What possible reason could there be for TfL not to revoke Ubers licence to operate - especially after Uber obtained the license using misleading information – notice how the weakest terms of expression are used and not the strongest, such as corruptly or fraudulently obtained a licence to operate – if TfL were to use the strongest terms, they would have no choice but to revoke Ubers licence.
Meanwhile this alleged corrupt organisation are continued to be allowed to plunder, because lets face it, that’s what is happening – Uber are using predatory pricing to plunder work away from licensed taxis, in an effort to starve us out of a living – while the regulator pulls every string it possibly can to prolong this corrupt strategy to devastate.
The licence extension awarded by TfL and the appeal all points towards TfL playing their part as the conscientious, diligent regulator, while buying time for Uber, who are conveniently allowed to continue operating.
I have written to Anand Nandha, head of compliance TfL regarding Uber P4H at the Saint Pancras set down area, I have also written to Valerie Shawcross - Shawcross wouldn’t reply to me, neither would Nandha – all I asked was a simple question:
Could I ask you who from your legal team supplied you with their legal opinion and what information or case law was used to form their legal opinion that the Uber vehicles at Saint Pancras were not plying for immediate hire?
I had replies from Chelsea Mckinley and Neil Hassett quoting opinions from TfL' legal department, stating that parking alone didn’t constitute P4H –
When confronted with case law such as Rose v Welbeck, they run a mile! .... Why?
What they were actually quoting, were paragraphs from a book written by TH Button.
Below is the actual case law, published on Taxi Leaks Case Law blog. Click link below
Here is an extract from a email I received from Luke Howard, Senior Strategy and Integration Manager PCO/TfL from 2009, where he makes it quite clear what illegal plying for hire is:
“Illegal plying for hire takes place if a private hire driver enters into or concludes negotiations for the hire of the vehicle or where a private hire driver waits in or patrols an area in a way which is likely to attract custom. TfL will look at the circumstances of each case to determine whether any actions taken amounted to an invitation to be hired.” ( Luke Howard)
In my opinion TfL are lying through their back teeth about not knowing Uber is a peer 2 peer service, the writing was all over the wall when it was established Uber do not accept pre bookings.
It clearly states in the 1998 PH Act (London) that all rides must be pre booked through a licensed operator. Time and time again TfL were informed Uber were operating outside of regulation, but TfL senior management refused to act. It is my opinion Uber were licensed illegally and this was done out of malice, to deliberately and malevolently damage the London Taxi Trade.
John Mason can spout all the rhetoric he likes on social media that there was no requirement to check how the Uber app actually worked; but there was a mechanism to protect the general public and enforce regulation, it's called due diligence. No doubt he will say there is no primary legislation for that either!
Now we get to the interesting part: Why is Sadiq Khan as a Human Rights barrister of some distinction denying these basic rights to London Taxi drivers, by failing to intervene using the powers of office he holds. The regulated London Taxi Trade has been subject to oppression, abuse and systematic intimidation since TfL' inception – the level of malevolent behaviour by senior management at TfL is unprecedented in the 300 years of the London Taxi Trade.
Why is Mayor Khan allowing this to happen – cab drivers health and well-being is being destroyed, some are facing financial ruin - meanwhile the Mayor and MP' sit in their ivory towers with their noses in the air, oblivious to the stench of corruption!
Today I asked Gerald Gouriet QC via twitter, if defining P4H by statute could make make current case law redundant – his answer was “Depending on the definition... Yes!”
Now I've said it before and i'll say it again: It's my opinion and belief that getting P4H defined by statute is the last hand TfL and the Mayor will play to legitimise Uber - existing case law is the ONLY thing that Ubers collaborators can't challenge; the only way Uber can carry on, is if the case law is made redundant. I believe this is why Ubers licence hasn’t been revoked. The Mayor and Ubers stooges at TfL are looking to move the goal posts – And parliament will be the ones who screw the coffin lid down on the London Taxi Trade.