GLASGOW
A taxi passenger has died and another is in a serious condition in hospital following a crash in the east end of Glasgow.
Police said a green Vauxhall Astra was heading west along Edinburgh Road at around 1.30am on Sunday when it was involved in a collision with a black Hackney cab at the traffic lights at Stepps Road and Springboig Road.
Emergency services attended but the 57-year-old woman who was travelling in the taxi died at the scene. She will not be named until her relatives have been informed.
A 52-year-old man, who was also a passenger in the taxi, was taken by ambulance to Glasgow Royal Infirmary where he is said to be in a serious but stable condition.
The man driving the taxi, aged 50, is believed to have suffered minor injuries, as did the 20-year-old male driver of the Vauxhall and his 16-year-old female passenger.
Police Scotland said a 20-year-old man will be the subject of a report to the procurator fiscal in connection with alleged road traffic offences.
Anyone with information about the incident is being asked to contact officers on the non-emergency number 101.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A TAXI driver pulled over for speeding in North Yorkshire last night was also found to be allegedly almost twice over the drink drive limit.
A clamp-down by North Yorkshire Police on speeding motorists in the Hambleton district of North Yorkshire resulted in a taxi driver working in Northallerton being caught speeding on Saturday (November 28).
When he was breathalysed, it is believed roadside tests found him to be almost twice the drink drive limit.
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/14111024.Taxi_driver_stopped_for_speeding_was_allegedly_twice_over_drink_drive_limit/
Sunday 29 November 2015
Thursday 26 November 2015
LONDON
Travelling by taxi is set to become even more convenient after the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) confirmed they will take forward proposals requiring all London taxis to accept card payments, including contactless, from October 2016.
The plans have been drawn up after a consultation earlier this year found that an overwhelming 86% of respondents backed proposals for card acceptance, with 68% agreeing that passengers should also be able to pay using contactless payments.
To ensure customers and cabbies don't pay over the odds, TfL has negotiated with the credit card industry to bring down the cost for drivers of accepting card payments. This will reduce transaction fees paid by cabbies from up to 10% to three per cent or less of the transaction.
Under the plans customers will also not pay any surcharge on their fare. Instead, taxi drivers will recoup their transaction costs through a proposed 20p increase on the basic fare (the minimum fare that shows on the meter at the start of the journey which, at £2.40, is currently amongst the lowest in the country).
This will mean that passengers will only ever pay what is shown on the meter, no matter how they choose to pay.
If approved by the TfL Board in February as part of the annual taxi fares revision, the fare change will come into force in April next year and all cabbies will need to accept card payments from October 2016.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson MP, said: `This is great news for the millions of people who use London's world famous black cabs. This move will boost business for cabbies and bring the trade into the 21st century by enabling quicker and more convenient journeys for customers.'
Garrett Emmerson, TfL's Chief Operating Officer for Surface Transport, said: `This is a very positive change for taxi drivers and for our customers. London is increasingly a cashless city, with people using cards to pay for all aspects of their daily life - including transport. We are seeing more and more people use contactless payments on our network, and mandating card payments in taxis will mean customers no longer have to consider how they might pay for a journey before getting into a taxi. It will also benefit drivers, who will see their services opened up to potential new business.'
Richard Koch, Head of Policy at The UK Cards Association, said: `Consumers are increasingly choosing to pay with cards as a convenient and secure alternative to cash. It's great news for Londoners, and visitors to the Capital, that they'll always have the option of using a debit or credit card in taxis now too. With the number of contactless payments trebling in just a year, many passengers will also welcome the ability simply to touch and pay for their cab journey.'
ENDS
https://goo.gl/iFZrtC
Travelling by taxi is set to become even more convenient after the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL) confirmed they will take forward proposals requiring all London taxis to accept card payments, including contactless, from October 2016.
The plans have been drawn up after a consultation earlier this year found that an overwhelming 86% of respondents backed proposals for card acceptance, with 68% agreeing that passengers should also be able to pay using contactless payments.
To ensure customers and cabbies don't pay over the odds, TfL has negotiated with the credit card industry to bring down the cost for drivers of accepting card payments. This will reduce transaction fees paid by cabbies from up to 10% to three per cent or less of the transaction.
Under the plans customers will also not pay any surcharge on their fare. Instead, taxi drivers will recoup their transaction costs through a proposed 20p increase on the basic fare (the minimum fare that shows on the meter at the start of the journey which, at £2.40, is currently amongst the lowest in the country).
This will mean that passengers will only ever pay what is shown on the meter, no matter how they choose to pay.
If approved by the TfL Board in February as part of the annual taxi fares revision, the fare change will come into force in April next year and all cabbies will need to accept card payments from October 2016.
The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson MP, said: `This is great news for the millions of people who use London's world famous black cabs. This move will boost business for cabbies and bring the trade into the 21st century by enabling quicker and more convenient journeys for customers.'
Garrett Emmerson, TfL's Chief Operating Officer for Surface Transport, said: `This is a very positive change for taxi drivers and for our customers. London is increasingly a cashless city, with people using cards to pay for all aspects of their daily life - including transport. We are seeing more and more people use contactless payments on our network, and mandating card payments in taxis will mean customers no longer have to consider how they might pay for a journey before getting into a taxi. It will also benefit drivers, who will see their services opened up to potential new business.'
Richard Koch, Head of Policy at The UK Cards Association, said: `Consumers are increasingly choosing to pay with cards as a convenient and secure alternative to cash. It's great news for Londoners, and visitors to the Capital, that they'll always have the option of using a debit or credit card in taxis now too. With the number of contactless payments trebling in just a year, many passengers will also welcome the ability simply to touch and pay for their cab journey.'
ENDS
https://goo.gl/iFZrtC
Monday 23 November 2015
Uber vs London Taxi Drivers' Association: Sajid Javid knows the benefits of enterprise.
One should never assume that a Secretary of State for Business will be, by nature, pro-business. Fortunately, the current occupier of the role, Sajid Javid, most definitely is.
He possesses an instinctive understanding of the benefits of enterprise, competition and innovation. This perspective is doubtless the product of having witnessed his immigrant father save enough money through working on the buses to start a small clothing shop in Bristol, above which a young Javid was raised.
After university, he pursued a career in banking, becoming the youngest vice-president in the history of Chase Manhattan before joining Deutsche Bank in 2000.
