Uber loses license to operate in London over public safety and security concerns

AppleInsider

Uber has suffered a major blow to its operations in the United Kingdom, after Transport for London announced it will not be renewing the company's license to operate in the country's capital, with the transport authority citing Uber's policies and actions as reasons behind the decision.

The statement issued by Transport for London (TfL) on Friday notes Uber's current license to operate within London will expire on September 30. Under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, Uber has 21 days to commence appeal proceedings, and will also be allowed to continue operating until all appeal processes are exhausted.

In explaining its decision, the regulator claims "Uber's approach and conduct demonstrate a lack of corporate responsibility in relation to a number of issues which have potential public safety and security implementations."

The list of issues includes how Uber obtains medical certificates for its employees, as well as how it conducts its Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. TfL also complains about the way Uber reports serous criminal offenses that take place during journeys.

Uber's "approach to explaining the use of Greyball," controversial software created by Uber to keep regulatory officials from seeing the locations of its fleet of vehicles by providing a map of ghost cars, is also highlighted. TfL argues Greyball "could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app, and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties."

"TfL has concluded that Uber London Limited is not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license," the regulator declares.

TfL has today informed Uber that it will not be issued with a private hire operator licence. pic.twitter.com/nlYD0ny2qo

-- Transport for London (@TfL)

September 22, 2017

Uber was initially licensed as a private hire operator for London in 2012, with the license due for renewal this year.On May 26, TfL provided a four-month license to the firm to continue operations while the authority considered issuing a new five-year license, a decision that ultimately didn't go in Uber's favor.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan fully supports TfL's decision, advising "it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners' safety and security. Any operator of private hire services in London needs to play by the rules."

According to Uber London general manager Tom Elvidge, approximately 3.5 million people use the app in London, with the decision affecting over 40,000 licensed Uber drivers in the city. Uber intends to appeal the ruling.

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch. "If this decision stands, it will put more than 40,000 licensed drivers out of work and deprive Londoners of a convenient and affordable form of transport."

Elvidge denies that Greyball has ever been considered for use in the UK, and asserts that the company has "always followed TfL rules on reporting serious incidents, and have a dedicated team who work closely with the Metropolitan Police." Uber drivers are claimed to go through "the same enhanced DBS background checks as black cab drivers," while the app itself has allegedly enhanced ride safety, with "every trip tracked and recorded by GPS."

"This ban would show the world that, far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies who bring choice to consumers," Elvidge concludes.

Uber's existence in London has been troubled by complaints from numerous parties in recent months. According to the Evening Standard, members of parliament wrote to TfL earlier this month, urging it to strip Uber of its license as they "do not believe that Uber has shown itself to be a fit and proper operator," citing safety concerns.

In April, the Metropolitan Police wrote to TfL expressing concerns over the safety of passengers, including the risk of sexual assault. The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Billany's letter highlights Uber's slow reporting of criminal activity to authorities, advising "had Uber notified police after the first offense, it would be right to assume that the second would have been prevented."

SpamSandwich

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

ireland

You reap what you sow.

oseame

As a Londoner I celebrate this decision. Those 40,000 drivers won't be out of work, there are plenty of taxi companies in London that pay their taxes and vet their drivers still around - many of them have apps as well.

kibitzer

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

spice-boy

I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app. 

tshapi

spice-boy said:

I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app. 

Do you own a taxi medallion or know someone who does?  
 

SpamSandwich

kibitzer said:

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

Except the identities of both rider and driver are known thanks to the Uber app. Having a prior conviction doesn’t mean the person is an imminent threat. In fact, the State of California is about to make it legally impossible for employers to know about prior convictions on job applications, so at least in California you wouldn’t know that unless you had special knowledge anyway. Do you know if the pilot of the last plane you flew was ever convicted of public drunkenness or if the last babysitter you hired ever kicked a puppy?

ihatescreennames

SpamSandwich said:

kibitzer said:

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

Except the identities of both rider and driver are known thanks to the Uber app. Having a prior conviction doesn’t mean the person is an imminent threat. In fact, the State of California is about to make it legally impossible for employers to know about prior convictions on job applications, so at least in California you wouldn’t know that unless you had special knowledge anyway. Do you know if the pilot of the last plane you flew was ever convicted of public drunkenness or if the last babysitter you hired ever kicked a puppy?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, this is a legitimate question: How does knowing the identities of the driver help in that situation?  Is your daughter supposed to do a background check before getting in the car? Or is it just good information to have after an incident takes place?  I know several people who rave about Uber, my two college-age nieces included, and I can guarantee you they don't think twice about the driver of the car before getting in.

