by News Desk | Jan 20, 2015 | London News
Over the weekend, Taxi Leaks recieved a communication from Anne Flint, who lives in Colorado Springs USA. The comment was left on an archived post from mid 2013, “How can London Cabbies survive the threat of private hire firms? by David styles”.
We have therefore reposted the comment as a letter to the editor
I recently discovered your blog after reading an article on The Knowledge. I’m an American Anglophile (been there 5 times – which is not enough).
I’m distressed to learn of all the legal problems plaguing your industry. It seems to me that one way you can complete is to emphasize the history, charm, need I say leg room, and ability of your drivers to point out places and talk about the history.
UBER can never compare to that.
Tourists want the traditional taxi ride. Even though I think it is sad that the electronic “ease” (your competition’s word, not mine) is going to take hold no matter what you do to defeat it, it is probably the way of the future.
BUT there is no reason you traditional drivers couldn’t come up with your own version of this and serve your public in this manner. As for all the legal and administrative issues you are facing, it sounds like you have to find a way to really get tough.
No one is listening to you. Have you thought of rioting in the streets? I wish you the best of luck and next time I’m over there I will be taking the traditional little black taxi.
Editorial Comment:
Anne’s showing of support for the iconic London Taxi trade is typical for many visitors and residents alike.
Yes we have found recent competition hard, but the thing that’s been hardest to stomach is our own licensing authority showing of bias towards certain larger private hire companies, as sometimes resources that offer a
media bias fact check which that sometimes necessary in the news business.
The bending and breaking of rules in order to show preferential treatment to a multinational billion dollar setup, banned in many cities around the world has not gone unnoticed. Not only by us, but also the Greater London Authority, which has branded TfL as woefully inadequate.
But it’s no good pleading hardship.
We have to show we are better than the rest.
TfL say that because this type of technology wasn’t around when the PH act was written, then a lot of it doesn’t apply to app based technology.
This is total rubbish, it’s like saying that guns weren’t invented when Moses was given the 10 commandments, so murdering someone with a gun isn’t covered in law.
Legislation is laid down by Parliament and kept up-to-date by case law. If TfL fail to act, fail to prosecute then case law starts to flag behind. If legislation hasn’t kept up with this technology, then it’s TfL’s failure.
Even without new legislation, it’s still illegal to accept an immediate hiring, which hasn’t been pre booked by a third party. This is tantamount to plying for hire, which is covered concisely by the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Acts.
Ok, they have new technology, but we have this also.
They have apps…and so do we.
They may have Sat Navs….but we have the knowledge!
And that’s something they will never have.
Very soon, we will be seeing a game changer that could revolutionise the taxis trade…but, more on this later!
by News Desk | Jan 20, 2015 | World News
PUC seeks to subpoena Uber CEO Kalanick, raises proposed fine to $19 million
The enforcement arm of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission is proposing that the largest fine in its history be levied against San Francisco-based ride-sharing company Uber.
The PUC’s Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement wants Uber to give it information that the bureau’s Pennsylvania parent agency already has, but that it isn’t permitted to share.
The enforcement bureau wants to know how many trips Uber provided in Allegheny County before being authorized by the PUC to operate in the market.
A compliance plan that the ride-sharing company submitted Dec. 24, 2014, to obtain a permanent experimental license contained the trip data. That information was redacted from the public document, since Uber’s attorneys argued that it amounted to a trade secret. And the data, a PUC spokeswoman explained, are sealed “and cannot be accessed” by the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement.
The two PUC bodies are meant to work independently in some ways. Investigation and Enforcement activities are deliberately separate from the commission’s decision-makers, and according to the agency’s organizational chart, the bureau “serves as the prosecutory bureau for purposes of representing the public.” The enforcement bureau reports directly to the PUC executive director.
In the past, the enforcement bureau has cited ride-sharing drivers for providing service illegally in Allegheny County, and proposed hefty fines against Uber and its rival ride-sharing company Lyft.
In an additional posting to the PUC website Tuesday, the enforcement bureau amended its original complaint against Uber, raising proposed penalties from $95,000 plus $1,000 per day of operation, to $19 million plus $1,000 per day retroactive to Oct. 3.
The bureau arrived at the $19 million figure by revising earlier proposed daily fines to a per-trip proposed fine.
The enforcement bureau is also seeking a subpoena to require Uber CEO Travis Kalanick to appear at a Feb. 18 PUC meeting in Pittsburgh. A PUC administrative law judge would decide whether to issue the subpoena.
The complaint alleges he is the only person who can provide the information the bureau is seeking.
“Travis Kalanick knows and/or has the ability to discover the number of trips furnished through the Uber app from the initiation of service in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania until [Uber] received emergency temporary operating authority from the Commission,” the complaint states.