It’s a compelling backstory and one that gives the Bromsgrove MP a broad and comprehensive understanding of business and the City.
It explains in part why, last month, Javid responded to proposals by Transport for London to slap daft new restrictions on Uber by saying: “I’m not interested in heavy-handed regulation. I want to make sure that consumers are put first… Londoners want choice, they value competition.”
Let us hope that this view is shared by the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, which will this morning take evidence from both Uber and the London Taxi Drivers’ Association. The committee is looking into “issues relating to disruptive technologies”.
This is a worthy and necessary exercise as government tries to figure out how best to support a wave of innovation.
Uber is not without its critics. Some raise concerns over its international tax status, others point to safety concerns (despite the fact that its drivers hold the same licence as a London cabbie) and the more vocal elements of the taxi lobby simply do not want the competition, however they dress up their objections.
MPs will this morning hear the now familiar lines from the London Taxi Drivers’ Association and they would be right to meet them with a raised eyebrow.
Services and apps such as Uber empower the consumer and enable people to work and earn a living in innovative ways. Javid understands this. He’s already told the committee that TfL’s review should come out on the side “of ordinary Londoners”.
He’s right. And his dad would doubtless have agreed with him.
source; City A.M.
Actress Frances Barber was verbally accosted by a ‘sharia’ taxi driver for her disgusting appearance after she attended the Evening Standard Theatre Awards (pictured)
Dressed in an elegant gown and dazzling earrings, she had enjoyed a night of glamour alongside the cream of showbusiness at an awards ceremony.
But for actress Frances Barber, the evening ended on a sour note after she was verbally accosted by a ‘sharia’ taxi driver.
Miss Barber, 58, who plays a barrister in BBC1 legal drama Silk, claimed the man, whom she booked through mobile phone app Uber, said she was ‘disgustingly dressed’ and that women should not be out at night.
After the encounter, which is believed to have taken place in the early hours of yesterday, she wrote on Twitter: 'Just had a sharia Uber driver, first time in London. Shocked. Reported.'
The term ‘sharia’ seemingly refers to sharia law, which is based on an interpretation of Islamic teachings. It is often criticised for being discriminatory against women.
Miss Barber, who had been at London’s Old Vic theatre for the Evening Standard Theatre Awards, said in a second Twitter post: 'I get Uber out of Old Vic & driver says as a woman I shouldn’t be alone at night & I am disgustingly dressed. THIS IS LONDON.'
The acclaimed actress had worn a demure black ensemble with a high-necked top and floor-length skirt to the event, which was attended by stars such as Gillian Anderson, Gemma Arterton and Kate Beckinsale.
After leaving the event, she booked the taxi through Uber, which sends your location to the company’s nearby cars, one of which will pick you up. She said she mentioned that it was a cold night, to which the driver responded: ‘Well if you weren’t so disgustingly dressed...’
When one of her Twitter followers asked how she reacted, she said she was so angry she ‘got out of cab, slammed door & yelled’.
Uber has apologised for the incident and claimed it will be taking ‘appropriate action’. But it did not confirm whether the driver has been suspended or an investigation launched. The company is reported to have more than 15,000 drivers in London – and rising.
Uber insists drivers are subject to the same strict checks that cover those operating black cabs – but these are far from foolproof.
Transport for London (TfL) recently launched an investigation into the firm after it was revealed some drivers were able to be approved for work by using fake insurance documents.
Uber replied to Miss Barber on Twitter, posting: ‘We take these situations very seriously. A member of our team will be in touch ASAP.’
A spokesman later said: ‘We were shocked about this unacceptable incident and immediately reached out to the rider to offer our full support. We will of course take appropriate action and would like to again extend our sincere apologies to the rider.’
When pressed about what action would be taken, the spokesman said: ‘We don’t discuss individual cases – however all partner drivers on the Uber platform go through enhanced DBS [CRB] checks.’
TfL also contacted the actress online to ask for further details about the incident, but told the Daily Mail last night it would not launch an investigation and would leave the matter to Uber.
Miss Barber declined to comment last night. The star, who was nominated for an Olivier award in 1985, has appeared in an extensive list of stage productions, while TV performances have included guest-starring in Doctor Who.
Daily Mail.
-------------------------------------
Jamaica's Transport Authority has issued a stern warning to the island's taxi drivers to stop carrying children in the boots of their vehicles.
The body's managing director, Donald Foster, says that overloaded taxis with children riding in the boot - or trunk - is an "illegal and most inhumane practice" which must cease, the Jamaica Observer reports. "Any operator found to be violating the rights of passengers to a safe and comfortable ride by overloading the vehicles will be prosecuted," Mr Foster warns. Not only is it a road traffic offence, but possibly one of child cruelty as well, he says.
While island taxi operators have conceded that the practice is wrong, the director of one trade association describes it as an "age-old problem" in rural areas and not as widespread as the Transport Authority believes. "I would not put so much pressure on that issue, because I know the situation in those areas," Egerton Newman, head of the Jamaica Association of Transport Owners and Operators, tells the paper.
Mr Newman says that overloading cars with school pupils in the boot stems from drivers working in agricultural regions of Jamaica, where local transport provision may be one taxi between a community of 40 houses. Many are unlicensed cabs and aren't the type of car that can fit students in the back anyway, he suggests. Nonetheless, Mr Newman echoed the Transport Authority's call for car and minibus drivers to stop overloading their vehicles before lives are lost.
---------------------------------------------
Manchester to Wigan
A WOMAN kicked a taxi’s door in a desperate bid to escape a man who had written “rapist” on the window.
Wigan magistrates heard Rebecca Dempsy and her sister had gone to a concert in Manchester on November 4 but were left stranded after the defendant’s bag was stolen and they missed the last train.
Dempsy, of Ashbourne Avenue, Whelley, and her sister decided to wait for the next train which left at 6am but they were approached by a man who chatted to them and said he was also heading for Wigan. He offered to take them in a taxi, which he would pay for, saying he wouldn’t want to leave the girls alone there.
Mark Ferguson, defending, said: “On the way back, the man started acting very strangely. He pulled a number of cosmetics out of his bag and started to spray them in the taxi. He also wrote ‘rapist’ on one of the windows with the cosmetics. He said he needed to urinate and got out of the taxi at some traffic lights to urinate which seemed to offend the driver.
