Monthly Archives: January 2018

Down at the Doctor’s

(Original edit of my article regarding my recent over-56 taxi medical).
Taxi licensing legislation in London is the strictest in the world. Private hire licensing seems to be about the slackest. Licensing is carried out by the same authority, but to wildly differing standards. Transport for London have tightened up a bit on PH, and refusing to re-licence Uber is part of a belated attempt to raise the standards to what the public should accept as standard.
Private hire drivers don’t have to jump through so many hoops, as in fairness they don’t operate in quite the same was as we do; but minimum standards of safety should apply to both trades. All drivers should be able to speak reasonable English: not to “A” Level standard, but they should be able to read road signs, and communicate with passengers, as a bare minimum. Everyone should have a reasonable idea of where they are going, independent of a satnav. All drivers should have comprehensive hire & reward insurance, and it should be switched on at all times. Is there such a thing as on/off insurance? I don’t think so. All drivers should have their criminal records examined to make sure they’re not wanted on three continents. TfL are concerned how criminal record checks are carried out. Is it true that Uber do the checking themselves, or use a friendly partner agency? Who knows, maybe it’s just rumours.
When I started out, criminal checks were carried out directly by our licensing authority – the Metropolitan Police. That seems reasonable. The system got complicated when they started to refer us to an outside agency. The procedure could be both laborious and lengthy under the CRB, then later the DBS. I find it absurd that we were forced into a situation where we had to pay money to a commercial organisation to see our own files.
In an official Taxi & Private Hire Notice, TfL outlined another interesting reason why they refused Uber a new licence. This concerns how medical certificates are obtained. I assume Uber drivers obtain their medical certificates the same way now as they did when Uber were first licensed in London. TfL have been accepting these medical certificates for over five years, so why the sudden surprise? The most startling revelation I’ve heard recently was that Uber drivers have been issued with medical certificates over the internet! I’m taking a particular interest here because I recently had a letter inviting me to contact my doctor for my over-55s medical. There didn’t seem an option to do it on-line.
Whilst I’m in good health at the time of writing I’m likely to be ill by the time I’ve joined the virtual queue to arrange an appointment on the phone, and then endured the physical ordeal of a trip down to the doctor’s. Medical centres are unhealthy places full of sick people coughing and spluttering up germs. Once in the consulting room I then have to convince the man in the white coat that I’m not as blind as a bat. Then there’s the fee. How much do Uber drivers pay a fee for their quickie medical? (more about that later…).
I last had a medical for my taxi licence five years’ ago; before that it was in 1988 after I applied to go on the Knowledge. My eyesight wasn’t as bad then, and I didn’t have cholesterol at Champions League standard. So how do they check your eyesight on-line? That’s not possible, surely? It’s not right if the rumours are true and Uber drivers can get a computer-generated medical certificate from an on-line Dr Feelgood. Then again, little surprises me the way Uber have put one over on our licensing body.
I’m not sure if standards have slipped for those of us who physically visit a qualified doctor for their medical. Maybe things are a bit more relaxed now, like the annual cab inspection. Maybe they now let us through with the human equivalent of dented bodywork or creaky brakes? Remember the old days when they’d and sit underneath us in a white coat to see if we leak fluids, ready to slap a stop note on our bums?
So how much do Uber drivers pay for their medicals? A quick Googler search threw up a Central London company who will complete a private hire – or taxi – medical for fifty quid, and on the day of booking. I know this takes weeks to arrange with my own GP, and I’ve been scared to ask how much it costs (someone at the Camley Street caff was quoted £250!). I shan’t give the company’s name in case it’s dodgy, but maybe we should be shopping around like our PH friends. Anyway, for this one I’m sticking with my local medical practice. If I’m still described as a taxi driver at the top of this article you’ll know I’ve passed the audition.

Leave a comment

Filed under Published Articles

New Year Cheer

(My first Taxi article of the year)

Let’s start off the New Year the way we mean to go on, with a discussion on Uber – come on, you love it! Even those of us who wanted to relax and think about other things during the Christmas season couldn’t help thinking about the latest Uber-related developments, and wonder what 2018 has in store for us all. Over the last two years, taxi trade talk has been dominated by the goings on at Uber. Things became interesting when TfL realised they’d made a mistake in licensing Uber and tried to tighten up with topographical testing, English tests, a closer look at criminal record recording, and a tightening up of insurance requirements (does on/off mini-cab insurance really exist?). Uber kicked back as expected, and elements of these proposals remain contested. Another important issue is still being fought over: whether Uber’s drivers are employees or self-employed. It’s likely Uber will lose their final appeal later this year, which means they will have to treat its drivers as self-employed with all the benefits and comforts that comes with that. Uber’s business model will be out the window and they will pose less of a threat.

