TfL have confirmed that they will not be issuing a private hire operator licence to Uber. Their full press release is below. Uber’s current licence expires on 30 September.
Uber have vowed to appeal the ruling and have 21 days to do so.
TfL’s statement
Transport for London (TfL) has today (Friday 22 September) informed Uber London Limited that it will not be issued with a private hire operator licence after expiry of its current licence on 30 September.
TfL’s regulation of London’s taxi and private hire trades is designed to ensure passenger safety. Private hire operators must meet rigorous regulations, and demonstrate to TfL that they do so, in order to operate. TfL must also be satisfied that an operator is fit and proper to hold a licence.
TfL has concluded that Uber London Limited is not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator licence.
TfL considers that Uber’s approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implications. These include:
· Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
· Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
· Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks are obtained.
· Its 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.The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 includes provision to appeal a licensing decision within 21 days of it being communicated to the applicant. Uber London Limited can continue to operate until any appeal processes have been exhausted.
No further comment will be made by TfL pending any appeal of this decision.
The Mayor’s statement
I want London to be at the forefront of innovation and new technology and to be a natural home for exciting new companies that help Londoners by providing a better and more affordable service.
However, all companies in London must play by the rules and adhere to the high standards we expect – particularly when it comes to the safety of customers. Providing an innovative service must not be at the expense of customer safety and security.
I fully support TfL’s decision – it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners’ safety and security.
Any operator of private hire services in London needs to play by the rules.
Uber’s statement
3.5 million Londoners who use our app, and more than 40,000 licensed drivers who rely on Uber to make a living, will be astounded by this decision.
By wanting to ban our app from the capital Transport for London and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice. If this decision stands, it will put more than 40,000 licensed drivers out of work and deprive Londoners of a convenient and affordable form of transport.
To defend the livelihoods of all those drivers, and the consumer choice of millions of Londoners who use our app, we intend to immediately challenge this in the courts.
Drivers who use Uber are licensed by Transport for London and have been through the same enhanced DBS background checks as black cab drivers. Our pioneering technology has gone further to enhance safety with every trip tracked and recorded by GPS. We have always followed TfL rules on reporting serious incidents and have a dedicated team who work closely with the Metropolitan Police. As we have already told TfL, an independent review has found that ‘greyball’ has never been used or considered in the UK for the purposes cited by TfL.
Uber operates in more than 600 cities around the world, including more than 40 towns and cities here in the UK. This ban would show the world that, far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies who bring choice to consumers.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything before rile up my twenty-something Facebook friends to this level of outrage – from people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Do TFL know what Pandora’s Box they have opened?!
Me personally? You break the rules, you live with the consequences.
Anyone work in Court system? Any guesses on how long the appeal process will take to play out? Presumably there is no set date by which it must conclude?
JS
It would appear that a lot of people have been, erm “persuaded” by Ubers public statements, rather than their actual track record, wouldn’t it?
There’s going to be an awful lot of “Rhetoric” used isn’t there?
ID
For some sort of precedent, look at how long-lasting the appeal by “Hex/BAA” over their access-charges to other users of the Heathrow rail tunnel link was … (?)
From the “Independant”
List of countries/places that have already banned Uber.
The appeal appears to lie to a Magistrates’ Court: see s3(7) of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.
There is no time limit within which the appeal must be determined. That said, the courts are normally capable of identifying high-profile cases, or those of general public importance, and hearing them quickly if necessary. This case would seem amply to justify expedition, if only because of the serious impact the decision has on the (very large) number of drivers. In practical terms, it is not likely to be much held up by other business before the relevant Magistrates’ Court (almost certainly Westminster).
There will, however, be a minimum time that Uber and TfL need to get their cases prepared. And it is probably in Uber’s interest to delay matters somewhat, if only to give its new chief executive time to show that it does business in a different way to the high-handed approach under Mr Kalanick. As an estimate, I would expect the case would therefore take a small number of months: but it is hard to guess from the outside, since none of us know how extensive the background is to the issues TfL raise.
From the Magistrates’ Court, there is then a further appeal to the Crown Court: see s25(6) of the Act. That would probably also take another few months.
Meanwhile, as TfL note, Uber can carry on in business (see s26).
A few comments if I may.
Firstly I am surprised at the regulatory approach of cancelling an operators license where there is no evidence of an imminent danger to the public. Does the act provide no alternative? For example the Office of Rail and Road would issue an improvement notice to a rail operator with a set timeline or apply conditions to the license. Such an approach would appear much more appropriate to address the concerns. If the law does not provide for this, and my laymans reading suggests it does, then it should do so.
