"Uber loses its licence to operate in London"

[Joe Paxton]

BBC News report

Uber will not be issued a new private hire licence, Transport for London (TfL) has said.

TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence.

Uber's conduct demonstrated a lack of corporate responsibility which could have potential public safety and security implications, it said.

 

[jon0844]

I am probably quite unique in being quite happy with this news, even if they'll appeal and probably win.

We spent years introducing measures to better protect people and I believe Uber undermined a lot of that, using low prices to get customers on side.

 

[Blindtraveler]

You are not unique John, great news and I hope TFL fight any appeal strongly. Regulated PHC services can and in many cases are excillent with many of the features e.g tracking, booking and payment apps coming to the industry so why shouldnt it be allowed to work alongside black cabs without a 3rd and IMO dodgy type of opperater in the game.

 

[Bromley boy]

I am probably quite unique in being quite happy with this news, even if they'll appeal and probably win.

We spent years introducing measures to better protect people and I believe Uber undermined a lot of that, using low prices to get customers on side.

Yes indeed. One thing I'm slightly unsure about from the BBC statement is the reference to Uber being criticised for

failing to report sexual offences

Surely it is down to the victim of any such offence to report it - how could a company such as Uber be expected to know about, let alone report, sexual offences committed by its drivers ("its" being used loosely here since I understand they are technically self employed)?

 

[Blindtraveler]

There is maybe some sort of behind the sceens system where they have to tell some white collar worker somewhere how many if any such incidents they have been made aware of via the police who would naturally advise them that they should maybe withdraw their offer of support for said driver to work for them and take him or her off the system?

 

[Mathew S]

Uber would be required to report serious incidents, e.g. allegations of sexual offences, to the licensing authority which, in London, would be TfL. Uber would probably argue it's not their problem as drivers are not their employees, but I doubt TfL see it that way.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[Bromley boy]

Thanks both, it would appear from a Telegraph article that there is indeed an expectation that Uber would report alleged sex attacks to TFL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-police-accuse-taxi-firm-failing-report-sex/

I fully agree Uber should not be continue to engage drivers against whom credible allegations have been made.

However this does seem a bit problematic:

1. It seems very strange that a victim would report such an offence to a cab company rather than the police;

2. What would TFL or the police be able to do with an allegation passed on to it by a third party. After all this is just hearsay, no evidence has been made available and no direct allegation has been made.

 

[Mathew S]

Thanks both, it would appear from a Telegraph article that there is indeed an expectation that Uber would report alleged sex attacks to TFL.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...l-police-accuse-taxi-firm-failing-report-sex/

I fully agree Uber should not be continue to engage drivers against whom credible allegations have been made.

However this does seem a bit problematic:

1. It seems very strange that a victim would report such an offence to a cab company rather than the police;

2. What would TFL or the police be able to do with an allegation passed on to it by a third party. After all this is just hearsay, no evidence has been made available and no direct allegation has been made.

Couple of points:

A. Employers (yes, I know, but many of the same principles apply to freelance contractors like Uber drivers) can suspend staff when an allegation is made, under the auspices of needing to investigate the matter. They can't actually investigate until the police/courts are done though, and given that the driver would be innocent until proven guilty sacking them on the basis of an allegation alone - no matter how credible - is illegal.

B. If allegation is reported to police, they will contact Uber as part of their investigation. Uber then have a legal obligation to report to TfL as part of their licence. If the allegation is made to Uber or TfL as a complaint, they then have a duty to pass the matter on to the police rather than treating it as a complaint.

I simplify and gloss over some of the intricacies, but that's the basics.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[BanburyBlue]

I was never sure how Uber were allowed to operate in the first place.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone else would have to get a full taxi licence and comply with all local council regulations before going anywhere near a member of the public, but somehow going and sign up with Uber and you're off.

Was it Reading recently where there were battling with Uber? Taking Uber drivers to task because they weren't licensed?

 

[Mathew S]

I was never sure how Uber were allowed to operate in the first place.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone else would have to get a full taxi licence and comply with all local council regulations before going anywhere near a member of the public, but somehow going and sign up with Uber and you're off.

Was it Reading recently where there were battling with Uber? Taking Uber drivers to task because they weren't licensed?

