UPDATED: Brighton and Hove lLcensing Panel Considers Uber Relicensing In All Day Meeting.

AN all-day meeting of the Brighton and Hove city council licensing committee has heard from taxi companies who want Uber’s Licence revoked because it is not “fit and proper.”

Customers speaking in support of the ride-hailing app praised its convenience and user-friendliness. Well they would do, they don't care about safety or regulation....they just want cheap.

But opponents have cited a data breach and a lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles as reasons to pull the licence, which was first granted in November 2015. Also to be mentioned is the fact that Uber allows 13,000 of its London drivers onto their books knowing they have fake criminal record checks and many have had fake medicals.

Chairwoman Cllr Jacqui O’Quinn told the meeting that even if the council revokes the licence, Uber drivers licensed elsewhere will still be entitled to operate in the city.

After lunch Uber barrister Philip Kolvin said the company was not trying was not trying to “skirt round” the city’s regulations. Makes a change from their normal policy of "it's easier to seek forgiveness than permission". 

He said Uber had regionalised its business and prevented London-licensed drivers from operating in the city. But speaking to local drivers, his is far from the truth as TfL roundels can be spotted daily on many vehicles working the Uber app.

Uber have tried bribing their drivers, offering them up to £1,000 to switch from a London licence to a Brighton licence. 

The company said they will have 20 wheelchair accessible vehicles by the time it has 100 drivers here. It currently has only has 62 with WAV few and far between.

A decision will be announced on Wednesday.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2JiG6LE
via IFTTT

Tilehurst Private Hire Company Fined For Operating In Reading With Expired Transport For London Roundels

A Tilehurst Privat Hire company has been heavily fined for breaking the rules.

In a routine inspection, licensing officers spotted a silver Mercedes Vito operating as a school transport vehicle outside The Holy Brook School in Ashampstead Road, Southcote.

On closer inspection, the officers realised the car was displaying an expired Transport for London private hire vehicle licence plate.

The operation, carried out by Reading Borough Council's licensing officers and legal team, then managed to track down the offenders.

The men responsible have both been slapped with fines for breaking the rules at separate hearings in Reading Magistrates Court.

Anthony Roe, 51, of Lower Armour Road, Tilehurst, the operator of 1st Class Cars, was found guilty in his absence of operating a private hire vehicle without a current licence, during a hearing on Monday, April 9.

He was fined £800 and ordered to pay legal costs of £1,500 and an £80 victim surcharge.

Clarence Harry, 63, of Halls Road, Tilehurst, Berkshire, the driver of the Mercedes Vito, appeared before magistrates on Thursday, April 12, and was found guilty of driving/plying for hire without a licence.

He was fined £120 and ordered to pay legal costs of £120 and a £30 victim surcharge.

The council's licensing officers are regularly out and about in the borough carrying out checks on private hire vehicles, their drivers for the safety of all their customers.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2JiI3YF
via IFTTT

Sunday Special Report: We've All Heard Of Uber's GreyBall Program, But What actually Is It

Greyball is a software tool used by the ride-hailing service Uber to identify and deny service to certain riders, including riders who Uber suspects of violating its terms of service. 

Uber's use of Greyball was made public in a March 3, 2017, investigative report by The New York Times, which described how, as early as 2014, Uber had used Greyball to evade local government authorities in the United States, Australia, South Korea, and China. In the days following the publication of the New York Times story, Uber admitted that it had used Greyball to thwart government regulators and it promised to stop using the tool for that purpose.

Uber reportedly developed Greyball to identify individuals who Uber suspected of using its service improperly, and it began using the tool as early as 2014. According to Uber, Greyball can "hide the standard city app view for individual riders, enabling Uber to show that same rider a different version." Uber claimed that it used Greyball to deny service to individuals suspected of violating the company's terms of services, such as people seeking to harm Uber drivers, disrupt Uber operations, or carry out law enforcement actions against Uber drivers. However, after The New York Times revealed Greyball's existence in March 2017, Uber said it would stop using it to evade local government regulators.

