Uber pulls controversial feature that allowed passengers to be tracked for five minutes AFTER their journey

• The change restores users' ability to share location data only while using the app. 

• The change is to be rolled out to Apple iPhone users starting this week. 

• Uber is trying to fix its poor reputation for customer privacy. 

• Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of Expedia is set to become Uber's new chief exec. 

Uber is pulling a heavily criticised feature from its app that allowed it to track riders for up to five minutes after a trip, according to a new report.

The change, which restores users' ability to share location data only while using the app, is to be rolled out to Apple iPhone users starting this week.

It comes as Uber tries to recover from a series of crises culminating in the dismissal of Chief Executive Travis Kalanick and other top executives while the company tries to fix its poor reputation for customer privacy.

An update to the app made last November eliminated the option for users to limit data gathering to only when the app is in use, instead forcing them to choose between letting Uber always collect location data or never collect it.

Uber said it needed permission to always gather data in order to track riders for five minutes after a trip was completed, which the company believed could help in ensuring customers' physical safety. 

The option to never track required riders to manually enter pickup and drop-off addresses.

But the changes were met with swift criticism by some users and privacy advocates who called them a breach of user trust by a company already under fire for how it collects and uses customers' data. 

Uber said it never actually began post-trip tracking for iPhone users and suspended it for Android users.

Security Officer Joe Sullivan said Uber made a mistake by asking for more information from users without making clear what value Uber would offer in return.

Dara Khosrowshahi, the CEO of travel-booking company Expedia is set to become Uber's new chief executive, sources have told Reuters.

The location-tracking update is unrelated to executive changes, said Joe Sullivan, Uber´s chief security officer, in an interview with Reuters. 

Mr Sullivan and his team of about 500 have been working to beef up customer privacy at Uber since he joined in 2015.

'We´ve been building through the turmoil and challenges because we already had our mandate,' said Mr Sullivan, who is a member of the executive leadership team that has been co-running Uber since Kalanick left in June.

An update to the app made last November eliminated the option for users to limit data gathering to only when the app is in use, instead forcing them to choose between letting Uber always collect location data or never collect it.

Uber said it needed permission to always gather data in order to track riders for five minutes after a trip was completed, which the company believed could help in ensuring customers' physical safety. 

The option to never track required riders to manually enter pickup and drop-off addresses.

But the changes were met with swift criticism by some users and privacy advocates who called them a breach of user trust by a company already under fire for how it collects and uses customers' data. 

Source : Daily Mail 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2wfG0AU
via IFTTT

Why Are The Local Authorities Not Dealing With Vehicles From Out Of Town? ...by Les Ward.

Let’s go back to 1976, the year that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was born, the very Act to regulate the Private Hire industry. 

At the start of the debate in regards to this Act, it was referenced by Lord Sandys which the title was held by a Mr Richard Hill of the Conservative Party “the prologue to Plain Words, by Sir Ernest Gowers. 

What he said was this—and I quote his exact words:  Whatever the purpose, the object of the writer will be the same: to make the reader take his meaning readily and precisely”.

I will not bore you with every word in this debate, but what is no surprise is that a lengthy argument was had in regards to the late submission of Part 2 of the LGMPA 1976 in this Act and that very little if anything was consulted upon with the trade at the time, not unlike the Deregulation Act 2015. In fact it was EXACTLY like the discussion for the Deregulation Act 2015 (I know because I am a boring git and read all the Hansard reports on both).

What did come from this, is the fact that each area was allowed to ‘adopt’ the Act and the ones that did then came under the Acts' regulations and the argument to support this was very simple:

Each area can and will have differences in requirements of Vehicles, Drivers and Operators because each of the sections to license those 3 parts of the Private Hire industry have a section for each which states;

A district council may attach to the grant of a licence under this section such conditions as they may consider reasonably necessary.

So let’s look at what this brings us to basically, the intention of the discussions in the Bill before it came to an Act was to ensure that each area kept its own individuality when it adopted the Act. 

This was to support the notion that each area would have different requirements for mainly the driver and the vehicle, such as a driver may not require a knowledge test of the area because the area was so small or very rural or that another area because of the economic climate for the industry did not consider that a driver could afford to replace his vehicle every 5 years. Keep this in mind, we will be coming back to it soon enough...

I want to jump forward a few years now, because up to 2008 the status quo was stable and everyone got on with their own business and in their own licensing area, although the Hackney and Private Hire ‘them and us’ was always there, it was not to the extreme that it is now.

2008 brought the case that I am sure regular readers are aware of, between Newcastle & Berwick upon Tweed, where it was argued (and defeated) that a Hackney can work in any other district as a Private hire Vehicle, well I have my own argument on that which also cover’s the ‘cross border hiring’ or ‘triple license rule’

2012, now that was a year, wasn’t it?