Uber spokesman Taylor Bennett said Wednesday that the company plans to file a response to the PUC complaint. “Despite this unprecedented action by [the Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement], Uber remains committed to working with the PUC commissioners to secure a permanent home for Uber in Pennsylvania, and to provide safe and reliable rides for all Pennsylvanians,” Mr. Bennett said in an email.
In recent weeks, it appeared Uber was on its way to winning approval from the PUC for a two-year experimental license.
Over the past year, the PUC’s enforcement bureau has frequently differed from the commissioners on ride-sharing issues. In April, an enforcement officer issued more than two dozen citations to Lyft and Uber drivers, and on July 1, a panel of administrative law judges issued a cease-and-desist order against the two companies.
Meanwhile, the board of commissioners granted emergency licenses to both companies in July, and approved permanent experimental licenses with conditions attached late last year. Those are both pending final approval before the full board of commissioners.
In its new complaint, the enforcement bureau states that its “ability to file a straightforward amended complaint that encompasses the full extent of Uber’s unlawful activity has not only been hampered — but has been made utterly impossible — due to Uber’s continued, ongoing and intentional defiance of Commission orders and the orders of the presiding Administrative Law Judges directing Uber to provide information to [the Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation] as properly sought in discovery … for the past six months.”
Uber and Lyft moved into the Pittsburgh area in February. The companies pair drivers using their own vehicles with customers via smartphone apps in cashless transactions.
Uber has 10 days to object to the enforcement bureau’s complaint, and the PUC then has 10 days to rule on the objections.
by News Desk | Jan 20, 2015 | London News
Please be aware, TfL are now enforcing the no left turn into terminus place outside of the marshalled hours of midnight till 4 am.
Victoria Night Ranking Facilities:
The present night ranking arrangements at Victoria are a complete disgrace and have been for a long time.
After complaints first started racking up, Hendy made a site visit. But that was over two years ago, he made the comment that in his opinion the Hudson Place rank was adequate. The fact that the Hudson Place and Wilton Road exits closed
at midnight was not mentioned in the report of this site meeting.
The compromise made led to an unbelievably bad situation where passengers from the station had to find there own way out of the front of the station. Many seasoned passengers obviously found their way to the old rank and formed large queues. British Transport Police and compliance teams regularly turn away Taxis, threatening drivers with tickets or being reported to TfL for using an unauthorised rank.
Even with the whole place covered by CCTV, they did nothing about the touts, regularly seen approaching the queue and walking passengers away to their cars, parked in Buckingham Palace Road. TfL appeared to be more interested in shepherding part of the footfall from the station onto their buses and tubes, similarly to what we saw over Christmas at WinterWonderland.
Public safety obviously takes a back seat when it comes to increased revenue.
After nearly two years of complaints, TfL and the BTP finally relented and as an experiment, appointed marshals to help with limited access to rank spaces in Terminus place from midnight to 4 am.
Cash Cow:
Now we find TfL are using the clock as a cash cow and when the Marshals pack up, they start wacking out PCNs at £65 a pop, to unsuspecting Taxi drivers turning left into Terminus Place to pick up stranded passengers waiting in Terminal place. This is a reduced rate which rises to £130 after 14 days the £195 after 28.
It’s disgraceful to think TfL suddenly feel the need to enforce this no left turn, but continue to turn a blind eye to PH vehicles parked on double red lines, blocking the cycle lane at Lower Thames Street.
Double standards?
Our trade orgs have again settled for half measures.
This situation concerning these unfair charges, has to be sorted out as a priority.
It’s not just TfL who are being unreasonable.
A friend of mine dropped a passenger just short of the corner of Bedford Avenue in Adeline Place.
A few days later, she received a PCN for being stopped on a designated parking bay. In all the years ive been driving a Taxi, I’ve never heard of this offence before.
The PCN was issued using photographs taken from an enforcement camera opposite, alleging the Taxi was stopped on designated diplomatic parking space.
She appealed stating that no offence had taken place. Unfortunately (but not unexpected with Camden) the appeal was refused.
Taxis can pick up and set down anywhere on the public highway except of coarse pedestrian crossing zig zag lines and some Bus lanes….but that’s it. The vehicle was not parked, as the photos show the passenger getting out.
Camden Council has a history of trying to rip off Taxi drivers. This incident took place less than a hundred yards from the other well known honey trap in Great Russel Street, junction of Bloomsbury Street.
Unfortunately the Taxi driver involved has now paid the fine, after information from the LTDA explained that some councils go all the way with these cases and the amount doubles if not paid after first appeal.
It can still be appealed but unfortunately, tribunals look at payment, as an admission of guilt and the chances of successfully appealing are slim.
by News Desk | Jan 20, 2015 | London News
TfL and the Mayor’s spin doctors have been working flat out to try and regain the high ground, after publication of the damning “Future Proof” report from the GLA inquiry which branded them as “Woefully inadequate”.
