Quantcast
Channel: Taxi Leaks
Viewing all 4172 articles
Browse latest View live

Tim Fenton Blows The Lid Off TfL Part 3: Uber's PR Said They WereIllegal

$
0
0

All those cheerleaders for driver and rider matching service Uber have been quiet of late, which suggests that someone out there is worried. After this week’s revelations, showing that Uber in London was known to be operating illegally back in December 2013 following the complaint made by Clifford, Chance on behalf of the capital’s private hire operators, they may be yet more nervous. And those revelations aren’t finished yet.

After Jo Bertram of Uber was given the hard word on compliance by Cliff Llewellyn of TfL, not only was the panic button pressed in San Francisco, with the British Consulate there becoming involved, the PR initiative began in London, in an effort to soften up TfL management. To this end, Uber left nothing to chance, and employed the services of PR specialists RLM Finsbury, who immediately made contact.

One of their partners contacted Jennifer Holmes in the Mayor’s office - whether there was any prompting from Bozza is not known - who gave the PR people the name of Isabel Dedring, Deputy Mayor for Transport. Ms Dedring was busy - whether this was genuinely busy or merely bodyswerving busy is also not known - and this is where Garrett Emmerson, as COO for surface transport, came in.

Read Tim Fenton's Expose' In Full, Complete With FOI Emails.....Click Link Below:


Following this 3rd round of expose‘s of TFL's involvement in the cover up of Uber's illegality, Grant Davis, Chair of the London Taxi Drivers Club has made this statement of intent on Periscope.



Grant tells every cab driver what they've been waiting to hear for many years.


“I got out and ran”: with one attack a week in London, is using Uber safe for women?

$
0
0

Users entrust untrained strangers to drive us around simply because they operate via a sleek, shiny app.

The most unsettling experience of my life cost me £34.75. At 2:50am on a Sunday morning in February, I got into an Uber – a taxi ordered via the ride-hailing app of the same name. The app informed me I would be home in 26 minutes, but I wasn’t. When I finally opened the door to my flat over an hour later, I burst into sobs.

In an effort to extort more money from our journey, my driver took me all across London – and off the predetermined route Uber had mapped out. On the app, you can watch your journey as it progresses, a little black car moving steadily along a planned blue line. When I realised we had gone a different way, and looked out the window to see we were driving through a deserted industrial estate at 3am, I started to panic. In the end, a £10 journey cost nearly four times as much – but I was relieved. I spent the ride fearing my driver wanted to take advantage of me in a different way.

This wasn’t the first time that it struck me how strange it is that Uber users entrust untrained strangers to drive us around simply because they operate via a sleek, shiny app.

Yet that journey was the first time I fully felt the weight of what this means. The morning after, I Googled to see if my fears were unfounded. They weren’t. From February 2016 to February 2017, there were 48 alleged sex attacks by Uber drivers reported to the police in London. That works out at nearly one attack by an Uber driver in London a week.

Not all of these attacks took place within Uber cars, and Scotland Yard added a caveat to the data that some of the accused may have been incorrectly identified as working for Uber, while not all of these complaints resulted in the drivers being charged.

Nonetheless, it is an alarming statistic. Like black cab drivers, Uber drivers must obtain a licence from their local authority and go through a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, which flags previous convictions. Yet, in 2016, five UK Uber drivers were convicted of sexually assaulting their passengers. In the same year, no licensed black cab drivers were charged with journey-related sexual offences. In July 2017, a London-based Uber driver who waited outside bars to pick up and rape drunk women was jailed for 12 years.

When I get in touch with other women to ask if they have felt unsafe in an Uber, it feels as though everyone has a story. “I’ve never had conversations with people where it immediately became sexual so quickly,” says 22-year-old Akena Katsuda, whose Uber driver started asking her “invasive” questions about her sex life as he drove her home from a night out. “The fact that he knew where I lived was a little scary.”

Katsuda has other bad experiences – one driver asked her where she was from and said, “It would be nice to marry a Japanese woman because they are sexually subservient”. She isn’t alone. Ellie Dickinson, also 22, tells me about an incident where an Uber driver made lewd comments towards her, even though her brother was also in the car. Aliss Wagner, 23, had a driver who – like mine – took her around London instead of taking the pre-planned shorter route.

“He deliberately put his inside mirror down so that he could see me in it, and kept staring at me through it even while driving,” she says. When the driver stopped at a red light and Wagner realised she wasn’t on the right route, she banged on the car window to attract the attention of a nearby couple. “They looked at me, but then the driver drove away.”

In the end, Wagner was safe – if a little late. As the driver finally neared her destination, Wagner rolled down the window and opened the car door from the outside. “I got out and ran,” she says.

In September 2017, Transport for London (TfL) decided not to renew Uber’s licence to operate in London, accusing the company of “a lack of corporate responsibility” when it came to public safety. A month before this, a Metropolitan police inspector warned TfL that Uber was not reporting serious crimes, a failure that allowed an accused sex attacker to go on to assault a second woman. Though the company is attempting to appeal, traditional taxi drivers are overjoyed about
TfL’s decision.

Other cabs aren’t necessarily safe, though. Uber gets most of the scrutiny because it’s a young tech company that made headlines in 2016, when it emerged its drivers had been accused of 32 assaults in the previous year.  Despite the coverage, however, the data revealed that during the same year there were 122 allegations against other taxi drivers in London, including black cab drivers, legal and illegal minicabs, and chauffeur-driven cars. Many women feel unsafe in traditional taxis and some even think Uber is safer, as the app allows friends and family to track journeys. As of February 2018, Uber now also reports crimes directly to the police.

Yet perhaps we expect more of Uber precisely because it is new. The company used technology to make taxis cheaper for everyone – why can’t it make them safer too? It could be mandatory for every Uber driver to install a tamper-proof CCTV camera in their car, for instance, or the panic button in the Indian version of the Uber app could be made available worldwide.

The other solution – that women stop taking Ubers alone, or at all – isn’t always feasible and would be a significant blow to female independence. Each of the women I spoke to still uses Uber, despite their experiences.

“I think it’s just way convenient so I continue to do it,” Akena Katsuda told me. I have also taken Ubers alone after my unsettling experience. It is not a coincidence that the women I spoke to were aged 22 and 23. When money is tight, and walking home or taking the night bus is the most dangerous option of all, the frying pan can be the only alternative to the fire. 


Source : NewSratesman 

With One Attack A Week In London, Is Using Uber Safe For Women?