Uber do have to comply with the same rules as any other private hire (ie. minicab) company. (Whether that have been is one of the things at issue.)

However, minicab rules are nothing like as strict as 'black cab' or Hackney carriage rules. IIRC one of the things black can drivers don't like is that because of their app uber can operate basically like black cabs (effectively using the app to 'hail' a cab) but under the less stringent minicab rules.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[96tommy]

I am happy with this news too. Where I live in Bethnal Green, an Uber is a lot more easier to get than a black cab but they never feel as safe.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Sounds as if TFL have been looking into all this and decided the balancing act between allowing London's generally well behaved free market to grow and allowing an IMO definatly dodgy transport outfit to opperate just wasnt working and this is the fallout. I certainly as a blind person did not feel safe in one of their cars and given that young women, teens wven are likely to use the service then safety is top priority here.

 

[robbeech]

I have only used the service a few times, and only twice on my account. Whilst all of my experiences have been good i have heard very many reports both from media and from friends and colleagues to the contrary. The news today does not come as a surprise in the slightest and i think it is the right thing to do in order to remind the people involved of the rules and what is required. If a local restaurant or takeaway is found upon inspection (be it routine or after a series of complaints) to be not up to scratch and is breaking rules, or people involved have not got the paperwork in order or have obtained it through illegitimate means then there would be no questions that it would be closed down and local business would go to other nearby establishments, even if they were more expensive. When they get their act together they can reapply for the necessary licensing and if successful go back to doing what they do. The same applies here i'm sure. As and when they meet the criteria and have dealt with any drivers that did no comply and ironed out any other shortcomings then i see no reason why TfL wouldn't allow them to carry on.
This will have some noticeable negative affects in the short term but can ONLY be a good thing long term as it will improve safety.
It does however bring into question all of the negative reports we hear about other Private Hire firms and Black Cabs, as it wouldn't be fair to be lenient on either of them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have never had a problem with Uber. But, if they have serious safeguarding or safety issues then it's proper for TfL to revoke the licence.

 

[Bromley boy]

Couple of points:

A. Employers (yes, I know, but many of the same principles apply to freelance contractors like Uber drivers) can suspend staff when an allegation is made, under the auspices of needing to investigate the matter. They can't actually investigate until the police/courts are done though, and given that the driver would be innocent until proven guilty sacking them on the basis of an allegation alone - no matter how credible - is illegal.

B. If allegation is reported to police, they will contact Uber as part of their investigation. Uber then have a legal obligation to report to TfL as part of their licence. If the allegation is made to Uber or TfL as a complaint, they then have a duty to pass the matter on to the police rather than treating it as a complaint.

I simplify and gloss over some of the intricacies, but that's the basics.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Thanks for the reply.

A. I'm pretty sure as a matter of law it is possible for employees (and certainly contractors) to be dismissed/contract not renewed based on allegations alone. This wouldn't fall under a prohibited head of discrimination and the employer could point to breach of implied trust and confidence etc. to justify it. It would certainly need justification but wouldn't of itself be an unfair or "illegal" dismissal just because the allegations were unproven.

B That makes a lot of sense, so they have a duty to pass things on as a part of their agreement to TFL. If they've been breaching this then yes, that is very sinister indeed.

 

[Mathew S]

Thanks for the reply.

A. I'm pretty sure as a matter of law it is possible for employees (and certainly contractors) to be dismissed/contract not renewed based on allegations alone. This wouldn't fall under a prohibited head of discrimination and the employer could point to breach of implied trust and confidence etc. to justify it. It would certainly need justification but wouldn't of itself be an unfair or "illegal" dismissal just because the allegations were unproven.

B That makes a lot of sense, so they have a duty to pass things on as a part of their agreement to TFL. If they've been breaching this then yes, that is very sinister indeed.

I can't go into detail here, and it would be off topic anyway, but dismissal based on an unproven allegation is 100%, categoricallty, an unfair dismissal. Employment law in this country is very clear on that, and you can't dismiss someone without a proven, good reason. The only way of doing it is to use the excuse of "loss of trust and confidence" which would be a valid reason. However, any employer with a decent legal advisor will just suspend pending the police/court decision.