Interest turned to shock in September when TfL refused Uber a new licence. TfL did the right thing after Uber made it easy for them. Uber’s supporters say they should be given another chance. Sorry, but they already had their second chance: they were given a temporary licence for four months in which to get their house in order. Uber were arrogant and behaved even worse during this period. Even as they were crawling to TfL to get their licence back, it transpired that Uber had paid a $100,000 ransom to criminals to stop them hacking fifty-seven million Uber apps worldwide, and to keep quiet about it.

Uber have been refused a new operating licence, but did they get a hard refusal or a soft refusal? What I don’t understand is why they are allowed to operate after being refused a licence? Would a taxi driver be allowed to operate after being named unfit and improper? If a taxi driver has a serious complaint against him he’d be suspended from working immediately. When taxi and private hire criminal records were moved from the CRB to the DBS many drivers experienced long delays when renewing their licences. They were told by TfL that they could not work until their records came back so they could be re-licensed. Thousands of Uber drivers suspected of being issued with dodgy DBS certificates are working as normal. So all those taxi drivers we read about in the pages of Taxi who were concerned about their livelihoods needn’t have worried; they could simply carry on cabbing. I was asked by another driver whether Uber were still recruiting. I’ve no idea, but it’s an interesting question. Could new drivers be recruited to an unlicensed operator? And if so, as an employee or as a self-employed “partner”?  

Many towns and cities have been invaded by out of town drivers licensed in other places. Councils are powerless to stop cross-border hiring, or to deal with complaints if the drivers are not licensed in the town they are working in. With Uber causing a nuisance everywhere they go, councils looked to London for guidance. TfL’s belated decision to ban Uber has emboldened private hire authorities around the country to refuse licences. In the run-up to Christmas we heard about bans on Uber in Sheffield and York, and Uber only being granted a temporary licence in Brighton. Sheffield and Brighton have suffered considerably by out-of-town Uber invasions undermining existing local services and licensing authorities. Sheffield suspended Uber’s licence on December 18th following the operator’s failure to provide information about its management structure. The City of York ended Uber’s licence on Christmas Eve. Councillors voted seven to three in favour of the ban; on the grounds of the data breaches that affected fifty-seven million App. users worldwide, and the number of complaints against Uber in York. At the time of the ban there weren’t many Uber drivers licensed in York, but over 50% of complaints were against Uber drivers licenced out of town. Drivers that York’s licencing authority can’t do anything about. Out of 155 taxi and private hire complaints received from December 2016, only four concerned drivers or vehicles licenced in York. Banning Uber was greeted by cheers in the chamber. Hear, hear!

2018 is going to be an interesting year. Work levels in December were better than in the last few years, and It’s realistic to expect that this year’s kipper season won’t be quite as flat as the past couple of years. Uber are on the run for sure. I’d like to think we won’t be talking about them this time next year, but I expect we will.

What else can we take stock of? The credit card issue is over a year old, but there are still concerns. I think the issue of fees has faded, but many of us have processed cards only to have the transaction fail after the customer has walked off.

Who got caught out when they closed Cannon Street for several days at the start of December? What annoyed me was the red sign warning of Bank Junction’s closure situated right by the traffic cones where you’d normally enter Cannon Street from Queen Victoria Street. You’d think they’d have the sense to at least open Bank Junction up on this occasion to ease the pressure. The issue of Bank is going to run and run this year. Then there’s the threat to close Oxford Street to motor vehicles to contest. And contest it we must. We need to respond to all consultations and make our voices heard. There are plenty of people on our side who will listen. We need to keep our house in order this year and keep their support.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Published Articles

New Year Cheer

(My first Taxi article of the year).

Let’s start off the New Year the way we mean to go on, with a discussion on Uber – come on, you love it! Even those of us who wanted to relax and think about other things during the Christmas season couldn’t help thinking about the latest Uber-related developments, and wonder what 2018 has in store for us all.

