Apparently, there has been breaking news about the LTDA/Uber driver prosecutions. It appears, from a letter sent to TfL board members, that the LTDA, without consulting its members (again), have offered TfL the option to take over the summonses issued against a number of Uber drivers found using their App.
Shades of the Bug Bugs case all over again!
You would’ve thought the LTDA would have informed its members by at least a Text, an email, their website or even on their Twitter account. But no, the announcement came completely out of the blue, in a letter published on the MayorWatch blog.
Two hours after the post on MayorWatch, the LTDA had to answer awkward questions from concerned members.
Not unexpected if the truth were known, neither have a good reputation when dealing with serious legal matters concerning Taxi trade working practise protection. Both now playing pass the buck.
One thing that’s come out of this exposé, is Bob Oddy’s past statements that he cannot speak to the board of TfL concerning Taxi trade matters. And yet the article on the MayorWatch blog States:
December’s meeting of the Transport for London board was a little livelier than usual thanks to a bust up between transport commissioner Sir Peter Hendy and Bob Oddy, a TfL board member and London Taxi Drivers Association deputy General Secretary.
The pair locked horns after Sir Peter updated the board on the TfL’s attempts to have the High Court rule whether, as the LTDA claims, Uber’s use of an app to calculate fares breaches laws forbidding minicabs from fitting meters.
We’ve been told for over 6 years, Mr Oddy can’t speak about Taxi matter as this would be a conflict of interest! Although truth be he only has to ask permission and declare his interests.
Bob’s now on record as actually defending the LTDA to the TfL board.
Also today, the LTDA anounced that they don’t trust Hendy Daniels or Emmerson on Twitter feed!
Update From MayorWatch:
To address some the concerns raised elsewhere, Oddy is normally barred from discussing Taxi business at TfL board meetings but at December’s meeting Mayor Boris Johnson, who also serves as TfL’s chair, adjourned the meeting to allow him to respond to Hendy’s comments.
Boris requested that the webcast continue throughout the resulting discussion which was on the public record but legally happened outside of the meeting in order to satisfy rules on any conflict of interest.
In my opinion it’s only a matter of time before Uber get banned from using their app as a meter. But as their whole system falls to bits without and going on what has already happened in other countries where they have been banned, it would be fair to assume they will just carry on operating regardless.
When this finally happens, TfL’s problems start big time.
Uber have shown in the past they have no regard for Taxi regulations anywhere in the world and believe that as their technology wasn’t invented when the Hackney Carriage and PH acts were written, then it doesn’t apply to them.
They already act illegally by offering the public instant hails. This is done with the full knowledge of TfL, who have chosen since they were first licensed under ex LTPH Director John Mason in 2012, to sit back, do nothing and just take the licensing revenue.
TfL in the last financial year, managed to clock up just 34 convictions for touting. Although extremely easy to spot, TfL have neither the man power or the appetite to deal with this issue. If on a rare occasion TfL were to take action, Uber would gladly pay all fines, enabling their drivers to carry on working the system.
TfL’s current directorate and enforcement are useless, clueless and woefully in adequate. Before we see any meaningful movement against Uber, we would need a completely new directorate, including the replacement of the Transport Commissioner himself.
We need proper on street Cab Enforcement by warranted officers. Current compliance teams and the secondment of a few “Golden” bus inspectors is just a joke.
If, or should I say when Uber are banned, that’s when TfL’s problems really become huge.
But you can always count on TfL to be inventive.
I personally predict they will do what they always do in this situation. Having no chance of policing and stopping, they will incorporate new legislation into the PH act, a power Peter Hendy already has (seen with the introduction of ID badges). The PH Act London 1998, is formulate in such a way -sections marked as prospective- meaning it can be added to or changed without legislation being sought.
