Uber begins appeals process to claw back taxi licence in London

Londoners can keep on using the Uber ride-hailing app. For now. Transport for London decided not to renew Uber's private hire licence last month, claiming the firm was not "fit and proper" to operate in the city. The business this morning filed its intent to appeal the decision with Westminster Magistrates' Court, which will …

[Voland's right hand]

It will be interesting to see the grounds of appeal

It will be very interesting to see the grounds for appeal in this one :)

[big_D]

Re: It will be interesting to see the grounds of appeal

We are American?

[TheVogon]

Re: It will be interesting to see the grounds of appeal

I hope they run for a while. I used some Tesco Clubcard points to convert at 1:3 for Uber credit and still have some credit to use up!

[Rajiv_Chaudri]

How much you wanna bet those Government Officials are going to end up with nice "bonus checks" and a little French villa, when Uber is finally "allowed" to get their license?

[Anonymous Coward]

You got it backwards. It's the entrenched taxi businesses that do most of the bribing. THEY are the ones facing competition (at long last), and they don't like it one little bit.

[MachDiamond]

"You got it backwards. It's the entrenched taxi businesses that do most of the bribing. THEY are the ones facing competition (at long last), and they don't like it one little bit."

If Uber drivers were required to pass the same inspections, background checks, licensing and insurance, they should still be cheaper than a traditional taxi, right? Uber is not investing capital in vehicles, garages, fueling agreements, etc. That's all on the back of the driver that isn't making back that money in any way. If Uber were truly disruptive, they would go through everything that taxi companies are required to do and still come out cheaper. Any regulation that Uber feels will cost too much, they ignore. Time for the whole lot to spend a few weeks in the dock explaining themselves. Or in US parlance, Give 'em a trial and then hang 'em.

[TheVogon]

"If Uber drivers were required to pass the same inspections, background checks, licensing and insurance"

They are. Well at least the same as any other minicab anyway...

[ravenviz]

Shirley the same applies to uber drivers? Whether or not anyone declares income, pays tax etc., is not the differentiator.

[Anonymous Coward]

While the appeal runs...

Headline in [insert massive time period of choice]: "Uber still delaying appeal ruling"

[kevin king]

Grounds ....TFL ruling was Bogus

https://www.ft.com/content/5f1918d4-a13d-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

Transport for London is facing accusations that its decision to revoke Uber’s licence in the British capital was politically motivated rather than based on safety concerns after it was revealed that the regulator was responsible for two out of the four failings it gave for cancelling the licence.

The capital’s transport regulator partly based its decision on the ride-hailing app’s safety record, questioning how the company obtained background checks and medical certificates for its drivers. But TfL is responsible for both vetting the backgrounds of all private-hire drivers in the capital and ensuring they are medically fit through its preferred provider before issuing them with a licence.

[Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese]

We have contacted TfL for comment

It's on its way now - be with you in a couple of minutes....

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to say step 1 follow the rules. But it looks like some of those rules that are citing is a failure of Tfl. If the rules are that uber is suppose to submit drivers to Tlf for health and back ground checks, you can not then blame uber for having unfit drivers. So it seems like they are telling uber you must go beyond what every else is required because a) we are crap b) you are an easy target.

and I really really want to hate on uber but I can't on this one.