I've heard of Uber but don't really understand what they are about. From reading the article in the link are they a sort of private hire company?

They come in and undercut other taxis quite aggressively. They will take a loss to begin with till they have the market. Have to say- that is what we were hearing in a couple of places we have been abroad so may be different in London.

No, Fiona, I don't think it is any different in London. I think that they only operate in Glasgow and Edinburgh up in Scotland but I would never use them, both because their drivers are treated by them as self employed freelances rather than employees in order to avoid paying NI and having to deduct tax on their behalf etc and more importantly they have a bad reputation for not doing proper CRB/PVG checks on their drivers. It literally could be anybody driving that car including a convicted rapist it seems, because they do not rigorously check whether the people doing the driving are fit people to be doing it.

It was set-up originally as a lift share app - in effect linking people who wanted a lift to somewhere with drivers who were going in that direction in return for sharing the costs. A recipe for disaster in my view - I wouldn't stand by the side of the road late at night to hitch a lift with a stranger and I wouldn't feel safer just because my details had been circulated via an app on my phone that I was looking for a lift!

Headlines in Aberdeen yesterday that Uber may well be setting up here. I thought we were going to escape it😟

I've used them a bit in the US, you get a real mixed bag of people. Some amazing, others you would never ever get in a car with.

I'm dumbfounded that anybody would petition for them to retain their licence when one of the key reasons for it being rescinded was that they weren't doing the proper bcakground checks on the drivers re criminal convictions etc. Want to have easy access to lone women travelling home late at night who are possibly the worse for wear with alcohol? Apply to become an Uber driver and they'll apparently be queuing up to let you know their whereabouts and will actually pay you to drive them home! Beggars belief as far as I'm concerned!

I agree with you SMa if that's their setup 😱

I've never used Uber , but read a bit about people using their service . Like all mini cab or taxi service anywhere you would expect licences to only be permitted if all types of background checks are done ( medical , criminal and legal ) .
There are always 2 sides to an argument though and it appears that many lone women do find using Uber a safe option , yes some women may be out for a night out and have drunk alcohol , but many are using Uber returning from work and find it a cost effective option to black cabs , via the app they know which driver is coming and there is GPS tracking for their journey , it offers a door to door service as many women have stated they feel unsafe waiting to hail a cab or taking public transport in London like the tube or bus which might still involve a walk either end and also the worrying feeling of safety on public transport where there is an increasing risk of being attacked or assaulted or getting unwanted attention . TFL realise that public safety is also an issue on its transport and not only at nighttime either , but has made funds available of 3.4 million for extra transport policing on the night tube .

I agree that TFL need to ensure safety standards are in place to grant a permanent licence to Uber , but also needs to understand that the public also has feelings of safety on its own transport systems and is a contributing factor to why people decide to use Uber .

Yes, Andy, there are issues about women's safety in general but there isn't another side to the issue of not making sure that the appropriate background checks are made. Once Uber ensure that are doing them then by all means give their licence back to operate as minicab service but in the meantime I fully support TFL in rescinding it. By using Uber, their customers aren't making a choice between Uber and black cabs or Uber and public transport - it's a choice between using a minicab service that doesn't ensure that all it's drivers are checked and one that does. If some people are willing to use a service that cannot be bothered to check that you are not being driven home by a convicted rapist or drunk driver just because it is cheap then they don't have much regard for their own safety in the first place.

SM

We do have some Hackney type black cabs here (my friends father owns one) but generally all our taxi's are private hire (although they do stop in the road if you hail one 😉). A £ to a penny none of the drivers are checked. So is there a difference?

They are in Aberdeen

Glynis, no, as far as I'm concerned there is no difference and if I thought that there was a chance that I was getting into a taxi, whether a Hackney or a private hire one, with a driver who hadn't been CRB/PVG checked then I'd be making a note of their licence number and reporting them for it. But are you sure that they are all private hire cabs doing this in your area? A good many of the taxis in my area don't use black cabs but saloon or estate cars but if you look at their plates, they are registered as hackney cabs and allowed to use the taxi ranks and pick up passengers hailing them on the street etc. You do see more and more 'black cab' style taxis on the streets here but this is because the transition period with regard to disability access is starting to run out and when drivers or companies are upgrading their vehicles they are moving over to 'black cab' style vehicles though very few of them are actually black up here.

All private hire drivers are supposed to be checked by law - it's why Uber have had their licence rescinded - they were not complying with the law. But if private hire taxis are stopping to do road pick-ups from people just hailing them on the street then they are breaking not only breaking the law for private hire taxis but are probably also violating the terms of their insurance. This is one of the reasons Uber have for so long insisted that their drivers are self-employed freelancers - it meant that they could avoid all employer rsponsibility for someone breaking the law, including having to do the background checks that all employers are required by law for people who are employed in jobs that put them into contact with people in situations were they are vulnerable and/or could be exploited. It meant that they could get away with saying that this was the responsibility of the licencing authority because they were not the employer. However, having lost a number of Employment Tribunal cases, it has been made clear to them that they are the employer of their drivers and must do the checks in order to continue as a private hire company.