TfL could well bring out a new licence to run concurrently with the present PH license, which will enable the holder to use an app for electronic hails. In there eyes, problem solved. This is another clear case of why we must make sure that “Plying For Hire” is defined in law, as part of the Law Commission proposals, that will hit parliament after the forthcoming elections.
We have in the past been informed, the definition of a pre booking run up time is unclear in any of the acts, but former LCDC chairman Alan Fleming has pointed out on numerous occasion that there is a plethora of existing case law covering pre-bookings. Case law confirms that if PH are available for immediate hire, they are plying for hire. This has also been confirmed by Mr James Button (expert in licensing, training and legal advice).
But will banning Uber make any difference to their operation?
Take Victoria Australia for instance. They are banned from using a meter there, but Uber advise drivers to carry on working and have informed their drivers they will pay any fines incurred. In just a few short weeks, Uber has paid out £250,000 (in Aussie dollars) which they say is just petty cash to them. This is happening in nearly all the cities they are banned in.
Can you imagine TfL trying to stop Uber operating here if they get banned and continue to operate. It would be like the Keystone Cops, taking on the Mafia.
They advise their drivers to take Uber phone off the windscreen and place in cup holder. As most of their drivers haven’t got a clue where they’re going, they have to rely on the in-app sat nav directions. We will probably see an escalation of collisions as drivers continually take their eyes off the road to look down at their phones.
Drivers are also advised to remove all signage, which in London could include roundels. They are also told to ask passengers to sit up front. This advice has been given to Uber drivers in Victoria…please watch the ABC news clip below.
In the last financial year, TfL managed to clock up just 34 convictions for touting. Although extremely easy to spot, TfL have neither the man power or the political appetite to deal with this issue. If on a rare occasion TfL were to take action, Uber would gladly pay all fines, enabling their drivers to carry on working the system.
TfL’s current directorate and enforcement are useless, clueless and woefully in adequate. Before we see any meaningful movement against Uber, we would need a completely new directorate, including the replacement of the Transport Commissioner himself.
We need proper on street Cab Enforcement by warranted officers. Compliance teams and a couple of “Golden” bus inspectors are just a joke.
If, or should I say when Uber are banned, that’s when TfL’s problems really become huge.
There has been movement on support for the action being taken by drivers on Wednesday the 21st of January 2015:
This statement has appeared on the Cab Trade New FaceBook page:
LONDON ASSEMBLY LABOUR has emailed Unite the union Cab Section with the following advice for the upcoming Mayor’s Question Time.
“While we welcome their presence we would just warn you that this MQT is mostly focussed on the planned rise in fares, and the Taxi Trade is not on the agenda. TfL will not have a response to the Transport Committee report as of yet and as such it may be quite an unsatisfactory meeting for your members.
What we would suggest is that your members coming along for the 25th February Transport Committee meeting in the chamber, where the report issued on the taxi trade is on the agenda, and Sir Peter Hendy will be questioned on this.”
This tweet has appeared on Twitter:
The LTDA will be attending the actual meeting to ask questions of Hendy and so far, have refused to answer if they support any action from drivers.
The RMT has sent their members another text:
**RMT LONDON**
**TAXI DRIVERS**
Dear member,
We have been informed that next Wednesday’s Mayor’s Questions will not be the subject of the GLA investigation.
This has instead been assigned to the Transport Panel scrutiny to be held on February 25th @ City Hall.
We urge members to attend this meeting.
Details to follow.
In solidarity
Lewis Norton
Branch Secretary
The LCDC has responded by posting these statements on Twitter this afternoon saying:
No need to throw cold water on next weeks Lobby?
We can do both and keep the pressure on TFL.
Flyers for the Lobby at City Hall on Wednesday 21st Jan are now ready. We will be dropping them of at venues / cafés / maybe handing them out on
Editorial Comment:
So as far as we know, the action regarding the Mayors Question Time on 21st of January (next Wednesday), will still go ahead as planned.
If there are any changes, we will post updates as soon as we get them.
The future is finally looking better.
