Businessman says Manchester Airport's drop-off charges have added £50 to his monthly Uber bill

A businessman who travels through Manchester Airport every week says the cost of his minicab rides have gone up by £50 a month since new drop-off charges were launched.

Michael Cowell, 34 from Altrincham, travels regularly in his role as a furniture design company director.

Last month, hub bosses introduced ‘kiss and fly’ drop-off charging, with drivers paying £3 for five minutes or £4 for ten minutes - and £25 for stays over that.

The airport has long had a £4 minimum car parking charge in place. But drivers used to avoid paying this by using forecourts to pick up - against airport rules.

However forecourts have now been taken over by the drop-off charging bays - which means drivers picking up passengers now have no choice but to pay.

Michael now claims Uber drivers he has used are passing on both pick up and drop-off charges - plus a premium for waiting time - taking his average journey cost from £17 to £23, and his monthly outlay from around £136 to £184.

And that’s when Michael can even get a cab - he says Uber drivers have started to refuse pick-ups from T3 because of the inconvenience and cost.

He added: “Last week fifteen different Uber drivers cancelled on me and I had to get a black cab for £31 because Uber drivers have started to boycott T3 to avoid the hassle of going through the car park now the forecourts are no-go areas.

“Between Manchester Airport’s policies and Uber I’m much worse off. There must be loads of people in the same boat.”

(Image: Manchester Evening News)

The dad-of-two, whose work takes him to destinations across the UK, Ireland and France, added: “It sounds like small costs but it adds up pretty quickly for someone like me.

“I understand the airport needs to pay for its expansion but this new parking system hasn’t gone down well.

“It’s harder to drop off and it’s harder to pick up because you are now forced through a car park. It’s expensive.

“I’d like the airport to make it work better and review the charges because they’re unfair.”

He added: “I’d like to see the director of the airport comment on this. I’ve got this old-fashioned mentality that the leaders of an airport should get involved when there’s clearly a problem.

“Yet when I complain I just get this stock answer which doesn’t address my complaint.”

A Manchester Airport spokesman said private hire companies were responsible for setting their own fares and that drivers can apply for a discount scheme.

The spokesman added there was a free drop-off option at the Jet Parks 1 which cab drivers can also use to avoid fees.

A Manchester Airport, spokesman, said: “As we developed our new forecourt arrangements, we considered the interests of a significant number of user groups. This included frequent commercial users, such as private hire operators, for whom a discount scheme was developed.

“While it is the decision of each private hire firm whether they pass on this discount, it was our intention in creating the scheme that passengers would be the ultimate beneficiaries. We will continue to monitor the situation.”

An Uber spokesman confirmed drivers were passing on the charges from the airport, but declined to comment further

Source Manchester Evening News.

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

Keep It In The Family Arbuthnot. Baron James asked To Return Excessive Expenses... A Blast From The Past !

James Arbuthnot, the chairman of the defence select committee, has been asked to pay back £12,241 in gardening, cleaning and maintenance claims that have been deemed “excessive” by the independent auditor.

The member for North East Hampshire, who went to Eton and is the second son of a baronet, was not told how much he should repay for other claims, however, and has offered to give back £13,486 in total.

Mr Arbuthnot designated a rented property in a Hampshire village as his second home in 2007, which he told the fees office was “an expensive house to run”.

He submitted one hand-written invoice for a three-month period, for "grass, strim, pool, fuel'', which came to £776. The bill for these services for the whole 2006-07 financial year was pounds £1,471.

When The Daily Telegraph disclosed his claims, he said he had made an “error of judgment” in using public funds to clean his swimming pool and promised to repay the money.

Related Articles

Tory MP David Wilshire to resign over expenses 15 Oct 2009

Mr Arbuthnot has been told by Sir Thomas, who has been brought in to assess all claims made under the second home allowance since 2004, that he must pay back £5,840 for gardening services that exceeded his retrospective limit of £1,000 a year.