$
0
0


As Users, we entrust untrained strangers to drive us around simply because they operate via a sleek, shiny app!

The most unsettling experience of my life cost me £34.75. At 2:50am on a Sunday morning in February, I got into an Uber – a taxi ordered via the ride-hailing app of the same name. The app informed me I would be home in 26 minutes, but I wasn’t. When I finally opened the door to my flat over an hour later, I burst into sobs.

In an effort to extort more money from our journey, my driver took me all across London – and off the predetermined route Uber had mapped out. On the app, you can watch your journey as it progresses, a little black car moving steadily along a planned blue line. When I realised we had gone a different way, and looked out the window to see we were driving through a deserted industrial estate at 3am, I started to panic. In the end, a £10 journey cost nearly four times as much – but I was relieved. I spent the ride fearing my driver wanted to take advantage of me in a different way.

This wasn’t the first time that it struck me how strange it is that Uber users entrust untrained strangers to drive us around simply because they operate via a sleek, shiny app.

Yet that journey was the first time I fully felt the weight of what this means. The morning after, I Googled to see if my fears were unfounded. They weren’t. From February 2016 to February 2017, there were 48 alleged sex attacks by Uber drivers reported to the police in London. That works out at nearly one attack by an Uber driver in London a week.

Not all of these attacks took place within Uber cars, and Scotland Yard added a caveat to the data that some of the accused may have been incorrectly identified as working for Uber, while not all of these complaints resulted in the drivers being charged.

Nonetheless, it is an alarming statistic. Like black cab drivers, Uber drivers must obtain a licence from their local authority and go through a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, which flags previous convictions. Yet, in 2016, five UK Uber drivers were convicted of sexually assaulting their passengers. In the same year, no licensed black cab drivers were charged with journey-related sexual offences. In July 2017, a London-based Uber driver who waited outside bars to pick up and rape drunk women was jailed for 12 years.

When I get in touch with other women to ask if they have felt unsafe in an Uber, it feels as though everyone has a story. “I’ve never had conversations with people where it immediately became sexual so quickly,” says 22-year-old Akena Katsuda, whose Uber driver started asking her “invasive” questions about her sex life as he drove her home from a night out. “The fact that he knew where I lived was a little scary.”

Katsuda has other bad experiences – one driver asked her where she was from and said, “It would be nice to marry a Japanese woman because they are sexually subservient”. She isn’t alone. Ellie Dickinson, also 22, tells me about an incident where an Uber driver made lewd comments towards her, even though her brother was also in the car. Aliss Wagner, 23, had a driver who – like mine – took her around London instead of taking the pre-planned shorter route.

“He deliberately put his inside mirror down so that he could see me in it, and kept staring at me through it even while driving,” she says. When the driver stopped at a red light and Wagner realised she wasn’t on the right route, she banged on the car window to attract the attention of a nearby couple. “They looked at me, but then the driver drove away.”

In the end, Wagner was safe – if a little late. As the driver finally neared her destination, Wagner rolled down the window and opened the car door from the outside. “I got out and ran,” she says.

In September 2017, Transport for London (TfL) decided not to renew Uber’s licence to operate in London, accusing the company of “a lack of corporate responsibility” when it came to public safety. A month before this, a Metropolitan police inspector warned TfL that Uber was not reporting serious crimes, a failure that allowed an accused sex attacker to go on to assault a second woman. Though the company is attempting to appeal, traditional taxi drivers are overjoyed about
TfL’s decision.

Other cabs aren’t necessarily safe, though. Uber gets most of the scrutiny because it’s a young tech company that made headlines in 2016, when it emerged its drivers had been accused of 32 assaults in the previous year.  Despite the coverage, however, the data revealed that during the same year there were 122 allegations against other taxi drivers in London, including black cab drivers, legal and illegal minicabs, and chauffeur-driven cars. Many women feel unsafe in traditional taxis and some even think Uber is safer, as the app allows friends and family to track journeys. As of February 2018, Uber now also reports crimes directly to the police.

Yet perhaps we expect more of Uber precisely because it is new. The company used technology to make taxis cheaper for everyone – why can’t it make them safer too? It could be mandatory for every Uber driver to install a tamper-proof CCTV camera in their car, for instance, or the panic button in the Indian version of the Uber app could be made available worldwide.

The other solution – that women stop taking Ubers alone, or at all – isn’t always feasible and would be a significant blow to female independence. Each of the women I spoke to still uses Uber, despite their experiences.

“I think it’s just way convenient so I continue to do it,” Akena Katsuda told me. I have also taken Ubers alone after my unsettling experience. It is not a coincidence that the women I spoke to were aged 22 and 23. When money is tight, and walking home or taking the night bus is the most dangerous option of all, the frying pan can be the only alternative to the fire. 


Source : NewSratesman 

United We Stand... You Couldn’t Make It Up

$
0
0

Recent revelations from Tim Fenton on Zelo Street blog, publishing stacks of evidence of corruption and collusion on the part of TfL, have shown since 2013, they knew Uber were operating illegally and unlicensed, but chose to say and do nothing.


Call me optermistic but I was expecting to find our wonderful New United Trade Group leaders, at 9o/c this morning, banging on Mike Browns door, United in their demands for an immediate revocation of Uber’s London Licence and for TfL compliance to order their vehicles to cease and desist from operating within the TfL regulatory area. 

But instead, I woke to news that the UCG general secretary and committee have told the LCDC that they will no longer sit down with them at meetings. Surely this can't be the wishes of their members?

We now have the evidence we’ve been waiting for. 
Uber London Limited who hold a TfL licence (on appeal), haven't been dispatching the jobs, it's UberBV who have been dispatching the work and they hold no TfL licensed to do so!
Uber drivers are accepting instant hails from an unlicensed operator, which I believe makes their hire and reward insurance void!
Under existing legislation, TfL have the right to order an immediate revocation of Uber's licence status.

With the evidence we have, we should be seeing a full stop to Uber's operation, with top TfL directors and managers, past and present under investigation for malfeasance!

But instead, the short sightless and tribal attitude of certain trade representatives are again fragmenting our trade.
Are you, the subscription paying members going to stand for this scandalous behaviour ?

Instead of seeing Uber quaking in their boots, they are falling about laughing at us. And so are TfL.

As if to rub salt into the womb, this post appeared on Twitter congratulating the LCDC action group on the fantastic work they’ve been involved in. Proving the right hand don't know what the left hand is doing.


Unfortunately, the congratulations were short lived as news broke in a reply to the UCG tweet, from LCDC chairman Grant Davis shown below. 



