Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Unless Uber can significantly improve then this second loss of license could signal real problems for the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Uber will not be granted a new licence to operate in London, Transport for London (TfL) has said.
The regulator said the taxi app was not "fit and proper" as a licence holder, despite having made a number of positive changes to its operations.
Uber originally lost its licence in 2017 due to safety concerns, but was granted a 15-month extension.
Uber now has 21 days to appeal against TfL's decision and can continue to operate during that period.
It had received an additional two-month extension in September which expired on Sunday.
Uber has faced resistance from regulators and traditional taxi services in a range of countries after being dogged by controversy for a number of years.
Helen Chapman, Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging at TfL, said: "As the regulator of private hire services in London we are required to make a decision today on whether Uber is fit and proper to hold a licence. Safety is our absolute top priority.
"While we recognise Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured."
Because the people over there are too stupid to decide for themselves if they want to use Uber or not. King George strikes again.
It's more to do with the fact London has Compliance and Enforcement Officers who do regular checks, and unlicensed and non-insured drivers are not accepptable.
I'm surprised this is a issue in the UK since I have relatives who drive for Uber here in the US. They are constantly asked to provide selfies , license & insurance info on a regular basis.
We had the same problem here in Philadelphia a couple of years ago. Fortunately, the PA Supreme court sided with Uber. The taxi companies did not want to compete with Uber. I drive for Uber and riders have told me that Uber is a way better experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottomobeale
Silly question: How powerful are the pro taxicab forces in London? IE they are buying the local politicians to eliminate their competition.
It's more to do with the fact London has Compliance and Enforcement Officers who do regular checks, and unlicensed and non-insured drivers are not accepptable.
From my understanding the license checks over here are strict.
Assuming they were pulled over for a traffic violation and they found out the drivers were unlicensed and non-insured. How many were being pulled over in order for it to be deemed too many were unlicensed and non-insured and there fore the company had to go? It seems fishy.
lol It's worse than fishy, it's criminal-
"cordon off a 'stop' area to pull over a vehicle and undertake safety checks. Stops are carried out as quickly as possible so if there are any passengers on board, they are not held up unnecessarily.
'These new powers under CSAS will give TfL the resilience to conduct more spontaneous road stops which will help enforcement against illegal and non-compliant activity in the trade.'"
Because the people over there are too stupid to decide for themselves if they want to use Uber or not. King George strikes again.
Is there some part of "While we recognise Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured" that you don't understand?
Do you realize that if you get into an Uber or Lyft vehicle anywhere in the US and that driver has not reported to his insurance company that he is using his vehicle for work purposes and specifically using it as a chauffeur and you are injured in an accident, you get nothing?
That's right. You pay your medical bills, not his insurance and not him/her.
Naturally, you'll whine incessantly about getting screwed and demand everyone else pay for it.
And don't think for a minute you're going to sue the driver to pay your medical bills and lost wages and other damages.
In the first place, you'll be hard-pressed to find an attorney to take your case on a contingency fee basis, because the driver has nothing. That's means you'll have to pay legal fees up front.
In the second place, if the driver doesn't own a house/condo then you have no chance of getting anything.
Finally, even if the driver owns a house/condo, you'll never collect on the judgment. You can attach a lien on the property, but you'll have to wait until the driver dies to collect, and you still won't get much and if he files bankruptcy, well, sucks to be you. If the driver files bankruptcy, your only hope is to show up at the creditor's meeting and claim the driver somehow fraudulently induced you. Even then, you'd have to raise that claim in your lawsuit against the driver or you'll be collaterally estopped.
That's why we have rules, mainly to protect the "least sophisticated consumers" like you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