With self-employed contractors you are correct that it's a simple matter to just not renew/extend a contract.

As I say, this isn't the place, but I have substantial professional experience in dealing with allegations of sexual offences, safeguarding, and so on; so I do know my stuff.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[BanburyBlue]

How far would 'allegations' have to go before the council revoked your taxi licence?

I can't go into detail here, and it would be off topic anyway, but dismissal based on an unproven allegation is 100%, categoricallty, an unfair dismissal. Employment law in this country is very clear on that, and you can't dismiss someone without a proven, good reason. The only way of doing it is to use the excuse of "loss of trust and confidence" which would be a valid reason. However, any employer with a decent legal advisor will just suspend pending the police/court decision.

With self-employed contractors you are correct that it's a simple matter to just not renew/extend a contract.

As I say, this isn't the place, but I have substantial professional experience in dealing with allegations of sexual offences, safeguarding, and so on; so I do know my stuff.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[jon0844]

Sounds as if TFL have been looking into all this and decided the balancing act between allowing London's generally well behaved free market to grow and allowing an IMO definatly dodgy transport outfit to opperate just wasnt working and this is the fallout. I certainly as a blind person did not feel safe in one of their cars and given that young women, teens wven are likely to use the service then safety is top priority here.

Yet social media is full of the very people that might be at higher risk getting very upset, and mostly because of cost.

I wonder if someone could go to Shoreditch and get funding for a new 'disruptive' startup that can get work done quicker by bypassing the usual health and safety legislation by finding various loopholes.. then offering extra low prices by using poorly trained staff on zero hour contracts to do work.

By rights there should be outrage, but I can't help but feel that a lot of people would love it. They'd argue that it's about time and repeat 'health and safety gone mad' as justification.

Then there would be accidents, but it would be argued that it's a small price to pay for cheaper and faster work.

 

[Mathew S]

How far would 'allegations' have to go before the council revoked your taxi licence?

Either conviction for a criminal offence, or if no conviction is achieved - either not charged or found not guilty - then a finding of fact from the licensing panel (which is a lower standard of proof, on the balance of probabilities) that you had done an act which made you not fit and proper to hold the license.

Innocent until proven guilty. And all licensing decisions can be appealed to the courts, as Uber are doing.

Though, of course, a licence can be suspended pending the outcome of an investigation.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[MCR247]

I certainly as a blind person did not feel safe in one of their cars and given that young women, teens wven are likely to use the service then safety is top priority here.

Yet social media is full of the very people that might be at higher risk getting very upset, and mostly because of cost.

Interesting that you say this, because most young women I know (not claiming that I know them all ) much prefer getting into ubers than a black cab. Why? Firstly, you can track their trip using their phones GPS so they feel much less alone 2) How do they know the random bloke in a black cab they've flagged is a real taxi? 3) Many are uncomfortable with the idea of being trapped in a taxi at the end of their journey demanding you pay x amount (which may or may not be the price he quoted at the start etc) 4) The ability to pay by card easily 5) Similar to point 1, it is re-assuring to know that somewhere on the internet there is a record of this journey happening

 

[PermitToTravel]

I wonder whether Uber will circumvent this "ban" by bribing a council such as Slough to become the Rossendale of the South

 

[Antman]

Interesting that you say this, because most young women I know (not claiming that I know them all ) much prefer getting into ubers than a black cab. Why? Firstly, you can track their trip using their phones GPS so they feel much less alone 2) How do they know the random bloke in a black cab they've flagged is a real taxi? 3) Many are uncomfortable with the idea of being trapped in a taxi at the end of their journey demanding you pay x amount (which may or may not be the price he quoted at the start etc) 4) The ability to pay by card easily 5) Similar to point 1, it is re-assuring to know that somewhere on the internet there is a record of this journey happening

Exactly my experience too, my sister regularly uses uber and speaks very highly of them.

 

[jon0844]

I can't fault the way Uber's app works, and the fact that you know where the car is and the details. That is however something that many other firms now do when you call a taxi, so not unique.

If someone feels unsafe hailing a black cab, I'd say the proper solution is to use another app that means the job is tracked and recorded. Whether that's an app to order a black cab, or even a local (approved) mini cab firm or Addison Lee etc.

