Taxi Driver Online

Uber's London licence renewed for only four months

Uber’s licence to operate in London has been renewed but only for a period of four months, as transport authorities continue to deliberate whether to grant it a five-year licence. The decision over renewal has become the latest focus of controversy around the app-based taxi firm, with black-cab drivers and unions demanding that Transport for London reject the application without assurances over Uber’s operation and working practices.

The GMB union and the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association have threatened legal challenges to TfL granting Uber a new licence. The LTDA has argued that Uber is not a fit and proper operator and is jeopardising public safety, while the GMB has demanded TfL impose conditions to secure the health and safety of drivers, passengers and other road users. Two drivers won a GMB-backed case against Uber in an employment tribunal last year, which ruled that its drivers were not self-employed contractors but workers with holiday and pay entitlements. Uber is challenging the ruling.

Uber was originally licensed in London in 2012 and its five-year private hire licence is scheduled to expire on 30 May. A TfL spokesperson said: “Uber London Limited has been granted a four-month private hire operator licence. This will allow us to conclude our consideration of a five-year licence.”

However, black-cab drivers condemned the move as a “coward’s decision”. Steve McNamara, general secretary of the LTDA, said: “Uber has still not answered questions that TfL asked months ago. We say they are either safe to licence or they’re not. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. “We think that TfL’s reason for this temporary licence is unlawful. This is totally unprecedented.” TfL said it would not comment on individual licence applications. McNamara said the LTDA was taking legal advice and could launch court action in the next week: “We will be challenging this coward’s decision.”

Another factor in TfL’s deliberations is its consultation into private hire vehicles. The proposals could see the licence fees for Uber and other large private hire operators rise dramatically, from about £3,000 over a five-year period to more than £2m. The consultation closes in June. Last month TfL wrote to all operators saying it was “considering, on a case-by-case basis, whether private hire operator licences of a shorter duration should be issued, until the outcome of the consultation process is known and any changes are implemented”.

An Uber spokesperson said: “Millions of Londoners rely on Uber to get a reliable ride at the touch of a button and thousands of licensed drivers make money through our app. We look forward to continuing to help keep London moving.”

_________________
IDFIMH

I appear to be surrounded by complete idiots

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Another factor in TfL’s deliberations is its consultation into private hire vehicles. The proposals could see the licence fees for Uber and other large private hire operators rise dramatically, from about £3,000 over a five-year period to more than £2m. The consultation closes in June. Last month TfL wrote to all operators saying it was “considering, on a case-by-case basis, whether private hire operator licences of a shorter duration should be issued, until the outcome of the consultation process is known and any changes are implemented”.

it's all about the money if they get a 5 year license now they only pay £3000 but after June

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Does the deregulation act include London? Is it just UBER who are being granted a license shorter than 5 years or are other operators being treated the same?

_________________
Grandad,

Last month TfL wrote to all operators saying it was “considering, on a case-by-case basis, whether private hire operator licences of a shorter duration should be issued,

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

The “exceptional circumstance” rule under the Dereg Act should not, and does not, apply to the entire trade – only to individuals or individual operators It does not apply to companies.

Where does it say that?

_________________
Grandad,

These notes refer to the Deregulation Act 2015 (c.20) ​which received Royal Assent on 26 March 2015
DEREGULATION ACT 2015


EXPLANATORY NOTES


COMMENTARY ON SECTIONS
Section 10: Taxis and private hire vehicles: duration of licences
54. ​This section amends two sections of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1976 that deal with the granting of licences to drive taxis and private hire vehicles and licences to operate private hire vehicles.
55. ​Subsection (2) changes the law in such a way as to establish a standard duration of three
years for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences. The section specifies that a licence may be granted for a period of less than three years but only in the circumstances of an individual case, not because of a blanket policy.
56. ​Subsection (3) changes the law in such a way as to establish a standard duration of five
years for a private hire vehicle operator licence. The section specifies that a licence may be granted for a period of less than five years but only in the circumstances of an individual case, not because of a blanket policy.
57. ​The section forms part of the law of England and Wales. It applies in England and
Wales except in London or Plymouth where different legislation applies.
58. ​The section comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State in a
commencement order.

Where does that say that it doesn't apply to companies? It only states an individual case. It doesn't say that it is the license of an individual.

_________________
Grandad,

If TfL's only reason to issue a four month license was the future fees issue, then they are going to be made to look very stupid by the fellas with the white wigs.

If however they believe Uber to be 'fit and proper' for only a few months, then that itself leads to many more questions. First one is why?

_________________
IDFIMH

56. ​Subsection (3) changes the law in such a way as to establish a standard duration of five
years for a private hire vehicle operator licence. The section specifies that a licence may be granted for a period of less than five years but only in the circumstances of an individual case, not because of a blanket policy.
57. ​The section forms part of the law of England and Wales. It applies in England and
Wales except in London or Plymouth where different legislation applies.



even I understood that wakey wakey everyone !!!

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

56. ​Subsection (3) changes the law in such a way as to establish a standard duration of five
years for a private hire vehicle operator licence. The section specifies that a licence may be granted for a period of less than five years but only in the circumstances of an individual case, not because of a blanket policy.
57. ​The section forms part of the law of England and Wales. It applies in England and
Wales except in London or Plymouth where different legislation applies.
58. ​The section comes into force on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State in a
commencement order.[/quote]
Where does that say that it doesn't apply to companies? It only states an individual case. It doesn't say that it is the license of an individual.[/quote]


Individual means relating to one person or thing, rather than to a large group.
Hope this helps

There either fit and proper or there not. If there not then they should not issue, if they are then they should be issued for the 5 years. It's not for councils to use on a whim it's for individuals who want a lesser period for exceptional circumstances.

I don't agree that an individual can ask for a license for a lesser period.

_________________
Grandad,

Well you can disagree but I think your reply is a cop out, and it makes me feel I'm wasting my time, there are lots of people reading this post and I'm sure there thinking why does he disagree? And for the licensing officers reading this your great James Button agrees with me, he also states
The further question concerns the fees that authorities are levying for the extended licences. Generally, licence fees cannot be used as a revenue raising tool and should only cover the costs of the licensing regime, so you can't triple and times it by five.