Secondly, TFL is both a regulator and an operator/funder of competing services. Some of which, such as Nightbus, have suffered at the hands of Uber. Acting as regulator over small taxi companies is one thing but over tens of thousands of taxis under one operator there is a conflict of interest.
So legally, was it a proper use of the powers or was there a better way forward. Was the review clearly independent of commercial or political pressure. The docs will need disclosing in court.
Finally, this is a London blog so fair cop but Uber operates across much of the UK. How do Birmingham etc react to a London ban. Most of the concerns and systems should also apply there. If London ban, a provincial city doesn’t and something bad happens, then is the local authoity exposed to legal action? If they just ban because London does, that is not a good ground.
Its all a blagging game and after a lot of puff Uber will give undertakings etc and a license will be granted. As the FT and others point out Uber’s problems are more financial – it just doesn’t make money.
Uber’s losses – though they seem to be enormous – look to me like investment. If the company can drive enough rivals out of business, it will be able to exploit a monopoly. But looking at this does also turn up a claim that the company takes a 20% cut of every fare.
The qustion of whether any action against Uber’s alleged failings should be local (rather than, say, national, or indeed global) could be asked about most of the tasks of local government. The people of Birmingham need and deserve exactly the same services as the people of London, so what is the point of different provision in these different cities? Much comment in these pages is about London being different from the rest of the UK – and it is – but few of these differences have much of a logical basis.
As I have said before I don’t really view taxis or mini cabs as public transport. For me they’re an irrelevance and I’ve never even looked at Uber as an option. I recognise that for others they find the service attractive but I do wonder if they have any awareness of Uber’s wider business practices, especially in the USA. The longer term strategy of a business like Uber is to remove all effective competition and to establish a “personal mobility” monopoly. Once that happens people can wave goodbye to cheap fares. I also don’t think they are remotely interested in the welfare of their “employees” given the enormous lengths they have gone to try to demonstrate they didn’t have drivers as employees.
I do feel that the Mayor and TfL are in moderately dangerous waters here. Uber have friends in government and will no doubt have been on the phone. They have a friend in a certain editor of a London newspaper. They risk being tried in “the court of public opinion” and via social media where there are no winners, just reputational damage. It’s unlikely that Uber will be banned permanently – I just don’t see it happening no matter how strong the arguments are against them. It also does nothing to change the “anti modernisation” stance of the black cab trade. If they think they’ve “won” something today then they’re deluding themselves.
And it is just worth saying that TfL are in the process of making very extensive cuts to the night bus network with vastly reduced frequencies on many routes. This does nothing to encourage people to swap back to night buses, especially as Uber can keep operating for as long as the legal process lasts.
Of course the appeal now will be determined in a legal way without political involvement – whichever way the politicians would like the decision to go. Moreover, it can only be the points mentioned in the TfL statement which can be discussed. It’s not possible for TfL to raise new issues when it comes to the magistrates’ court. And without knowing the ins and outs of the details, I looked at the first three grounds and thought that TfL has been hunting around for a reason not to continue the license. In other circumstances I would have expected this to reach the current stage, on those three grounds, only after TfL had said to Uber ‘We’re not happy with what you are doing in these areas, can you amend your procedures’ and then Uber had said ‘no’. It would be quite surprising if Uber would say ‘no’ in those circumstances.
The fourth ground is probably the most troubling for Uber and the most significant, but even then, I would have thought that this was an invitation to negotiation – what access does TfL need? – rather than outright refusal.
So it all reads to me as though someone had said what can we find that would give us sufficient reasons to refuse Uber a license. If these are not absolutely watertight, the courts may well find against TfL.
If TfL have grounds not to renew Uber’s licence, they shouldn’t do it. That’s doing their job as regulator, keeping Londoners safe and everyone playing by the rules.
If they don’t have grounds, and this is a politically motivated move, the court of appeal will reverse the decision anyway. If that happens TfL can say to the black cab lobby “well we tried”. And maybe that’s the point.