Again, we will witness defeat, dragged from the jaws of victory by a vindictive individual with an agenda against another org. 

TAXI LEAKS LATE NIGHT EXTRA BIT: 
Latest from the UCG 


Perhaps the members should ask to see these private emails sent by committee members, in the name of transparency.
Trade org leaders are accountable to their members.

2010 Old Bailey Judge Says "The Safety Of The Public Is Our PrimeConcern And Central To Our Application Of The Fit And Proper PersonTest".

$
0
0
I was sorting out stuff in my garage and came across an old Taxi Newspaper dated 27th July 2010 with the headline "Killer off the Knowledge".


Having read it over again, I was not only reminded how well we all did at the time with a drive-in protest at the PCO at Penton street in getting a wife killer off the Knowledge, but it also showed joint cooperation with the unions LTDA, Unite, & LCDC & very importantly the PCO, who on seeing the depth of outrage in our trade prompted an immediate independent review. 

This resulted in the individual being removed not only from the knowledge but had his private hire licence revoked.

This decision was subsequently upheld by City of London Magistrates Court, but it was later challenged by the private hire driver/ Knowledge student, under legal advise. 


On 16th July 2010, the appeal took place at The Old Bailey & the newly appointed PCO director John Mason (with his experienced Legal team) argued their technical legal case of revocation for several hours in court and the Judge ruled for the PCO.

The astonishingly important words the Judge said back in 2010 -years before Uber came to London- which lead to the revocation decision on this drivers Private hire licence is so relevant I had to repeat them now.


On Summing up the previous record of the Knowledge/Private hire driver the Judge said:

"The Appellant is a Paranoid schizophrenic who admitted strangling his wife 10 years earlier, he was given an unrestricted time hospital order but was released after 3 years by a mental health review tribunal, in 1991 he was fined £15 for exposing himself in a public place, in 1998 he was conditionally discharged fro assaulting a Police officer and in 2009 he was cautioned for slapping his daughter,and 2 motoring convictions in the past 5 years (jumping lights & speeding).


This was the compelling part of the judges summing up statement:

"When taken individually, these convictions would not disqualify him, but in combination, I think it reasonable to say that they have much greater significance and call into question his personal and driving character.

"The safety of the public is our prime concern & central to our application of the fit & proper person test.

"We find that the applicant is not a fit & proper person to hold a licence & we therefore dismiss the appeal".

Now, with all the aggregated chicanery, algorithm interferences, withheld sexual customer feedback & downright fraudulent actions, does the fit and proper description go hand in glove with the last 5 year Uber licence under the judges summing up above?

TFL themselves now realise how bright the spotlight of legal propriety shines on themselves & re-percussion will undoubted fall upon them for previous failings & maleficence as we all closely watch their every move.

What a pity PCO honesty latterly became subjective according to the highest bidder.

Be lucky,

greenbadgejohn (on twitter)

   

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT : by Paul Coghlan 

One would assume the safety of the public was paramount. Sadly that assumption became an obstacle to the facilitation and a precursor to the advent of big business. 

The Uber dollar became the only currency in town as the corporates stumbled upon the transportation industry. Thus the wholesale rape of our industry began. 

Sadly for them they forgot there was a group of men and women who cared more, knew more and were prepared to fight more.

Residents Disregarded As Oxford Street Consultation Results FinallyOut.... By Gerald Coba.

$
0
0
Oxford Street Consultation results are finally out! 



Although 61% of Westminster residents are completely against pedestrianisation of Oxford Street! and with only 22% having said “Yes” to the madness, again residents wishes, will be pushed aside (as we've seen previously by Camden in Fitzrovia).

WCC agreed to hold a 'joint' consultation of 'shoppers' and 'residents' but now, as we've seen many times in the past, consultations showing adverse results mean absolutely nothing in respect to decisions made by TfL and the Mayor.

Already CityAM and the Standard are hailing the consultation which encompasses shoppers, tourists and people from outside the borough a massive 2 out of 3 success. Well it would be with a bit of creative accounting !

In the Mayor's eyes, it's always been essential to future plans to make coming to Oxford Street for shoppers, more attractive on the new Elizabeth line, than sitting on a bus in gridlock congestion.

We have been reliably informed that Westminster City Council are now saying they were/are only in favour of the 'joint' consultation and NOT the pedestrianisation !

As WCC actually own Oxford Street, the Mayor will now have to invoke special powers to take over the street, should he wish to do so. 

So, what has caused WCC apparent change of heart?....could it be that they never expected such a massive response from residents within the joint 20,000 responses ?

We are also reliably informed that the only reason WCC agreed to a joint consultation was because the Mayor was holding a gun to the councils head by initially threatening to take over control of said street. 

Will Westminster City Council, on behalf of their residents, actually fight against the Mayor's plans?
Or will they just concede?

It will now be very interesting to see what the Mayor's PR team do next to appease the influential resident response to the consultation. 

In the eyes of local residents, the plans SHOULD be dead in the water, but don't forget Khan is not a man of his word.
Was he not going to be the Mayor who ran Uber out of town, should they commit just one error of compliance!!! (Obviously before being elected to office).

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :
Delfino's restaurant should see an increase in business lunches as tenders go out for the contracts to do this work.

Or maybe not....going on past history, the contracts could already have been allocated!!! 

Unauthorised PH Booking Desk Removed From LAP Terminal By BAA

$
0
0

Taxis have been getting shafted at Heathrow with new mobile PH desks on the terminals.


Wasn’t really a great advert for PH as passengers were seen waiting here for anything up to half an hour for their car, while vacant Taxis were available in the rank outside. 

Who were behind the signs, which company were servicing the desks, who gave permission ??? 

We have been reliably informed that certain “colleagues” were responsible for allowing this booking desk. 

The LCDC airport reps are now trying to ascertain just who these “colleagues” are.

Good news today:

The desks were removed this morning after Marshals informed BAA of the unauthorised signage.

    


We have been told Taxi Marshalls will continue to monitor the situation, and all relevant information will be passed on to BAA regarding any unauthorised signage in future. 

London Cab Drivers Club airport rep Jamie Hawes said:

“The LCDC will always take action on behalf of the trade at Heathrow and we are assured that these desk are to be removed permanently”.

A blast from the past:

Taxi booking desks....should they be restored to all terminals ?

But....are they needed now all Taxis take credit and debit cards?



The Sun Sets On Uber York As Uber Britannia Limited withdraws From Yorklicence appeal

$
0
0

UBER has dropped its legal fight over a licence to operate in York.

