Uber licence in London refused

Well - the example I became aware of this evening about the medical certificate.When you apply for a licence there are various requirements - one is the medical certificate.Tfl ask for a certificate completed and signed by a doctor with access to your medical retires. If they receive this , they apparently accept it at face value ( that's another question). What I read online tonight in a forum giving advice to would be Uber drivers was how to get round this and find a doctor who would sign the form without having access to your medical records. This could be ( don't know) the issue around medical certificates that TfL are concerned about.

Medical records of course ( its late)

The process is the same for everyone driving a private hire car in London and is controlled by TfL.

tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

But it's not just about the licence - it's their use of Greyball and not reporting sexual and other possible crimes to the police. I saw one of their spokesmen on C4 news tonight - a passenger had complained to them about a driver hugging her - Uber decided that a hug was fine and did nothing - well maybe it wasn't their call to make? I must go to bed now - I have the most dreadful cold

Yes I know that Primrose I've read all the links thank you - maybe ( probably?) other companies are using the same fiddle, maybe Uber aren't, but there's something Tfl are concerned about ( rightly or wrongly).Goodnight

Just been listening to Today where two people from opposite sides of the political spectrum were agreeing that the idea of making money without any real investment - such as what was described as the 'rent' charged by the Uber company from the Uber drivers for each trip - was wrong. One thought it was the face of capitalism at it's worst and the other that it was not 'real' capitalism as capital was not really invested.

What the capitalist (who didn't like this form of capitalism) said was that we do not need the state to interfere (taking back railways and utilities, etc.,) we need something like Roosevelt's anti-trust act that (apparently) brought the oil companies into line in the 1800s.

Can someone explain this act and that bit of history to me please as there is a huge gap in my knowledge where this is concerned?

My daughter lives in London and uses them all the time. I always thought they were safer because you could track them.
We recently took an Uber from Gatwick to my daughters home and it cost just over a third of normal taxicab rate.

Along with allegations about sexual harrassment, improperly acquired licences, etc., there were also recent claims that Uber drivers were involved in far more traffic accidents than black cab drivers. It was suggested that this may be because they don't do "the knowledge" but rely entirely on sat navs.

I know there are many people who use Uber - my son does - but my feeling is that if proper safety measures are not being enforced then it would be irresponsible to continue to licence the company without evidence that these matters were being dealt with.

GracesGran re the anti-trust comment that you heard in an interview, Wikepedia says "In the late-nineteenth century, several large businesses, including Standard Oil, had either bought their rivals or had established business arrangements that effectively stifled any competition. Standard Oil organized itself as a trust in which several component corporations were organized under the supervision of one board of directors, and several other businesses followed suit. While Congress had passed the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act to provide some federal regulation of trusts, the Supreme Court had limited the power of the act in the case of United States v. E. C. Knight Co.[21]."

I'm not quite sure how this relates to Uber, unless it is said that it is operating in such a way as to "stifle competition" by undercutting the traditional black cabs (and presumably doing so by mean of underpaying drivers and flouting safety regulations.)

It is quite understandable tha many people need to keep their costs down and are therefore tempted to go for the cheapest option but surely this is all part of the "race to the bottom" that is often talked about?

Yes it's true Smithy that you can track them and that they are cheaper. The latter is on the backs of the drivers who, in this particular business model, take all the risks. They have to provide and pay for all the costs associated with the car and pay 25% to Uber for providing the platform. From what I've heard, they need to work 60-70 hours a week to make a reasonable living but of course that will mean different things to different people. Tracking them doesn't make them safer necessarily -otherwise there wouldn't be any attacks would there.

I have enjoyed my Uber experiences - excellent cars and interesting drivers. I like hearing about their backgrounds. I also like not needing to consult the contents of my purse every time we have a long wait at traffic lights when in a black cab. I know these cabs have credit card facilities now but I was annoyed that a £20 fare asked for a 10% tip. I was going to give a cash amount but the driver did not really know how the system worked. With Uber payment is much easier.

Well spotted! What a fortunate coincidence!

So, we can ignore the way the drivers are treated the lack of safety the non payment of proper tax as long as we get cheap fares?

Doubtless Uber will continue its work behind the scenes to comply with the TfL regulations as they appeal this ruling.

Hopefully the appeal will reveal that TfL was evenhanded in its decision to inflict collective punishment on 40,000 Uber drivers.

In remaining a city of the future, London needs a safe and secure transportation system.

I imagine UBER will either pledge to change it's practices or close down and re-open under another name. It seems unlikely that they will win the appeal, at least in the first instance.

More info about Uber greyballing www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-secret-program-greyball-resignation-ed-baker

Greyballing is absolutely an issue in areas where Uber isn't licenced to operate. However, it has been licenced in London since 2012, so I don't understand how geofencing is an issue.

Read about the number of women abused in Uber taxis. We should all be grateful this is officially recognised and not ignored as it would have been in earlier years. Any 'inconvenience' to other individuals should be gratefully accepted while a government for once is working to protect our daughters and granddaughters.

The black cabs have been allowed to monopolise London for far too long. Yes Uber is far from perfect and they need safer practices and enhanced checks for their drivers. My adult children and I all use Uber. My daughter has to go into central London at least twice a week has not encountered any issues apart from when a black cab driver shouted at her! We have positive experiences of using Uber. In my experience all the drivers I have met have been polite, respectful and professional. It must be a very worrying and stressful time for them and their families at the moment. I hope Uber sort themselves out and look after their drivers properly. I for one would like to see them return to London. I wouldn't be able to afford a black cab. I'm living off my savings and waiting for my State pension (2019) just recently retired. Yes Uber are cheaper unless I won the lottery I certainly couldn't afford a black cab.

Fran,

We were hoping for a link to the stats on all assaults in all types on taxis.

Thanks.

Hopefully someone might know but I thought part of the uber problem was the hundreds of thousands of individual uber driver permits tfl issued???

I guess nothing Uber does will satisfy Maryeliza54. I use my local minicab company. Have done for 20 years. On personal terms with the older drivers. Inquire about their health and their children as they do me. Returned my reading glasses last year when I left them behind. My daughter thinks I overtip. Not really. They just know me. Shop local I say. Always pays.

Didn't Rotherham Council revoke cab drivers licences because of their links with the abuse there?
What's the difference?

They treat their drivers disgracefully. Right decision.

Undecided on this ... is 25% too high a price to pay for online/feedback/money transactions that Uber offer its drivers? This unearned income to Uber in Salt Lake City is not quite unearned they have provided the technical nous that so many of us enjoy. The drivers should have to face as rigorous tests as other hire transport. It has just shifted the capital invested from hardware (e.g. Cars) to software.
Other companies will enter the market giving better assurances, as uber has the monopoly at the moment. Don't ask me how or what will become to thousands of drivers...perhaps they will organise and collectivise and the 25% could go to their own welfare. The struggle continues

There was a report about two hackney licenced drivers splitting their penalty points to avoid being banned from driving.
They had their licences revoked, reapplied through TfL, but were then found driving for Uber in Southend.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/criminals-dodge-council-ban-to-drive-for-uber-ntzqc73vn