“The taxi arrived outside Miss Dempsy’s house after which it had been arranged the driver would take the man to Wigan train station where he would pay the fare. But the driver became concerned that this wouldn’t happen and demanded payment.”
The court heard the driver locked the doors and refused to let any of them leave the taxi until he had been paid. When no-one paid, he began to drive them all back to Manchester.
Mr Ferguson added: “All Miss Dempsy wanted was to get home to her four-year-old son, who is disabled, and was becoming increasingly distressed at the situation. She began kicking the door and it was then the driver called 999 and took them all to the nearest police station. Miss Dempsy was just trying to get herself and her sister home safely and get away from the man who was acting strangely.”
Dempsy told the court that she was sorry about what had happened and that she understood that the driver would have been scared. She pleaded guilty to causing £300 criminal damage to the taxi and was given a community order and an eight-week curfew from 7pm until 7am. She was also ordered to pay £450 compensation, a £60 victim surcharge, £85 prosecution costs and a £150 court charge.
The male passenger was also arrested and charged with criminal damage but has pleaded not guilty and there will be a trial in the new year.
http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/scared-woman-damaged-taxi-1-7585195
-------------------------------------------
NISSAN is leading the electric revolution with more than 550 electric taxis now on the road in Europe. Taxi drivers are some of the most demanding users with the highest mileage, reinforcing the reliability and versatility of Nissan electric vehicles.
During 2015 alone, over 100 electric vehicles were delivered to taxi companies across Europe, making Nissan the best-selling manufacturer of 100% electric taxis. The growth of the electric taxi market looks set to continue, as its popularity has started to take hold in Eastern Europe. Green Lite Taxi Kft., based in Budapest, has purchased 65 Nissan LEAFs in a bid to become Hungary’s largest zero emission fleet. To power its pioneering franchise, CEO Örs Lévay has installed seven quick chargers within the city.
Örs Lévay, Green Lite Taxi Kft., CEO: “We are delighted to be the first taxi company in Hungary to go 100 percent electric and the 199 km range means we only need to charge our taxis once during a shift. Along with the large savings on fuel and maintenance, the Nissan LEAF is very smooth to drive and almost silent, which means a more enjoyable journey for my customers and the drivers say typical 10 hour shifts are less tiresome.”
In Estonia, it has been reported that a Nissan LEAF owned by taxi company, Elektritakso, has clocked up over 218,000 kilometres (135,459 miles) on its original battery pack, showcasing the high quality and reliability of Nissan’s electric vehicle range. In total, there are 80 electric taxis and counting in Estonia, whilst in Lithuania, Nissan is poised to deliver its first eight 100 per cent electric taxis to the Smart Taxi Company, based in the country’s capital, Vilnius, for late 2015.
What’s more, with the launch of the new 30 kWh Nissan LEAF, drivers can travel 25 percent further making it an even more practical choice for taxi companies.
Nissan electric vehicles – which include the Nissan LEAF and the e-NV200, a passenger and light commercial vehicle – are becoming increasingly popular among European taxi businesses, with the Netherlands and the UK topping Nissan’s e-taxi league table.
Taxi Electric in Amsterdam was the first private taxi service to switch to a fleet of 100 percent electric taxis in November 2011. Since then, others from across Europe have joined the revolution, with the Nissan LEAF and e-NV200 now being used by taxi businesses in Stockholm, Prague, Barcelona and Rome.
With running costs as low as 2p per mile, companies like C&C Taxis, based in rural South West England have saved more than £55,397 on average each year across its range of EV taxis. One of a growing number of businesses across Europe using Nissan electric vehicles in its company fleet, C&C Taxis proves that Nissan electric vehicles operate reliably as taxis with huge cost savings and a significant reduction in their carbon footprint.
Gareth Dunsmore, Director of Electric Vehicles for Nissan Europe, said: “We are so proud to be announcing this all-important milestone. Nissan has already delivered 30 percent more e-taxis this year than in 2014 and this figure is constantly increasing, as more taxi companies realise the benefits of becoming 100 percent electric.”
The 100% electric Nissan LEAF saw a lift in overall sales of 33 percent in 2014, compared to the previous year. With fewer moving parts, Nissan’s electric vehicles offer estimated maintenance costs up to 40 percent lower than petrol or diesel alternatives. Furthermore, European owners can also benefit from various incentives such as no business tax or vehicle excise duty on zero emission vehicles.
Nissan celebrates this all-important milestone some five years after the launch of the Nissan LEAF, the world’s first mass-market, zero emission vehicle and just one year since the launch of its 100 percent electric e-NV200 light commercial vehicle. Nissan LEAF remains the best-selling electric vehicle of all time, with more than 195,000 units sold worldwide.
http://www.dieselcar.com/news/taxi-leaf-leads-the-ranks-for-european-plug-in-cabs/
--------------------------------
Comment
Proudly boasting about 550 taxis available in europe. Europe has a population of 742 million people. What is the chance of seeing one, never mind riding in one.
The CLAIMED range of the battery is 199 km, i.e. 120 miles. However the leaf battery losses 20% of its battery power in the first year.
That means even in a compact City like Manchester ,or Liverpool you cannot complete a full shift safely.
Taxi drivers need the vehicle charging in a one hour period. Lunchtime for a dayman and just before Midnight for a nightman. What are the chances of all finding a vacant charger at that time.
Nissan have just had to pay $24 million compensation in the USA for false battery claims.
http://insideevs.com/nissan-leaf-battery-settlement-get-final-approval/
http://www.torquenews.com/1075/nissan-responds-leaf-owners-worries-about-battery-capacity-loss
Sunday 22 November 2015
The organiser of yesterday's botched taxi protest has blamed Leicester City Council for the traffic chaos it caused.
The go-slow around Leicester began at 4.20pm on Friday and almost 90 cabs began the slow circuit of the city centre.
However, the route had to be altered at the last minute after a man threatened to jump off a building in Humberstone Gate but some cabbies ignored the order to change the route and ambulances struggled to get through the traffic to deal with the emergency.
Later in the protest the taxis all stopped along The Newarke while they negotiated another change to the route.
According to the city's Area Traffic Control the affects were "horrific" and the action brought traffic to a "standstill".
