TfL To Change Legislation In Order To Suit Private Hire Ride Share Apps.

After the recent exposes from Tim Fenton, which shows us that not only have Uber been operating illegally all along, but that TfL knew about this, did and said nothing in a massive cover up. 

We now find that TfL are actively changing the regulations to suit Ride Sharing App companies. 

Can't confirm to existing legislation....no problem we'll just change it to suit you !

TfL has published a new policy statement setting out how private hire and ride-sharing services can operate in the Capital :-

This is in response to changes in the private hire industry and the many new services being offered. 

It has been designed to ensure London remains the world leader in regulating taxi and private hire services while maintaining the safety of passengers.

The private hire and ride-sharing market has been transformed in recent years as new technology has made it easier and cheaper to book rides through apps, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people opting to use private hire services. An increasing number of services are also emerging in London that include ride-sharing, in which passengers share vehicles and pay separate fares.

Current legislation was introduced before these technologies were developed and TfL recognises the need for clarity on what is now required to ensure the highest possible standards are maintained.

Helen Chapman, 'Interim' Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging, said: ‘The private hire market is unrecognisable from when current legislation was introduced. The growth of ride-sharing and other advances mean that regulation has to be fit for the next decade and not the last. 

Our vision sets out clearly how we will manage these new developments that improve convenience for customers, while ensuring safety remains our top priority. The document also makes clear that any new developments in the sector have to fit with the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.’

With companies illegally licensed, passenger sexual attacks including rapes from PH drivers up by 50%, data hacking, tracking passengers after they've left the vehicle, the GreyBall program, customer credit card fraud and massive increases in road traffic accidents, TFL's record to date is shockingly poor!

TfL is already progressing new regulations to assess private hire drivers and applicants on safeguarding, disability, equality and knowledge of private hire legislation as part of an enhanced driver assessment package.

It is also already considering proposals

for consultation in relation to an advanced driving test, private hire operator fleet insurance and private hire vehicle signage, and the impact of removing the Congestion Charge exemption for private hire vehicles.

To ensure regulation keeps up with the rapidly evolving private hire sector, licences may be issued for shorter periods during the programme of regulatory reform. Any advances in convenience for the customer have to be accompanied by the appropriate protections for passengers. 

Taxi Leaks Extra Bit : 

There have been calls for motorbikes to be able to use the capitals new system of segregated cycle lanes in order to bring down the shocking number of fatalities to riders and passengers. 

Can't wait to see the reaction from the cycle lobby when they find out they may have to share their cycle super highways with scooters, mopeds and motorbikes. 

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

Safety Campaigners Allege TfL Withheld Key Audit Report From Tram CrashInvestigators

A transport safety campaigner has accused Transport for London of suppressing vital information related to the causes of the Sandilands tram crash by keeping secret an audit report into the events of November 9, 2016, even to the point of not releasing the information to its own investigation into the fatal derailment.

Seven people were killed and all 62 other passengers on board sustained injuries when a tram travelling from New Addington to Wimbledon left the tracks on a sharp bend approaching the Sandilands stop 18 months ago.

Now, transport campaigner Tom Kearney, has accused TfL of withholding a key report, from June last year, from the official Rail Accident Investigation Board and its own internal investigators. 

The report was a safety audit of the fatigue risk management system operated by FirstGroup, the company which operates the tram system on behalf of TfL. Driver fatigue was a key area of investigation into the causes of the Sandilands crash.

Tom Kearney: wants explanations

According to Kearney, “The description of the problems which prompted the nine  management actions detailed in TfL’s excellent internal audit conducted in June 2017 and published on September 15 last year reads like ‘Nine Billboards in Front of Croydon Town Hall’.

“If TfL management were truly interested in understanding the origins of the Croydon tram crash, I cannot think of any reason why they insisted that this document be issued as ‘restricted and confidential’ to only a handful of managers.

“And why they did not make this important piece of evidence available to the RAIB and their own independent investigator in time for their own investigations completed last December and January.

“I am especially concerned that Leon Daniels, until recently TfL’s managing director for surface transport, told a TfL safety panel that the audit, ‘did not give rise to any concerns’.  

“If that’s indeed the case, then why was the audit not released, at least to the investigators?”

Leon Daniels: he should face scrutiny questions in Croydon next week

A question submitted last month to Mayor’s Question Time by London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon revealed that Internal Audit IA 17 1780 – to give it its full titles – was  released to the RAIB, SNC Lavalin (the independent investigator brought in by TfL), the Office of Rail and Road and British Transport Police only on February 12 this year.

Pidgeon has followed up with another MQT asking why the audit wasn’t released sooner. This is due to get a response by the end of this month.