In the past we saw the TOCU squad disbanded after officer in charge Joe Royal stated publicly that the regulations concerning the set up of satellite offices in his view, were unenforceable.
We then saw a decline in on street enforcement as warranted Cab enforcement officers were regularly seconded to bus and tube ticket fraud initiatives.
We even got to a stage where the chairman of the LCDC was informed that only two actual Cab Enforcement officers were available on a Saturday night.
Now we’ve been informed that the Metropolitan Police are to created a new, single police command to replace there flagging Safer Travel At Night (STaN) teams and further improve the safety and security on London’s Bus/Tube network and other surface transport services. This is supposed to include Taxis and Private hire services.
Apparently, there are to be 2,300 Police and Police Community Support Officers (CSO)involved. Of course, the majority will be CSOs, who do not have the power of stop, and actually have less power than current TfL compliance officers. These new bodies will supposedly work closely with Transport for London (TfL) as part of a new Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Roads and Transport Policing Command (RTPC).
We’ve seen Policing on the cheap before.
Now we have Cab enforcement on the cheap.
To be honest, it would have been more efficient, much cheaper and had greater affect, to insist that local council traffic wardens move on touts illegally plying for hire, forming unauthorised ranks outside venues such as Swallow Street, Old Billingsgate, etc.
MPS Commander Stephen Watson, said: “The Met enjoys a first class partnership with TfL in ensuring that the millions of people who use London’s transport system every day are kept safe and that our networks are secure and reliable”.
“Much has already been achieved through our joint efforts and we are confident that this new and fully integrated command will enable us to build on a legacy of success”.
Perhaps Commander Stephen Watson would like to explain in detail, just what the legacy of success appertaining to the Taxi and Private Hire trade actually is?
Does he consider the conviction of 34 touts over a period of 12 months, a legacy of success ?
Also Commander Steve Watson, perhaps you could give us accurate statistics for the amount of reported minicab related sexual assaults, including rape, for the period April 2013 to March 2014, the estimated unreported attacks and then the number of actual convictions made for these offences ?
Perhaps you could also explain why only 10% of victims of serious sexual assault, report the attacks to police ?
by News Desk | Jan 20, 2015 | World News
(Reuters) South Carolina:
Ride-sharing company Uber has been ordered by South Carolina regulators to cease operations in the state while it remains in the process of seeking permission to legally do business there.
The San Francisco-based company, valued at about $40 billion in its latest fundraising, has touched a raw nerve in many parts of the United States and other countries by threatening to open up often tightly controlled and licensed taxicab markets.
Uber said in a statement that the South Carolina Public Service Commission’s order directed at Raiser LLC, an Uber subsidiary, was unexpected and issued despite the company’s close work with state regulators.
The commission said it believes Uber has been operating in the state since July. On its website, Uber offers service in four South Carolina cities: Columbia, Charleston, Myrtle Beach and Greenville.
The ride-sharing company has been under increasing scrutiny over passenger safety issues. In recent weeks, two Uber drivers in Chicago and another in New Delhi, India, have been accused of sexually assaulting passengers.
Uber Sued In Los Angeles and San Francisco:
Prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco last month said they sued the company for misleading customers about its background checks on drivers.
Philadelphia: Uber accused of racketeering:
Dozens of Philadelphia taxi companies are asking a federal judge to shut down their rival, Uber car service. They accuse Uber of racketeering and wire fraud.
The cab owners mince no words in accusing Uber of operating “unlawfully,” “in bad faith” and with “evil or rancorous motive and ill will.”
“Not since the days of bootlegging has there been a criminal enterprise so brazen,” the suit reads. “Their outrageous acts are legion.”
The suit refers to Uber cars as “gypsy cabs,” that have undermined the state’s regulatory scheme and the financial state of the entire industry causing, the suit claims, immediate and irreparable harm to the taxi companies, for which they seek unspecified damages, as well as an injunction.
The suit says Uber meets the definition of a corrupt organization under the RICO statute and says the payment scheme to drivers amounts to wire fraud.
Boston: Taxi Drivers Sue City For Allowing Uber/Lyft To Operate
The lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court, said the city’s policies make taxi owners “spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per taxi to engage in taxi business and to comply with its vast set of regulations,” while ride-hailing company vehicles “compete in the same business without any particular regulation.”
India: Uber Rape Victim To Sue In US Court:
A woman who was allegedly raped by an Uber taxi driver in India’s capital has hired a prominent lawyer to sue the online-hailing taxi service in U.S. courts.
The financial executive, who cannot be named under an Indian law that grants rape victims anonymity, has hired Douglas Wigdor, a New York-based employment lawyer.
Source : Reuters : CBS: Boston Globe : Indipendent
Recent Comments