In 2012 Uber were licensed by TfL to operate as a Private Hire company, although they always state that they [Uber] are a Technology Company… pfft, yeah right…

Now here is where the trade, both Taxi and Private Hire failed themselves greatly, because while it launched in London, the rest of the country didn’t see it effecting them. And when it did effect the rest of the country, London didn’t want to join forces. Divide & Conquer at its finest.

From 2012 Uber have grown in numbers so much that London are now considering a new charge to combat pollution and gridlock, to me this a knee jerk reaction to the Genie that they don’t think they can put back in the bottle. 

They are too scared to deal with Uber, as I will remind you all that many other countries and Cities have dealt with them around the world. Some have simply banned them completely for not operating within the regulations that they have while others have actually changed the regulations to suit the Uber model (even paid Australian Taxi driver’s compensation) but the UK has done neither, why not?

So, Uber spread across the UK into towns and cities, but let’s be honest, the towns that they are licensed in are not areas that they wish to actually Operate in, they just want the drivers licensed there to work in the bigger Cities à la London and saturation therein ensues. 

This is because Uber's model is not as efficient as they would like to claim. Given the absence of any facility to pre-book or build in a lead time during periods of high demand, the system is reliant on oversupply in order to obviate surging in these periods. The end result is oversupply and saturation which forces drivers to work dangerously long hours at low rates.

The low rates themselves are intended to encourage longer working hours that exceed fatigue thresholds before earning thresholds are reached.

They don’t sub contract bookings like companies do when using for example, a Hackney licensed in another area as a Private Hire driver…oh wait, they changed the law in the Deregulation Act 2015 to sub-contract work from one licensing area to another, I have no idea why in 2008 no one argued that the sub-contracting of work to a Hackney was illegal because the Hackney was licensed elsewhere, or perhaps an Authority relies on its local legal counsel to make argument and they basically are not good enough for the big boys that companies hire…just guessing.

Therefore Uber take bookings and give to drivers in any area licensed by any authority that Uber have an Operator’s license with. Yes, we know the driver accepts the booking, because Uber have told us but that’s not enough for an authority to decide that the Uber platform is illegal and revokes its licence, because they don’t want to send their local legal team up against the countries paid-for finest and lose! 

I mean, when a head of a licensing department has licensed Uber what’s he going to look at, the legal cost or his pension fund?

So back to the bit above, if each local area adopts the Act of 76, then each local area works under the local area conditions, as mentioned before.

Therefore how can a driver licensed in, say Wolverhampton, work in Sheffield, when he and his vehicle licence are to the conditions of Wolverhampton and not Sheffield?

The Act is clear where it states that each authority must keep a record of licences, if it was not with the intention to work within that local area then why was a national data base not required when the Act was written?

You see, it’s the intention and spirit of the Act that is what we are regulated by, not just the wording of it (important part for any authorities legal team to note should you be reading this).

Another little quirk in the wording of the Act that is used consistently throughout is the word ‘a’.

It’s not ‘any’ or ‘all’ it’s the word ‘a,’ the indefinite article and this little one-letter word is pretty important when dealing with Law and Acts.

Follows is a little English lesson, given to me by a good friend Mr Steven Toy when we discussed this matter, I had to learn so you lot can too.

​An article (a, an, some, the) gives information about the noun in the noun phrase. It can:

• Tell us how many there are; if the article is “a” or “an,” we know there’s only one.

• Tell us whether the noun in question is a specific one or just one in general.

• Signal to a reader or listener that a noun is just being introduced or that it’s one he’s already seen in a story.

In the wording of the LGMPA 76 it is always followed by ‘district council’

 

District means

an area of a country or town that has fixed borders that are used for official purposes, or that has a particular feature that makes it different from surrounding areas:

 

So we have at all times in the LGMPA 76

 

​‘a district’

 

Which then means

 

​A (a specific) district (area of the country that has fixed borders)

So as you can see, the wording is important to this argument, it means that each licence is a licence to the area where it was issued and has its conditions attached to it. It’s not a licence to work anywhere just because technology advancements enable it to.

     

I keep reading that technology has surpassed the law, well my car can do 140mph but they have not increased the speed on the motorways, and why? 

Because of the safety to the public!!

By the way, as you can see in the picture, they are quick enough to enforce that law, don’t you think?

Now really, am I looking at this through a different window on my PC to everyone else or is the ‘triple license rule’ really just an excuse that the authorities have jumped on because they don’t want the legal challenge?

So what’s stopping anyone challenge this?

Well, we all are to be honest.

We have way too much diversity and apathy in this trade, and all the while the triple license rule and Uber's working model are becoming more of an accepted way of life instead of an argument that needs addressing.

Only last week, when I challenged one of my local Licensing Officers about Uber and its operating model in regards to the driver accepts the booking, his answer was that they licensed them 2 years ago so what’s changed for them to question the licence?