Uber has revolutionized the private car hire market, and paid-for transport in general, particularly after hours, and particularly if you live in the Southern region of rail operations! Rather than revoke Uber’s license, TfL should impose stricter regulations on private hire drivers and cars. Uber is basically a way of finding a ride, not actually fulfilling the ride (sort of!). If they just turn Uber off, there will be chaos. I’m 90% sure that this won’t happen. If it does, there needs to be another app waiting in the wings who can sign up 40,000 drivers in 4 weeks. You can bet your base fare that Tfl will already know about this…
@WW – you and I may not see Uber as ‘public transport’ but an enormous amount of people do – from people I have been with on business to especially the younger members of my family who – when in groups of 3 or 4 going together – this is the normal and cheapest way to get around now, whether at home or abroad. They swipe the same phone and the car turns up. They know the wider implications too, but it’s just another Amazon that most can no longer imagine being without.
I’m glad that London has the means throw some authority around this. It’s interesting how the flood of yellow oBikes was swiftly stemmed over the summer. Nice idea but irresponsibly executed, … and so a foot in the door to protect the existing hire scheme to boot.
The legal shenanigans with Uber, I fear, look set to be as toxic as sorting out the finer points of the unmentionable thing beginning with ‘B’ and ending with ‘t’ (with an ‘x’ in the middle).
When Uber state “As we have already told TfL, an independent review has found that ‘greyball’ has never been used or considered in the UK for the purposes cited by TfL.” it does make me wonder what purposes “greyball” has been used for in the UK. Have TfL just not made the exactly correct accusation yet?
CR
Uber has been in London – how long? Less than 3 or 4 years?
And huge numbers of paid advocates & (difficult-to-find-polite-words) err .. “people” are screaming …
How on Earth did they manage until Uber sprouted in the night, then?
I must admit that I refuse to use them under any circumstances, but that’s just me …..
@Chris Richmond TfL may or may not need to impose stricter regulations. What they definitely need to do – and are obliged to do as a regulator – is impose the same regulations on Uber as on any other private hire operator. Uber have done an impressive job of presenting themselves as a digital company pushing the boundaries of innovation. But what they actually are is a minicab company pushing past the boundaries of regulation.
The solution is fairly obvious, and doesn’t depend on Uber vanishing while leaving passengers and drivers stranded; it is that they comply with the licensing requirements. Either they are already doing that, and their appeal will succeed, or they are not and will need to decide whether or not they want to continue to operate and change their behaviour accordingly.
Re Greg,
Uber have been in London 5 years and 4 months (with the 4 months temporary extension about to expire at the end of the month). The last 4 months were to give them the chance to address TfL concerns and they apparently haven’t.
From Wikipedia: “Greyball is a software tool used by the ride-hailing service Uber to identify and deny service to certain riders, including riders who Uber suspects of violating its terms of service.“.
It seems to me that that would be a perfectly legitimate and reasonable thing to do. Extending its use to denying service to public servants or their agents who are trying to regulate and/or check up on Uber (as they have apparently done elsewhere in the past) is presumably the ‘extended’ use which is suspected and denied.
Re James S,
As far as I can the pro uber camp in my social media circle seem to be focused on the younger age group who struggle to remember adult life in London before Uber or those in a slightly older bracket who hate to have to pre-plan what they are doing. Everyone else is along the lines of “there was life before uber this won’t be problem…”
Apart from TfL regulation, there is also the relationship between the company and its drivers.
Uber has drawn up the relevant contract terms to endure that drivers are not its employees and passengers are not supplied with transport services by the company.
Unfortunately for Uber, UK laws for income and corporation taxes and VAT, as well as employment legislation, are not enforced solely on legal form. The law gives priority to the substance of these transactions. i.e. the Duck Test.*
In particular they are looking at huge potential VAT liabilties.
They might fear TfL but they ought to be terrified of HMRC.
*It doesn’t matter what it is officially called – if it looks, sounds, eats, flies and swims like a duck, it’s a duck.
Re Malcolm,
I suspect the use of Greyball to against regulators in New York will be brought up – this will be used to show they aren’t fit and proper at the higher levels than local management in London /UK. Uber really want to avoid having to share their data with TfL as TfL could use it to show Uber are responsible for lots of traffic issues…
Greg: It’s not just Uber. So many features of modern life, from toothpaste to takeaways, from gramophones to smartphones, prompt the same question. Uber may have spread with spectacular rapidity, but it would not have done so unless sufficient people wanted to use it.
ensure, not endure.
SSFF: Small screen – fat fingers.
Re Nameless,
Agreed on HMRC, they are already wrapping their tentacles round Uber with both Uber and TfL forced to hand over driver details.
The lack of real experience in Uber astounds me.
Uber:
If they really cared about the 40,000 drivers they wouldn’t have invested just short of $1bn (according to public sources) in driverless vehicle technology. So the real total will be greater than this (and it is before any potential costs for the alleged IP theft from Google of 14,000+ documents with an employee then moved across!).