Next week, Sean Fitzsimons, the Addiscombe councillor who chairs the council’s scrutiny committee, is holding a session at the Town Hall on the tram network, including the Sandilands crash. Kearney has suggested that Fitzsimons should invite Daniels to answer questions about the withheld audit report and the reasons for its delayed release.

Kearney asked: “Improving the safety culture of TfL surface transport will depend on such public scrutiny from our elected representatives. Just think about it: how many more “Internal Audit IA 17-1780s” are gathering dust in TfL filing cabinets?”

Tom Kearney is an award-winning public transport safety campaigner, himself a survivor of a TfL bus crash, who can be found on Twitter @comadad 

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

Uber Britannia Limited withdraws York licence appeal

Uber Britannia Limited (UBL) today withdrew its appeal against the decision by York City Council (December 12 2017) refusing to renew its PHV operator’s licence.

Background & Chronology

On 24 December 2015 The City of York Council issued a 12-month PHV operator’s licence to UBL. On 21 December 2016 the council’s Licensing and Regulatory Committee renewed UBL’s York PHV operator’s licence for a further period of 12 months (i.e. expiring on 23 December 2017).

Between the 2016 renewal of UBL’s licence and consideration of the 2017 application for further renewal, York Council received a substantial number of complaints relating to Uber drivers/vehicles operating in York. A significant number of these complaints were that ‘out of town’ Uber driver and vehicles (i.e. licensed by authorities other than York) were plying for hire in York.

Complaints about ‘out of town’ Uber drivers working in York included complaints about drivers/vehicles licensed by:

• Bradford: 44 complaints.
• Leeds: 33 complaints.
• Kirklees: 10 complaints.
• Rossendale: 6 complaints.
• Newcastle upon Tyne: 5 complaints.

In each of the above instances, the relevant licensed operator was UBL.

By letter dated 6 December 2017 the York Taxi Section wrote to York Council to draw its attention to reports of a worldwide data breach in which some 57 million Uber account-holders’ personal details, and some 600,000 Uber driver details were stolen by hackers in October 2016. The letter pointed in particular to –

• Uber’s payment of $100,000 ‘ransom money’ to the criminal hackers.
• Uber’s failure to report the crime to the police or regulators.
• Uber’s failure to inform the victims of the data breach until a year later.
• Uber’s remaining silent about the breach during its discussions with TfL when consideration was being given to the renewal of Uber’s (ULL) London PHV operator’s licence.

Other objections by York PHV associations

The York Hackney Carriage Drivers Association and the York Private Hire Association and (among many others) appeared at the licensing hearing on 12 December 2017 to object to the renewal of UBL’s licence. The issues raised by the associations included:-

• that the Uber business model unlawfully requires PHV bookings in York to be accepted by Uber drivers;
• that Uber drivers licensed by other authorities were working in York on the Uber platform (“the cross-border issue”) in the full knowledge of UBL and at their behest;
• that traffic and parking issues arose as a result of these activities;
• that UBL were unable to explain who passengers contract with or who accepted bookings;
• that Uber’s activities affected the physical and online safety of its customers;
• that when questioned by other authorities about its operating model, UBL withdraw applications;
• that evidence has been given by Uber in the Aslam litigation and elsewhere that bookings were backfilled by Uber after they had been accepted by drivers;
• that driver involvement in the booking process contravened a standard condition imposed by the Council on PHV operator’s licences that an operator is not permitted to accept bookings forwarded by a PHV driver;
• that inadequate background safety checks were carried out by UBL; and
• that Uber have improperly used ‘Greyball’ and other software to restrict access to data when regulatory checks were carried out by authorities.

The decision

After deliberating in open session, York’s Regulatory and Licensing Committee refused (by majority) to renew UBL’s York PHV operator’s licence under section 62(1)(b) LGMPA 1976, namely “conduct on the part of the operator which appears to the district council to render him unfit to hold an operator’s licence.” The committee’s reasons may be summarised –

• The failure by Uber to inform the relevant authorities until November 2017 of a serious data breach that occurred in 2016 (and which affected York users of the Uber App) rendered UBL unfit to hold a PHV operator’s licence.
• The increasing number of complaints received by York Council about private hire vehicles operated by UBL and driving in York gave rise to concerns about the proper management by UBL of its drivers.

Additional grounds of refusal under section 62 of the LGMPA 1976

Section 62 of the LGMPA 1976 provides: –

62   (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act a district council may… (on application therefor under section 55 of this Act) refuse to renew an operator’s licence on any of the following grounds: —

• any offence under, or non-compliance with, the provisions of this Part of this Act;
• any conduct on the part of the operator which appears to the district council to render him unfit to hold an operator’s licence;
• [material change in circumstances of operator; conviction of immigration offence, etc.]; or
• any other reasonable cause.

