The ITA have called a number of protests later this month, against TFL's decision to allow an unlicensed Private Hire eHailng app to carry on working with the public, after refusing to relicense the compan who they consider to be not fit and proper.
The article below was first published on the Dads Defending Daughters website on Monday 1st of January 2018.
Despite the following, TfL have allowed Uber to continue to operate under appeal:
• Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences including a rise in sexual assaults & rapes.
• Uber's approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
• Uber's approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
• Uber's approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
• An increase in road traffic accidents.
• VAT avoidance allowing 'Uber' the ability to directly undercut taxi drivers regulated fare*
• Uber's approach to reporting serious criminal offences including a rise in sexual assaults & rapes.
• Uber's approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
• Uber's approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
• Uber's approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.
• An increase in road traffic accidents.
• VAT avoidance allowing 'Uber' the ability to directly undercut taxi drivers regulated fare*
*Orthodox licensing looked at the licensable activity and didn't concern itself with the financial background; R v Warrington Crown Court, ex p CC of Cheshire:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm
However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm
And see Hanif v East Lindsey:
https://www.docdroid.net/ENML8VD/ac9800809qbdadmin.pdf#page=2
(a) Why should Taxi drivers have to fund a VAT case against 'Uber' when TfL have the legal tools to ensure Uber pay their correct taxes?
(b) If TfL decided that 'Uber' was not a 'fit & proper' company on public safety grounds they had the power to revoke Uber's license without allowing them to operate while under appeal on public safety grounds [s 17(2) 1998 PH act].
(c) Was TfL's decision not to renew Uber's license a financial decision or a public safety decision?
Given the fact point (b) granted TfL an immediate right to revoke Uber’s license on public safety grounds, we believe that the Mayor took the option not to protect the public, but instead to protect TFL financially – If the Mayor had revoked Uber’s license on public safety grounds and not allowed them to operate while under appeal, TfL would be exposed to a financial claim for any losses should Uber have won the appeal.
(d) So ask yourself, does TfL really want a legal battle with Uber?
(e) If the answer to (d) is Yes, then why didn't TfL revoke Uber’'s license and protect the public while the appeal process was carried out?
(f) TfL instructed Deloitte to undertake a review of Uber's 'booking process'; they claim that the driver accepts the booking before the operator. If TfL believe this to be the case, why are they still allowing them to operate illegally?
(g) Uber’s T&C's claim that the driver is contracted to Uber BV, the customer pays their fare to Uber BV, the customer’s receipt is provided by Uber BV.
If TfL/Deloitte are correct it'd suggest that the booking investigation would confirm (1) the customer makes the request to; (2) the unlicensed Uber BV, who are making the provision for the invitation of the booking (3) the driver accepts the booking (4) Uber London do nothing, and just record the booking after the driver has accepted.
(h) If we are not going to peacefully protest over this illegal process, what happens when we are steamrollered byTaxify, Lyft or any other Private Hire tech company who want to break the rules and operate here. After all, Taxify have already admitted the driver accepts the job before the operator.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm
However, the climate has changed and now all sorts of criminality is taken into account; see para 11.27 of the s.182 Guidance:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020620/wngton-1.htm
And see Hanif v East Lindsey:
https://www.docdroid.net/ENML8VD/ac9800809qbdadmin.pdf#page=2
(a) Why should Taxi drivers have to fund a VAT case against 'Uber' when TfL have the legal tools to ensure Uber pay their correct taxes?
(b) If TfL decided that 'Uber' was not a 'fit & proper' company on public safety grounds they had the power to revoke Uber's license without allowing them to operate while under appeal on public safety grounds [s 17(2) 1998 PH act].
(c) Was TfL's decision not to renew Uber's license a financial decision or a public safety decision?
Given the fact point (b) granted TfL an immediate right to revoke Uber’s license on public safety grounds, we believe that the Mayor took the option not to protect the public, but instead to protect TFL financially – If the Mayor had revoked Uber’s license on public safety grounds and not allowed them to operate while under appeal, TfL would be exposed to a financial claim for any losses should Uber have won the appeal.
(d) So ask yourself, does TfL really want a legal battle with Uber?
(e) If the answer to (d) is Yes, then why didn't TfL revoke Uber’'s license and protect the public while the appeal process was carried out?
(f) TfL instructed Deloitte to undertake a review of Uber's 'booking process'; they claim that the driver accepts the booking before the operator. If TfL believe this to be the case, why are they still allowing them to operate illegally?
(g) Uber’s T&C's claim that the driver is contracted to Uber BV, the customer pays their fare to Uber BV, the customer’s receipt is provided by Uber BV.
If TfL/Deloitte are correct it'd suggest that the booking investigation would confirm (1) the customer makes the request to; (2) the unlicensed Uber BV, who are making the provision for the invitation of the booking (3) the driver accepts the booking (4) Uber London do nothing, and just record the booking after the driver has accepted.
(h) If we are not going to peacefully protest over this illegal process, what happens when we are steamrollered byTaxify, Lyft or any other Private Hire tech company who want to break the rules and operate here. After all, Taxify have already admitted the driver accepts the job before the operator.
(I)
7 comments:
Of course we should protest. Well really we should be rioting about this corrupt, however protesting is the least we should be doing since we wish to remain dignified. However there is a fine line to be drawn, one would think and others would perceive and think that we just didn't care or was happy with the situation by not protesting. We are losing out livelihoods, and if this corruption is not halted then we might as well throw ourselves of the bridge because we are finished within 10 years if this situation is not stopped. We have already lost thousands in work, and many have already jacked in the job. Enough is enough!!!
Ten years ten months more like.
It's a minimum wage job now anyone who can't see that
must be blind.
Drive in don't cut it.
Your gone except it.look for another job.
Black cabs are gonna just fade away.
McNamara tell ya it's a done deal.
Butter boys with kids mortgages etc.
Check out the local food banks your gonna need them.
The above comment is obviously a yellow badge,theres plenty of money left in this trade you just have to work for it now be lucky.
Yes, yellow badgers suburbs will be first to be destroyed, green and the metropolis will fall shortly after. Trust me, you cannot compete and win on a corrupt unlevel playing field with the referee against you. They are doing immediate jailings, with less running costs. We will lose. It's not rocket science to see that, and Uber know it too. Unless the correct laws are applied by government then we are finished. Facts. We must get harder in actions beforehand, this is no time for softly softly catchy monkey, it just ain't gonna work.
we,ve just had 5 years of being nice guys and wheres it got us?londons open for buisness?perhaps it is,it can also be closed for buisness if we get it together.
I swear that in the tough old days years ago every single minicab would have been vandalised when parked up. Must be soft. Softness didn't get rid of the poll tax, people on streets did.
TIME is no longer on our side - we're FINISHED, but let's go down 'fighting'
Post a Comment