In article , (Someone
Somewhere) wrote:

On 22/09/2017 11:21, wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:18:36 GMT
Recliner wrote:
TfL has concluded the ride-hailing app firm was not fit and proper to
hold a private hire operator licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41358640

Oh, shame. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving company.

Really? And general minicabs were well known for being safe, and
part of well run companies that weren't involved in serious
criminality and/or used for laundering money by their criminal
owners? All allegedly of course.

This stinks of protectionism from TfL - yes, there may have been
some minor issues with Uber but they are generally a great solution
to getting around in cities you don't know or aren't able to
communicate in, and avoid vagaries of random pricing.

The reasons given in the TfL press release look serious enough to me:

"TfL considers that 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 implications. These include:

Its approach to reporting serious criminal offences.
Its approach to how medical certificates are obtained.
Its approach to how Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks
are obtained.
Its approach to explaining the use of Greyball in London - software that
could be used to block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to the app
and prevent officials from undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties."

The fourth one (evasion of regulation) looks particularly serious and a
matter for criminal prosecution if proved. It will be interesting to see
what the courts say about that one at the appeal. They tend to take a dim
view of such practices.

Hopefully they resolve their issues sooner rather than later and that
their partner drivers can continue to earn money rather than being
left, literally, on the streets with no wage.

It will require firm evidence of radically changed practices by the Uber
management.

--
Colin Rosenstiel