Uber Granted Short-Term License To Operate In London (bbc.co.uk)

Uber has been granted a short-term license to operate in London following a court hearing. BBC reports: Transport for London (TfL) refused to renew the license when it expired last September, saying the U.S. taxi app was not a "fit and proper" operator. Uber has now been awarded a license but it has been put on probation for 15 months. The company had been seeking a five-year license when it was refused last year. Following a two-day hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Chief Magistrate Emma Arbuthnot said Uber was now considered "fit and proper." She ordered the company to pay TfL's legal costs of [approximately $562,000].

Comments

Welp, so much for the social contract

[rsilvergun]

I was expecting at least the UK to send Uber packing for illegally classifying employees as contractors. Not sure how they do it. The other businesses that tried it (for stuff like maid services and the like) couldn't pull it off, they lost their court cases. But those court cases didn't have any effect on Uber (or Lyft for that matter). Are they just that well connected? In the meantime I'm guessing there's a raft of taxes they don't pay as a result, which is going to help drain the coffers of the NHS. That'll eventually be used as an excuse to pull public healthcare from people.

Re:Welp, so much for the social contract

[rmdingler]

I was expecting at least the UK to send Uber packing for illegally classifying employees as contractors. Not sure how they do it.

I have a theory. Despite substantial negative public relations nearly universally in the press, Uber continues to operate profitably in in thousands of key metropolitan areas.

1) They provide a service people use a great deal. People want them despite their shoddy reputation. This reflects poorly on alternative taxi companies.

2) They've seemingly mastered the political game of influence peddling.

Re:Welp, so much for the social contract

[youngone]

I'm not sure if Uber makes any money anywhere, as according to this article they lost about $4.5 billion last year.

My theory is that in many US cities the current taxi service is awful, so people who live there assume taxis are rubbish everywhere.
However, they are really good in some places, for example where I live, and London. This means Uber has no choice but to compete on price, meaning everytime someone hops into an Uber taxi the company loses money.

If you also factor in Uber attemping to evade their obligations as a taxi company and an employer they might not have much of a future.

Re:Welp, so much for the social contract

[Actually, I do RTFA]

) They provide a service people use a great deal. People want them despite their shoddy reputation.

That's not super-relevent. Drug dealers and people selling stolen goods are also something "people want". In this case, Uber is externalizing costs.

Re: Welp, so much for the social contract

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's more like, public transport in most places in the US is practically nonexistent by EU/UK standards. Or by Chinese standards, for that matter.

Re:Welp, so much for the social contract

[squiggleslash]

The fact one regulator sees a company as not disobeying its rules has no bearing on what other regulators do. TfL probably doesn't get to determine what pay and benefits taxi drivers receive. It's quite conceivable that Uber will be sued and effectively shut down by other parts of the UK government if it doesn't conform to the laws in that area.

Better look both ways at those crosswalks.

[Narcocide]

Seems like someone wanted some kill drones stalking city streets. Oh, hey! Is there a prize if CCTV can capture the shocked expression on the face of the pedestrian faster than the car can?

what about the knowledge test?

[Joe_Dragon]

what about the knowledge test?

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Zontar The Mindless]

An excellent question!

Quoth the Beeb:

Among the changes implemented by Uber, drivers can now only use the app in the region in which they hold a private hire licence...

So it would appear that Uber drivers in London must now pass the knowledge test (as well as the English proficiency test).

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Goose In Orbit]

Only black cabs need to pass "The Knowledge", if memory serves me correctly.

Uber (and many other) cabs aren't classified as such - so can happily just use a satnav (or any local knowledge the driver may actually have)

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[mjwx]

what about the knowledge test?

The Knowledge is for London's black cabs only. As Uber is a pre-booked service, they are classified as a minicab operation and not required to be tested on The Knowledge.

However I don't give Uber long before they do something else that violates the terms of the license.

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[jeremyp]

Uber is a minicab company. Minicab drivers do not need to pass the knowledge. The difference between a minicab and a black cab is that minicabs can't just pick up customers off the street, they always have to be prebooked either by telephone or by app.

Uber drivers in the UK still have to get a Private Hire Licence and commercial insurance and if you check Uber's UK application page, you'll see that |Uber acknowledges this.

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Joe_Dragon]

£724 fee so will uber cover that or just not check that drivers have it?

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Joe_Dragon]

Private Hire Licence fees that driver must pay.

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Zontar The Mindless]

I stand corrected.

I wasn't aware of the distinction (I don't live in London, obviously). Thank you (and jeremyp) for the info.

Re:what about the knowledge test?

[Goose In Orbit]

No problem! :^D

Re:Lose-Win

[Anonymous Coward]

So Uber lost? The summary makes it sound like Uber won.

This was the outcome. Why do you need to classify it as either won or lost? Not everything is binary.

Re:Lose-Win

[Tyfy]

This time round Uber were only looking for an 18 month license not a 5 year one like last September

except ...

[Martin S.]

Uber have been forced to comply with the existing rules during this probation period. A primary concern was that any crimes reported to Uber concerning their drivers need to be forward to Police and not to Tfl as issues. Their driver all need to be properly licences as private hire drivers, which is different to public hire, the famous London black cabs that can be flagged down.

Re:Lose-Win

[jeremyp]

Who gets awarded costs is totally at the discretion of the court in England. The normal principle is that the loser will pay (what the courts think are) the reasonable costs of the winner, but that's not guaranteed.Reading TFA, it looks to me like Uber have accepted the reasons why they got suspended and have agreed to try to fix them. In return they have been granted a probationary licence. I think technically, they lost the case but because they have said they will mend their ways, they are getting their licence back. It seems to me a reasonable compromise has been reached.

WTF ???

[gDLL]

mmm NO, people in general do NOT want drug dealers and thieves ... what are you smoking?

Re:WTF ???

[Actually, I do RTFA]

"Drug dealers don't engage in voluntary transactions" is one of the dumber things written on the internet. Do you think that drug dealers chase people down and force them to take drugs? Do you think people fencing stolen goods chase people down and force them to buy them?

money talks, others walk

[thunderclees]

The check must have cleared.
Limey politicos must like Porsche's too