If the appeal had not been withdrawn, the associations would have submitted that there were compelling grounds for the refusal of UBL’s operator’s licence under section 62(1)(a) and 62(1)(d).

The Appeal: applications by York PHV associations to participate

UBL appealed the decision to the magistrates’ court. The York Hackney Carriage Drivers Association and the York Private Hire Association were not statutory parties to the appeal: applications to participate were therefore made by them and were due to be heard by the Chief Magistrate on 20 March. The issues which the associations wished to raise included UBL’s non-compliance with the Act (section 62(1)(a)) and the undermining of the principle of local licensing (section 62(1)(d)).

Non-compliance with the Act

It was the associations’ case that UBL actively sent Uber drivers, equipped with the Uber driver’s APP, to work on the Uber platform in controlled districts in which neither UBL nor the drivers are licensed under the 1976 Act. In so doing, UBL were potentially guilty of offences under section 46(1)(d) – i.e. making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings in a controlled district without holding a licence from that district. Section 62(1)(a) is triggered.

Other reasonable grounds for refusing to renew

The associations also claimed that UBL encourageddrivers not licensed by York to carry out PHV bookings in York (where UBL hold an operator’s licence). Further, that UBL similarly encouraged drivers to go to other controlled districts in which they, but not the drivers, are licensed, in order to wait for PHV bookings. The associations would have submitted that UBL’s active encouragement and employment of ‘out of town’ drivers who are not subject to York’s licensing requirements seriously undermined the principle of local licensing control that underpins the legislation. Section 62(1)(d) is triggered.

In Shanks v North Tyneside Borough Council[1]Latham LJ said that a central purpose of the 1976 Act is “that the authorities responsible for granting licences should have the authority to exercise full control” over all vehicles and drivers being operated within its area. In Blue Line Taxis v Newcastle upon Tyne City Council[2] Hickinbottom J said that “the hallmark of the licensing regulatory regime was localism.”

Notwithstanding representations by the associations, local councillors and committee members expressing concern at the undermining of local control and the lowering of locally imposed standards because of an influx of ‘out of town’ drivers, the licensing committee was advised that their decision was “not about the arguments for and against drivers out of town operating in the City.”. The licensing committee was further told that their decision was “solely about” whether UBL was a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The licensing committee does not appear to have been referred to the grounds of refusal given by section 62(1)(a) & (d).

If anyone want an LTR window stick send your address by DM to @mirna0405 and we’ll get one sent out to you.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2FB2P8q
via IFTTT

Unauthorised PH Booking Desk Removed From LAP Terminal By BAA

Taxis have been getting shafted at Heathrow with new mobile PH desks on the terminals.

Wasn’t really a great advert for PH as passengers were seen waiting here for anything up to half an hour for their car, while vacant Taxis were available in the rank outside. 

Who were behind the signs, which company were servicing the desks, who gave permission ??? 

We have been reliably informed that certain “colleagues” were responsible for allowing this booking desk. 

The LCDC airport reps are now trying to ascertain just who these “colleagues” are.

Good news today:

The desks were removed this morning after Marshals informed BAA of the unauthorised signage.

   

We have been told Taxi Marshalls will continue to monitor the situation, and all relevant information will be passed on to BAA regarding any unauthorised signage in future. 

London Cab Drivers Club airport rep Jamie Hawes said:

“The LCDC will always take action on behalf of the trade at Heathrow and we are assured that these desk are to be removed permanently”.

A blast from the past:

Taxi booking desks....should they be restored to all terminals ?

But....are they needed now all Taxis take credit and debit cards?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2pf5ae7
via IFTTT

Residents Disregarded As Oxford Street Consultation Results Finally Out.... By Gerald Coba.

Oxford Street Consultation results are finally out! 

Although 61% of Westminster residents are completely against pedestrianisation of Oxford Street! and with only 22% having said “Yes” to the madness, again residents wishes, will be pushed aside (as we've seen previously by Camden in Fitzrovia).

The WCC agreed to hold a 'joint' consultation of 'shoppers' and 'residents' but now, as we've seen many times in the past, consultations showing adverse results mean absolutely nothing in respect to decisions made by TfL and the Mayor.

Already CityAM and the Standard are hailing the consultation which encompassed shoppers, tourists and people from outside the borough a massive 2 out of 3 success. 

In the Mayor's eyes, it's essential to their future plans to make coming to Oxford Street for shoppers, more attractive on the new Elizabeth line, than sitting on a bus in gridlock congestion.

We have been reliably informed that Westminster City Council are now saying they were/are only in favour of the 'joint' consultation and NOT the pedestrianisation !

As WCC actually own Oxford Street, the Mayor will now have to invoke special powers to take over the street, should he wish to do so. 

So, what has caused WCC apparent change of heart?....could it be that they never expected such a massive response from residents within the joint 20,000 responses ?