Sir Peter Soulsby, city mayor, said the rogue drivers were "grossly irresponsible" for blocking the emergency services and that the protesters had lost the public's sympathy.
In response, Umar Khan, RMT Union Branch Secretary, today blamed the council for "disruptive underhand behaviour" that made the congestion worse.
He said: "We acknowledge that there was a slight delay near the Newarke Street junction.
"However, this particular aspect of our protest was not of our making.
"The blame for this lies firmly at the door of the council, as we were not given the correct information from Leicester City Council's traffic management team who deliberately diverted the procession en route.
"However, much to our dismay, cars and buses were seen using Pocklingtons Walk, which led to the added congestion encountered along Newarke Street and Southgates.
"The RMT had no pre-planned intentions of purposely bringing Southgates to a standstill as we had openly and honestly co-operated with the council and police in the lead up to, and all throughout, the go-slow taxi protest.
"We would like to place on record our thanks and appreciation to the police officers for their support, courtesy and cooperation and also apologise to the public for any added disruptions they incurred due to the disruptive underhand behaviour which was deliberately employed by Leicester City Council leading too even more delays and disruption to the public."
Wednesday 18 November 2015
The Immigration Bill 2015
New Schedule 1
Private hire vehicles etc
Metropolitan
Public Carriage Act 1869
(c. 115)
1 The
Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 is amended as
follows.
2 In section 8(7)
(driver’s licence to be in force for three years unless
suspended or revoked) for “A” substitute “Subject
to section 8A, a”.
3
After section 8
insert—
“8A
Drivers’ licences for persons subject to immigration
control
(1) Subsection (2)
applies if—
(a) a
licence under section 8 is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period (“the leave
period”),
(b) the
person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation decision),
and
(c) apart from subsection
(2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would
have ended after the end of the leave period.
(2) Transport for London must grant the licence for
a period which ends at or before the end of the leave
period.
(3) Subsection (4)
applies if—
(a) a
licence under section 8 is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period, and
(b) the
person’s leave has been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation
decision).
(4) Transport for
London must grant the licence for a period that does not exceed six
months.
(5) A licence under
section 8 ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted
becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration
status from driving a hackney
carriage.
(6) If subsection (5)
applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within
the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the
person first became disqualified, return to Transport for
London—
(a) the
licence,
(b) the
person’s copy of the licence (if any),
and
(c) the person’s
driver’s badge.
(7) A
person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is
guilty of an offence and liable on summary
conviction—
(a) to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale,
and
(b) in the case of a
continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day
during which an offence continues after
conviction.
(8) For the
purposes of this section a person is disqualified by reason of the
person’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage if
the person is subject to immigration control and
—
(a) the person has not
been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom,
or
(b) the person’s
leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom—
(i) is
invalid,
(ii) has ceased to
have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation,
cancellation, passage of time or otherwise),
or
(iii) is subject to a
condition preventing the individual from driving a hackney
carriage.
(9) Where a person is
on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the
Immigration Act
2016—
(a) the person is
to be treated for the purposes of this section as if the person had
been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom,
but
(b) any condition as to the
person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s
immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a
condition of leave.
(10) For
the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control
if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or
remain in the United
Kingdom.”
Local
Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c.
57)
4 The Local Government
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as
follows.
5 (1) Section 51
(licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection
(1)—
(a) in paragraph
(a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”,
and
(b) for the
“or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute
“and
(ii) that the
applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s
immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle;
or”.
(3) After
subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) In determining for the purposes of
subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the
applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire
vehicle, a district council must have regard to any guidance issued by
the Secretary of
State.”
6 In section
53(1) (drivers’ licences for hackney carriages and private hire
vehicles)—
(a) in
paragraph (a) for “Every” substitute “Subject to
section 53A, every”,
and
(b) in paragraph (b) after
“1889,” insert “but subject to section
53A,”.
7 After section
53 insert—
“53A
Drivers’ licences for persons subject to immigration
control
(1) Subsection (2)
applies if—
(a) a
licence within section 53(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who
has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a
limited period (“the leave
period”);
(b) the
person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation decision);
and
(c) apart from subsection
(2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would
have ended after the end of the leave
period.
(2) The district
council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence
as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end
at or before the end of the leave
period.
(3) Subsection (4)
applies if—
(a) a
licence within section 53(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who
has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a
limited period; and
(b) the
person’s leave has been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation
decision).
(4) The district
council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence
as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not
exceed six months.
(5) A
licence within section 53(1)(a) ceases to be in force if the person to
whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the
person’s immigration status from driving a private hire
vehicle.
(6) A licence within
section 53(1)(b) ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was
granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s
immigration status from driving a hackney
carriage.
(7) If subsection (5)
or (6) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must,
within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on
which the person first became disqualified, return the licence and the
person’s driver’s badge to the district council which
granted the licence.
(8) A
person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (7) is
guilty of an offence and liable on summary
conviction—
(a) to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;
and
(b) in the case of a
continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day
during which an offence continues after
conviction.”
8 (1)
Section 55 (licensing of operators of private hire vehicles) is amended
as follows.
(2) In subsection
(1)—
(a) after
“satisfied” insert “—(a)”,
and
(b) at the end of paragraph
(a) insert “; and
(b) if
the applicant is an individual, that the applicant is
not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s
immigration status from operating a private hire
vehicle.”
(3) After
subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In determining for
the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by
reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a
private hire vehicle, a district council must have regard to any
guidance issued by the Secretary of
State.”
(4) In
subsection (2) for “Every” substitute “Subject to
section 55ZA,
every”.
9
After section 55
insert—
“55ZA
Operators’ licences for persons subject to immigration
control
(1) Subsection (2)
applies if—
(a) a
licence under section 55 is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period (“the leave
period”);
(b) the
person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation decision);
and
(c) apart from subsection
(2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would
have ended after the end of the leave
period.
(2) The district
council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence
as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end
at or before the end of the leave
period.
(3) Subsection (4)
applies if—
(a) a
licence under section 55 is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period; and
(b) the
person’s leave has been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation
decision).
(4) The district
council which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence
as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not
exceed six months.
(5) A
licence under section 55 ceases to be in force if the person to whom it
was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s
immigration status from operating a private hire
vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5)
applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within
the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the
person first became disqualified, return it to the district council
which granted the licence.