The ride-hailing app was refused a licence by City of York councillors in December, but launched an appeal less than a month later.

The case was due before the courts later this month, but the company announced this afternoon it was dropping its appeal.

A spokesman said: "Following recent changes we’ve made in the UK, as well as numerous licence renewals in cities including Sheffield and Cambridge, we have decided to withdraw our appeal in York.

"Rather than take up valuable court time and costs we intend to apply afresh for a new licence in the near future."

The decision means that York-licensed private hire drivers won't be able to use Uber - but the brand will not disappear from the streets altogether as drivers licensed in others areas can still come into York to work.

According to the company, fewer than 10 York-licensed drivers were actually active on the app.

Uber's spokesman has also confirmed that while it has changed its rules to stop drivers working outside the region in which they are registered, drivers from within Yorkshire can still come into the city.

Writing on its Facebook page, the York Private Hire Group called the decision a "massive win" which showed the city council's gambling, regulatory and licensing committee has been right to turn down the licence.

A spokesperson for City of York Council said: “We are aware of the decision by Uber Britannia Limited to withdraw their appeal. This will mean that Uber’s operating office in York is no longer licensed and the few private hire drivers working for them are currently unable to operate.”

However the council spokesman also confirmed that Uber drivers from elsewhere are legally allowed to operate in York.

The York-licensed drivers working on Uber will have to get a job with a licensed operator in the city, or pass licensing rules with another local authority, to be able to keep working.

See Gerald Gouriet QC Licensing Lawyer Blog


Taxi Leaks Extra bit :

Get your London Taxi Radio Window Sticker!


If anyone want an LTR window stick send your address by DM to Twitter @mirna0405 or by email to Taxileaks@mail.com and we’ll get one sent out to you

Safety Campaigners Allege TfL Withheld Key Audit Report From Tram CrashInvestigators

$
0
0


A transport safety campaigner has accused Transport for London of suppressing vital information related to the causes of the Sandilands tram crash by keeping secret an audit report into the events of November 9, 2016, even to the point of not releasing the information to its own investigation into the fatal derailment.

Seven people were killed and all 62 other passengers on board sustained injuries when a tram travelling from New Addington to Wimbledon left the tracks on a sharp bend approaching the Sandilands stop 18 months ago.



Now, transport campaigner Tom Kearney, has accused TfL of withholding a key report, from June last year, from the official Rail Accident Investigation Board and its own internal investigators. 

The report was a safety audit of the fatigue risk management system operated by FirstGroup, the company which operates the tram system on behalf of TfL. Driver fatigue was a key area of investigation into the causes of the Sandilands crash.

Tom Kearney: wants explanations
According to Kearney, “The description of the problems which prompted the nine  management actions detailed in TfL’s excellent internal audit conducted in June 2017 and published on September 15 last year reads like ‘Nine Billboards in Front of Croydon Town Hall’.

“If TfL management were truly interested in understanding the origins of the Croydon tram crash, I cannot think of any reason why they insisted that this document be issued as ‘restricted and confidential’ to only a handful of managers.

“And why they did not make this important piece of evidence available to the RAIB and their own independent investigator in time for their own investigations completed last December and January.

“I am especially concerned that Leon Daniels, until recently TfL’s managing director for surface transport, told a TfL safety panel that the audit, ‘did not give rise to any concerns’.  

“If that’s indeed the case, then why was the audit not released, at least to the investigators?”



Leon Daniels: he should face scrutiny questions in Croydon next week
A question submitted last month to Mayor’s Question Time by London Assembly Member Caroline Pidgeon revealed that Internal Audit IA 17 1780 – to give it its full titles – was  released to the RAIB, SNC Lavalin (the independent investigator brought in by TfL), the Office of Rail and Road and British Transport Police only on February 12 this year.

Pidgeon has followed up with another MQT asking why the audit wasn’t released sooner. This is due to get a response by the end of this month.

Next week, Sean Fitzsimons, the Addiscombe councillor who chairs the council’s scrutiny committee, is holding a session at the Town Hall on the tram network, including the Sandilands crash. Kearney has suggested that Fitzsimons should invite Daniels to answer questions about the withheld audit report and the reasons for its delayed release.

Kearney asked: “Improving the safety culture of TfL surface transport will depend on such public scrutiny from our elected representatives. Just think about it: how many more “Internal Audit IA 17-1780s” are gathering dust in TfL filing cabinets?”

Tom Kearney is an award-winning public transport safety campaigner, himself a survivor of a TfL bus crash, who can be found on Twitter @comadad 

TfL To Change Legislation In Order To Suit Private Hire Ride Share Apps.

$
0
0

After the recent exposes from Tim Fenton, which shows us that not only have Uber been operating illegally all along, but that TfL knew about this, most of the time, did and said nothing in a massive cover up. 

We now find that TfL are actively changing the regulations to suit Ride Sharing App companies. 

Can't confirm to existing legislation....no problem we'll just change it to suit you !

TfL has published a new policy statement setting out how private hire and ride-sharing services can operate in the Capital :-

This is in response to changes in the private hire industry and the many new services being offered. 

It has been designed to ensure London remains the world leader in regulating taxi and private hire services while maintaining the safety of passengers.

The private hire and ride-sharing market has been transformed in recent years as new technology has made it easier and cheaper to book rides through apps, resulting in a significant increase in the number of people opting to use private hire services. An increasing number of services are also emerging in London that include ride-sharing, in which passengers share vehicles and pay separate fares.

Current legislation was introduced before these technologies were developed and TfL recognises the need for clarity on what is now required to ensure the highest possible standards are maintained.

Helen Chapman, 'Interim' Director of Licensing, Regulation and Charging, said: ‘The private hire market is unrecognisable from when current legislation was introduced. The growth of ride-sharing and other advances mean that regulation has to be fit for the next decade and not the last. 

Our vision sets out clearly how we will manage these new developments that improve convenience for customers, while ensuring safety remains our top priority. The document also makes clear that any new developments in the sector have to fit with the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.’

With companies illegally licensed, passenger sexual attacks including rapes from PH drivers up by 50%, data hacking, tracking passengers after they've left the vehicle, the GreyBall program, customer credit card fraud and massive increases in road traffic accidents, TFL's record to date is shockingly poor!

TfL is already progressing new regulations to assess private hire drivers and applicants on safeguarding, disability, equality and knowledge of private hire legislation as part of an enhanced driver assessment package.

