Late on Tuesday, December 10th 2019 we received TfL's reply to our Pre Action Letter, which we shared with you last week.
Our QC has given us clearance to share this reply with you.
The content is arrogant, hubristic and disingenuous; it also shows the utter contempt in which TfL hold our trade and the lack of care for public safety.
We shall leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the response but would point you to a couple of relevant sections in this, to our mind, totally biased reply.
On Dec 5th, Mr Khan in conversation with James OBrien on LBC stated one reason to refuse a licence to ULL on the grounds of public safety was that 'the experts found that 'THE UBER SYSTEMS ARE NOT ROBUST', however,
Sec 2c of the reply seems to ignore the experts.
Sec 2d refers to TfL's concern that revocation would seriously impact the drivers and passengers.
Absolute nonsense, Kapten, Ola and Bolt could employ the drivers and the passengers could migrate to one of those apps in a heartbeat.
TfL's main responsibility is that of public safety, NOT the driver's jobs or public's travel arrangements.
They can both be catered for elsewhere.
The letter is totally unacceptable but we expected nothing else from this useless, inadequate and clearly biased regulator, and consequently, our legal team have been preparing papers for a JR well before any reply was received; in fact, they started to prepare as soon as the PAP letter was sent.
We shall be lodging Grounds for Appeal with the High Court as soon as the preparatory work is complete.
and keep you all up to date as things progress.
The links to the reply and Mr Khans interview are below.
Thank you for your solid support.
Best wishes
Trevor Merralls & Angela Clarkson
United Trade Action Group
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/9800046227164f726ef17bbca/files/62014271-11f5-4eb2-8ba5-c641c85a5dc8/LTR_TfL_response_to_pre_action_UTAG_2_.pdf
https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/sadiq-khan-shocking-reason-uber-licence/?__twitter_impression=true
Our QC has given us clearance to share this reply with you.
The content is arrogant, hubristic and disingenuous; it also shows the utter contempt in which TfL hold our trade and the lack of care for public safety.
We shall leave you to draw your own conclusions as to the response but would point you to a couple of relevant sections in this, to our mind, totally biased reply.
On Dec 5th, Mr Khan in conversation with James OBrien on LBC stated one reason to refuse a licence to ULL on the grounds of public safety was that 'the experts found that 'THE UBER SYSTEMS ARE NOT ROBUST', however,
Sec 2c of the reply seems to ignore the experts.
Sec 2d refers to TfL's concern that revocation would seriously impact the drivers and passengers.
Absolute nonsense, Kapten, Ola and Bolt could employ the drivers and the passengers could migrate to one of those apps in a heartbeat.
TfL's main responsibility is that of public safety, NOT the driver's jobs or public's travel arrangements.
They can both be catered for elsewhere.
The letter is totally unacceptable but we expected nothing else from this useless, inadequate and clearly biased regulator, and consequently, our legal team have been preparing papers for a JR well before any reply was received; in fact, they started to prepare as soon as the PAP letter was sent.
We shall be lodging Grounds for Appeal with the High Court as soon as the preparatory work is complete.
and keep you all up to date as things progress.
The links to the reply and Mr Khans interview are below.
Thank you for your solid support.
Best wishes
Trevor Merralls & Angela Clarkson
United Trade Action Group
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/9800046227164f726ef17bbca/files/62014271-11f5-4eb2-8ba5-c641c85a5dc8/LTR_TfL_response_to_pre_action_UTAG_2_.pdf
https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/sadiq-khan-shocking-reason-uber-licence/?__twitter_impression=true
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA COMMENT :
Sean Paul Day... How can a regulator contradict standards that they themselves have set in place?
Surely, by refusing to renew Uber’s license, the intention must’ve been for them not to operate at a standard that fell below prerequisite safety levels.
It appears the refusal was meaningless!
Cabvision.... What about this.
TfL charge all the Operators a fee for a licence to operate, but continue to demonstrate a preference to one company over all others, equitable... I think not, anti-competitive... I think so.
Marcus Ardeman... So is there any point of the appeal?
Tfl are happy that their licence should continue.... to state that the drivers and passengers would suffer is ludicrous.
Drivers go to another company, passengers go to another company.
Pat Kavanagh... We need a free and independent regulator, with no outside pressure, just like all the other regulators. TfL have too many fingers in the pie.
Richard Busby... Ola, kaptan and bolt... do not fill the pockets and black holes at TfL like uber do, end of.
It's all about the money.
Follow the money! What about this.TfL charge all the Operators a fee for a licence to operate, but continue to demonstrate a preference to one company over all others, equitable... I think not, anti-competitive... I think so.
No comments:
Post a Comment