I couldn't believe it this morning when the head of Uber in the UK admitted on Today on Radio4 that when they received complaints about their drivers breaking the law that they didn't refer these cases to the police and usually only referred cases they deemed to be serious (ie not those they had decided were trivial) to TFL alone. This included an allegation of sexual assault by a driver that later went on to rape a passenger - they took no action to ensure that the earlier complaint was investigated and allowed the driver to continue working with no action being taken until he was arrested and charged by the police for the rape!

We have a couple of private hire companies SMa. The main one, although you are supposed to phone & book they do stop if hailed (usually late at night near the pubs).

I seriously doubt all of them are checked, they maybe, but just a feeling I have & of course there's those taxi drivers that were recently jailed in Yorkshire......

But that's why I think it is so important that licensing authorities do rigorously enforce the rules re background checks - the fact that some still manage to slip through is surely an argument for tightening up the regulations rather than turning a blind eye to what Uber have been doing?

To be honest, I smell fish! Uber has been adamant that it was for the drivers to get their own criminal background checks done for inclusion in the paperwork when applying for an individual private hire licence and it wasn't their responsibility to do this because they weren't their employers but to get a licence to be a private hire driver you must have an enhanced check - and individuals cannot get this done, they can only apply for a standard one. So where are the drivers obtaining the enhanced checks paperwork from? It would appear that because enhanced checks can only be requested by an employer or eg a trade organisation then there must be a 3rd party/parties involved. Who is this 3rd party? Given the way Uber has suddenly dropped their previously belligerent approach and has now publicly apologised for getting it wrong and is being much more conciliatory, I'm wondering what has changed? Perhaps evidence that this 3rd party hasn't always been above board in what it's been doing?

Uber are not responsible for drivers to be licensed , it is TFL who license drivers and you have to apply to them who will only grant you a licence if you undertake the DBS check which is Disclosure and Barring Service .

TFL are solely responsible for which drivers are licensed and will only licence someone if their DBS check is complete and correct .

Uber used to advise drivers to use Onfido and TFL were happy in the past for this disclosure company to be used and they are legitimate and use government approved sources to gain information and have then licensed drivers , now the only way to get a licence is through the preferred disclosure service that TFL insist on which GB Group and TFL contacted 13000 drivers to inform them that they would only be licensed if they had undergone the GB group disclosure service .

Uber or any other operator for that matter will collect and check that medical checks and legal checks are all correct .

TFLs main reason it seems to be rescinding Ubers operating licence is about the reporting of offences , whereby uber will log offences with TFL when it really should be contacting the police if a claim of a criminal act has been committed .

Another serious reason is the use of Greyball which affects the app and doesn't allow known regulators to check the service being provided .

The employment rights are currently being contested in court , regarding uber drivers not being employees and therefore not receiving benefits that employed people are entitled to like sick pay , holiday pay , minimum payment and pension .

Personally I think tough regulation and legislation is needed throughout the whole country for all taxi services , drivers and operators to ensure safety and protection for the public .

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/taxis-and-private-hire/licensing/private-hire-driver-licence

Yes, TFL, issue the licences but Uber are supposed to ensure that all their drivers are licensed and are responsible for ensuring that they are properly licensed - it isn't clear that they have been ensuring that this was done.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

'Uber used to advise drivers to use Onfido and TFL were happy in the past for this disclosure company to be used and they are legitimate and use government approved sources to gain information and have then licensed drivers ,'

Because the source of the information is the Police national database.

Unless a driver is issued with a licence which has been approved by TFL ( meaning they have passed the DBS check ) then they would not be activated and show up on the app when a user requests a car .
TFL hasn't said that uber has a problem with drivers being correctly licensed in its decision to rescind its operators licence which means it app will not longer be able to be used .

regarding the disclosure services of Onfido and GB group here is a link outlining the situation .

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uber-london-licence-tfl-policy-dbs-checks-change-2017-9

But it has said that it has a problem with how Uber approaches obtaining the paperwork that the licensing process is dependent on.

"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."

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/september/licensing-decision-on-uber-london-limited

In other words it is raising questions about whether that paperwork can be relied on. Because of the confidential nature of the infromation, TFL will not usually see the content of the criminal records, if any, of people applying to be licensed as private hire drivers and is reliant on making their decision on the basis of paperwork that only confirms both that the check has been carried out and that there is nothing in it that disbars the person from the post/licence they have applied for. The implication of their statement is that there is a credibility problem of some sort with the paperwork they are being provided with.