto Wilton Street without obstructing the offside lane
• By removing the vehicle waiting areas for right turning traffic at Chapel Street and Chester Street we would be able to redistribute space and widen the traffic lanes to better suit traffic conditions

4) Relocating loading bay on Chester Street
Relocate an existing 16 metres long loading bay from Grosvenor Place to Chapel Street to prevent loading vehicles blocking the northbound bus lane. This relocation is expected to improve traffic flow and bus journey times

5) Bus lane hours
Extend northbound bus lane hours of operation from 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm to Monday to Sunday 7am to 7pm to improve bus journey times and reliability. Taxis, motorcycles and bicycles would be allowed to use the bus lane, as they are at present. Other vehicles would not be able to enter the bus lane (including for parking and loading on single red lines) during the operating hours.

Please have your say by clicking on the link below, but going on other TfL consultations, they won't take a blind but of notice and just carry on regardless. 

Have your say, click link below:

Online Survey

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2wb8WZa
via IFTTT

Great News For Clean Air For London Campaign. TfL Have Confirmed Bank Holiday Weekend Bus Strike.

Great news for cleaner air for London campaigners. Transport For London have confirmed that their Bus Staff will be striking over the bank holiday weekend. 

Last time London buses went on strike the air pollution registered in central London fell by 50%.

This below from The Telegraph.

Londoners' bank holiday plans are due to be severely disrupted as Transport for London confirm their staff will be on strike over Sunday 27 and Monday 28 August.

The strike will see over 400 Unite members walk out, including staff responsible for re-routing buses due to major events, roadworks and accidents. With major festivals like Notting Hill Carnival and Clapham's SW4 taking place over the three-day weekend, travel chaos could erupt across the capital.

Bus station controllers, network traffic controllers, revenue protection inspectors, infrastructure controllers and road transport enforcement officers involved will begin their walk-out at 00:01 on Sunday, with the strike expected to last 48 hours.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2w8ktZ1
via IFTTT

A TfL Uninsured private hire driver from Luton who touted for business ‘put public at risk’

A Transport for London licensed private hire driver who was operating in Luton has been prosecuted by Luton Borough Council licensing service. 

On 15 August at Luton Magistrates Court, Mohammed Baho of Wimbourne Road, Luton pleaded guilty to two separate offences of Touting for Hire and No Insurance at London Luton Airport on 26 October 2016 and 5 December 2016, where he picked up passengers from the Drop off/Pick up zone of the airport, that had not been booked through an operator. 

Both Hackney Carriage and Private Hire drivers are only allowed to pick up passengers from the airport that have been pre-booked.

For the offence of Touting for Hire on 21 October 2016, the magistrates disqualified Mr Baho from driving for 6 months, and imposed a Band C fine of £245 based on his weekly income.

For the offence of No Insurance on 21 October 2016, he was given 6 points on his licence, but there was no separate penalty fine.

For the offence on 5 December 2016 of Touting for Hire, Mr Baho was disqualified for 12 months from driving and a band C fine of £245 was imposed, based on his weekly income. For the offence of No Insurance, his licence was endorsed with a further 6 points and he was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £30 plus costs £600.

The total fine imposed was £1,120.

Mr Baho was informed that he now had a total of 18 points on his licence (including previous points), which therefore disqualified him from driving for a minimum period of 12 months.

Mr Baho was told that if he drives, he will commit a serious offence and would face further prosecution.

He will be required to apply to the DVLA for new licence at the end of the disqualification period, as his current licence no longer valid.

Mr Baho offered to pay £100 a month towards his fine and total costs, with the first payment to start on September 1.

Service Director for Public Protection at Luton Borough Council, Sarah Hall, said “The licensing service actively works to protect the safety of customers and supports legitimate and local businesses. 

“This enforcement operation found a Transport for London driver operating illegally at London Luton Airport with no insurance and no bookings, therefore putting the public at significant risk and this was reflected in the Magistrates decision

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2w71bmY
via IFTTT