He was also asked to pay back £5,238 for cleaning services after going over the £2,000 annual maximum set by the auditor, and just over £1,000 for a maintenance bill about which he was asked to provide further details.

Mr Arbuthnot said Sir Thomas did not suggest an amount he should repay for other bills - such as repairs to a summerhouse that the auditor says were not claimable because it was not attached to his second home - so has suggested figures himself.

He told a local newspaper that he had been asked to repay £12,241 but proposed to pay back £13,486 in total. He has already paid back £10,106 since June.

In a covering letter to Sir Thomas, Mr Arbuthnot said: “I have consistently supported efforts to ensure the expenses system is replaced with procedures which are fair, honest and transparent.”

Source :-

MPs' expenses

News »

UK News »

Martin Beckford »

In MPs' Expenses

How the Daily Telegraph exposed the dry rot fraudster

MPS' expenses: the most bizarre claims 

Bizarre MPs' expense claims

Mother and son both claimed for flat owned by her daughter  

Keeping it in the family

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

The Real Reason Judge Emma Arbuthnot Stepped Down. SPD Complaint 13/07/2018

Below is Sean Paul Day's letter of complaint to the Judical Conducts Office.

Why is it that again, an ordinary rank and file working driver has had to do what drivers are paying their respective orgs to do. 

I’m writing amidst the growing concern over what appears to be a conflict of interest where certain political affiliations might be construed as showing favour in respect of a particular company,  undermining the Chief Magistrate’s impartiality in two cases.

 

Senior District Judge (chief magistrate) Emma Arbuthnot oversaw proceedings at Westminster Magistrates court on the 6th July 2018 and Reading Magistrates Court on the 10th July 2018. The first case was brought by Uber as a matter of  appeal under the Private Hire Vehicles Act 1998 and by Reading Council in a case to determine if a driver using the Uber ‘model’ on the dates given was Plying for Hire? Both cases can be found here 

 

Case 1

https://is.gd/mFN22t

 

Case 2

https://is.gd/UuR5mA

 

The conflict arises due to Magistrate Arbuthnot’s marriage to Baron James Arbuthnotand his friendship with the former PM David Cameron. Cameron’s close relationship with individuals working for Uber in marquee positions is well documented. This is further evidenced by Uber’s close links with  the previous administration at Number 10 & 11  who now enjoy financially rewarding positions with companies who invest heavily in Uber Technologies Inc. Cameron also nominated James Arbuthnot as a Life Peer in the Dissolution Peerages List 2015 of August 2015. The concern is that JamesArbuthnot’s closeness to the former PM might compromise Magistrate Arbuthnot’s ability to apply discernment in cases involving Uber. The concern is legitimately heightened on learning the same Magistrate has presided over a second trial involving Uber and both times Magistrate Arbuthnot has ruled in Uber’s favour. 

 

Without considering the merits of both cases in detail the conflict of interest was compounded on during the Reading verdict when Judge Emma Arbuthnot on Page 4, section 14 (how the app works)…in her summary stated that it was the driver who accepts the job and only then Uber makes the booking. This is illegal act that contravenes  legislation laid out as part of the 1998 PH Regulations.

 

TfL Operator License explicitly state in their terms that a Private Hire booking can only be accepted by a licensed operator at their registered operating centre.. There is a specific duty on private hire operators to keep certain records of their operation. These include booking records which must include ‘the main destination specified at the time of the booking’ (paragraph 4(d) of the PHV (London) (Operators’ Licence) Regulations. To disambiguate, the defining characteristic of a PHVs is that it must beaccepted through an operator. The Act also references  that no person other than a Private Hire Operator (PHO) shall make provision to accept a booking.  

 

No person shall in London make provision for the invitation or acceptance of  Private hire bookings unless he is the holder of a Private Hire Operators license for London (In this Act, referred to as London is PHV operators license

 

A  person who makes provision for the invitation or acceptance of Private hire bookings or who accept such a booking in contravention of his section is guilty offence and liable  on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level four or standard style.