What may also hit Uber is that lots of firms have quietly been investing in driverless vehicle tech but not highlighting it so their actual investment in the area is a lot smaller share of the total than earlier analyses though.
ngh: Uber may not care about their drivers, but such not-caring is not logically proved by investigation of driverless technologies. Farmer Giles can continue to nurture his horses and give them carrots while also checking on the advances in steam-ploughs and tractors.
@NickBxn
Uber isn’t public transport. It is an alternative to public transport.
John is quite right, as regards the usual meaning of “public transport”. However, it does seem to be a somewhat arbitrary boundary – consider Lyft Line, which (in certain North American cities) operates rather like Uber but incorporating sharing-with-strangers-going-the-same-way.
It certainly seems quite sensible to me that taxis and similar services should be regulated by the same authority as regulates public transport. Although when (years ago) I first observed a taxi with the roundel in the window (which to me meant “London Transport”), my mind did go “What the …?”.
Just to note – I’ll be posting a more fulsome article on the Uber situation tomorrow (as some of you will know from the pub meetups, I’ve been working on one for some time).
I wanted to get something up quick yesterday because it was important though, so don’t let that stop you commenting here for now.
Funnily enough a rep from Uber said this morning on BBC Breakfast, that TfL do the whole DBS check and medical certificate part of things…
This doesn’t seem to stack up when I read the TfL statement… I guess the truth is somewhere in between?
Re SH(LR),
The driver gets a doctor to fill in the TfL medical form:
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tph204-medical-declaration.pdf
Except it turns out many of the doctors had never seen the people they did the forms for and the accusation is that potential drivers were pointed in the direction of helpful doctors on the internet…
This medical form issue sounds like another nightmare to prove anything. Recommending a specialist doctor because he/she charges less than one’s GP would be quite in order. Recommending a known crook would not – but how to prove which they were doing?
@Malcolm: Have a good read of the form…. There are two glaring spelling errors: P.2, 1B: “Name or Doctor”, just below that, section C: “Date Protection”.
And that’s only on page two, I dread to think how the medical terms might have been mutilated…
SHLR: Yes, I think I noticed a couple of others. This is a pretty poor show, but it strikes me as completely tangential to the issue of whether or not Uber is fit and proper to be running a hire service. It is a TfL form, applicable (apparently) to all taxi and private hire drivers, not just Uber ones.
Re Malcolm,
I believe that some are relatively easy to call into question as the doctors concerned do skype consultations for “internetdoctorsareus” only and aren’t located any where near London.
ngh: Oh. But a Skype consultation may be acceptable – or so it could be argued. Yes, I know there’d be problems with the stethoscope. But the hard part might be unravelling Uber’s role and motives, if any, in the candidate’s choice to use such a service. I know what I’d suspect, but my suspicions may not be firm enough legal ground.
@NGH
The form clearly states (in more than one place) that the doctor filling in the form must have complete access to the applicant’s medical records. While individual applicants might sign something that didn’t strictly comply with requirements, if a doctor routinely and frequently signed forms based on a lie, they would risk being found out and disciplinary action taken against them by the GMC, up to the point of being struck off. I would be very surprised if many doctors were prepared to risk this. If, of course, they are not properly registered as doctors than this, too, is easily found out and would invalidate the form.
In any case, the choice of who to get to fill in the form rests with the applicant and not with Uber, even if Uber signpost particular doctors, the applicant is not obliged to use them.
Like Malcolm, I think this is all very marginal to whether Uber is a fit and proper organisation or not. Moreover, as someone who has had some considerable regulatory experience, if this was seen as a breach of the regulations, the first step would be to invite Uber to correct its processes. Refusing to renew the license for something like this, would only be the very last step and taken after the organisation comprehensively refused to comply. If Uber were in this position then I would have expected TfL to say just how they had given Uber chances to comply which had been rejected, as it would strengthen their hand considerably. The lack of any such statement suggests to me that it hasn’t happened.
Incidentally, the usual definition of public transport is transport which is available to the public generally. Uber, and, indeed, all taxis, fall in with this definition.
quinlet: All good points.
There is more than one definition of “public transport”, some users of the term require the transport to be shared. Investigation of which definition is “usual” is likely to be inconclusive.
