A few months back, I began hearing rumours about a West London garage who offers the top garage door repair service here in Schaumburg was apparently renting out vehicles to both licensed Taxi drivers and also to Uber drivers. Whilst sceptical, I decided to put feelers out and within virtually no time, I was being sent info and links revealing evidence of truth…
I hastily contacted Gurinder Dhillon, the owner of Premier Cabs, Indigo Taxis, (Belvedere) and Otto Cars PH but Mr Dhillon was on holiday. However, his spokesman confirmed the worst and said he would email Dhillon, who would then contact me on his return. He didn’t! To book any rental vehicle to enhance your vacation, it is best to browse https://vegaspartypeople.com/las-vegas-party-bus-rentals/ website which offers rentals with luxurious at least expected prices.
On Tuesday 25th August at 3.45pm, I brazenly entered the ‘traitors’ den with its licensed taxis and Toyota Priuses with car shade side by side in the yard and workshop. It would be fair to say that Gurinder Dhillon was not best pleased to see me and very quickly tried to berate me on his perception of my “conduct on Twitter.”
I explained that I was doing an article for Call Sign on his unique perspective of the taxi/private hireindustry and it would be with or without his acquiescence. I hoped it would be with it, but he looked uncomfortable and was rather uncooperative throughout our unscheduled and strained meeting.
Dhillon tried to illicit my address, but had to be content with my mobile and email on his seeming pretence that he needed another week to think about talking to me. He refused outright to be photographed or recorded during our exchanges.
With all his front, he was unwilling/unable to defend what I as a licensed taxi driver would call the indefensible. Mr Dhillon never did contact me. My first impressions of him being disingenuous, disobliging and even dishonourable seem to have been proved correct.
While on the premises of Gurinder Dhillon, I observed unwitting taxi drivers arriving (apparently sent from Westminster Insurance judging by snatches of conversation I overheard) to have Taxi Witness CCTV installed. If they’d had an inkling as to what was going on at Depot Road W12, they might have thought twice before handing their hard earned money over.
While in the yard, I decided to take photos of cars, taxis and the garage front – with no name sign apart from Unigate (see pic above). The garage door had some damage to it but Dhillon went to queencitygaragedoors.com and had them come repair it. But Mr Dhillon took exception to this, ran out and ordered me off his premises. Could his be a man with something to hide? You can check this best site for garage door replacement and repairs.
At that point I decided take my leave anyway.
In conclusion, I must state that Gurinder Dhillon’s disloyalty to the taxi trade is not unlawful; nor is it illegal – even though some might say it was mightily immoral!
Whereas Mayor Boris Johnson and the incompetents at TfL are just inept, Gurinder Dhillon’s activities are more pernicious and fuelled by the pursuit of a quick buck, which makes him culpable in the present ‘race to the bottom’ – a man willing to sacrifice integrity and reputation for personal gain in the name of business.
It’s now out there and in the court of taxi drivers to make up their own minds. Personally speaking, I could never trade with someone who was contributing to the downfall of my own beloved industry…
Boris claims hailing process is duplicated in mobile technology by Uber
Mayor insists Parliament has been ‘very precise’ on rules for minicabs
High Court is ruling if smartphones can lawfully be used to calculate fares
Uber has hit out against TfL’s proposals to tighten private hire regulation
Boris Johnson claimed today that Uber drivers are ‘systematically’ breaking the law, as the political row over the regulation of London taxis intensified.
The capital’s mayor insisted cars being hailed via the app are illegal because rules state only black cabs can be flagged down, and this process is duplicated in mobile phone technology by Uber.
Today, Transport for London and Uber are seeking clarification from the High Court as to whether smartphones, used by some private hire drivers, can lawfully be used to calculate fares.
Assessing the situation: London Mayor Boris Johnson (pictured visiting Transport for London’s traffic control centre in Southwark last week) claimed today that Uber drivers are ‘systematically’ breaking the law
Mr Johnson wrote in the Daily Telegraph: ‘Ever since minicabs were first regulated in the 1960s, this country has drawn a clear distinction between private hire vehicles and hackney carriages.