Apathy from the authorities, not just the trade…

This needs to go through a court of law, and quickly. I will be happy to hold my hand up and say I was wrong if I am proved wrong, but somehow, I don’t think I will be.

How it gets to court is up to all of us, and with the correct representation too, the expensive bit.

But who do we chose?

Well, while one or more of the Orgs decide the best plan of legal attack, and my little Association will not be one of them, I am afraid. Perhaps now is the time for a truly national, cross-tier demo; one showing the whole country that enough is enough. 

A date is set, plans are drawn up and we all join in, regardless of what membership you pay or even if you don’t pay a membership. The time is ripe for this action to be taken; bring the country to a standstill.

Hackney and Private Hire stood together for the first time ever, not against each other but against what is destroying both of our livelihoods, that’s Uber and the likes of TfL and Wolverhampton who facilitate this saturation through greed of income at the expense of public safety, a saturation that puts people’s homes, families and ultimately lives at danger for reasons stated above.

That brings me onto authorities such as Wolverhampton, they disgust me and I believe could cost the Labour Party vital votes for any future Elections (Wolverhampton are a Labour Council)

September last year. I read a Wolverhampton Press article where Councillor Alan Bolshaw stated that the removal of the knowledge test will bring thousands more applicants, but don’t worry, they won’t work in Wolverhampton…. 

And by the way MR Bolshaw, I emailed you in September and have twice asked for a reply, at least have the decency of replying if you are going to flood my City with your vehicles.

 

Now the judge in the famous Berwick v Newcastle case said that;

 

“It seems to me it is very difficult to exercise proper control over hackney carriages which are never, or rarely, used in the prescribed area.”

 

Well that goes exactly the same for PHV, to which Wolverhampton and TfL (among others) are equally as guilty of issuing licenses that they cannot possibly enforce.

 

This is supported by the Local Government Associations Handbook for authorities on licensing this trade and has been in their handbook since 2010.

 

First,  I will show you the figures from an FOI that I sent to Wolverhampton regarding the licenses that they have issued.

 

Now that’s a 466% increase, what a surprise that Uber were issued a license in 2016 with Wolverhampton.

 

And here is a picture of the places that TfL licensed drivers live in the UK.

 

 

So how do these authorities take the license fee from these drivers and then police the drivers and the vehicles? They cantand to me that’s a failure in duty of care, or perhaps maladministration.

Now we compare this map with the map of Ubers Operators licenses….

Sorry, but if I can see what’s happening here and bring this information together, then why can’t the local authorities or the government? 

Who is protecting the public, the people paid to do so or the people that pay them to do so…some irony there I think.

 

Now I know what authorities are thinking and saying, others let Uber work like this so it must be all ok and therefore we will too.

 

Really?

 

Well, funny enough, that very same handbook from the LGA was updated very recently and now includes this under the Operator Licensing: Checklist for Councils

Now I may be wrong here, but are not all the suggested checks EXACTLY what myself and the Trade have been banging on about for a few years now?

Surely if the LGA are suggesting that these need to be taken into consideration then they are questions about the legality of Uber and its world-wide App…remember, I still have that fishing rod….

Let’s expand that a little shall we?

Uber, relicensed for 4 month…

Addison Lee, relicensed for 6 month…

A license is issued if you are deemed as fit and proper to hold such license, its not issued as a temporary license because a consultation on costs is under way, its granted on what the conditions are at the time.

Do they really think that we are so stupid here?

These companies, especially Uber could have to pay around #2.4 million for a new license after the consultation and new fees are put in place, and have not appealed the 4 month license, why?

 

Seriously…WHY?

 

I will tell you why, because TfL have said to Uber, don’t argue about the 4 month license and we will give you the 5 year license but it will cost you #2.4 million…but at least you are still licensed…

Let’s take another snippet from the LGA to ponder here;

You see, it’s not up to the licensing authority to decide what is true or even legal, it’s up to the courts, but the authority cannot make that judgement and should act on accusations, like the well-known saying goes, there is no smoke without fire. 

Just look to Europe and all the countries that have banned Uber to see the smoke, then look at the Toronto case for the fire, with Jo Bertram fuelling it with her confirmation that the driver accepts and Uber back fill in the Tribunal about workers’ rights.

If this was a case brought before the CPS they would be jumping all over it with this kind of evidence.

I will leave this for now, I am sure I have given you all enough to ponder.

 

Do me a favour though if you will, instead of just reading this, send a link to your local MP, your head of Licensing and its Chairman (a quick finder is on Taxi Leaks side bar for your MP).

 

Let’s get everyone asking these questions and quickly.

 

Be safe out there, and don’t worry Semtex, I may have been quiet between rounds mate, but I am still swinging those punches.

And a big thank you to ‘Monsters Inc’ you know who you all are….

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2wFNEp0
via IFTTT

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