@quinlet
I have read (unfortunately forgotten just where) that Uber responded to many of TfL questions with “LOL No”. So this could well be the “comprehensively refused to comply” bit. Furthermore TfL is by nature a by-the-book processes type of organisation, whereas I doubt many would say that Uber is. So I strongly suspect that there are many serious issues under the surface of this dispute. I am quite looking forward to John Bull’s analysis article.
I don’t doubt that there are failings in Uber’s systems and processes, which you would hope that they would be working on to overcome falling foul of the regulations. But without too much knowledge of their tax position, I would still be confident in saying that their entirely cash-less point of sale process will be much easier to monitor and investigate from HMRC’s point of view than the largely cash based receipts of the black cab economy. Any operator in this industry will have rule-breakers but I know that I feel much safer getting into a car with someone who’s name and face is available to me, who’s route I can track, and a journey I can share for a friend or family to track, all within an app on my phone. As for Uber’s investment/research into driver-less cars, this is development/innovation/the future, just as we know we know that we can have driver-less tube trains… And as for Greg Tingey’s refusal to use Uber, this is probably a generational issue of loyalty or luddism that millenials do not share. But the future does happen – there aren’t many horse driven cabs out there these days…
@ Quinlet – I was not clear in my remark about politics deciding this. Of course there is an imminent legal process and that will be trudged through at whatever pace the courts and lawyers work at. However the wider issue of regulation and control of the streets has been a matter of debate between TfL, City Hall and DfT for a while. I believe it is well known that Uber has “got to know” several key ministers in Govt including some that are no longer MPs. The DfT has been disinclined to allow TfL to cap the number of private hire licences. One must ask why this is given the demonstrable evidence of traffic chaos in parts of the City as Uber cars swarm round the roads or else clock residential roads in and around Heathrow. Just go for a walk through Shoreditch at 0200 on a Sunday morning to see the chaos there. There is a “long game” to be won here and Uber and TfL know this. Uber will be working hard behind the scenes to ensure Mrs May, Mr Grayling and others are more minded to back their case than an opposition party Mayor and a nasty “stateist” body like TfL. That’s where the politics come in and that’s before we get all the vile behaviour that’s gone in the States and elsewhere.
Make no mistake Uber are an insurgent monopoly in the making and, if allowed, will trample everything in its way to secure that monopoly. If people are happy to see cyclist safety, air quality, London’s bus network and the viability of the tube and rail network put at severe risk then keep supporting Uber. You might think they’re “cool” now but give them 5-10 years and then wonder why it costs £25 to go 2 miles down the road and why there are no TfL buses. And yes I might sound a bit strident but there are enough clues as to their general strategy that should make people think twice.
@ Malcolm – you seem to be being rather “generous” in your view of Uber. Surely it is the case that TfL have raised these issues before and afforded them a change to rectify matters and get to a position of compliance or at least provide solid evidence of a plan and resources to achieve compliance? I can’t believe TfL have just gone to “not renew” as that would be considered precipitate action on the part of regulator. In my very limited experience of such things (and similar commercial escalation processes) you very rarely have a “cliff edge and no chances before hand to fix things” legal provision. That itself would be open to challenge as it would pose too much risk to service providers.
One has to ask why Uber seemingly can’t be bothered? Their former CEO was not exactly known for his sparkling and conciliatory manner. Like NGH I wonder if they are as “clueless” as they appear or is it just bravado and a misplaced belief that they’re right, TfL are a load of old fashioned whatevers and everything will be right in the morning? It’s all very well being “thrusting, innovative and new” but you need a bit of nous when coming up against bodies like TfL and HMRC or when dealing with the fall out of sexual attacks on the users of your service. If nothing else my impression is that a bit of corporate “growing up” might be in order.
As I’ve said I don’t use Uber, I never would use it and I struggle to see why people are “crying their eyes out” on social media over a glorified minicab service. It’s not as if Uber are the only supplier of such services or that there isn’t a generally very decent public transport network in London. People need to get past being quite so “spoon fed” over their personal mobility (he says arrogantly!).
And just to add a small but relevant diversion to the story. It seems we are getting our very own “Black Bus” shared black cab “bus service” from next Monday. It will run from Highbury to Waterloo via back streets but essentially shadowing TfL bus route 4. And yes it’s those Citymapper people again who are behind it with the “Gett” app used for black cabs.
https://medium.com/citymapper/project-black-bus-4a838ddf7c06
Fare £3. Board and alight where you like. AM peak into Waterloo, PM out to Highbury. It will be very interesting to see if this idea works both operationally and in appealing to passengers. I also wonder quite how the black cab trade will take to being on a “fixed route” type of service.