(7)
A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is
guilty of an offence and liable on summary
conviction—
(a) to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;
and
(b) in the case of a
continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day
during which an offence continues after
conviction.”
10 (1)
Section 59 (qualification for drivers of hackney carriages) is amended
as follows.
(2) In subsection
(1)—
(a) in paragraph
(a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”,
and
(b) for the
“or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute
“and
(ii) that the
applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s
immigration status from driving a hackney carriage;
or”.
(3) After
subsection (1)
insert—
“(1ZA) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is
disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status
from driving a hackney carriage, a district council must have regard to
any guidance issued by the Secretary of
State.”
11
In section 61(1) (suspension and revocation of drivers’
licences) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a)
insert—
“(aa)
that he has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an
immigration offence or required to pay an immigration
penalty;”.
12
In section 62(1) (suspension and revocation of operators’
licences) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (c)
insert—
“(ca) that the operator has since the grant
of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to
pay an immigration
penalty;”.
13 In section
77 (appeals) after subsection (3)
insert—
“(4) On
an appeal under this Part of this Act or an appeal under section 302 of
the Act of 1936 as applied by this section, the court is not entitled
to entertain any question as to
whether—
(a) a person
should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the
United Kingdom; or
(b) a person
has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom.”
14 After
section 79
insert—
“79A
Persons disqualified by reason of immigration
status
(1) For the purposes of
this Part of this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the
person’s immigration status from carrying on a licensable
activity if the person is subject to immigration control and
—
(a) the person has not
been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
or
(b) the person’s
leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom—
(i) is
invalid;
(ii) has ceased to
have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation,
cancellation, passage of time or otherwise);
or
(iii) is subject to a
condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable
activity.
(2) Where a person is
on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the
Immigration Act
2016—
(a) the person is
to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as if the
person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom;
but
(b) any condition as to the
person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s
immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a
condition of leave.
(3) For the
purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if
under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or
remain in the United
Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes
of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the
person—
(a) drives a
private hire vehicle;
(b)
operates a private hire vehicle;
or
(c) drives a hackney
carriage.
79B Immigration
offences and immigration
penalties
(1) In this Part of
this Act “immigration offence”
means—
(a) an offence
under any of the Immigration
Acts;
(b) an offence under
section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an
offence within paragraph (a);
or
(c) an offence under section
1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit an offence
within paragraph (a).
(2) In
this Part of this Act “immigration
penalty” means a penalty
under—
(a) section 15 of
the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006
Act”); or
(b) section 23
of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014
Act”).
(3) For the
purposes of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice
under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as
having been required to pay an immigration penalty
if—
(a) the person is
excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act;
or
(b) the penalty is cancelled by
virtue of section 16 or 17 of that
Act.
(4) For the purposes of
this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section
15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been
required to pay an immigration penalty until such time
as—
(a) the period for
giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired
and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that
period; and
(b) if a notice of
objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under
section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that
period has been finally determined, abandoned or
withdrawn.
(5) For the purposes
of this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under
section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as
having been required to pay an immigration penalty
if—
(a) the person is
excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act;
or
(b) the penalty is cancelled
by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that
Act.
(6) For the purposes of
this Part of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section
23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been
required to pay an immigration penalty until such time
as—
(a) the period for
giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired
and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that
period; and
(b) if a notice of
objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under
section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that
period has been finally determined, abandoned or
withdrawn.”
Private
Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 (c.
34)
15 The Private Hire
Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is amended as
follows.
16 In section 1(1)
(meaning of “private hire vehicle”
etc)—
(a) omit the
“and” at the end of paragraph (a),
and
(b) at the end of paragraph
(b) insert “; and
(c)
“operate”, in relation to a private hire vehicle, means
to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of, or to accept,
private hire bookings in relation to the
vehicle.”
17 (1) Section
3 (London operator’s licences) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (3)
for the “and” at the end of paragraph (a)
substitute—
“(aa)
if the applicant is an individual, the applicant is not disqualified by
reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a
private hire vehicle;
and”
(3) After
subsection (3)
insert—
“(3A) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (3) whether an applicant is
disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status
from operating a private hire vehicle, the licensing authority must
have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of
State.”
(4) In
subsection (5) for “A” substitute
“Subject to section 3A,
a”.
18
After section 3
insert—
“3A
London PHV operator’s licences for persons subject to
immigration control
(1)
Subsection (2) applies
if—
(a) a London PHV
operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period (“the leave period”);
(b) the person’s leave has not been extended
by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971
(continuation of leave pending variation decision);
and
(c) apart from subsection
(2), the period for which the licence would have been granted would
have ended after the end of the leave
period.
(2) The licence must be
granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave
period.
(3) Subsection (4)
applies if—
(a) a London
PHV operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period; and
(b) the
person’s leave has been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation
decision).
(4) The licence must
be granted for a period which does not exceed six
months.
(5) A London PHV
operator’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom
it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s
immigration status from operating a private hire
vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5)
applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within
the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the
person first became disqualified, return it the licensing
authority.
(7) A person who,
without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an
offence and liable on summary
conviction—
(a) to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;
and
(b) in the case of a
continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day
during which an offence continues after
conviction.”
19 (1)
Section 13 (London PHV driver’s licences) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (2)
for the “and” at the end of paragraph (a)
substitute—
“(aa)
the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s
immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle;
and”
(3) After
subsection (2)
insert—
“(2A) In
determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether an applicant is
disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status
from driving a private hire vehicle, the licensing authority must have
regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of
State.”
(4) In
subsection (5) at the beginning of paragraph (c) insert “subject
to section 13A,”.
20
After section 13
insert—
“13A
London PHV driver’s licences for persons subject to immigration
control
(1) Subsection (2)
applies if—
(a) a London
PHV driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period (“the leave
period”);
(b) the
person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of
section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation
of leave pending variation decision);
and
(c) apart from subsection
(2), the period for which the licence would have been
granted would have ended after the end of the leave
period.
(2) The licence must be
granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave
period.
(3) Subsection (4)
applies if—
(a) a London
PHV driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited
period; and
(b) the person’s leave has been extended by
virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act
1971 (continuation of leave pending variation
decision).
(4) The licence must
be granted for a period which does not exceed six
months.