cali

Perfect opportunity for Didi to come in and take the market. Seriously what’s taking so long?

kibitzer said:

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

Your daughter is who the driver should worry about. In many countries driving a cab is the most dangerous job(No, a cop is not even close to the most dangerous job, cops carry weapons, radios for backup and bullet proof vests etc.) have you seen those YouTube videos where these bi*ches are abusing their gender privilege? Men also harass cab drivers it’s not a safe job. 

tokyojimu

Serves them right. What a sleazy company!

wood1208

Battle between local government/Taxi service and Ubder/Lift. continue. Austin,TX doesn't allow Uber/Lift. Public safety plays role but it will be decided region by region.

xbit

As a Londoner, I won't be shedding any tears. There's plenty of alternatives who aren't as morally bankrupt.

rotateleftbyte

sog35 said:

 agree that Uber needs to take more responsibility for their 'employees'.

But the current Taxi mediallion model is also broken. Before Uber the NYC taxi service was crap and overpriced.  Its basically a monopoly. Not customer friendly at all.

You said Uber is making their owners MILLIONS. Nah. More like BILLIONS.

We need a taxi service that is convient like Uber, but does extensive background checks and training like the Taxi companies do.

This article has nothing to do with NYC but London.
In London, there are already the Black Cabs and the 'pre-book' services. All the drivers are licensed and background checked. The Black Cab drivers also have to have extensive knowledge of London and sit an exam on it.
The pre-book services were already cheaper than the black Cabs but you can only 'hail' a Black Cab.
Uber cocked a snoot at the rules that were in place to protect the people using the service so IMHO, good riddance to them. The way they screwed their drivers and cheated when TfL inspectors came around is totally sleazy.
Don't even get me on the dodges they use to avoid paying any UK Taxes at all.
Well done TfL.

mike1

spice-boy said:

I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app. 

Sounds like you own a medallion that has lost some value. Don't spew a BS story about taxi drivers in NYC being licensed and having special skills. I've had plenty of cab drivers who couldn't get from an airport to midtown without me giving directions. Have you ever bothered to notice whether the photo of the driver actually matches the driver. I bet not. They often don't and you know what, nobody cares or thinks twice about it because odds are you won't have a problem.

Suburban cab companies are even worse. I'd rather put my daughter in an Uber than one of those taxis. They never tell you, but in my area, your cab ride is not exclusive, so the taxi can get another fare any time. So, you might have a total dirtbag suddenly sharing a cab. God forbid you're dropped off first and now this dirtbag knows where you live and that you're probably alone. No thanks. I'll take my chances with Uber/Lyft or a traditional car service.

SpamSandwich

mike1 said:

spice-boy said:

I live in NYC and can tell you although a lot of people like the ease of getting an Uber car that business model (if you can call it that) has had some serious consequences and negative impact on the city. First off, with the city experiencing a population boom Uber has only added to the already jammed pact streets with a flood of more vehicles. To drive a taxi you need more than a simple driver's. license you need to be trained in the laws regarding the rights of those you pick up. You must know how to get from a-z and no google Maps is not a crystal ball for navigation. An Uber driver is like someone that went to med school but never got a license to practice. The taxi and limousine commission regulate taxi and car services, handles complaints, lost and found, etc... Uber takes zero responsibility for who drives for them. The city has a long time system of medallion taxis. A medallion is legal contract the owner has with the city, they are very expense, until recently the average price was near one million dollars. These medallions were a valuable asset which could be sold to another person(s) and often represented a lifetime of investment. Today thanks to Uber these medallions have lost half their value. Uber is another example of some Silicon Valley nut jobs creating something that is more destructive to society than helpful, a product of service which makes them millions while it undoes rules which were put in place to protect consumers from abuse, overcharging an monopolies. There once was time when technology promised benefits for all today it only benefits the few that someone manage to put that technology between the person providing the service and the consumer. The mob would "shake down" small businesses this way, it is illegal yet has taken the form of an iPhone app. 