WW: I do not have the information to decide on the merits of Uber’s appeal. I share your guess that they are probably in the wrong on at least some of the counts, if not all, but I just feel that it is going to prove pretty tricky to prove it in court. If they are as “nasty” as we both suspect, they will be pretty good at covering up the evidence.
I have never used Uber myself (and hardly ever used a taxi) but I am not at all surprised that so many of the people who use it regularly are so fond of it and so aggrieved at being deprived of it. If you can be reliably taken from door to door with no hanging about at bus stops or jamming yourself into a noisy train, all at a fixed price you can afford and at a time of your choosing, what’s not to like?
@WW
With all due respect I think you may be exaggerating the ‘monopoly’ threat from Uber. They could well become a monopoly of taxis for a time, but the market is open and the entry barriers that are within operators’ control relatively low.
It is implausible, though, to suggest that they could become a monopoly of public transport. Taxis are still a very small share of the total public transport market and well before they became a threat the level of congestion caused – as we have already seen – becomes unacceptable. If left unchanged then your ‘£25 to go 2 miles down the road’ would also take 45 minutes or an hour. This is because the equilibrium speed would be walking pace, and for many people and most such journeys, walking would become quicker. Cycling much quicker.
But this would not happen overnight, and already we are seeing pressure for more radical bus priority which would give buses the edge both in time taken and cost. In that scenario Uber would stand no chance of becoming a monopoly, even of road based public transport. Moreover, the fact that PHVs (including Uber) are not allowed in bus lanes and that they are likely to lose their exemption from congestion charging, will further tip the scales.
In some US cities, where public transport provision is very low, and use makes up only a tiny fraction of the modal share, it might be possible for Uber to dream of a becoming a monopoly supplier of public transport, but not, I think, in a city such as London.
Chris Richmond
Nothing at all to do with loyalty or Luddism _ I’m using the internet, after all (!)
It’s just that I refuse, as a matter of principle tp put money in the pockets of crude exploiters like Uber’s owners. See also comments about HMRC, from NGH & others
Also, to “trim” a little” I see no need for Uber, for myself, or, quite frankly, anyone:
We have:
Trains, tubes, buses & Night buses ( the latter two beong CHEAP), minicabs & Black Cabs – why do we “need” Uber for anything at all?
To which (pressed “send” to soon!) I may add …
CR said: I feel much safer getting into a car with someone who’s name and face is available to me, who’s route I can track, and a journey I can share for a friend or family to track,
It’s called the Registration Number & Licence Number Plates on any BLack Cab – & yes, they work, because many years ago, I reported a Blck-Cab driver for infringements & got a sensible reply…..
WW
Make no mistake Uber are an insurgent monopoly in the making and, if allowed, will trample everything in its way
Doubleplusgood!
To which, may I please add “Everybody” as well as ever thing that they are prepared to trample.
For others, not familiar with some of the history, may I suggest you look up T Kalanick’s behaviour & recorded public opinions – I think it’s all deeply unpleasant, but I urge everyone to form their own views on this.
Tying into the Garden Bridge Thread (!) it is known that Boris was very pro-Uber, now compare that with his attitude to due process as seen in those transcripts?
Um
@ Malcolm et al
The question as to whether taxis and Uber are public transport is moot. The point is that regulation of both fall within the remit of the Public Carriage Office. The PCO was devolved from the Metropolitan Police (ie the Home Office) when TfL was created. It was the logical place to put it.
TfL also has London Streets which looks after red routes and traffic signals.
Personally, I don’t trust Uber the company or Uber the concept – too fraught with danger of multiple types, but I accept that some see it as an easier answer to calling a minicab (don’t they realise mobile phones can actually be used to _speak_ to people? Seems not…) but they way their 40,000 vehicles cruise around touting-but-not-touting just creates traffic problems, fumes, and blockages in local areas such as Heathrow environs, so making them toe the legal lines that other companies must do seems only right. Too many empty vehicles on the road, frankly.
I noted on BBC news channel yesterday a bloke saying that he’d been driving a minicab for 15 years and didn’t know what he’d do for a job if Uber close down. Begs the question what he did for the first ten of those years – and why he’s unhappy about doing the same again.
UBER is just the professionlisation and modernisation of the mini cab trade. Many mini cab firms are tiny affairs with shall we say spotty customer service standards and limited converage. “Your taxi’s is on it’s way/round the corner/almost there” as you wait for your late car. “Ah well we’ll drop you off there but you have to call a local company for the return journey as we won’t send any anyone that far for a pick up.