(5) A London PHV
driver’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom it
was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s
immigration status from driving a private hire
vehicle.
(6) If subsection (5)
applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within
the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the
person first became disqualified, return the licence and the
person’s driver’s badge to the licensing
authority.
(7) A person who,
without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) is guilty of an
offence and liable on summary
conviction—
(a) to a
fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale;
and
(b) in the case of a
continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day
during which an offence continues after
conviction.”
21 (1)
Section 16 (power to suspend or revoke licences) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (2)
before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a)
insert—
“(aa) the
licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of
an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration
penalty;”.
(3) In
subsection (4) at the end of paragraph (a)
insert—
“(aa) the
licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of
an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration
penalty;”.
22 In section
25 (appeals) after subsection (7)
insert—
“(8) On
an appeal under this Act to the magistrates’ court or the Crown
Court, the court is not entitled to entertain any question as to
whether—
(a) a person
should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the
United Kingdom; or
(b) a person
has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been
granted leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom.”
23 After
section 35
insert—
“35A
Persons disqualified by reason of immigration
status
(1) For the purposes of
this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s
immigration status from carrying on a licensable activity if the person
is subject to immigration control and
—
(a) the person has not
been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
or
(b) the person’s
leave to enter or remain in the United
Kingdom—
(i) is
invalid;
(ii) has ceased to
have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation,
cancellation, passage of time or otherwise);
or
(iii) is subject to a
condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable
activity.
(2) Where a person is
on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the
Immigration Act
2016—
(a) the person is
to be treated for the purposes of this Part as if the person had been
granted leave to enter the United Kingdom;
but
(b) any condition as to the
person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s
immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a
condition of leave.
(3) For the
purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if
under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or
remain in the United
Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes
of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the
person—
(a) operates a private hire vehicle;
or
(b) drives a private hire
vehicle.
35B Immigration
offences and immigration
penalties
(1) In this Act
“immigration offence”
means—
(a) an offence
under any of the Immigration
Acts;
(b) an offence under
section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an
offence within paragraph (a);
or
(c) an offence under section
1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit an offence
within paragraph (a).
(2) In
this Act “immigration penalty” means a penalty
under—
(a) section 15 of
the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006
Act”), or
(b) section 23
of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014
Act”).
(3) For the
purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15
of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been
required to pay an immigration penalty
if—
(a) the person is
excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act;
or
(b) the penalty is cancelled
by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that
Act.
(4) For the purposes of
this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006
Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay
an immigration penalty until such time
as—
(a) the period for
giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired
and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that
period; and
(b) if a notice of
objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under
section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that
period has been finally determined, abandoned or
withdrawn.
(5) For the purposes
of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the
2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to
pay an immigration penalty
if—
(a) the person is
excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act;
or
(b) the penalty is cancelled
by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that
Act.
(6) For the purposes of
this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014
Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay
an immigration penalty until such time
as—
(a) the period for
giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired
and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that
period; and
(b) if a notice of
objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under
section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that
period has been finally determined, abandoned or
withdrawn.”
24 In
section 36 (interpretation) at the appropriate place
insert—
““operate”
has the meaning given in section 1(1);”.”
—(James
Brokenshire.)
This
amendment amends the licensing regimes for taxis and private hire
vehicles in England and Wales to prevent illegal working in these
sectors. It includes the addition of requirements for licence grant to
be conditional on leave and for licence length to be limited by a
person’s leave
duration.
Brought
up, read the First and Second time, and added to the
Bill.
Column number: 549
---------------------------------------
Leeds appear to be left a little behind by the Immigration Bill as they later announce this.
PRospective taxi drivers in Leeds are to face stricter checks after “safeguarding concerns” were raised about the current process for handing out licences.
Applicants from outside the UK will have to provide more information before they pass the ‘fit and proper person’ test.
It follows the inquiries into the Rotherham grooming scandal, which found that taxis had been used to ferry children around for exploitation.
A report to Leeds City Council’s licensing committee said there was a “need to proceed quickly due to safeguarding concerns”.
The committee heard more than eight out of 10 Leeds taxi drivers come from Pakistan.
At the moment, decisions are often made on the basis of ‘certificates of good character’ from the applicant’s country of origin, which can be unreliable.
The report said: “Supporting references are generally vague with none or little meaningful information relevant to the responsibilities of the role applied for. It is often the case that the authors of such references have a personal, community or business interest in supplying a favourable reference.”
Under the new proposals, non-UK applicants may be asked to supply character references from a UK professional and a statutory declaration from a solicitor supporting the application as well as information on their criminal record in other countries.
Coun Brian Selby said: “If we don’t have a strong policy and something goes wrong, all hell will be let loose upon us.”
Des Broster, head of taxi licensing, said: “The purpose of this is to say public safety is paramount.”
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/non-uk-taxi-drivers-face-stricter-fit-and-proper-person-tests-in-leeds-1-7577940
---------------------------------------
Leeds appear to be left a little behind by the Immigration Bill as they later announce this.
PRospective taxi drivers in Leeds are to face stricter checks after “safeguarding concerns” were raised about the current process for handing out licences.
Applicants from outside the UK will have to provide more information before they pass the ‘fit and proper person’ test.
It follows the inquiries into the Rotherham grooming scandal, which found that taxis had been used to ferry children around for exploitation.
A report to Leeds City Council’s licensing committee said there was a “need to proceed quickly due to safeguarding concerns”.
The committee heard more than eight out of 10 Leeds taxi drivers come from Pakistan.
At the moment, decisions are often made on the basis of ‘certificates of good character’ from the applicant’s country of origin, which can be unreliable.
The report said: “Supporting references are generally vague with none or little meaningful information relevant to the responsibilities of the role applied for. It is often the case that the authors of such references have a personal, community or business interest in supplying a favourable reference.”
Under the new proposals, non-UK applicants may be asked to supply character references from a UK professional and a statutory declaration from a solicitor supporting the application as well as information on their criminal record in other countries.
Coun Brian Selby said: “If we don’t have a strong policy and something goes wrong, all hell will be let loose upon us.”
Des Broster, head of taxi licensing, said: “The purpose of this is to say public safety is paramount.”
