Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 7:04 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
But they will have to change the name of their firm first.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-uber-c ... BF1RK?il=0

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1047
Reading the content of the link,wonder if they have been granted a private hire operator license as they openly admit it is a TAXI hailing operation.

Sadiq Khan (mayor) should be using his power of control over TFL to stop this proliferation of illegal unlicensed TAXIS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
New car-hailing app banned in London

Taxify, a ride-hailing app that launched in London this week with plans to take on US rival Uber, has been banned by Transport for London as it is “not licensed to accept private hire bookings” in the city.

TfL said on Friday that it had instructed Taxify to stop accepting bookings and it had done so. “The law requires private hire bookings to be taken by licensed private hire operators at a licensed premises, with appropriate record keeping”, it said in the statement.

Taxify, which operates in London under the licence of another company that it owns, said it had “temporarily stopped operations to clarify its legal position with the regulator and reach a resolution so that services can return to normal”.

In an earlier interview with the Financial Times, Markus Villig, Taxify founder and chief executive, said: “We were going to get our own license then we collaborated with City Drive Services. Legally we have a company who has a licence and has been operating for years in London and we are just providing our technology to them. We bought this company. We bought the license. It comes up for renewal in two years.”

The move by TfL deals a blow to the Estonian start-up backed by China’s car-hailing giant, Didi Chuxing, whose arrival in London was expected to trigger the start of a bitter price war among global rivals in Uber’s largest European market. Other competitors are also poised to challenge the US group’s five-year dominance in the UK: Via, the US van-sharing app, this week announced a tie-up with German carmaker Daimler to start operations in London.

So far, only 3,000 drivers have signed up with Taxify, compared with Uber’s 40,000 in the UK.  But the group has ambitious plans to undercut its US competitor. It was charging commissions of 15 per cent, compared with Uber’s 20 to 25 per cent, and doling out bonuses of £3 per trip as it attempts to lure drivers and customers.

Uber had welcomed the competition. “There are already a lot of competitors in the field where we operate,” said Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, head of Uber for Europe, the Middle East and Africa. “We rather see that as a good thing because we think competition gets us to think about delivering the best possible experience for users and drivers.”

But the US group is also facing difficulties in London, where its licence hangs in the balance following questions from the Metropolitan Police about its approach to reporting sexual and violent incidents between drivers and passengers.

TfL will this month decide whether Uber can continue to operate in the capital for another five years and has said it will consider a letter from the police raising these concerns. Uber said it was “surprised by the letter”, adding that it expected victims to report incidents themselves.

The UK’s $11.5bn taxi market has remained relatively untapped by car-hailing apps since Uber’s entry in 2012, which brought growth in the country’s traditional taxi and private hire industry to a standstill. But so far, rivals have been reluctant to take the group on, for fear of becoming embroiled in a price war.

Londoners spend more money as a proportion of GDP on transport — 6.9 per cent — than people in New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco, Tokyo and Singapore, according to data from Haver and Goldman Sachs. Without competition from other car-hailing apps, the city has become a bright spot of profitability for Uber, according to accounts filed with Companies House.

Last year Didi forced Uber’s exit from the Chinese market after a multibillion dollar war for passengers and drivers. Then in August, it took a 12 per cent stake in Taxify — a first sign of its ambitions for Europe: “Through its investment, Didi has become an important strategic partner to Taxify and we will seek collaboration on product, technology and financing,” a spokesperson for the company said.

There are signs that competition in the UK will increase from other quarters too, as carmakers take bets on sharing as a way of tapping into new revenue streams. Via and Daimler plan to take commissions of about 15 per cent in London once their joint venture is launched.

Daniel Ramot, founder of Via, says Uber is vulnerable to competition. The group temporarily began recruiting drivers this summer. “We found a tremendous response from drivers,” said Mr Ramot. “Drivers were referring other drivers — there seems to be a huge thirst for an alternative in the UK.”

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 10210
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
so where was their market research ? #-o #-o #-o

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
edders23 wrote:
so where was their market research ? #-o #-o #-o

Well they bought out a licensed PH firm and tried to use their license, and I would be interested to see why they were told they couldn't.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1047
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
so where was their market research ? #-o #-o #-o

Well they bought out a licensed PH firm and tried to use their license, and I would be interested to see why they were told they couldn't.



Does it not state that an "operators license is not transferable"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:24 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 16844
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
so where was their market research ? #-o #-o #-o

Well they bought out a licensed PH firm and tried to use their license, and I would be interested to see why they were told they couldn't.



Does it not state that an "operators license is not transferable"

Ours council operators licenses are not transferable. However they are in the name of an individual so if that individual is a part of the new business it may be different. I certainly don't think it can be assumed that when they bought the company they bought the license. I don't think they can be bought and sold like that.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
so where was their market research ? #-o #-o #-o

Well they bought out a licensed PH firm and tried to use their license, and I would be interested to see why they were told they couldn't.



Does it not state that an "operators license is not transferable"

Firms are allowed to change ownership, in the same way as hackney plates change ownership.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
I don't think they can be bought and sold like that.

I'm struggling to see how they can't be.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 7:52 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 16844
Sussex wrote:
grandad wrote:
I don't think they can be bought and sold like that.

I'm struggling to see how they can't be.

A private hire operators license is in the name of the applicant isn't it? Well it is around here. And that applicant has to be assessed as to weather they are fit and proper to hold such a license. If the license can be sold to another person then surely they must also be checked to make sure they are fit and proper before they can take on such a license. If there is no named operator, who is held responsible?

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7777
What if it's in the name of a limited co.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1047
MR T wrote:
What if it's in the name of a limited co.



The directors all have to be named on the application and prove that they are fit and proper persons thus I would think that is another reason why they are not transferable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
grandad wrote:
A private hire operators license is in the name of the applicant isn't it? Well it is around here. And that applicant has to be assessed as to weather they are fit and proper to hold such a license. If the license can be sold to another person then surely they must also be checked to make sure they are fit and proper before they can take on such a license. If there is no named operator, who is held responsible?

So if a PH firm is sold are we saying the firm can't take any work during the transfer process?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39419
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
The directors all have to be named on the application and prove that they are fit and proper persons thus I would think that is another reason why they are not transferable.

So if a Director retires no work can be taken by the firm until the paperwork is changed to remove him?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 1:14 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 16844
I am saying that any transfer under either of the above conditions should be planned and appropriate checks done in advance. An exception may be where an owner dies suddenly.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: grandad and 33 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group