‘The hackney carriage trade has been regulated since Oliver Cromwell, and today these black cabs must conform to onerous specifications, including a tight turning circle and wheelchair access.
‘Their drivers must have passed “the Knowledge”… In return, the law says that only black cabs may stand or ply for hire in the streets, and only black cabs can be hailed in the streets.’
The mayor added that Parliament had been ‘very precise’ on the rules, explaining that a minicab may not ‘rank up’, ‘ply for hire’ or be hailed in the street – and must be booked through a third party.
Mr Johnson said there were 48,000 minicabs when he became mayor, but this number has now increased to 82,000 – and they are causing ‘serious congestion around Heathrow and other hubs’.
He is seeking legislation to give TfL the power to cap the number of licensed minicab drivers.
In the High Court, the two-day case is being heard by Mr Justice Ouseley with the main trade bodies – the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association and Licensed Private Hire Car Association – joining in the application for judicial review.
The hackney carriage trade has been regulated since Oliver Cromwell, and today these black cabs must conform to onerous specifications
London Mayor Boris Johnson
The crucial issue is if the phones, which use GPS technology and connect to external servers to carry out calculations, are taximeters, which are prohibited in private hire vehicles in London.
Martin Chamberlain QC, appearing for TfL, told a judge the regulatory body had taken the view from the outset that the smartphone app was not unlawful.
But, because the contrary view was ‘arguable’ and the narrow point of law involved ‘difficult’, TfL had come to London’s High Court to seek clarification.
Mr Chamberlain told Mr Justice Ouseley: ‘TfL brings these proceedings in its capacity as the regulating authority for both private hire and (black cab) taxis in London.
Hailing app: Transport for London and Uber are today seeking clarification from the High Court as to whether smartphones, used by some private hire drivers, can lawfully be used to calculate fares
‘The object is simply to attain the answer to a difficult legal question that only the court can answer authoritatively.’
The QC added: ‘TfL has formed a view. If the court takes a different view TfL intends to ensure the law as declared by this court is properly enforced.’
The two-day hearing will include submissions from Uber London Ltd and the main trade bodies – the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association and Licensed Private Hire Car Association.
Before today’s hearing Leon Daniels, TfL’s managing director of surface transport, referred to the technological changes now taking place and said: ‘London is one of the world’s great technology centres – and we celebrate that.
‘In order to move with these changes, whilst still ensuring the safest and best possible journeys for passengers, it is in everyone’s interest to bring legal clarity to the issue of taximeters and to review the current regulations that were written well before smartphones were invented.’
TfL believes smartphones are not taximeters but concedes there are clearly arguments to the contrary and there is a significant public interest in resolving the matter definitively.
Anger: Black cab drivers have demonstrated in the capital against TfL’s handling of regulation for private hire car companies, in particular Uber, and suggested that the ride-sharing taxi app puts public safety at risk
Black cab drivers have demonstrated in the capital against TfL’s handling of regulation for private hire car companies, in particular Uber, and suggested that the ride-sharing taxi app puts public safety at risk.
It is in everyone’s interest to bring legal clarity to the issue of taximeters and to review the current regulations that were written well before smartphones were invented
Leon Daniels, Transport for London’s managing director of surface transport
Uber itself has hit out against proposals to tighten private hire regulation following TfL’s launching of a consultation on a series of measures that would affect minicab drivers in the capital.
They include the introduction of an interval of at least five minutes between a booking and the start of a journey, to allow drivers to plan an appropriate route.
Other proposals involve a requirement for drivers to pass an English language test and a map reading assessment, while firms could have to operate a fixed landline telephone and accept bookings up to seven days in advance.
Uber is urging its customers to sign a petition as it warned the plans ‘will mean an end to the Uber you know and love today’.
Government figures show the number of minicabs in the capital has risen by more than a quarter in the past two years, to 62,800.