It is also already considering proposals
for consultation in relation to an advanced driving test, private hire operator fleet insurance and private hire vehicle signage, and the impact of removing the Congestion Charge exemption for private hire vehicles.

To ensure regulation keeps up with the rapidly evolving private hire sector, licences may be issued for shorter periods during the programme of regulatory reform. Any advances in convenience for the customer have to be accompanied by the appropriate protections for passengers. 

Taxi Leaks Extra Bit : 


There have been calls for motorbikes to be able to use the capitals new system of segregated cycle lanes in order to bring down the shocking number of fatalities to riders and passengers. 

Can't wait to see the reaction from the cycle lobby when they find out they may have to share their cycle super highways with scooters, mopeds and motorbikes. 

Other News updates from TfL

$
0
0
Cross border hiring
We've published a proposal for legislative change relating to cross border hiring. 

OnRoute
The latest issue of OnRoute magazine includes articles about managing stress and anxiety, checking your rented private hire vehicle, test driving the new TX eCity, and useful advice on where you can and cannot park in the Capital.

Results of Oxford Street transformation consultation
With more than 22,000 consultation responses received, plans to transform Oxford Street and the surrounding area into an unrivalled place to live, work and visit have received widespread support. Read the full report here 

New electric vehicle charging points
Source London has announced a partnership with LEVC that means black cab drivers can benefit from discounted charging rates and a limited-time welcome offer of a free one-year membership. 

A Game of Cat and Mouse, or Uber keeping out of the Courts... by LeeWard.

$
0
0

Well, my hangover has finally dissipated from the session I went on after the hearing in Sheffield on Tuesday, I think.
Let me take this time to reflect on what was said, what decision was made and what has happened since.

Uber came to the hearing fully armed, the local manager, the head of Cities in the North of England, an inhouse legal representative and Phillip Kolvin QC, all suited and booted and a brief case I wouldn’t fill if I used it for a weekend away at Skeg Vegas.

I sat and listened to Mr Kolvin explain somewhere in the region of 14 points that Uber are going to implement through thiscoming year, all to make the journey safer for the public….. SAFER for the PUBLIC, now I don’t know about you people out there, but isn’t that exactly what an operator should ensure anyway?

Geo Fencing the UK to appease local authorities regardingCross Border Hiring, ‘local’ authorities that are still 50 to 70 miles apart. However, they were adamant that each City or Town will not have its own Geo Fence.

Showing the customer where the driver is licensed when they are shown what driver and vehicle are coming to collect them. Giving the customer a chance to cancel if they don’t want someone from Out of Town to pick them up, provided it isn’t surging of course.

A landline for customers to call someone if they are feeling threatened, that same landline that they said was not needed because of the safety aspect of their App.

If a driver receives too many complaints, they will inform licensing of them when they deactivate his account.

If licensing require the GPS trail of a driver who may have been plying for hire then they will supply that information when asked, just like all operators already do, its called a Section 73 but I am sure Mr Kolvin knew this.

A couple of Air Quality tick boxes were also thrown in for good measure, because every council is on a mission for emissions.
Making all UberX vehicles to be Hybrid by 2020 and all electric by 2024, at the customers expense which they failed to mention, but it made them look good.

Installing a charge point infrastructure for the electric vehicles that they will consider the public to be allowed to use also, why not, they did pay for them after all.

So, from this speech, and a great speech it was too, the Licensing Sub Committee (for those that are not familiar, the sub committee is 3 councilors and a legal advisor) got to ask some questions of Uber.

Now, I have to say that at this point I knew what the outcome was going to be, I have represented drivers for minor issues who were asked more questions than Uber were asked in that meeting.
One of the questions that was asked however was who accepts the booking and Mr Kolvin stated that it is Uber that accept the booking and not the driver and that what is happening in London is not relevant to Sheffield because the 98 Act and the 76 Act are different, of course there was no mention of the App being the same though.

I had submitted a 52 page document to Sheffield in objection to this license being granted and went to great detail in who invited and accepted the booking, I can only assume that it was not read, or if it was then was not understood.
We were all then asked to leave the room for the Sub Committee to make a decision on the license, no one was allowed to talk from the trade (from both sides of the argument)

While we waited, Mr Kolvin told me that I had spoilt his weekend with my objection paper (guess someone read it then) and that I made a great argument or words to that effect, I was pulling the knives from my back at the time.
Anyway, we all get called by in to be told the verdict...
Granted a five year license as applied for.
However.

Should the court cases that are under way prove to not go in Ubers favor, we will have no other option than to bring you before the committee to decide on what implications those decisions may have.

95% of the room had smiles from ear to ear, I had resignation throughout my whole body and waited for the fun and games to begin from the Uber Defense League that to be fair to them was nothing as bad as I expected, I had already reached for my bull shit deflectors and had them at the ready, so fair play to them.
 

This is myself after the decision with Nadeem Najib and Mick Swift who drive for Uber in Sheffield
 
Now, lets look at what happens next, it gets a little interesting.
The following day, Uber drop their appeal against the decision in York, why?

Was it because the last thing Uber wanted is for the court to go against Uber and Sheffield have them back in?

This is no disrespect to the Associations in York who put up a grand fight, but do Uber consider Sheffield more important than York?

Perhaps, they have according to Mr Kolvin 400 drivers licensed by Sheffield on the Uber platform that I beg to differ, because they include part time drivers who also work on other companies too. 

Full time drivers, I would estimate to be around 200 but 400 always sounds better when the mindset is that a decision may put 400 drivers out of work, or more importantly deciding that 400 drivers work for more traditional and legal taxi companies but that never gets mentioned.


Then comes the news of Uber stating that they have updated their App so that customers know that a booking is now accepted by Uber London Limited, however, they have not updated their terms and Conditions, so even if a miracle of code writing has occurred, Uber are still not held accountable by the customer should anything happen.

I wonder what’s next, will Mr Kolvin advise Uber to ‘assist’ the drivers who pleaded not guilty for Plying for Hire in Reading so that Uber once again keep the process of their platform out of court, perhaps, they are after all spending £160,000 on drivers who worked in Sheffield while licensed in such as Wolverhampton (that’s another story), London and Rossendale.

The fact is, as time goes by, Uber can recode what they want, toshow what they want while the system still in effect works as it always has, again both here and abroad.

I will keep this one shorter than usual, but I am going to put a request out to (in no particular order) Steve Wright (UPHD), Trevor Merrills (UCG), Grant Davies (LCDC), Steve McNamara (LTDA) Steve Garelick (GMB).