Over the last two years, taxi trade talk has been dominated by the goings on at Uber. Things became interesting when TfL realised they’d made a mistake in licensing Uber and tried to tighten up with topographical testing, English tests, a closer look at criminal record recording, and a tightening up of insurance requirements (does on/off mini-cab insurance really exist?). Uber kicked back as expected, and elements of these proposals remain contested. Another important issue is still being fought over: whether Uber’s drivers are employees or self-employed. It’s likely Uber will lose their final appeal later this year, which means they will have to treat its drivers as self-employed with all the benefits and comforts that comes with that. Uber’s business model will be out the window and they will pose less of a threat.

 

Interest turned to shock in September when TfL refused Uber a new licence. TfL did the right thing after Uber made it easy for them. Uber’s supporters say they should be given another chance. Sorry, but they already had their second chance: they were given a temporary licence for four months in which to get their house in order. Uber were arrogant and behaved even worse during this period. Even as they were crawling to TfL to get their licence back, it transpired that Uber had paid a $100,000 ransom to criminals to stop them hacking fifty-seven million Uber apps worldwide, and to keep quiet about it.

 

Uber have been refused a new operating licence, but did they get a hard refusal or a soft refusal? What I don’t understand is why they are allowed to operate after being refused a licence? Would a taxi driver be allowed to operate after being named unfit and improper? If a taxi driver has a serious complaint against him he’d be suspended from working immediately. When taxi and private hire criminal records were moved from the CRB to the DBS many drivers experienced long delays when renewing their licences. They were told by TfL that they could not work until their records came back so they could be re-licensed. Thousands of Uber drivers suspected of being issued with dodgy DBS certificates are working as normal. So all those taxi drivers we read about in the pages of Taxi who were concerned about their livelihoods needn’t have worried; they could simply carry on cabbing. I was asked by another driver whether Uber were still recruiting. I’ve no idea, but it’s an interesting question. Could new drivers be recruited to an unlicensed operator? And if so, as an employee or as a self-employed “partner”?  

 

Many towns and cities have been invaded by out of town drivers licensed in other places. Councils are powerless to stop cross-border hiring, or to deal with complaints if the drivers are not licensed in the town they are working in. With Uber causing a nuisance everywhere they go, councils looked to London for guidance. TfL’s belated decision to ban Uber has emboldened private hire authorities around the country to refuse licences. In the run-up to Christmas we heard about bans on Uber in Sheffield and York, and Uber only being granted a temporary licence in Brighton. Sheffield and Brighton have suffered considerably by out-of-town Uber invasions undermining existing local services and licensing authorities. Sheffield suspended Uber’s licence on December 18th following the operator’s failure to provide information about its management structure. The City of York ended Uber’s licence on Christmas Eve. Councillors voted seven to three in favour of the ban; on the grounds of the data breaches that affected fifty-seven million App. users worldwide, and the number of complaints against Uber in York. At the time of the ban there weren’t many Uber drivers licensed in York, but over 50% of complaints were against Uber drivers licenced out of town. Drivers that York’s licencing authority can’t do anything about. Out of 155 taxi and private hire complaints received from December 2016, only four concerned drivers or vehicles licenced in York. Banning Uber was greeted by cheers in the chamber. Hear, hear!

 

2018 is going to be an interesting year. Work levels in December were better than in the last few years, and It’s realistic to expect that this year’s kipper season won’t be quite as flat as the past couple of years. Uber are on the run for sure. I’d like to think we won’t be talking about them this time next year, but I expect we will.

 

What else can we take stock of? The credit card issue is over a year old, but there are still concerns. I think the issue of fees has faded, but many of us have processed cards only to have the transaction fail after the customer has walked off.

 

Who got caught out when they closed Cannon Street for several days at the start of December? What annoyed me was the red sign warning of Bank Junction’s closure situated right by the traffic cones where you’d normally enter Cannon Street from Queen Victoria Street. You’d think they’d have the sense to at least open Bank Junction up on this occasion to ease the pressure. The issue of Bank is going to run and run this year. Then there’s the threat to close Oxford Street to motor vehicles to contest. And contest it we must. We need to respond to all consultations and make our voices heard. There are plenty of people on our side who will listen. We need to keep our house in order this year and keep their support.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Published Articles