London is on the front line of a Taxi war, with drivers orgs desperately trying to stop the rise of Uber.
Both the black cab trade and legitimate minicab services are being decimated by Uber, which operates using a system which illegally plys for hire and undercuts traditional Tacis and minicabs on price. It’s also alleged the smart phone app has been given favourable treatment by London’s transport regulator, Transport for London (TfL).
Trade body, the London Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA), has been putting pressure on TfL to crackdown on Uber. Leaked documents show the LPHCA has drafted in heavyweight, “Magic Circle” law firm Clifford Chance to present a legal case to get the taxi app banned in London.
Copies of evidence submitted to the Greater London Authority’s Transport Committee by private hire car operator Addison Lee leaked on social media. The submission, which is part of an ongoing consultation on taxi regulation in London, includes evidence submitted seperately to TfL by the LPHCA in June.
In it the LPHCA, which represents 15,000 private hire and minicab drivers in the capital, and Clifford Chance call for TfL to hit Uber with an immediate ban until big changes are made that could cripple its business.
Here’s a summary of the big five arguments the LPHCA makes against Uber.
1. Uber’s insurance is not up to scratch
Uber requires individual drivers to ensure their cars themselves, rather than hold a fleet-wide insurance policy as is the norm in London. The taxi industry argues that this means Uber is putting public safety at risk, as it can’t guarantee all its drivers are insured.
The LPHCA uses a Schrodinger’s Cat-style argument to say that this is inadequate: because Uber only checks documents when driver signs up, LPHCA claims Uber can’t prove at all times that its drivers are insured. They could have cancelled their policy since signing up. Though there is no evidence that this is the case.
The industry also argues that because TfL allows Uber to operate without fleet-wide insurance, Uber gets an unfair price advantage as these policies are costly.
And by passing the saving on to the customer but still requiring the driver to buy a policy, the taxi industry argues drivers are being incentivised to cut corners on insurance to save money.
Clifford Chance, on behalf of the LPHCA said:
“Uber’s operating model facilitates and encourages increasing numbers of uninsured drivers onto the streets of London by allowing drivers to cancel their policies after registration with Uber.”
The LPHCA argues that the checks on these documents are flawed in the first place, pointing to a report in The Guardian on the ease of tricking the system with faked documents.
2. Uber doesn’t pay tax like it should
Uber processes its UK fares through Dutch subsidiary Uber BV, meaning it gets around charging customers UK VAT at point of sale.
By processing revenue through Uber BV, the company also pays a lower rate of corporation tax. Both Taxi and PH companies say this tax set-up gives Uber another unfair advantage. This issue has already been referred to the UK taxman, HMRC, which is probing Uber’s tax set-up.
A spokesperson for Uber recently said: “Uber complies with all applicable tax laws, and pays taxes in all the jurisdictions it operates in, including the UK.”
3. It’s unsupervised and unsafe
The LPHCA tells the Transport Committee in its submission (emphasis ours):
As a direct consequence of the flaws in Uber’s operating model Uber drivers loiter, ply for hire, park illegally and create a public nuisance in areas of high demand such as at airports and stations, undermining London’s profile as one of the safest taxi markets in the world.
Clifford Chance backs this up with some recorded complaints:
Clifford Chance
The LPHCA also argues that taking bookings in-car and taking bookings without an operator’s license is in breach of the law and unsafe. Clifford Chance says it: “undermin[es] the important role of the operating centre in promoting safety.”
And because jobs are routed through Holland, Clifford Chance argues “those service elements are beyond effective regulation by TfL,” which again it claims is in breach of the law.
4. Driver and passenger data isn’t safe
The LPHCA claims Uber “fails to take seriously its obligations to protect customer and driver data.”
Clifford Chance points to reports of Uber accounts being hacked, such as a data break in February that left 50,000 driver details exposed, and says Uber London is not registered in the UK as a data controller, another breach.