For drivers there are pluses and minuses, but the pluses from being ruled by an algorythm is no longer being whim to the personal politics of the dispatch office and having to suck up to people to get work. Many a dispatcher has favourites/relatives who drive certain cabs and may get more work than others.
Working for a company thats not slapdash on payroll, handles electronic payments promptly quickly and reducing your need for cash.
As the cab trade is fragmented in to tiny firms, none are going to have access to capital to invest such sophisticated computer systems of establish one standard that evey customer can use.
It may have a longer term hope to get to driverless cabs so it can cut costs and make money on the fares it can charge, but that risk is in it’s business model. If it can’t it will either go under be taken over/ or rebuild itself on a higher fare level and therefore smaller volume than now. The advantages of it’s technology are still there and Black taxis are some of most expensive in the World and frankly we don’t need the knowledge anymore. The death of UBER won’t save the Black Cabs.
RP
I would seriously question the use of the word “professionalism” is the context of Uber, for reasons given by my self, WW & most pertinently, Alison.
I know several professional women, who work in the City & not one of them will touch Uber with someone else’s bargepole (!)
It certainly appears that Ubers loss-making. loss-leading drive is focussed on driving everyone else out of business & then cornering the supposedly-free market, apart from any other considerations which may apply to their probity, in several areas …..
Certainly serious doubt has been cast on the standards by which Uber has been run, and possibly still is. But I think rational plan’s use of the word “professionalisation” is best taken in a slightly different sense. A firm can be accused of being amateurish if it exhibits inconsistent behaviour, as with the example of “round the corner/almost there”. Whatever else Uber may have done or failed to do, it does not seem to have ever behaved like that.
Yes but by the standards of most mini cab firms UBER is a vastly more professional organisation, The cab industry was like the corner shop industry. dominated by thousands of small firms, with low barriers to entry in the form of start up capital and running costs. Then Tesco realised that it’s now incredibly complex stock replenishment system had moved onto a level that it could make money selling from small local stores.
Now the convenience sector is dominated by a few firms that have access to fresh produce and meals etc that no corner shop had the turnover or capital to stock. By entering the market they have vastly grown it through greater stock, lower prices and longer opening hours.
Uber, no doubt could be better run, but compared to mini cab firms? Are they any different or in fact better, on per trip basis. There have been incidents, but so have their been in black cabs.
Maybe TFL thinks this is an easy way to reverse the growth in traffic in key areas and the Mayors office can pitch towards Union interests (this is Labour party after all,)
We shall see whether this is permanent or just part of the dance to show all sides how serious they are and then quietly extract some improvements in practice before the Twitter storm blows inner city labour of course. This only a real problem for Labour as it supports the existing workers and of course is against a rapacious international capitalist and the fact the millenials were so instrumental in their voter surge at the last election. It might really come down to what those voters think if UBER is banned.
The Tories have no real skin in this game other than by being seen as modern and pro business, etc. The Tories have been pushing the HRMC route though against firms that think they can avoid paying NICS by divesting themselves of staff, if only.
If Uber is willing to take a risk and the other side is pushing hard it might fold and announce it’s swithcing off it’s the next day etc and let the chaos envelope the Mayors office. But that is fraught with problems.
There are unconfirmed newspaper reports that “Lyft” is thinking of opening-up in London in competition with Uber, and, pertinently, asking about regulations to be observed ….
Those who ‘wouldn’t touch Uber with someone else’s bargepole’ need to be clear as to whether they are opposed to Uber the company (because of shady business practices or whatever) or Uber the concept (smart phone apps to call a minicab), or both. Personally I find it quite easy to object to Uber the company, because of the business practices they have exhibited in the past, but companies can reform and change (and even improve) and they need to be judged on what they are doing in London now and not what they might have done in other cities in the past or on how much you loathe Travis Kalenik or whatever.
I think it is much harder to object to Uber as a concept. And, indeed, other companies, such as Lyft, have adopted the same concept. It really isn’t good enough to say that things worked well enough before Uber or that you could just use a phone to call a minicab. That argument runs against change full stop. You might just as well say that steam trains worked perfectly well, or gas lights. They might have done, but we now have things that work better. This does put traditional taxi drivers, particularly black cab drivers, at risk. But if they are not willing to adapt and provide a better service then it’s hard to justify protecting them for sentiment’s sake. This particularly applies to black cabs who generally charge a premium price for what is not particularly a premium service. This seems to be the crux of the matter in City Hall where, surprisingly, a surfeit of sentiment, together with pressure from taxi drivers seems to leave the powers that be content to degrade the level of taxi service available to Londoners.