All I want is for Uber to raise its standards. Nobody wants to go back to what it was like in the 90s when I was going out every night and you came out of clubs to a street full of dodgy mini cabs (all Nissan Bluebirds I seem to recall), and people elsewhere trying to direct you towards them.

We've come a long way and need to keep going. Uber can surely play by the rules and still make money.

 

[MCR247]

I can't fault the way Uber's app works, and the fact that you know where the car is and the details. That is however something that many other firms now do when you call a taxi, so not unique.

If someone feels unsafe hailing a black cab, I'd say the proper solution is to use another app that means the job is tracked and recorded. Whether that's an app to order a black cab, or even a local (approved) mini cab firm or Addison Lee etc.

Yes if I want to book a taxi to take me to a restaurant for a meal at 7pm, but do they have availability at 3am? Not that I've seen. You queue outside the office and get charged based on how the taxi driver is feeling that night (after being turned away from the first two because you weren't going far enough)

All I want is for Uber to raise its standards. Nobody wants to go back to what it was like in the 90s when I was going out every night and you came out of clubs to a street full of dodgy mini cabs (all Nissan Bluebirds I seem to recall), and people elsewhere trying to direct you towards them.

We've come a long way and need to keep going. Uber can surely play by the rules and still make money.

I can assure that this still happens, and is why I'll keep pushing uber. Whilst Uber may need to up its standards, this industry as a whole does.

I'm sorry but black cabs/private hire only have themselves to blame here, it has to be one of the most passenger unfriendly industries out there

"Dont like the look of you" "ah i don't want to go out there tonight" "i live in the other direction so it'll cost you more"

 

[Bromley boy]

I can't go into detail here, and it would be off topic anyway, but dismissal based on an unproven allegation is 100%, categoricallty, an unfair dismissal. Employment law in this country is very clear on that
Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

That's a bold assertion - can you cite a source to support it?

See below a recent article published by CIPD (HR's answer to a professional body) authored by Howard Kennedy (a large law firm).

They appear to disagree with you!

I've highlighted the key sentence in bold for emphasis.


http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peopleman...facing-criminal-or-police-investigations.aspx

After conducting their own investigation, employers do not have to wait for the outcome of criminal proceedings before conducting a disciplinary hearing and/or sanctioning (including dismissing) an employee. Criminal cases may take many months to get to court and waiting for the outcome could cause serious issues for the running of the business.

Employers are not bound by the outcome of a criminal trial. If an employer decides during the disciplinary process that an employee's conduct warrants dismissal, they are entitled to make this decision even if the employee is not charged. Conversely, just because the employee is charged with a criminal offence, that does not give an employer the automatic right to dismiss. Any dismissal must still be reasonable.

 

[Mathew S]

That's a bold assertion - can you cite a source to support it?

See below a recent article published by CIPD (HR's answer to a professional body) authored by Howard Kennedy (a large law firm).

They appear to disagree with you!

I've highlighted the key sentence in bold for emphasis.


http://www2.cipd.co.uk/pm/peopleman...facing-criminal-or-police-investigations.aspx

As stated above, I'm not a lawyer. But they can't dismiss based on you having committed a criminal offence unless it's proven that you actually have. No proof = innocent = unfair dismissal, by definition.

The issue stems from the fact that (in most cases) in order to dismiss an employer has to be able to show that it has followed a disciplinary process including a full investigation of the circumstances. No employer can safely do that where a criminal prosecution is pending as they would be accused of prejudicing the legal process and potentially risk a contempt charge. Hence having to wait until the criminal process is concluded.

If an offence has been committed, and an employer chooses to dismiss before conviction, or even before charge, it would be a foolish employee who woild challenge that. After all by the time the case came before a tribunal the criminal proceedings would likely have ended and the tribunal would refuse to overturn the decision because the situation had changed.

If an employer dismissed pre-court and the employer was found not-guilty; then either the employer would have to find other grounds for dismissal sharpish, or the employee would almost certainly have a very strong case for unfair dismissal and, quite probably, reinstatement.

What all that means is that Howard Kennedy are right, but it's very difficult to do in practice without risking a charge of contempt of court; and the employer is essentially betting on the employer being found (or pleading) guilty.