TfL desperately fear the trade will rise up and unite in action against them, their spin doctors have worked their socks off, as they try to wiggle their way out of the GLA inquiry report. Now they are on the back foot and they are running scared.
This is a war we can win and every battle matters.
On Weds 21st Jan 2015 at 10am London Mayor Boris Johnson will be holding ‘Mayors Question Time’ at City Hall.
This is the 1st MQT since the Greater London Authority (GLA) report, which listed a whole host of recommendations that should be implemented by Transport for London to sort out the mess they have created.
R1. The Mayor should publish a long term strategy for the development of taxi and PH industries. How TfL will strengthen enforcement and clamp down on illegal activity.
R2. The Mayor should produce a strategy for guaranteeing a sufficient number of high quality drivers and vehicles across the city.
R4. TfL should produce a signage strategy for taxis and PH, including plans to pilot number-plate-based fixed signage.
R7. The Mayor/TfL to set out plans to ensure that all Underground stations on the 24 hour network have a taxi rank in place by September 2015.
R10. The Metropolitan Police Service should improve the information it collects on cab-related crime to ensure greater understanding of whether offences are committed by taxi drivers or PH drivers or rickshaw riders or by unlicensed drivers.
R11. Mayor to provide the committee with a definitive assessment of resources currently devoted to enforcement, set out costed plans to increase enforcement where necessary and address funding gaps.
R12. Mayor/TfL and MPS to set out specific steps to improve efficiency and visibility of non-covert night-time ops.
R13. Mayor/TfL should immediately clarify policy on destination bookings and reinstate the requirement for PH drivers and operators to record a destination at time of booking.
R14. By March the Mayor/TfL should conduct a full review of satellite offices, identifying and securing enforcement resources to regulate them efficiently, including plans to clamp down on unlicensed marshals. Any further satellite applications should be suspended until this has been achieved.
R16. The Government should act upon the Law Commission findings for the introduction of stiffer penalties for touting and greater enforcement powers for borough and police officers, including higher fines and vehicle seizure.
R18. By March, TfL should revise its driver engagement activity to ensure its as widely representative as possible and improve transparency of decision-making processes by routinely publishing the minutes of trade meetings. TfL should also publish a breakdown of annual licence fee spending.
R19. By March, the Mayor/TFL to set out how it will increase accessibility and visibility of its complaints procedure, improve systems for passenger feedback and complaints. Complaints data to be reported to the TFL board on a quarterly basis.
As you can see, these are most of the things that the Taxi trade has been complaining about for years, and if they were implemented would go some way to ensuring our future looks brighter.
However, TfL are under no obligation to do anything and will try and sweep this under the carpet.
WE MUST NOT LET THEM DO THIS
TfL’s Chief Operating Officer Garrett Emmerson immediately came out on London Live 24 and defended TfL saying they were doing a great job and that they had 400 Enforcement Officers.
Yet only a few days before, a TfL Enforcement officer replied to an email from LCDC Chairman Grant Davis claiming that they only had 4 officers available for the whole of London…on a Saturday night!
So you can see what we are up against.
If we do nothing…TfL will do nothing!
We must support the GLA and demand that Boris Johnson make TfL implement these recommendations.
For the first time we have an independent, impartial official body identifying where TfL have failed, branding them…
“Woefully inadequate”,
“Not fit for purpose” and
“Needs to get to grips with the basics”
Quite damning in anyone’s language.
Even the BBC’s London Transport correspondent Tom Edwards reported “I can’t remember such a critical report from a transport committee. It is brutal”.
He also went on to say that “All taxi drivers will feel vindicated by this report”.
Too right we are Tom!
This report identifies clearly where TfL have let it all go so wrong. Now they must fix it!
But they won’t do so, unless we put them under pressure.
SO HERES THE PLAN…
The public gallery at City Hall is free and holds approx 300. It will be on a 1st come 1st served basis.