According to the New York Times report, which was based on interviews of four current and former Uber employees and a review of internal Uber documents, Greyball used several methods to identify and deny service to government officials who were investigating Uber for violations of local laws. Those methods included:

* Geofencing. Uber would create a digital map that identified the locations of city government offices. If a potential rider attempted to hail a ride from the area around a government building, Greyball would flag the individual as a possible law enforcement agent.

* Mining credit card databases. If Uber identified a credit card as being associated with a government agency or police union, it would flag that individual in Greyball. 

* Identifying devices. Since government agencies would often buy cheap cellphones for use in sting operations, Uber employees would visit electronics stores to obtain model numbers for inexpensive phones and input those model numbers into Greyball. 

* Searches of social media. Uber employees searched social media profiles to identify possible law enforcement agents. Uber then flagged those individuals in Greyball. 

* Eyeballing. Greyball would determine if a potential rider had been opening and closing the Uber app numerous times without calling for a ride.

In May 2017, several news organizations reported that the United States Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into Uber's use of Greyball to avoid local law enforcement operations.

Transport for London (TfL) cited use of Greyball in London as one of the reasons for its decision not to renew Uber's private hire operator licence. The decision states that the way in which Uber uses Greyball contributes to it failing to meet the standards of a "fit and proper" private hire operator. 

Consequently, Uber would not be able to operate legally in London after its licence expired on 30 September 2017 unless they entered an appeal within 21 days. Uber challenged the ban in court and are currently still working even though they've been cited as not fit and proper by the licensing authority. 

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2HQu9gK
via IFTTT

Electric Scooters Are Giving U.S. Cities Uber Déjà Vu

Uber CEO Had Secret Meeting With Mike Brown In January According to FOI Request

LONDON (Reuters) - London’s Transport Commissioner Mike Brown met Uber [UBER.UL]boss Dara Khosrowshahi in January, a freedom of information request revealed, as the Silicon Valley app fights to keep its cars on the streets of its most important European market.

Uber is battling a decision by the city’s transport regulator last September to strip it of its licence after it was deemed unfit to run a taxi service, a ruling Uber is appealing.

Since then Uber has made a series of changes to its business model, responding to requests from regulators, including the introduction of 24/7 telephone support and the proactive reporting of serious incidents to London’s police.

Khosrowshahi flew to London in October for discussions with Brown after which Uber promised to make things right in the British capital city.

The pair had a second meeting in London in January, according to a response to a freedom of information request from Reuters.

“The Commissioner met with Dara Khosrowshahi on 3 October 2017 and 15 January 2018, both meetings took place in London,” Transport for London (TfL) said.

A TfL spokesman declined to provide an immediate comment on what was discussed at the meeting. Uber declined to comment.

Reuters had asked for a list of every meeting which had taken place between Uber and TfL’s private hire team and/or Brown since Sept. 22 but TfL declined to release such details.

“We are not obliged to supply the remainder of the information requested in relation to meetings as it ... relates to information where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions ..,” it said.

A court hearing over Uber’s appeal is due this month before the substance of the appeal is heard in June.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2HgDRvI
via IFTTT

News From Unite Union Cab Section... Uber Illegally Granted A Booking Office Licence In Glasgow.

Yesterday at the Burgh Court, Uber Scot Ltd was illegally granted a Booking Office Licence, in breach of the The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Booking Offices) Order 2009. 

In an assault on the democratic process, the Licensing and Regulatory Committee, advised by Licensing Solicitor, Mairi Millar, refused to hear three objections from Unite the Union Cab Section, Glasgow Taxis Ltd, and Greater Glasgow Private Hire Association. Objections were late as the statutory notice was only viewable on the door of 69 Buchanan St for 21 days. The notice was not in the print media, not on the GCC website, in fact it had no online presence anywhere. It was preposterous to expect anyone to notice an A4 sheet on the door of an inconspicuous office building on a pedestrianised shopping thoroughfare.

Despite objections being late, Glasgow City Council Licensing & Regulatory Committee has at its discretion the power to hear late submissions. All three objectors were only allowed to give the reasons why the objections were late, but forbidden from mentioning reasons for objecting. Glasgow Taxis Ltd Solicitor, Tom McIntaggart, put up an extremely convincing argument for hearing the objections, citing examples where GCC Licensing had accepted late objections in the past. 