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/latest-news/top-stories/non-uk-taxi-drivers-face-stricter-fit-and-proper-person-tests-in-leeds-1-7577940
Tuesday 17 November 2015
LONDON TAXI RADIO
You have to take the time to listen to this..It is brilliant.
http://www.londontaxiradio.co.uk/minicabs-fled-from-berkley-square/
You have to take the time to listen to this..It is brilliant.
http://www.londontaxiradio.co.uk/minicabs-fled-from-berkley-square/
New York taxi owners and the lenders behind some of them are suing New York City and its Taxi and Limousine Commission, saying the proliferation of Uber is destroying their businesses and threatening their livelihoods.
Uber’s carefully constructed public policy is designed to skirt regulations – so the person behind the wheel of your car is a ‘partner’ or even a ‘customer’
The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court accuses the defendants of violating yellow cab drivers’ exclusive right to pick up passengers on the street by letting Uber drivers pick up millions of passengers who use smartphones to hail rides.
According to the complaint, the number of Uber rides in the “core” of Manhattan increased by 3.82 million from April to June 2015 compared with a year earlier, while medallion cab pickups fell by 3.83 million.
They said this had driven down the value of medallions, which yellow cab drivers need to operate, by 40% from a peak exceeding $1m and caused more defaults. The Uber drivers, meanwhile, face fewer regulatory burdens.
The complaint says Uber’s rise contributed to the 22 July bankruptcy of 22 companies run by taxi magnate Evgeny Freidman, and the state’s 18 September seizure of Montauk Credit Union, which specialized in medallion loans, the complaint said.
“Defendants’ deliberate evisceration of medallion taxicab hail exclusivity, and their ongoing arbitrary, disparate regulatory treatment of the medallion taxicab industry, has and continues to inflict catastrophic harm on this once iconic industry, and the tens of thousands of hardworking men and women that depend on it for their livelihood,” the complaint says.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission referred requests for comment to the city’s law department. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman there, said the city would review the complaint.
Plaintiffs include the Melrose, Progressive and Lomto Federal credit unions, which said they have made more than 4,600 medallion loans worth over $2.4bn.
Other plaintiffs include individual medallion owners, as well as the Taxi Medallion Owner Driver Association Inc and League of Mutual Taxi Owners Inc, which said that together they represent about 4,000 medallion owners.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including for alleged violations of cab drivers’ property and equal protection rights under the US constitution.
It also seeks to ease cab drivers’ regulatory burdens, including a requirement that half of their cabs be accessible to disabled people by 2020.
In September a state judge in Queens county dismissed a lawsuit by the credit union seeking to stop the city from supporting Uber’s expansion.
http://goo.gl/yfFdiI
------------------------------------------
Canada
Airport cabbies and their union have been ordered to pay $11,000 to the Ottawa International Airport, but a judge refused to bill a taxi rep who was caught lying to the court.
In a written decision released Tuesday, Justice Robert Beaudoin chastised Unifor rep Harry Ghadban for providing misinformation about taking decibel readings during taxi protests at the airport. Ghadban said in an affidavit that he took noise readings, but the airport's video surveillance showed no evidence of it.
The union wanted permission to make more noise during the ongoing protests.
The request kickstarted a back-and-forth in court between the taxi union and airport over the judge's injunction order, which laid out rules about noise and the location of protesters at the airport.
The judge said the union tried, unsuccessfully, to take advantage of an "ambiguity" in his ruling. The airport asked the judge to make Ghadban personally liable for some of the airport's legal expenses.
The judge couldn't let Ghadban go without a slap on the wrist.
"While this may have been an appropriate case to award a portion of the costs against Mr. Ghadban personally, I decline to do so in this instance," the judge wrote. "Unifor will have to bear the consequences of the actions of one of its representatives."
The judge also added to the award $1,790 in legal disbursements claimed by the airport.
The labour dispute between airport taxi drivers and their dispatcher, Conventry Connections, started in August. The cabbies are upset their fees to pick up passengers at the airport more than doubled after Coventry and the airport struck a new deal.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/11/17/judge-rips-taxi-rep-in-airport-dispute
------------------------------------
LEICESTER, Two tales of one City
Firstly Monday Night
The RMT has called off tonight's 'go slow' taxi drivers' protest drive around in Leicester.
The union had threatened to cause rush hour congestion as it did on Friday when around 200 drivers filed along in a slow moving convoy down London Road and into the city centre.
http://goo.gl/w37GUo
Secondly last night.
Taxi-ordering app Uber is expected to launch in Leicester in the near future, the Mercury has learned.
The city council has confirmed it has granted Uber permission to operate here but says the company has yet to attach any drivers to its licence.
Uber itself has told the Mercury it plans to set up in Leicester but not said exactly when.
The California-based company is already operating in other UK cities, including London, Nottingham and Newcastle, but its cheap prices have made it unpopular with the traditional taxi trade.
Uber customers hail cabs using their smartphones and pay automatically on arriving at their destination with a credit or debit card.
No cash changes hands.
The app uses GPS technology to locate available Uber drivers near the customers and send them to pick them up.
Drivers sign up as independent contractors and Uber takes a share of their fares.
It is understood Uber is currently recruiting cabbies in the city and looking to open an office near the railway station.
It is understood a number of city-based private hire car firms unsuccessfully opposed Uber's application to set up here.
The Leicester RMT branch represents hackney cab drivers in the city.
Branch secretary Umar Khan said: "This will affect all drivers in the city but we think the public will always want to use the hackney carriages so it will have a bigger impact on the private hire trade.
"Uber will be cheaper but you might end up getting drivers from Birmingham being sent here driving people around without any local knowledge.
"It is a concern."
Private hire firm ADT Taxis operates in Leicester, Loughborough and Coalville and spokesman David Hunter said: "We have, over the last two years, been preparing for the day when Uber reaches Leicester, and have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds developing our own GPS App.
"We believe it is better than Uber's.
"We also offer fixed prices, and customers are able to hail taxis, pre book, track the taxis, and also pay by card or cash.
"We also have some one at the end of the telephone with knowledge of the local area, whom is there to help."
An Uber spokesperson said: "We look forward to offering a safe, reliable and affordable choice for people in Leicester.
"Uber has been licensed as an operator by more than 30 city councils across the UK and we are excited about being able to connect riders with licensed, private-hire drivers at the touch of a button.
Earlier this year The High Court in London was asked to decide whether the Uber drivers' smartphones were considered to be taximeters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles.