Which is all well and good, but...
In practice, many employers get around all of the above using "trust and confidence" as I said earlier. "Loss of trust and confidence," in an employee - which could for example stem from having been arrested/accused of a serious offence - is often be grounds enough for dismissal by itself.

The vast majority of situations like this are dealt with either using "trust and confidence" or using so-called 'compromise agreements' where employer/employee agree a financial settlement and the employee resigns. Compromise agreements aren't supposed to be used in cases where there is a safeguarding element, since they can make it easier for a 'naughty' person to hide their past; however they frequently are.

None of this, though, relates to the topic we were discussing of taxi licensing, where the issue is satisfaction - or not - of a fit and proper person test, as explained above.



Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[jon0844]

Yes if I want to book a taxi to take me to a restaurant for a meal at 7pm, but do they have availability at 3am? Not that I've seen. You queue outside the office and get charged based on how the taxi driver is feeling that night (after being turned away from the first two because you weren't going far enough)



I can assure that this still happens, and is why I'll keep pushing uber. Whilst Uber may need to up its standards, this industry as a whole does.

I'm sorry but black cabs/private hire only have themselves to blame here, it has to be one of the most passenger unfriendly industries out there

"Dont like the look of you" "ah i don't want to go out there tonight" "i live in the other direction so it'll cost you more"

Why queue outside an office or hail when I said you could use an app to book other services, just like Uber?

 

[Bromley boy]

As stated above, I'm not a lawyer. But they can't dismiss based on you having committed a criminal offence unless it's proven that you actually have. No proof = innocent = unfair dismissal, by definition.

The issue stems from the fact that (in most cases) in order to dismiss an employer has to be able to show that it has followed a disciplinary process including a full investigation of the circumstances. No employer can safely do that where a criminal prosecution is pending as they would be accused of prejudicing the legal process and potentially risk a contempt charge. Hence having to wait until the criminal process is concluded.

If an offence has been committed, and an employer chooses to dismiss before conviction, or even before charge, it would be a foolish employee who woild challenge that. After all by the time the case came before a tribunal the criminal proceedings would likely have ended and the tribunal would refuse to overturn the decision because the situation had changed.

If an employer dismissed pre-court and the employer was found not-guilty; then either the employer would have to find other grounds for dismissal sharpish, or the employee would almost certainly have a very strong case for unfair dismissal and, quite probably, reinstatement.

What all that means is that Howard Kennedy are right, but it's very difficult to do in practice without risking a charge of contempt of court; and the employer is essentially betting on the employer being found (or pleading) guilty.

I have no wish to pick an argument but I must just say this.

You have not cited any evidence to support your previous assertion that:

dismissal based on an unproven allegation is 100%, categoricallty, an unfair dismissal.

Without even addressing the rest of your last post (how on earth does contempt of court come into it?! A finding of unfair dismissal is made by an employment tribunal and absolutely does not equal a "charge of contempt of court"), the first statement you make in your last post (my bold) is categorically wrong and is directly contradicted by both the Howard Kennedy article I've cited and a number of other sources - even though you yourself then go on to say Howard Kennedy are right in the same post, thereby directly contradicting yourself!

Yes the employer needs to ensure it conducts an investigation and jump through various hoops but that is categorically NOT the same as saying dismissal based on an unproven allegation always = an unfair dismissal!!!

I will leave it because it is off topic- and in the end this is just a discussion forum so who really cares - but based on the above you should think very carefully indeed about bandying such inaccurate statements around, particularly as you describe yourself as having professional experience of the issues at hand.

 

[Bromley boy]

Exactly my experience too, my sister regularly uses uber and speaks very highly of them.

This has been my experience too, or at least the experience of female Uber users I've spoken to.

I believe the app has functionality to send details of a journey (including the driver's details) to a nominated friend of the rider. This is arguably a lot safer than getting into an anonymous minicab or even a black cab.

That said clearly the system is not foolproof given the allegations that have been made.

 

[MCR247]

Why queue outside an office or hail when I said you could use an app to book other services, just like Uber?

The taxi apps around here 'mysteriously' will have no cars available at 3am which is helpful