Please, stop the infighting, stop the bigotry and work together for the TfL case coming up in June, just 13 or so weeks away.

The trade look to you for guidance, help and support. They don’t want to hear all the negative arguments between the Organisations. The trade’s subs go towards fighting for them not towards fighting between each other, if you want a pissing contest then do it on your own time and not at the expense of the drivers.

I have done all I can on shirt buttons lads, do what you can with what you have in those chests, share the cost. The drivers will respect you more for a hard fight and spending every penny than no fight and having a chest full of dusty fivers.

It’s down to London now, I can’t afford a Judicial Revue, unless there is a benefactor out there that believes in my fight and what I fight for….
3 month, that’s all we have left, the government is not going to help, the councils can’t afford to help and the trade doesn’t seem to want to help themselves.

In a society filled with the best lawyers and state of the art technology it's obscene to just let this trade wither away and die.

Every driver is covered by an insurance policy that they paid good money for, not a lot of money but good honest money, their licenses and their subs.

I am alone in this fight, seriously outgunned and I am scared…but I am right and I swear revenge…
Be lucky out there and stay safe.

Wardy
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT :

Uber Accused Of Silencing Women Who Claim Sexual Assault By Drivers

$
0
0

Court records reveal company says women must settle through arbitration, a move critics say stops the public from learning of rapes

Uber is trying to force women who say they were sexually assaulted by drivers to resolve their claims behind closed doors rather than in the courts, a move that critics say silences victims and shields the company from public scrutiny.

Court records in a California class-action lawsuit revealed that the ride-sharing firm has argued that female passengers who speak up about being raped in an Uber must individually settle their cases through arbitration, a private process that often results in confidentiality agreements. 

Nine women from across the US have joined the case, seeking to represent all women who have been assaulted or experienced violence in Uber cars in hopes of pushing the corporation to reform and better protect passengers. Uber, however, has filed a motion arguing that the riders agreed to privately arbitrate all disputes when they signed up for the ride-share service and thus have no right to file a lawsuit. 

Uber’s lawyers are relying on a legal mechanism that has faced intense scrutiny in Silicon Valley over the last year as the #MeToo movement has shone a light on sexual misconduct in US workplaces and in Hollywood. Arbitration clauses have prevented victims of sexual harassment and discrimination from moving forward with lawsuits, allowing companies to avoid public trials, and critics say it makes it easier for serial offenders to keep their jobs and target new victims. 

Susan Fowler, the former Uber engineer whose viral account of sexual harassmentsparked a reckoning about abuse in the male-dominated tech industry, has pushed for an end to arbitration agreements. In December, Microsoft became the first high-profile tech company to announce it would eliminate forced arbitration, recognizing that the “silencing of people’s voices” can perpetuate sexual misconduct. 

“Our clients deserve a trial,” said Jeanne M Christensen, one of the class-action attorneys who filed a motion Thursday fighting Uber’s efforts to push the women into arbitration. “The goal is to force Uber to acknowledge that this is happening and to do something about it.” 

Christensen argued that arbitration prevents the public from learning about the frequency and severity of rapes and assaults by Uber drivers and inevitably results in non-disclosure agreements that silence the women, making it less likely that other victims will speak up. 

In the case of one plaintiff from Miami, an Uber driver carried the intoxicated passenger into her home when he dropped her off and raped her, according to the complaint. A Los Angeles driver allegedly assaulted another plaintiff who fell asleep in his car. A 26-year-old plaintiff from San Francisco said an Uber driver pushed his way into her apartment building and groped her. 

The women are “horrified and shocked that this is what happened to them, and they are also horrified that people aren’t talking about it, and that Uber has been fairly successful at keeping it out of the news”, said Christensen. 


An Uber spokesperson said in an email: “The allegations brought forth in this case are important to us and we take them very seriously. Arbitration is the appropriate venue for this case because it allows the plaintiffs to publicly speak out as much as they want and have control over their individual privacy at the same time.”

The spokesperson did not, however, respond to questions about whether Uber’s arbitration settlement agreements allow the women to speak out or if they include standard confidentiality clauses. Christensen also noted that the women already have control over their privacy – they are listed as “Jane Does” in the suit. 

Veena Dubal, an associate law professor at the University of California, Hastings, who has advocated for Uber drivers’ rights, said she has interviewed drivers who have filed claims against the company and were subsequently unable to speak to her due to settlement agreements. 

People involved in class-action suits against Uber “want the public and the state and Uber to recognize that their experiences are not random”, said Dubal. “They are the result of a structural problem. … They want Uber to make changes.” 

Uber has an interest in removing these cases from the public eye,” said Bryant Greening, an attorney with LegalRideshare, which represents Uber riders and drivers. “It’s despicable … It’s a public safety issue and it’s an issue that’s relevant to our community.

Source : The Gaudian 

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: 

Get your London Taxi Radio Window Sticker!


If anyone want an LTR window stick send your address by DM to Twitter @mirna0405 or by email to Taxileaks@mail.com and we’ll get one sent out to you

Cyclist Known For Aggression Towards London Taxi Drivers, LaunchesUnwarranted Attack On Female Cabby...by Lenny Etheridge

$
0
0

A cyclist known for his aggression towards London Taxi drivers, launched a horrendous attack on a lady Taxi driver, yesterday afternoon. The whole incident was recorded on a bus CCTV, behind the Taxi. 

The bus driver has said he is a willing to be a witness to the attack. Police were called to the incident, but the cyclist ran off before they arrived.

Observers said, the cyclist approached the Licensed Taxi at the lights. He got off his bike and proceeded to smash both of the lady's wing mirrors. He then threw three punches towards the female Taxi drivers face, through the open window, as she sat terrified in her cab.  

This is the face of the aggressor who is alleged to have launched the unwarranted attack on a female Cabby in Southwark Street by the lights with Great Suffolk Street.

The police have shown great interest in this unwarranted attack. They said "the cyclist is well known to us and will be easy to find".

The lady cabby was not far from her garage and after a phone call, a mechanic rushed to her assistance in his van.

The bus driver was very helpful telling her, the whole incident has been captured on the buses CCTV system. 
By the time the police arrived, the despicable, cowardly cyclist had shot off.

If you see this man, please alert the police. The job's dangerous enough without having to put up with lunatics like this!

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT: 
What they said on Twitter!


Istanbul taxi drivers go to court to seek shutdown of Uber

$
0
0

(Reuters) - Istanbul's taxi drivers have taken Uber to court, accusing the U.S.-based ride-hailing app of endangering their livelihoods in a case that could crimp its business in Europe's largest city.