5. Uber is flouting the law
The LPHCA accuses Uber of “knowingly, willingly and intentionally flouting local regulation for profit in France, Germany, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands – almost every European market in which it operates.”
Uber founder Travis Kalanick advocates a strategy of “principled confrontation” with regulators and lawmakers around the world, according to an interview with Vanity Fair. Their growth team motto states it’s easier to ask for forgiveness, than ask for permission.
Clifford Chance says also: “Uber London fails to record destination information as required under the Act, undermining an important feature of the private hire framework in London designed to protect the public.”
‘The risks are increasingly clear’
As the battle progresses, neither side looks close to backing down.
Black cab drivers have been putting pressure on TfL to crackdown on Uber. News broke this week that TfL is considering introducing New restrictions designed to hurt Uber that. But we’ve seen this happen before in a previous consultation in 2010. Nothing came of those recommendations.
Clifford Chance and the LPHCA are calling for Transport for London to immediately revoke Uber’s license:
Clifford Chance
Clifford Chance concludes in its report: “These are not simply technical infractions. As Uber expands the risks associated with its operating model are becoming increasingly clear.
“Uber currently has approximately 17,000 registered drivers and has stated an intention to recruit 42,000 drivers by March 2016.
“However, when confronted by issues in relation to its drivers Uber disclaims responsibility for them on the basis that they are self-employed.
In practice, the quality of regulation, oversight, and therefore the safety of the London private hire market is disintegrating rapidly as Uber expands.”
Taxi app says it is looking into legal action over ‘completely unconstitutional bill’ after Mayor Eduardo Paes signed legislation: ‘Uber is forbidden’
Taxi drivers in Rio de Janeiro protest against Uber in July. Photograph: Antonio Lacerda/EPA
The city that hosts next year’s Olympic Games has become the first in Brazil to ban the use of smartphone-based ride-hailing applications like Uber.
Rio de Janeiro mayor Eduardo Paes on Tuesday signed legislation recently passed by Rio’s city council banning Uber and similar technologies from operating in the city.
“Uber is forbidden,” Paes said after signing the bill. “We are open to discuss the matter, but it is forbidden.”
Uber drivers who ignore the ban can be slapped with fines of nearly $500.
“It is a sad day for Rio,” Uber said in a statement. “To please taxi owners in the city, Mayor Paes sanctioned a completely unconstitutional bill to ban technology from the city, leaving cariocas (Rio residents) with less options to move around.” The company said it is studying possible legal actions.
In Brazil’s biggest city, Sao Paulo’s city council also passed legislation banning Uber this month, but Mayor Fernando Haddad has yet to sign or veto the bill.
Haddad told the Globo network he wanted to find “a middle path” to address the issue.
“We aren’t thinking only about Uber. We are thinking of ways to include this new technology in our city’s regulations,” he said.
Cab drivers complain Uber is unfair competition, and have mounted a string of protests against the service.
“They are a multinational that pays no taxes. How can we compete with that?” said Rio cab driver Elizeu Soares, 54. “We have to go through inspections; they don’t. We have to pay for special documentation; they don’t. The only advantage we have is to pay a bit less when we buy new cars, but even that doesn’t make up for all the costs. They can’t just come to Brazil and throw us out of business.”
Traffic expert Eduardo Biavati said that “although Uber isn’t that big here yet, it can surely become big soon”.
He said Haddad’s proposed approach can be more effective.
“Mayor Paes sided with the cabbies, but that kind of legislation will soon become useless. Technology is faster than politics and this shouldn’t be about Uber becoming taxis. It should be about taxis becoming Uber, with less regulations for all,” he said.
Brasilia and Belo Horizonte are the only other two cities in Brazil where Uber is present. To prevent its spread, city councils in at least 13 other state capitals have laws pending approval to ban the service.