 

The statutory structure/definition is referred to frequently by TfL and was referenced in the legislative provisions before Justice Ouseley. 

 

CITATION Number: [2015] EWHC 2918 Admin Case No: CO/1449/2015. 

 

Conversely, at the earlier trial on the 6th, Magistrate Arbuthnot was unhesitant in her acceptance of an explanation that Uber had altered its app, and was now equipped with a feature informing the user that the booking had been accepted by Uber London LTD (ULL). Only afterwards is the user linked with a driver. If this is the case, and as yet there is no evidence to suggest it has been altered,  the app would now comply with current legislation. 

 

This I starkly inconsistent with  ‘the driver accepts...then uber confirms the booking…‘nevertheless, Arbuthnot ruled that his actions did not constitute plying for hire. Itshould be noted also that Uber do not hold a PHO licence in Reading. 

 

The case holds gravitas as a ruling either-way could detrimentally impact on the lives of tens of thousands of sole traders and their families. It would also elevate a corporate entity to a position that resides above the law of the land. The concern here, is that a certain ruling will be used to determine future  Government policies which are relevant to both cases.

 

Whilst the complexity of the issue  – such as what constitutes a Hackney Carriage- cannot be understated and until such clarity can be addressed in the Courts, it would be easy for perspicacity to prevail and weight the trial in favour of vested interests. A seismic shift culturally, in the way we move about has implications that reach far beyond taxi and minicab rivalries, and a Magistrate influenced  by a conflict of interest could prove to be a very dangerous one

 

I trust the matter will be looked in to. 

 

Yours Faithfully

Sean Paul Day

London Taxi Radio

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2L9rLlg
via IFTTT

LCDC Chairman Grant Davis Calls For a uber Re-Trial After Vested Interest Claim In National Press.

As news broke yesterday (which we already new) that Uber appeal Judge Emma Arbuthnot and her husband had a vested interest in the Minicab App Uber, first one up to the plate was the London Cab Drivers Club. 

They took to social media:

Once again it surfaces of “vested interests” & the Cab Trade maybe not getting a fair hearing in the Courts over UBER - Plan B ?

Drivers immediately were calling for action on the street and one prominent trade rep said "I’m sure someone’s arranging the placards as we speak".

London Cab Drivers Club Chairman Grant Davis, made this statement earlier this morning:

The Taxi trade needs to come together and Demonstrate against yet another injustice we have had to endure. We need a full investigation from the legal Ombudsman and a Re-trial .

Complete stitch up again.

It will be very interesting over the next few days to see if Reading Council call for a re-trial after their verdict from Emma Arbuthnot went again in Uber's favour!

Read the damming article which appeared on-line in the Observer yesterday. 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/18/uber-judge-steps-aside

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

Andrew Boff Says He Wants Level Playing Field With Uber If He Becomes Mayor

In his piece for 1828UK the openly gay Assembly Member has championed the Uber platform even though they discriminate against the LGBT community. 

He also talks about a level playing field which will achieve more choice and cheaper prices.

If this man becomes Mayor, it will be the final nail in the Taxi trade coffin. 

Tory Assembly Member Andrew Boff, writing for 1828UK.

Technology is constantly evolving. This is certainly the case in London, with private vehicle hire or ride-hailing services. It would be a backward step not to embrace this technology, which offers more choice and cheaper travel options for Londoners, but it must operate under the same rules as Black Cabs.

In order to achieve cheaper travel, there needs to be a level playing field between ride-hailing services and Black Cabs. Without this, Black Cabs struggle to compete with private vehicle hire, and consumers have less choice in terms of their transport options. When I am Mayor of London, I will ensure that ride-hailing services and Black Cabs are treated equally.

The benefits of apps like Uber are clear: they are often cheaper, they are easy to use, and they are efficient. The simple fact that Uber has soared with huge profits in London makes the most convincing case that it is what Londoners want. In fact, 3.5 million people are registered with the service, which approximately equates to half of the adult population of London. This should not be a battle between whether we love our Black Cabs more than Uber. What we want more than anything is choice.