It followed concerns raised by the traditional taxi trade and Transport for London.
A judge however ruled the phones did not work like meters in a decision hailed as victory by Uber.
http://goo.gl/FkSrFs
Uber’s carefully constructed public policy is designed to skirt regulations – so the person behind the wheel of your car is a ‘partner’ or even a ‘customer’
The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court accuses the defendants of violating yellow cab drivers’ exclusive right to pick up passengers on the street by letting Uber drivers pick up millions of passengers who use smartphones to hail rides.
According to the complaint, the number of Uber rides in the “core” of Manhattan increased by 3.82 million from April to June 2015 compared with a year earlier, while medallion cab pickups fell by 3.83 million.
They said this had driven down the value of medallions, which yellow cab drivers need to operate, by 40% from a peak exceeding $1m and caused more defaults. The Uber drivers, meanwhile, face fewer regulatory burdens.
The complaint says Uber’s rise contributed to the 22 July bankruptcy of 22 companies run by taxi magnate Evgeny Freidman, and the state’s 18 September seizure of Montauk Credit Union, which specialized in medallion loans, the complaint said.
“Defendants’ deliberate evisceration of medallion taxicab hail exclusivity, and their ongoing arbitrary, disparate regulatory treatment of the medallion taxicab industry, has and continues to inflict catastrophic harm on this once iconic industry, and the tens of thousands of hardworking men and women that depend on it for their livelihood,” the complaint says.
The Taxi and Limousine Commission referred requests for comment to the city’s law department. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman there, said the city would review the complaint.
Plaintiffs include the Melrose, Progressive and Lomto Federal credit unions, which said they have made more than 4,600 medallion loans worth over $2.4bn.
Other plaintiffs include individual medallion owners, as well as the Taxi Medallion Owner Driver Association Inc and League of Mutual Taxi Owners Inc, which said that together they represent about 4,000 medallion owners.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including for alleged violations of cab drivers’ property and equal protection rights under the US constitution.
It also seeks to ease cab drivers’ regulatory burdens, including a requirement that half of their cabs be accessible to disabled people by 2020.
In September a state judge in Queens county dismissed a lawsuit by the credit union seeking to stop the city from supporting Uber’s expansion.
http://goo.gl/yfFdiI
------------------------------------------
Canada
Airport cabbies and their union have been ordered to pay $11,000 to the Ottawa International Airport, but a judge refused to bill a taxi rep who was caught lying to the court.
In a written decision released Tuesday, Justice Robert Beaudoin chastised Unifor rep Harry Ghadban for providing misinformation about taking decibel readings during taxi protests at the airport. Ghadban said in an affidavit that he took noise readings, but the airport's video surveillance showed no evidence of it.
The union wanted permission to make more noise during the ongoing protests.
The request kickstarted a back-and-forth in court between the taxi union and airport over the judge's injunction order, which laid out rules about noise and the location of protesters at the airport.
The judge said the union tried, unsuccessfully, to take advantage of an "ambiguity" in his ruling. The airport asked the judge to make Ghadban personally liable for some of the airport's legal expenses.
The judge couldn't let Ghadban go without a slap on the wrist.
"While this may have been an appropriate case to award a portion of the costs against Mr. Ghadban personally, I decline to do so in this instance," the judge wrote. "Unifor will have to bear the consequences of the actions of one of its representatives."
The judge also added to the award $1,790 in legal disbursements claimed by the airport.
The labour dispute between airport taxi drivers and their dispatcher, Conventry Connections, started in August. The cabbies are upset their fees to pick up passengers at the airport more than doubled after Coventry and the airport struck a new deal.
http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/11/17/judge-rips-taxi-rep-in-airport-dispute
------------------------------------
LEICESTER, Two tales of one City
Firstly Monday Night
The RMT has called off tonight's 'go slow' taxi drivers' protest drive around in Leicester.
The union had threatened to cause rush hour congestion as it did on Friday when around 200 drivers filed along in a slow moving convoy down London Road and into the city centre.
http://goo.gl/w37GUo
Secondly last night.
Taxi-ordering app Uber is expected to launch in Leicester in the near future, the Mercury has learned.
The city council has confirmed it has granted Uber permission to operate here but says the company has yet to attach any drivers to its licence.
Uber itself has told the Mercury it plans to set up in Leicester but not said exactly when.
The California-based company is already operating in other UK cities, including London, Nottingham and Newcastle, but its cheap prices have made it unpopular with the traditional taxi trade.
Uber customers hail cabs using their smartphones and pay automatically on arriving at their destination with a credit or debit card.
No cash changes hands.
The app uses GPS technology to locate available Uber drivers near the customers and send them to pick them up.
Drivers sign up as independent contractors and Uber takes a share of their fares.
It is understood Uber is currently recruiting cabbies in the city and looking to open an office near the railway station.
It is understood a number of city-based private hire car firms unsuccessfully opposed Uber's application to set up here.
The Leicester RMT branch represents hackney cab drivers in the city.
Branch secretary Umar Khan said: "This will affect all drivers in the city but we think the public will always want to use the hackney carriages so it will have a bigger impact on the private hire trade.
"Uber will be cheaper but you might end up getting drivers from Birmingham being sent here driving people around without any local knowledge.
"It is a concern."
Private hire firm ADT Taxis operates in Leicester, Loughborough and Coalville and spokesman David Hunter said: "We have, over the last two years, been preparing for the day when Uber reaches Leicester, and have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds developing our own GPS App.
"We believe it is better than Uber's.
"We also offer fixed prices, and customers are able to hail taxis, pre book, track the taxis, and also pay by card or cash.
"We also have some one at the end of the telephone with knowledge of the local area, whom is there to help."
An Uber spokesperson said: "We look forward to offering a safe, reliable and affordable choice for people in Leicester.
"Uber has been licensed as an operator by more than 30 city councils across the UK and we are excited about being able to connect riders with licensed, private-hire drivers at the touch of a button.
Earlier this year The High Court in London was asked to decide whether the Uber drivers' smartphones were considered to be taximeters, which are outlawed for private hire vehicles.
It followed concerns raised by the traditional taxi trade and Transport for London.
A judge however ruled the phones did not work like meters in a decision hailed as victory by Uber.
http://goo.gl/FkSrFs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)