It is the latest instance of court action, restrictions, bans and protests around the world over Uber's high-tech, low-cost challenge to traditional taxi services. Uber was forced to shut down in Denmark and Hungary and has suspended operations in Morocco while it gets in line with local laws.

Hundreds of Istanbul taxi drivers rallied in front of a city courthouse holding the first hearing on the case on Monday, holding up signs reading "We do not want the global thief Uber".

In their court action, the cabbies accuse Uber of running an unlicensed taxi service in Turkey and want the app banned. The next hearing was scheduled for June.

Tensions have risen in Istanbul, home to over 15 million people, since Uber entered the Turkish market in 2014. Some Uber drivers say they have been threatened and beaten by yellow cab drivers, an accusations the taxi industry denies.

Public sentiment on social media appears to be overwhelmingly in favor of Uber, with "#idon'tusetaxis" and "#don'ttouchuber" becoming trending topics in Turkish.

Some users of Uber have said they are fed up with what they call the rough manners and reckless driving of conventional cabbies, the circuitous, fare-inflating routes they take and the stench of cigarettes inside their vehicles.

"Until today, taxi drivers chose passengers," one user, Sinem, tweeted, referring to taxi drivers who won't accept short trips, even for pregnant women. "Now we want to choose our means of transportation. #donttouchuber."

Another user, Orhan, said that Uber drivers were more courteous and did not overcharge passengers.

Private broadcaster Haberturk reported last week that a group of taxi drivers recently hailed an Uber car and then beat the driver and damaged his vehicle.

"PLOTS AND PROVOCATIONS"

Such incidents are staged to sway public opinion and shape the outcome of the court case, according to Eyup Aksu, head of the Chamber of Istanbul Taxi Businesses, which represents around 50,000 taxi drivers with 18,000 licensed cabs.

"The reported incidents are plots and provocations done by Uber drivers in order to influence the case," Aksu said.

The issue has been escalated all the way to President Tayyip Erdogan, Aksu said, adding that the Interior Ministry was drafting regulations to foster a solution.

"If we do not get support politically, we will continue to repeat our stance to the politicians," he said.

No one was available for comment at the Interior Ministry.

Taxi drivers point to onerous costs they must pay but Uber does not. Number plates for taxis, required in Istanbul to drive a yellow cab cost around 1.5 million lira ($385,000), though in most cases a cabbie may "borrow" a plate from its owners for a monthly fee of 4,000-7,000 lira. 

Uber said that about 2,000 yellow cab drivers use the Uber app to find customers, while another 3,000 work for UberXL, using large vans to transport groups to parties, or run people with bulky luggage to Istanbul's main airport.

It declined to reveal the number of Uber users in Turkey, where it operates in Istanbul, and in the resort towns of Bodrum and Cesme in the summer months.

"We are appalled by the violence and are doing everything we can to support (our) drivers," Uber said in an emailed statement, adding that it could not elaborate on the court case while it was still ongoing.

One Uber XL driver, Irfan Er, said a taxi driver threatened him with a knife one night last week as he was carrying passengers. 


Companies Queuing Up To Relocate Away From The Capital, Over TfL And The Mayor's Crazy Traffic Schemes

$
0
0

A senior employee at Unilever has told a Taxi Leaks researcher, that owning to the difficulty in getting to meetings at their Blackfriars HQ, the company is relocating to Rotterdam. 

Paul, our researcher said, the conversation took place, while taking home the senior member of Unilever staff. 

The passenger said "owning to the nightmare of getting into work to attend meetings, it’s been decided to relocate the company’s HQ to Holland".

He went on to say how the changes to the area along the Embankment, Blackfriars Bridge and Farringdon Street, have made the area virtually inaccessible for most of the working day. 

Recent road works in Queen Victoria street and the Bank Junction have also added to the problem.

So much for Sadiq Khans catch phrase “London’s Open”.



Six Years On And TfL Have Said And Done Nothing About Uber OperatingWithout A Licence.

$
0
0
We've got a few questions we'd like to ask TfL and Sadiq Khan today, Sunday the 18th March 2018. 

Over the past 10 days, thanks to Tim Fenton's Zelo Street blog posts, it has become crystal clear that Uber BV has been operating in London, as a Private Hire operator, through a smart phone instant hail app, without holding a Private Hire operators licence.

We know this to be a fact!
We also have evidence that TfL knew this was the case asking ago as 2013. 


CLIFF LLEWELYN INFORMED SIWAN HAYWARD, SIMON BUGGEY AND SONIA ALLMAN IN DECEMBER 2013.

John Mason's Presentation Confirms TFL's Light Touch Approach To a Licensing Regulations In Uber's Favour:
In Tim's latest post, he tells of the presentation 
TfL Approach to Apps”, where John Mason starts by restating “Light touch regulatory approach”, and ends with “Let the quality of product and service provided to passengers dictate market”.

See Tims latest Zelo Street Post: Click Here

To this day, TfL have said and done nothing about this fact. They have allowed this company to carry on operating and have mediated with them as if they were licensed. 

This fact has now been out in the open, posted on news sites and in trade press and everyone in our trades be they Taxi or Private Hire, now knows TfL have allowed Uber to operate without having an operators licence. 

WHY HAVEN'T OUR TRADE ORG LEADERS BEEN BANGING ON MIKE BROWNS DOOR DEMANDING UBERS OPERATION BE CLOSED DOWN?     

WHERE IS SADIQ KHAN ON THIS ISSUE REGARDING UBER BV OPERATING ILLEGALLY WITHOUT AN OPERATORS LICENCE? 

WHEN ARE OUR TRADE REPRESENTATIVE ORGS GOING TO START REPRESENTING THEIR LONG SUFFERING MEMBERS? 

No more Mr Nice Guy, the drivers/members want action and we want it now. 

But, we don't want passive protests and ineffective  demonstrations, we want our trade leaders at Mike Brown's office and City Hall day after day, demanding he see that Uber BV cease operating immediately.

EVERY JOURNEY ON THE UBER PLATFORM IN LONDON, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY DISPATCHED SINCE 2012.

Not only that, TfL were also informed drivers were accepting the bookings direct in vehicle as unlicensed PH operators in the same email in 2013....and again, said/did nothing in respect of contraventions of the 1998 Act.

WHY HAVE TfL BEEN COVERING UP FOR UBER???

DEMAND TO KNOW WHY, 
CONTACT YOUR ORG ASAP, AND ASK WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION, NOW ITS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN???