Private vehicle hire offers a solution to Londoners who, for whatever reason, do not have a suitable public transport alternative. But consumers must be provided with a choice in these services. Clear evidence that ride-hailing services save Londoners money can be seen by comparing the price difference between a Black Cab journey and an Uber journey from Victoria Station to City Hall.

In this example, the Black Cab fare would be approximately £23, whereas, if you were to use Uber, the journey would cost between £9-13. If Uber were to lose its full licence in London, it could cost Londoners an additional £89.5 million a year in Black Cab fares. It would also significantly inconvenience Londoners who do not live somewhere served by a significant number of Black Cabs. I cannot support something which would inconvenience Londoners and cost them a lot more money.

Moreover, a restriction on ride-hailing services in London would have a profound impact on all those employed as private vehicle hire drivers in London. Uber, the largest, (but not the only) ride-hailing service in London, employs 45,000 drivers alone. If Uber is not granted a licence to operate in London by Transport for London, not only would Sadiq Khan be working against the consumer, but he would also be responsible for the consequent job losses that would result in a collective loss of £864 million a year in earnings. Besides this monumental economic loss, it is also worth noting that 90% of the 45,000 drivers working for Uber in London say they are satisfied with their employer.

In order to ensure that adequate and fair regulations on all providers in the ride-hailing industry are enforced, I will split the licensing function off from TfL into its own organisation, answerable to me, with a remit for never compromising on public safety, and I will invite the London Assembly to scrutinise its operation and give a voice to interested parties.

I would expect the new organisation to improve vehicle guidelines and driver checks, including more effective complaints procedures in order to address poor service and performance at the same level as Black Cabs. These guidelines would also allow Black Cabs to do more in order to compete with the ride-hailing industry in London. To save the Black Cab, we must first embrace the ride-hailing industry.

Embracing the private vehicle hire industry with open arms is instrumental in allowing London to soar as a business hub, and to improve the lives of Londoners who require that form of transport. Offering consumers more choice in their transport options by allowing companies such as Uber and myTaxi to continue operating in London saves our residents and commuters money and time. Ride-hailing services offer clear benefits in increasing the quality of life of those living and working in London. What is not to like?

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2Bnhbr9
via IFTTT

Greater Manchester Brings Forward Proposals For Clean Air Plan

Greater Manchester is expected to bring forward its proposals for addressing air pollution in the city region in the coming weeks, elected members heard yesterday (16 August).

At a meeting of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s Planning, Housing & Environment Committee, officials were presented with an update on the Greater Manchester Clean Air plan, which is being overseen by Transport for Greater Manchester.

TfGM is leading the development of the plan on behalf of seven of the ten Greater Manchester authorities who were named within the government’s NO2 plan as being required to act to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions. A finalised Clean Air Plans is due to be presented before the end of the year.

Papers released ahead of yesterday’s meeting indicate that options under consideration for the city region include the potential for a charging Clean Air Zone.

But, any potential charges would only to apply to private-hire vehicles, buses and HGVs, with the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham, having previously ruled out a charge for private car drivers (see airqualitynews.com story).

Options

Other measures included in a shortlist shown to members include the potential for a workplace parking levy to encourage commuters to use public transport, increased public transport capacity, retrofit of the existing public transport and local authority fleets and incentivising an increased uptake of electric vehicles in the region.

In the update to members yesterday, TfGM noted that initial data of NO2 exceedances across the local authority areas has been submitted to Defra, which will shortly report back with specific requirements for emissions reductions required across the region.

Once this ‘target determination’ has been completed – likely to be this month – the Greater Manchester air quality steering group, will assess which options are likely to bring about the required reduction in NO2 levels demanded by government.