Sounds like you own a medallion that has lost some value. Don't spew a BS story about taxi drivers in NYC being licensed and having special skills. I've had plenty of cab drivers who couldn't get from an airport to midtown without me giving directions. Have you ever bothered to notice whether the photo of the driver actually matches the driver. I bet not. They often don't and you know what, nobody cares or thinks twice about it because odds are you won't have a problem.

Suburban cab companies are even worse. I'd rather put my daughter in an Uber than one of those taxis. They never tell you, but in my area, your cab ride is not exclusive, so the taxi can get another fare any time. So, you might have a total dirtbag suddenly sharing a cab. God forbid you're dropped off first and now this dirtbag knows where you live and that you're probably alone. No thanks. I'll take my chances with Uber/Lyft or a traditional car service.

The way I see it, Uber has kicked a lot of entrenched interests in the shins and those entrenched interests don’t like it.

darkpaw

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch.

No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.

You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.

You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".

You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.

The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Ummm... Case proven.

SpamSandwich

darkpaw said:

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch.

No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.

You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.

You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".

You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.

The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Ummm... Case proven.

Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?

ihatescreennames

sog35 said:

ihatescreennames said:

SpamSandwich said:

kibitzer said:

SpamSandwich said:

Avoiding the whole licensing scam was part of the reason for the rise of Uber (and Lyft, and another freelance cabbie app the name of which escapes me). People already have a driver license, so make a couple of extra bucks doing what you can already do completely legally...give a stranger a ride in your car.

So you don’t mind if the Uber driver who picks up your daughter is a convicted sex offender? There has to be some protection for the public customers using ride services and are potential victims. Having a license doesn’t automatically make a driver a good person.

Except the identities of both rider and driver are known thanks to the Uber app. Having a prior conviction doesn’t mean the person is an imminent threat. In fact, the State of California is about to make it legally impossible for employers to know about prior convictions on job applications, so at least in California you wouldn’t know that unless you had special knowledge anyway. Do you know if the pilot of the last plane you flew was ever convicted of public drunkenness or if the last babysitter you hired ever kicked a puppy?

I'm not trying to stir the pot, this is a legitimate question: How does knowing the identities of the driver help in that situation?  Is your daughter supposed to do a background check before getting in the car? Or is it just good information to have after an incident takes place?  I know several people who rave about Uber, my two college-age nieces included, and I can guarantee you they don't think twice about the driver of the car before getting in.

Ignorance does not equal safe

Well, yes, that’s my point. The article mentions that TfL is concerned with the safety of Uber passengers, including the risk of sexual assualt. @SpamSandwich is, to me, implying that everything with Uber is good because the app informs you of the identity of the driver.  So?  How is that relevant to the people getting in the car?  Most people (like my nieces) may not think about it and assume that there has been some sort of background check performed by Uber, like there would be at other companies, so that the riders would know they are safe.  Apparently, TfL believes that is not the case and my question to @SpamSandwich is how knowing the identity of the driver helps? Does that help come after an incident or before?

ihatescreennames

SpamSandwich said:

darkpaw said:

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch.

No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.

You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.

You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".

You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.

The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Ummm... Case proven.

Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?

What is the relevance of providing a ride for free?  I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services.  That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.

SpamSandwich

ihatescreennames said:

SpamSandwich said:

darkpaw said:

"By wanting to ban our app from the capital TfL and the Mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice," said Elvidge in a statement received by TechCrunch.

No, Tom. It's not restricting consumer choice; it's forcing your company to play by the rules. You wanna operate in London, you adhere to the same rules that every other private hire firm has to. You don't get to skirt the rules just because you're worth $70bn.

You MUST perform proper background checks on your staff/drivers.

You MUST NOT use software like "Greyball".

You MUST report criminal activity much, much faster than you do.

The letter from the Met Police's taxi and private hire team head Inspector Neil Billany cited one case of an Uber driver allowed to continue working despite allegations of sexual assault, with the driver committing another "more serious" attack in his car at a later time, reports the Guardian.

Ummm... Case proven.

Is it currently illegal in London for strangers to give free rides to other people?

What is the relevance of providing a ride for free?  I was under the impression that people paid for Uber services.  That would imply that Uber is a business and then subject to the rules and regulations of other like businesses.

If it’s not illegal for people to give free rides to strangers, then the real reason for the Uber ban is obviously to protect the existing licensed interests which benefits those doing the tax collecting. “Public safety” is a phony excuse. Drivers must already have a driver license to safely operate a vehicle.