If we wait till the appeal hearing, it will be too late as Uber BB will be relicensed in place of Uber London Ltd.

Just incase you missed Tim's earlier posts see them by Clicking Here

Almost Five Years On And TfL Have Said And Done Nothing About UberBVOperating Without A Licence. by...Jim Thomas

$
0
0

Open letter to TFL's Commissioner, Mike Brown...

Dear Mike
Now you've been shown the evidence, that UberBV have been (and still are) operating in London without an operators Licence, why have you not ordered them to cease operating with immediate effect?

Was this not your reaction when you found Taxify operating without a Licence in their name?
What makes UberBV different to Taxify?

After all Mike, you said you wanted it to go on record that you had nothing to do with the initial licensing of Uber!!!
Perhaps you would also like to be seen by your actions as having nothing to do with the UberBV cover up?

Over the past 10 days, thanks to Tim Fenton's 'Zelo Street' blog, it's become clear that UberBV has been operating in London since 2012, as a Private Hire operator, through a smart phone instant hail app, without holding a TfL Private Hire operators licence.

We now know this to be fact!

We also have evidence that TfL knew this was the case as long ago as 2013. 


CLIFF LLEWELYN INFORMED:-
SIWAN HAYWARD, SIMON BUGGEY AND SONIA ALLMAN IN DECEMBER 2013.

   Cliff Llewellyn centre with glasses.

According to Tim Fenton, Cliff Llewellyn wrote to Uber London boss Jo Bertram in December 2013 and listed compliance issues that, “require your urgent attention”. These allegedly included:

Clarification of the legal entity between Uber BV and Uber London Limited.

Which company will be making the provision, acceptance and the undertaking of PHV bookings, once Point (1) has been addressed?

Review of the Uber website to reflect the London legislation.

The charging of a fare using a Time x Distance device which is in contravention of the 1998 Act

Review of your sub-contraing processes to reflect that all bookings go through the sub-contactor and not directly to the driver.

Tim Fenton said Mr Llewellyn’s deadline for Uber to take action, December 23 2013, came and went without any compliance issues being addressed, even though his report concluded: “If they (Uber) fail to comply within a reasonable time period, then enforcement action is the only option.”

What happened next? 
According to Tim Fenton: “Uber by-passed Cliff Llewellyn, went to the Foreign Office, who went to Downing Street, who roped in the Department for Trade, who appear to have put the arm on TfL’s top brass to let Uber carry on anyway”. 

TfL and Uber have yet to comment on the allegations.

Tim Fenton's latest revelation carries a report regarding John Mason's presentation which confirms TFL's light touch approach to licensing regulations... favouring Uber's London operation:
In Tim's article, he posts slides of the presentation 
TfL Approach to Apps”, where John Mason restates “A light touch regulatory approach”, and ends with “Let the quality of product and service provided to passengers dictate market”.

More emails showing involvement by John Mason



See Tims latest Zelo Street Post: Click Here

To this day, TfL have said and done nothing with the evidence they've had all along!
Even though they knew, all Uber's Journeys were initially booked and dispatched directly to drivers, by the unlicensed UberBV, they pushed regulation and public safety aside and allowed this modus operandi to continue regardless.

The facts are now out in the open, posted on numerous Taxi and PH sites and publications. Virtually everyone in our trades know what's been going on:-

EVERY JOURNEY ON THE UBER LONDON PLATFORM PASSED AND PRESENT, HAS BEEN ILLEGALLY DISPATCHED WITH TFL'S BLESSING.
Not only that, TfL have the evidence that it's the drivers who accept the bookings, direct in vehicle in contravention of the PH Vehicles Act 1998.

So Mike, why as Commisioner of TfL have you not acted immediately, on the information given to you?

Why are TfL continuing to cover up the facts in Uber's favour?

Just incase you missed Tim's earlier posts see them by Clicking Here

It's All Going Pete Tong For Uber Drivers In India As They Go OnIndefinite Strike From Today Over Low Pay

$
0
0

Mumbai:  The transport wing of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena has called for a strike of drivers of cab aggregators Uber and Ola starting from today.

The strike has been called by the Maharashtra Navnirman Vahtuk Sena which has claimed that several drivers are not being able to cover costs due to falling business.

"Ola and Uber had given big assurances to the drivers, but today they are unable to cover their costs. They have invested Rs. 5-7 lakh and were expecting to make Rs. 1.5 lakh a month. But drivers are unable to make even half of this because of the mismanagement by these companies," Sanjay Naik of Maharashtra Navnirman Vahatuk Sena told PTI.

Union leaders said that drivers in other cities like New Delhi, Bengaluru, Hyderabad and Pune among others would also be participating in the strike. 

Mr Naik further alleged that these taxi-hailing companies were giving first priority to company-owned cars rather than driver-owned vehicles, causing a slump in their business.

If their demands were not met they would be going ahead with the strike as expected, he indicated.

Other taxi unions, including the Mumbai Taximen's Union, have extended support.

Meanwhile, police has issued notices to leaders of the union under section 149 of CrPC relating to unlawful assembly.

"Notices of section 149 of CrPC have been issued to Sanjay Naik, president, Arif Shaikh and Nitin Nandgaokar of the Maharashtra Navnirman Vahatuk Sena as preventive action.

If they violate any orders, they are liable to be prosecuted," said Pandit Thorat, senior inspector of the Andheri police station.

In Mumbai alone there are over 45,000 such cabs but a slump in business has seen a drop of about 20 per cent in their numbers.

The cab hailing companies have so far stayed away from interfering in the matter. "We have been informed by the Mumbai Police that they have proactively taken all the necessary steps to ensure safety of commuters during the cab rides in the city," an Ola spokesperson said.

Source NdTV

The Second Oxford Street Consultation To Be ReOpened After Mistake ByTfL.....by Deanyb71

$
0
0
You couldn't make it up (as they say) in the same spirit of the Brexit vote and the interference from multimillion air MAp's who are speaking a second referendum, the second 'Oxford Street Pedestrianisation' is to be reopened...


Will they just keep reopening until they get the result they want....or like in the pas just do what hey want to do regardless???

The Better Oxford Street Twitter account announced today:-
Oxford Street Consultation Reopens after TfL error "because we published this address, by error, on our consultation web page as one method of submitting a response. We apologise unreservedly for this." 


Reopened because the result didn’t go the right way (for them)... stop wasting time and money because we all know what’ll happen regardless of the consultation....
Viewing all 4172 articles
Browse latest View live