– £2 charge proposed to fund new Silvertown crossing
– Transport body says charges needed to prevent ‘serious delays’
– Motorists could face even higher charges during rush hour
£2 to use Blackwall Tunnel… drivers will be charged to pay for new river crossing at Silvertown
Motorists are facing toll charges of more than £2 to use the Blackwall tunnel to fund a new road crossing under the Thames at Silvertown, it emerged today.
Transport for London revealed it plans to bring in road tolls on the existing tunnel, which is currently free, to help pay for the controversial new multi-million pound project.
Boris Johnson’s transport body said the tolls, which would also operate on the new tunnel, would be the “most appropriate” way of funding the link between Thamesmead and Beckton.
They claimed charges were needed on the Blackwall tunnel for the first time to prevent “serious delays” as drivers switched to the free crossing which would share approach roads. Motoring groups warned drivers would be furious at the proposal to bring in charges for the existing crossing.
Paul Watters from the AA said: “It will be hugely controversial because the Blackwall tunnel is the circular route round London, it joins up the North and South circulars, and it’s free at the moment.
“TfL will have to listen very carefully to the views of drivers. We’ve already seen the Western extension of the congestion charge dropped because it was hugely unpopular and I think tolling on the Blackwall tunnel will be as controversial as that.
“We need another crossing, but this will put more pressure on hard-pressed drivers who are already dealing with high fuel prices. In practical terms I think London’s businesses and regular car users are probably not in the mood to pay for Blackwall.”
Green campaigners claimed the new tunnel would cause more air pollution, more noise and worse congestion in East London. TfL set out its plans for a Dartford Tunnel-style charging structure where car drivers would pay £2, vans £2.50 and lorries £5 to use the crossings.
Motorists could face higher charges at rush hour – or travel for free when the traffic volume was low, for example at night.
In its consultation document into the new tunnel, published today, TfL said: “There is currently no funding set aside in TfL’s budget for the major infrastructure projects outlined in this consultation. This means that in order to deliver them we would need to identify a means of paying for them.
“We believe that the most appropriate way to fund the projects would be to charge a toll for using the Silvertown Tunnel and any new crossing linking Thamesmead and Beckton. Tolling would provide a new revenue stream to pay for the crossings, and would ensure that those who benefit most from these new projects – by using them – help to pay for them in return.”
But the document added: “Because the Silvertown Tunnel and the Blackwall Tunnel are located so close to one another and share common approach roads, if the Silvertown Tunnel is built and subject to tolling, the Blackwall Tunnel would also need to be tolled – otherwise there would be serious delays at the Blackwall Tunnel as so much traffic would wish to use it.”
A previous consultation run by TfL earlier in the year did not mention that tolls would be needed to pay for the new crossing.
The Mayor will also come under pressure from green campaigners who claim the plans represent a U-turn after he dropped the idea of a Thames Gateway crossing.
Green Assembly member Darren Johnson said: “The Mayor will please very few people with his announcement that tolls would have to be imposed to pay for a new road across the Thames. Those of us opposed to the Silvertown Crossing because of its dreadful impact on air pollution will remain opposed.
“Moreover, I suspect many of those who were originally in favour of a new road crossing will hate the idea of having to pay tolls on the Blackwall Tunnel. Given there are now far more public transport options for crossing the Thames in East London, there is really no need for a new road crossing.”
Jenny Bates from Friends of the Earth London added: “We simply can’t build our way out of our traffic problems – a new road tunnel and car ferry across the Thames will lead to more congestion, more noise and more air pollution. A world class city like London deserves a modern, clean and efficient transport system – not these outdated and damaging proposals.”
Michele Dix, Managing Director of Planning, said: “We are consulting on proposals for vital new river crossings in east London that would relieve congestion in London and support economic growth.
“Tolling is one option suggested in the consultation as it would provide a new revenue stream to pay for the crossings.
“However this has not been decided. We want to hear people’s views on the river crossing package proposals and how they might be funded.
“There would certainly be no tolling on the Blackwall Tunnel before the proposed Silvertown Crossing was completed, which would be 2021 at the very earliest.”
Recent Comments