The papers note: "As government has identified charge-based Clean Air Zones as the benchmark measure, the modelling process used to identify a preferred option to achieve compliance in the shortest possible time in GM is required to focus on this measure first. The Steering Group members will brief senior officers and elected members within their organisations on the options for achieving compliance."

Officers will model which of these measures is likely to bring about compliance within the shortest possible time, before submitting a business case to government later this year. The proposals will be subject to the ‘relevant GM-level governance’, the papers indicate.

Public awareness

Members also heard that a programme of public awareness around air quality issues affecting the region is also under development.

This is expected commence during early autumn 2018 to ‘build greater public awareness and understanding of the GM air quality issue and associated impacts’.

Under the identity of ‘Clean Air Greater Manchester’, "this would build on past public engagement activity – e.g. Clean Air Day – and aim to educate key audiences about air pollution, the health impacts, and what they can do to make a difference," members were told.

Source : Air Quality News 

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

Halt final TfL payment to Garden Bridge Trust, says shadow minister Andy McDonald

Preparations to pay the charity behind the Garden Bridge project its final multi-million pound chunk of public money should be suspended, the shadow transport secretary has said

The Garden Bridge Trust recently wrote to its public sector sponsor Transport for London with a request for up to £9 million of public money earmarked in an underwriting agreement provided by the Department for Transport (DfT).

However, Labour politicians including shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald have now called on TfL to withhold the money in the wake of a new legal opinion by a QC recently revealed by the AJ, raising the prospect of limiting the aborted scheme’s cost to the taxpayer, currently estimated at £46 million.

Jason Coppel, an expert in public and procurement law, said it was ‘likely’ that the trustees breached their legal duties to act with reasonable skill and care, ‘in particular in relation to the conclusion of the construction contract with Bouygues’, although he added that a claim against the trustees would not be straightforward due to the difficulty of any potential claimant proving they had suffered loss.

While Coppel’s opinion is understood to be strongly denied by the trustees, Labour London Assembly member Tom Copley has now written to TfL commissioner Mike Brown, attaching Coppel’s legal opinion and calling on Brown to ‘halt any payment of further public money to the trust’ until TfL had obtained its own legal advice over whether trustees had indeed breached their legal duties.

Copley’s intervention was backed by McDonald, the second shadow cabinet member to raise serious questions over the actions of the Garden Bridge Trust in recent weeks after repeated calls for a new Parliamentary inquiry were made by shadow communities secretary Andrew Gwynne.

McDonald said: ‘It’s the right thing to do by taxpayers to attempt to recover every penny possible from Boris Johnson’s scandalous Garden Bridge vanity project.

‘The taxpayer’s interest must be the priority, and that means using whatever legal means are available in order to limit the cost to the public purse.’

In his letter to Brown, which was copied to London mayor Sadiq Khan and the Charity Commission and was dated August 7, Copley wrote: ‘It has come to my attention that the Garden Bridge Trust has yet to draw down the £9 million of public money provided by the DfT, but has recently made a request to do so which TfL is reviewing.

‘I’m sure you will have seen the opinion of Jason Coppel QC … in light of this opinion from an eminent QC, which I attach, I’m writing to ask you to halt any payment of further public money to the trust until you have sought legal advice as to whether TfL can withhold further payments on the grounds that the trustees may have breached their legal duties. If this is the case it should be the trustees that are liable, not the taxpayer.’

In its latest set of accounts, published recently by the Charity Commission after being submitted more than 150 days late, the trust estimated that it would request £5.5 million or less of the £9 million underwriting facility from TfL in order to meet its financial liabilities.

The DfT’s guarantee was controversially provided in 2016 by then transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin in the face of strong opposition from the department’s then permanent secretary Philip Rutnam.

Brown has yet to reply to Copley but a TfL spokesperson said: ‘The Garden Bridge Trust has written to TfL with a request for payment under the underwriting agreement. We are currently reviewing their request.’

The Garden Bridge Trust is currently in the process of winding up and trustees were unavailable for comment.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2Bk9thJ
via IFTTT