TfL...Nothing To See Here....Can You See Something Wrong With This Picture. By Jim Thomas

Do you remember in magazines such as Take a Break, there used to be a section that showed a photo or illustration with the by-line "can you see something wrong in this picture......

At the Trade Meeting with Mike Brown on Wednesday, TfL Said that drivers who hold DBS certificates supplied by Onfido do in fact hold a fully "bona fide" enhanced DBS and in their (TfL's) eyes, they are OK to carry on as Licensed Private a Hire Drivers.

This was refuted yesterday by Mayor Khan who said "the 13,000 disputed DBS certificates, provided by Onfido  were indeed NOT enhanced". 

Seems someone is lying again!!!

Can you see something wrong with this picture???

Now, even though, in their (TfL's) eyes, nothing was wrong with the faked enhanced certificates, they have asked (nicely) that the drivers with the face DBS certificates resubmit new non-fake ones and they have given these Minicab drivers, 28 days grace to do so. 

Can you see something wrong with this picture???

Let's just remind our selves of another little scandal that was swept under the carpet at Palestra 

This is the headline from the Sun newspaper 2nd October 2016.

ROGUE GPs are coining it from minicab and Uber drivers by lying on vital forms about their fitness to carry passengers.

Three doctors caught by The Sun were happy to sell a faked medical all-clear — required to get an official cab licence.

This ran parallel with the fake topographical tests organised to grease the way of applicants to fill the ranks of Uber Prius', was preceded by the on/off HR insurance lie from Leon Daniels and proceeded by the Sexual assaults and a Rapes escalation of Uber drivers, which reveal an incident rate of one sexual attack by an uber driver on a passenger, every 11 days. 

Can you see something wrong with this picture ??? 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2vR5nKE
via IFTTT

Is The Taxi Trade On The Verge Of Extinction ......Again ?

The London Taxi Trade on the very verge of extinction....shock horror....from the advance of technology and the onslaught of electric, driverless cars....

Now where have we heard all this before? 

The story below was sent to my by Stanley Roth, published in the Taxi Trade newspaper "The Steering Wheel" 49 years ago, predicting a so called new concept of a driverless Taxi, routed by computer....yes this really was 49 years ago. 

At that time, Dr L R Blake, director of Bush Electrical Engineering said the driverless Taxi would be on the road within 4 years....well as Stan says, we are still waiting. 

He also raises a very interesting question? 

Article from the Steering Wheel :

     

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

Sadiq Khan Linked To Uber ? : Mayor's Night Time Commissioner "Has Conflict Of Interest" Over Uber Case

LBC has discovered that Sadiq Khan's Night Time Commissioner is representing three Uber drivers in a court case.

Pre-eminent barrister Philip Kolvin QC was appointed by the Mayor of London last December and advises on the project to make London a 24-hour city, bringing together pubs, nightclubs, the police and transport - including Uber.

But it now appears there could be a conflict of interest in Mr Kolvin’s role as Night Time Commissioner because he is representing Uber drivers in court, with those drivers are having their legal costs met by Uber.

Conservative MP and former Transport Minister Theresa Villiers says the London Mayor now needs to review the appointment. She told LBC: "I have concerns about what I've heard bout Philip Kolvin's involvement in defending Uber drivers in court.

"He's got a perfect right to do that, but I do worry that this gives him a conflict of interest regarding his role on the Mayor's Night Time Commission.

"I think the Mayor needs to look at the situation. I'm not sure it's really credible for Mr Kolvin to continue with these cases if he's going to continue with his role as Commissioner."

LBC's Political Editor Theo Usherwood explains: "My initial focus was on the Berkshire town of Reading. That's because in March last year, its council refused to grant Uber an operator's licence on the grounds it wouldn't guarantee having an office in the town staffed on a daily basis.

"As a result, Uber launched the Reading Reward Zone - promising the first 150 drivers to cover the town between £15 and £25 per hour. That led in June to council officers catching two men, who pleaded guilty and were fined £500.

"But now another two Uber drivers are being prosecuted by the council. One of the men is due to go to trial in November. Both are represented by Mr Kolvin QC.

"He is described by the Legal 500 as the “standard-bearer” when it comes to licensing, and I’ve been told by other barristers his fees will run into the thousands of pounds for a day’s work. My source at Uber has told me that they’re paying their drivers’ legal fees in this case.

"To be clear - Nobody is calling into question Mr Kolvin’s professionalism as a barrister.

"But the appearance of a conflict of interest centres on his role as chairman of the Night Time Commission."

Keith Prince, the Conservative chairman of the Greater London Authority’s Transport Committee told me that because Uber has more cars on the road than any other minicab company, it would inevitably have an interest in the Night Time Commission’s work.

He said: "Is this the right position to have where you have someone who will, in his role as Night Time Commissioner, be looking at contracts across London and looking at how the night-time economy works.

"No one can deny that Uber has an interest in how the night-time economy work."

