DYKWIA

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41358640

21 days to appeal.

This will be a nightmare... but I suppose the Black Cab drivers will be happy.

Hopefully it doesn't spread to other UK cities.

stut

I bet the lawyers are already planning next summer's holidays...

Always happy to see dubious working practices being challenged, but the vested interests in this, and vague statements by TfL don't bode well.

Silver Fox

What can you expect from the tame midget Mayor of London who is only interested in either grief-whoring or latching onto a cause to attempt to raise any credibility he has. Which is none as far as I am concerned.

Analise

Did private car hire companies like Simply Airports and Just Airports pay off the regulators handsomely with hefty bribes to pass muster with government regulators? Black taxis won't compete as their fares are obscene so the response is to get the government to abolish the competition?

stut

I doubt it. They're simple private hire companies that have to pass a number of criteria laid out in the TfL Private Hire licence regulations (which are different to the black cab ones).

Uber are registered as private hire companies, but have sailed close to the wind on the regulations - both around the distinction between private hire and taxi, and around employment practices, on a number of occasions.

Black taxis have a powerful lobby group (the LTDA) who I suspect have been in part (but not wholly) responsible for this decision.

Silver Fox

Out of all the issues there are in London this should be close to the bottom of the list. I hope they tear TfL and Khan to pieces in court.

NWIFlyer

We are in rather significant danger of heading into OMNI territory here, so perhaps as a non-Londoner who would most likely use neither a black cab nor a private hire taxi whilst visiting (and therefore not having a vested interest), perhaps I might just inject a fact here - which is that as I understand it the decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the Mayor, he had little option but to rubber stamp the TfL regulator's call, and indeed he was legally unable to even take part in the process.

rcspeirs

The core issue was the failure of uber to cooperate with tfl and with met police (in relation to alleged sexual assaults by drivers). Is that really a business model anyone would cheeer lead for?

uggboy

Uber stripped of London licence due to lack of corporate responsibility

Please see:

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...for-london-tfl

Cheers & Safe Travels. ^

London_traveller

It's not a totally surprising decision. TfL are in hock to the black cabbies and we've seen their dodgy consultations previously. If they were serious about their concerns then they'd have maintained a licence under condition those criteria were met. As it is they're stripping away competition.

This could have been managed so much better. A poor process and ultimately not good for London.

Analise

London's mayor has inserted himself quite a bit in endorsing the ban on Uber in London and thereby eliminating consumer choice for alternatives to the exploitive taxi fares of the black cabs. The people are responding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...res-less-hour/

I've always used either Just Airports or Simply Airports as their fares are cheaper than Uber's. I wonder how long until the taxi lobby group (LTDA) spreads money to government officials to influence them enough to ban these car services.

DYKWIA

The petition has over 130k signatures in a couple of hours.

Calchas

“Uber London Limited can continue to operate until the appeal process is exhausted.”

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/13-17-lice...on-limited.pdf

If they have any sense at all they will get their house in order. Whether or not the decision is politically motivated, Uber makes it very easy for the regulators to target them.

The “fit and proper person” test is very vague and could result in a lot of litigation to resolve what those words actually mean. To my knowledge there is very little case law that has explored it in any context.

Silver Fox

Not fit and proper? Good grief I could go to any dodgy minicab company or dodgy driver at any tube station, terminal 3, any rail station and feel more likely to get someone that was not "fit and proper" than an Uber driver. I have never felt threatened in any Uber cab, nor in any danger, and have found them to do what they say on the tin. Again, there are many other issues that he could be addressing but it does not enhance his visibility as much as taking on Uber. He is certainly and most definitely behind this and without fail everyone I have spoken to in London about this says "I wonder what they paid him". His reputation is as dodgy as the day is long and this serves to confirm it.

CurtainRingSalesman

"Fit and proper" has an established meaning in law. It's used in a wide variety of contexts where persons are required to hold certain licences to deal with vulnerable people or have some sort of responsibility. All taxi drivers and private hire drivers have to be fit and proper people too. But here it is the operator that has been found to be not fit and proper.


It is not the case that 10,000 black taxi drivers have banded together to bribe government officials (good grief). Neither is it the case that if Uber were banned, black taxis would be the only alternative. Apps are here to stay and (imho) Uber's market share would be divided among Lyft, Hailo/Mytaxi, Gett, Wheely, Taxify etc. I use Uber a lot in London but it's not a big deal to switch.