We are also reliably informed that the only reason WCC agreed to a joint consultation was because the Mayor was holding a gun to the councils head by initially threatening to take over control of said street. 

Will Westminster City Council, on behalf of their residents, actually fight against the Mayor's plans?

Or will they just concede?

It will now be very interesting to see what the Mayor's PR team do next to appease the influential resident response to the consultation. 

In the eyes of local residents, the plans SHOULD be dead in the water, but don't forget Khan is not a man of his word.

Was he not going to be the Mayor who ran Uber out of town, should they commit just one error of compliance!!! (Obviously before being elected to office).

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2p6v3xk
via IFTTT

2010 Old Bailey Judge Says " The safety of the public is our prime concern & central to our application of the fit & proper person test"...by GreenBadgeJohn .

I was sorting out stuff in my garage and came across an old Taxi Newspaper dated 27th July 2010 with the headline "Killer off the Knowledge".

Having read it over again, I was not only reminded how well we all did at the time with a drive-in protest at the PCO at Penton street in getting a wife killer off the Knowledge, but it also showed joint cooperation with the unions LTDA, Unite, & LCDC & very importantly the PCO, who on seeing the depth of outrage in our trade prompted an immediate independent review. 

This resulted in the individual being removed not only from the knowledge but had his private hire licence revoked.

This decision was subsequently upheld by City of London Magistrates Court, but it was later challenged by the private hire driver/ Knowledge student, under legal advise. 

On 16th July 2010, the appeal took place at The Old Bailey & the newly appointed PCO director John Mason (with his experienced Legal team) argued their technical legal case of revocation for several hours in court and the Judge ruled for the PCO.

The astonishingly important words the Judge said back in 2010 -years before Uber came to London- which lead to the revocation decision on this drivers Private hire licence is so relevant I had to repeat them now.

On Summing up the previous record of the Knowledge/Private hire driver the Judge said:

"The Appellant is a Paranoid schizophrenic who admitted strangling his wife 10 years earlier, he was given an unrestricted time hospital order but was released after 3 years by a mental health review tribunal, in 1991 he was fined £15 for exposing himself in a public place, in 1998 he was conditionally discharged fro assaulting a Police officer and in 2009 he was cautioned for slapping his daughter,and 2 motoring convictions in the past 5 years (jumping lights & speeding).

This was the compelling part of the judges summing up statement:

"When taken individually, these convictions would not disqualify him, but in combination, I think it reasonable to say that they have much greater significance and call into question his personal and driving character.

The safety of the public is our prime concern & central to our application of the fit & proper person test.

We find that the applicant is not a fit & proper person to hold a licence & we therefore dismiss the appeal.


Now, with all the aggregated chicanery, algorithm interferences, withheld sexual customer feedback & downright fraudulent actions, does the fit and proper description go hand in glove with the last 5 year Uber licence under the judges summing up above?

TFL themselves now realise how bright the spotlight of legal propriety shines on themselves & re-percussion will undoubted fall upon them for previous failings & maleficence as we all closely watch their every move.

What a pity PCO honesty latterly became subjective according to the highest bidder.

Be lucky,

greenbadgejohn (on twitter)

    

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2Ij0ooG
via IFTTT

United We Stand... You Couldn’t Make It Up

Recent revelations from Tim Fenton on Zelo Street blog, publishing stacks of evidence of corruption and collusion on the part of TfL, showing they have known since 2013, that Uber have been operating illegally and unlicensed, but chose to say and do nothing.

Call me optermistic but I was expecting to find our wonderful New United Trade Group leaders, at 9o/c this Monday morning, banging on Mike Browns door, United in their demands for an immediate revocation if Uber’s London Licence and and order for their vehicles to cease and desist from operating within the TfL regulatory area. 

But instead, I woke to news that the UCG general secretary and committee have called for the LCDC to be expelled from any further meetings with other groups within the UTG. Surely this couldn’t be the wishes of their members?

We now have the evidence we’ve been waiting for. Under current legislation we could see an end to Uber with top TfL directors and managers, past and present under investigation for malfeasance!

But instead, the short sightless and foitball supporter attitude of certain trade representatives are again fragmenting our trade. 

As if to rub salt into the womb, this post appeared on Twitter congratulating the LCDC action group on the fantastic work they’ve been involved in. 

Unfirtunately, the congratulations were short lived as news broke in a reply to the UCG tweet, from LCDC chairman Grant Davis shown below. 

Thank you, but your leader Mr Merralls & Committee have emailed the Club informing us they will no longer sit down with us at meetings? I am sure this is not what the membership of the UCG would wish for at this important time surely? 

Again, we will witness defeat, dragged from the jaws of victory by a vindictive individual with an agenda against another org. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2HnIU9p
via IFTTT