Mayor's office insists there is no conflict.

A spokesman for Mr Khan told LBC that Mr Kolvin has declared all of his interests with the GLA and provided advance notice about the impending case between the Uber driver and the LTDA. As a result the GLA's monitoring office has also reviewed the issue and concluded there is no conflict.

The spokesman also said the Commission had no decision making powers. In reference to the Bexleyheath hearing, the spokesman added: "Philip stands by his undertaking not to carry out any work for Uber in the capital and that is not breached by acting for this individual.

"There is no conflict of interest in acting for a London citizen in a taxi licensing prosecution and chairing a Commission advising on the future of the night time economy in London." 

Uber's licence to operate in London is up for renewal at the end of this month. Transport for London will make the decision on allowing them to continue. If it doesn't, Uber faces a lengthy legal battle to stay in business in the capital.

Source LBC. 

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

Start-up raises £14m to trial driverless taxis on London's streets

A technology company that hopes to put driverless taxis on the roads of London by 2019 has raised £14m, the biggest investment in an autonomous car start-up in Europe.

FiveAI, a Cambridge-based company founded last year, has secured the funds months after winning millions of pounds in government support to fund trials of a driverless taxi service in the capital.

Despite being a minnow compared to the likes of Google and Uber, which are investing billions in their own driverless car programmes, it hopes to gain a foothold in the UK by teaching its cars to navigate the peculiarities of British roads.

“It’s a medieval city, the topography, objects and the behaviour of people in London are different to those of Phoenix, Arizona,” said Stan Boland, FiveAI’s chief executive.

The company is raising the funds from the European venture capital firm Lakestar Capital, as well as Amadeus Capital Partners, run by Acorn Computers founder Hermann Hauser.

It is gradually developing its driverless car technology and plans to run a trial of 10 cars in an outer borough of London in 2019, allowing passengers to order rides in the same way they use Uber and other taxi-hailing apps.

A consortium led by the company that also includes Direct Line, the University of Oxford and Transport for London won £12.8m from the departments for business and transport in April as part of a government push to support driverless cars.

Mr Boland, a serial entrepreneur who founded the tech companies Element14 and Icera before selling them to chip firms Broadcom and Nvidia for $640m (£491m) and $367m respectively, said he hoped to expand across Europe while Silicon Valley companies were focusing on American cities.

On Tuesday, a separate driverless car group led by software group Oxbotica said it planned to test driverless vehicles between London and Oxford in 2019.

It’s the year 2025. Your driverless car has just crashed into a tree at 55mph because its built-in computer valued a pedestrian’s life above your own. Your injuries are the result of a few lines of code that were hacked out by a 26-year-old software programmer in the San Francisco Bay Area back in the heady days of 2019. As you wait for a paramedic drone, bleeding out by the roadside, you ask yourself – where did it all go wrong?

The above scenario might sound fanciful, but death by driverless car seems inevitable. In May this year, semi-autonomous software failed in the most tragic way: Joshua Brown’s Tesla Model S drove under the trailer of an 18-wheel truck on a highway while in Autopilot mode.

Read more at http://ift.tt/2eMnbPJ

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2xQpTZ4
via IFTTT

TfL Have Lost Control... Should They Be Replace As Regulatory Body? : Part 2....by Lee Ward

Remember this reply from Chelsee at TfL?

Dear Mr Ward

Thank you for your email response of 17 October 2016.

When booking a private hire vehicle, the passenger is deemed to be entering into a contact with the licensed operator who is inviting the booking and then fulfilling it with a licensed driver and vehicle. When accepting a booking, by whatever means, the operator is obliged to make a record of it at their licensed operating centre. The details of contracts between passengers and specific licensed operators are a matter for those two parties.

In accepting the booking and taking the payment, there is, in our view, what amounts to a contractual arrangement between the operator and the passenger. We will not comment on any specific contractual arrangements between the various parties.

As previously advised, Uber London Limited is registered as a private hire operator in London, having met the same pre-licensing requirements as any other applicant for an operator's licence and is subject to all legislation which applies to private hire operators in the Capital.

Yours sincerely


Chelsee Mckinlay
Ends.

As they agree and admit, the contract is between the customer and the person/company that invited the booking....INVITED the booking....

So, if Uber California or Taxify are the people that own the App which INVITES the booking to be made and then passed on, then THOSE companies require and Operators license as explained above.

The total disregard to this by TfL and any other authority is beyond any comprehension of the trade and requires immediate action. 

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

TfL Have Lost Control... Should They Be Replace As Regulatory Body....Plus, Taxi Leaks Poll Results

Taxify have now been allowed by TfL to transfer an operators Licence in the face of legislation laid down by parliamentary act. 

They have also been allowed to ply for immediate hire using an app, under a name which also is against the PHV act 1998 and which has seen a number of TfLTPH notifications. 