Councillors who voted against hearing our objections and denied us the right to be heard were as follows:

Baillie John Kane, Scottish Labour Party, Govan (5)

Baillie Hanif Raja, Scottish Labour Party, Pollokshields (6)

Cllr Aileen McKenzie, Scottish Labour Party, Springburn/Robroyston (17)

Cllr Robert Connelly, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Calton.

Those councillors that believed in the democratic process and wanted to hear our objections were as follows:

Cllr Rhiannon Spear, Scottish National Party, Greater Pollok (3).

Cllr Graham Campbell, Scottish National Party, Springburn/Robroyston (17).

Gary Gray, Scottish Labour Party, Canal (16).

Special mention to Cllr Rhiannon Spear who made clear her concerns over aspects of Uber’s operation and was clearly unhappy with what transpired.

Just to recap, all traditional taxi and private hire companies in Glasgow are registered at their respective licensed premises in Glasgow for the booking, dispatch and payment of fares. This means that they are within the jurisdiction of Scottish law enforcement and the Scottish legal system. It also means that they are subject to UK tax and VAT.

Uber is the exception. Glasgow work is dispatched from Uber BV in the Netherlands, trip data is recorded by Uber BV in the Netherlands, payment is taken by Uber BV in the Netherlands, and a receipt is issued by Uber BV in the Netherlands. Glasgow City Council yesterday licensed a sham booking office that attempts to legitimise dispatch of work from an unlicensed foreign company, Uber BV. 

Yesterday Uber’s Solicitor pointed to 4 million trips taken in Glasgow since it started. Some crude arithmetic based on an average of £5 per trip:

4M x £5 = £20M

Uber’s cut (25%) after drs are paid =£5M

UK Corporation tax @21% on £5M ~£1M+

UK VAT @20% on £20M = £4M

So, with what we admit are very crude workings, Uber has avoided UK tax and VAT in the region of £5M in Glasgow alone, in the 30 months it has been operating. That is starving the public purse of much needed revenue for schools, hospitals, housing etc. Glasgow City Council Licensing not only had solid legal grounds to reject Uber’s application, it also had a strong moral case to reject it. 

Don’t take our word for Uber’s illegal operation in Glasgow. At the November, 2017, Joint Taxi and Private Hire Trade Meeting, GCC Licensing Solicitor, Mairi Millar, stated that Uber Britannia Ltd did not satisfy the criteria to hold a Booking Office licence. Well the Licensing Solicitor can now make that two illegal booking offices ‘operational’ in Glasgow now.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2Hd5SED
via IFTTT

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF OWNING AN ELECTRIC CAR - SO IS IT REALLY CHEAPER THAN A PETROL OR DIESEL?

As electric vehicles rise in popularity, so does the price to run one - and motorists are being hit with extra charges

DRIVING an electric car might seem like a cheaper option, but drivers are being hit with hidden costs as the motors become more popular.

The number of electric vehicles on British roads has risen by 33 per cent in the last year, but that’s been matched by a hike in charging costs

The majority of public charging points no longer offer free electricity, with plug-in drivers now forced to fork out for monthly subscriptions to power up their motors.

In some cases, drivers can expect to pay as much as £17 per month subscription in addition to charging fees.

According to a study by What Car?, the cost to charge a Renault Zoe ZE40 to 80 per cent varied largely depending on location.

They found motorists could pay as much as £17.46 to use a Source London Flexi – fast (7.4 kW) charging station, or as little as £7.70 for a Polar Instant – fast (7.2 kW) charger

The price to charge an electric car also varied depending on whether or not there was a registration fee, and whether the cost was charged by monthly subscription, by the hour or by kWh unit cost.

Research found that public charging could cost drivers twice as much as if they were to power up their vehicle at home

But a lack of public parking means many motorists are forced to pay public charging rates.

Steve Huntingford, Editor at What Car? said: “Plug-in electrics are still relatively new to consumers and so they might not be as clued up as they would be with a petrol or diesel equivalent.

“Plug-ins should remain an extremely worthwhile and affordable investment for many, but it’s essential that prospective owners are doing their research and making sure they’ve got the right car for their needs and lifestyle.”

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2qKlvZe
via IFTTT