We intend to fill the public gallery with as many cabbys as possible, and show the Mayor that we will not allow this GLA report to be ignored.
We also hope to fill the walkway outside the front doors.
Plus, @flash_demo will be staging a drive-thru protest on Tower Bridge and surrounding areas at the same time.
Please follow @flash_demo on Twitter
I believe 2015 is a pivotal year for the London Taxi trade. If we can force TfL to get a grip on this out-of-control monster they have created, we may just be able to start turning this problem around.
If we don’t, then we can expect things to continue to deteriorate, until there is nothing left.
So its imperative that we all turn out en masse to show Boris and his henchmen that we demand action!
Please put this date in your diary and do all you can to attend. Preferably on foot, but just as equally effective in your cab.
Mayors Question Time – 10am – Wednesday 21st Jan 2015 – City Hall.
Your future depends on it.
Thanks
Dizzy LTDF.
Ps. A lot of taxi drivers have put in a great deal of work on behalf of us all to get the GLA to commission this report. And what a great job they have done too.
Now we must all support them. This action should not only be taken by taxi drivers, but everyone who is connected to the trade and makes a living from it. Garages, cafes, radio circuits, trade orgs etc.
Ask yours if they will be attending and supporting us?
They should do because when we’re out of business…they’ll be out of business too!
Editorial Comment:
Lewis Norton secretary on the RMT London Taxi Drivers Branch has text all members asking them to support this action.
The LCDC has posted on their Blog that they will be supporting this action. They are asking drivers to attend City Hall and fill the public gallery.
As of 12:30 pm, 15 jan, we have a “Possibly support” reply from LTDA
December’s meeting of the Transport for London board was a little livelier than usual thanks to a bust up between transport commissioner Sir Peter Hendy and Bob Oddy, a TfL board member and London Taxi Drivers Association deputy General Secretary.
The pair locked horns after Sir Peter updated the board on the TfL’s attempts to have the High Court rule whether, as the LTDA claims, Uber’s use of an app to calculate fares breaches laws forbidding minicabs from fitting meters.
Transport for London says the app is legal but asked the High Court to make a final ruling because it says some aspects of the law are “unclear”. However its request for a hearing was derailed by the LTDA’s decision to start private prosecutions of some Uber drivers.
These prevent the court from considering TfL’s application as it cannot hear issues where related litigation is underway.
The LTDA was unwilling to withdraw its prosecutions, in part because it feared if TfL later failed to take action, of if the High Court failed to hear the application, it would be ‘out of time’ and unable to bring the cases back to court.
The two sides have been chucking accusations at each other for months, but December’s row was especially noteworthy for Oddy’s claim that the LTDA only took action after waiting “92 weeks” for TfL to act and Sir Peter’s very passionate denial and claim that this amounted to an accusation that he and other managers were misleading the board.
Sir Peter undertook to write to board members setting out TfL’s account of its actions.
That letter was sent out yesterday and Sir Peter’s office has generously forwarded a copy to me with permission to share its contents.
Rather than quote selectively I’m embedding the whole letter below – though not the attachments which include the names of the Uber drivers action was brought against – but the most important development is that the LTDA has agreed for TfL to take over its prosecutions and that TfL, if it agrees, will then withdraw the cases so that the High Court can finally consider its application for a determination.
There’s still a long way to go before the matter of the legality of Uber’s app is decided, but after months of rows which have led to growing mistrust of TfL among some Taxi drivers, it looks like progress is finally being made.
Update: To address some the concerns raised elsewhere, Oddy is normally barred from discussing Taxi business at TfL board meetings but at December’s meeting Mayor Boris Johnson, who also serves as TfL’s chair, adjourned the meeting to allow him to respond to Hendy’s comments.
Boris requested that the webcast continue throughout the resulting discussion which was on the public record but legally happened outside of the meeting in order to satisfy rules on any conflict of interest.
Recent Comments