Uber, the concept, is undoubtedly a very good idea with few negatives. Uber, the company delivering the concept, obviously needs some improvement and could do with some competition. However, I did hear today, from a semi-reliable source, that Sadiq Khan’s actions are purely to strengthen his appeal at the Labour Party conference and that Uber will be back in business before their license expires. As for Alison’s quaint idea of actually using a mobile phone to speak to mini cab operators, this is now almost economically impossible in today’s ‘App’ driven society. They still exist outside of London, of course, and I had a comical experience last New Year Eve when I was I trying to book a minicab and all the companies (mainly one man bands) responded ‘Oh, we don’t work New Years Eve, it’s far too busy!’
Perhaps the cry of the millennials about Uber is that they have grown up in a world of instant, personal supply. Whilst it is undoubtedly very convenient to be able to live your life through your smart phone it could cloud the view of what might be termed “the common good”.
Not long ago I was in a bus going southbound over Lambeth Bridge, using the bus lane. Traffic generally was slow and I was able to observe no less then nine TfL Private Hire labelled vehicles, one behind the other and all empty. They were almost certainly cruising around waiting for bookings. The few black cabs all had passengers. I have observed convoys of such empty vehicles in the West End and City on other occasions at varying times of day.
If 40,000 Uber drivers’ jobs are threatened by the possible demise of the company it also means 40,000 fewer vehicles on the roads. It has been suggested above that DfT seem to be more inclined to support the 40,000 rather than what their presence imposes on others. The changes brought about in the world by computerisation can initially appear very enticing to those who do not (or do not have to) consider the consequences. Uber is not alone in this. There is a company supplying accommodation in a very similar way. From what might have been an operation to match domestic supply and demand has quickly distorted the housing market in a number of cities. Another major company moved very quickly from being an online bookseller to being a purveyor of everything. In all cases accessable from the convenience of a smart phone (or other device) causing potential disruption to those who are not part of the new style of living. Computerisation can allow a relatively few companies to quickly make serious changes to existing markets. Legislation to bring some order to different markets will increasingly struggle to keep up.
@ Quinlet – I take your point about monopoly in London but I can readily seen Uber killing off taxi trade *and* bus services in plenty of towns in the UK. Many places have shoddy bus services with the result that car usage is astronomically higher than is remotely sensible. Many towns and cities have no bus or effective local rail transport after 1800 M-S and none on Sunday meaning taxis, minicabs are left. If they are not sufficiently “flexible” they could be wiped out by Uber. In that respect, and it worsens by the month as more bus services are lost, we are not dissimilar to the US where Uber has caused / tried to cause significant damage and is close to achieving control of local paid mobility services. Uber are not the full root cause of these problems as you will know all too well. However they could exploit the poor situation that exists to their own advantage. As we know once bus, tram and rail services are cut they very rarely make any sort of come back, especially in smaller towns and less densely populated places than London. Do we really want only private cars and Uber as the major means of getting around much of the country?
Returning to London I would pick up the point that Uber is reckoned to be responsible for the massive surge in private hire driver licenses being sought and granted. This supply side mechanism won’t be capped by government despite demonstrable evidence of congestion. I say again “one wonders why they’re so reluctant?”. I would not be so obtuse as to suggest Uber is wholly responsible for the woes on the bus network (clearly TfL are at fault as are the last and current Mayoral regimes) but we now have services being severely damaged by congestion, journey times being ridiculously extended and a £100m potential revenue “hole” this year and a programme of taking out 6m kms of operating kilometrage. This is happening across London despite promises to “improve Outer London services”. Heck even the relatively new 483 service from Ealing Hosp – Harrow is lined up for frequency cuts. One wonders whether things would be quite so bad and the cuts as far reaching (and likely to get *much* worse) if we did not have the Uber situation. As I say they are not wholly responsible for the mess but they are having an impact – one which is leading to issues in public service finances, which is eating up legal and management time in TfL and which is leading to cuts in a formerly well respected public transport service. Personally I am not sure it is quite worth paying such a high price just so some “techy minded newbies from the States” can get their own little thrill at possibly making big bucks in the future. And yes that is a rather sour view of things but we’ve not been banned from holding opinions just yet.
Right. More detailed post is up. I’m going to close comments off on this one, to avoid duplication of debate. Feel free to carry on existing conversations over there!