TfL have shown that they are toothless an as a consequence, technology disrupters will walk all over the Taxi and Private Hire industries. 

If our regulators can't regulate, then they need to be replaced by an appointed body that can.

Transport for London London Taxi and Private Hire

Advertising - Private Hire Services

Despite repeated reminders and clear guidance and advice issued by Transport for London (TfL) we continue to receive a high level of complaints, information and evidence showing that some licensed London private hire operators continue to advertise their services using words ‘taxi’ or ‘cab’.

TfL will always take appropriate action against those licensed operators who commit such an offence but such activity is very time consuming, is not a cost effective use of our resources and has a direct adverse impact on the private hire licence fee.

Operators are therefore reminded that they are not permitted under any circumstances to use the terms ‘cab(s)’, ‘taxi(s)’ or any words closely resembling these terms in advertisements and that they must comply with section 31 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

Failure to do so can result in the revocation of your operator license and / or legal action.

I thank you for your co-operation with this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or queries regarding the above.

John Mason

7 September 2010 Director, Taxi and Private Hire

For previous notices visit tfl.gov.uk/tph

Again we would like to inform all operators that the advertising of their services in this manner is clearly not permitted under the conditions set out in section 31 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

This section clearly states that no private hire advertising can use the words ‘taxi’, ‘taxis’, ‘cab’ or ‘cabs’, or words closely resembling any of those words, and that any person who contravenes this is guilty of an offence.

Result of Taxi Leaks Twitter Poll

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2gGN6W0
via IFTTT

Has Taxify Put TfL Between A Rock And A Hard Place ???

Between Scylla and Charybdis... 

By Lee Ward

That’s where Transport for London find themselves now Taxify has ‘launched’ in the Capital.

You see, Taxify are using the argument against Uber being illegal while promoting their own illegal activity, yes, I know, you couldn’t make this up could you.

This, puts TfL into a place that they were dreading to be put, because now another investor backed company is in the frame and these are putting a different spin on the debate.

Yes, we know the word Taxi cannot be used for Private Hire advertising, but to be honest, that argument is a no brainer and simply detracts from the rest of what is going on.

Let’s take a close look at the advert that Taxify have sent out first;

They are admitting here that they are not an operator, and that each driver must have their own Operators License, or be registered to work under the Operator’s License previously owned by City Drive Services.

Now I say previously owned because an Operator’s License is not transferable and Taxify have stated that they have a shortcut to operate in London by acquiring City Drive Services.

Shortcut, any self-respecting Taxi or Private Hire driver in the UK, if not the world, hates to hear that any company has taken a shortcut. A shortcut is what we drivers do to avoid traffic and assist the public, it’s not what companies should do to avoid legislation and assist illegal activity.

Illegal activity, from a company that has had plenty of money invested in it? 

Surely not!

Well, yes. Look again at the Taxify advert above, it clearly states that in its current form it is a Technology Company that ‘connects’ rider’s, oops, I mean the public with partners…oops again, I mean drivers. But I am sure you can see why I keep making that mistake, can’t you?

To remind Taxify of the regulations that they bypassed while buying City Drive, it states at the introduction of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 that;

(b)“operator” means a person who makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of, or who accepts, private hire bookings[F3; and

(c)operate”, in relation to a private hire vehicle, means to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of, or to accept, private hire bookings in relation to the vehicle.]

Therefore, Mr Villig, unlike the rest of the cities that you operate, London requires you to be a licensed Operator to enable you to ‘invite’ or ‘accept’ a booking. 

And before you say that you are only passing on this information to Taxify, oops, here I go again, City Drive, you must also be a Licensed Operator for them to be able to accept from you, honest, you do, it says so here.

(4)In this Act “private hire booking” means a booking for the hire of a private hire vehicle for the purpose of carrying one or more passengers (including a booking to carry out as sub-contractor a private hire booking accepted by another operator).

I Know it's that pesky legislation, but this is where the Scylla and Charybdis comes in you see, because is this not what Uber do also?

An Uber company, for ease of explanation we will call them Uber California, gives everyone a free App that allows them to request a driver to collect them, but the booking goes through the Licensed Operator which is Uber London Limited. We all know that it is back filled after the driver accepts, let’s be honest here, TfL know this too and do everything but admit it.

So, if they [TfL] allow Taxify to operate then they will be breaking the legislation by a company using the word Taxi in its name, and the fact that the same company is not a licensed Operator to invite bookings.

But that then means that Uber California are doing the same as Taxify and inviting bookings while not licensed to Operate. 

Now they can’t go back on that argument can they, unless new evidence came to light of course, like the evidence that has been there for 5 years but ignored and not acted upon.

Well, what do you guys think, is a company that calls itself a Technology Company breaking the legislation by inviting someone to request a Private Hire Vehicle through an App?

Can an unlicensed Operator give a Licensed Operator a booking request?

Can TfL get out of this one?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2wG8Vg6
via IFTTT