• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

MayorWatch

London News and Comment

  • NEWS
  • Twitter

TfL had the option to re-licence Uber while imposing conditions, so why didn’t it use it?

September 22, 2017 - Martin Hoscik@MayorWatch

Transport for London’s decision not to re-licence Uber has, predictably, provoked a lot of noise from the firm’s supporters and detractors, but both groups probably need to calm down.

Some of those outraged TfL has done its job seem to be losing sight of the fact that the firm can continue to operate until it’s exhausted the appeals procedure and, as we know Uber’s going to ensure it uses every option open to it, that means those wanting to keep using its services will be able to do so for months to come.

On the other side of the debate, some gleeful Labour types might want to dial their hero worship of Sadiq Khan down a few notches and stop crediting him with a decision which he didn’t take and legally cannot take.

Who is and isn’t granted a licence isn’t a job for TfL’s political leadership – it’s a statutory function which is carried out in compliance with a strict legal framework, not because of politics or the numbers of signatures on petitions. Suggesting otherwise risks undermining today’s decision when the courts come to decide whether or not to uphold it.

Lost in all the noise is a fact which I’d expect Uber to raise in their legal challenge and which has been ignored by those suggesting TfL’s choice was simply between allowing Uber to continue as it was and blocking it from operating at all.

The legislation under which TfL regulates mini cab operators gives it the power to impose conditions on licence holders:

A London PHV operator’s licence shall be granted subject to such conditions as may be prescribed and such other conditions as the [F1licensing authority] may think fit.

So, in theory at least, it could have offered Uber a new permit with conditions aimed at addressing any perceived shortcomings. TfL’s statement makes no mention of whether it considered doing this or whether it discussed this option with Uber.

If it didn’t, the company may well try and argue that this would have been a more rational and proportionate approach than an outright ban. And if it considered and then rejected this approach, TfL will need to hope its reasoning stands up to outside scrutiny.

Either way, those rushing to celebrate or mourn Uber’s “demise” in London are being severely premature. This saga still has a long way to run.

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

RECENT UPDATES

Tube and rail users to benefit from Oyster weekly fares cap

Mayor and TfL call on ministers to help plug funding gap

Tube to get full mobile phone coverage from 2024

TfL says Direct Vision Standard is already making HGVs safer for London road users




POPULAR

City Hall to move to Docklands as Mayor seeks to raise £55m for frontline services

‘Concern’ over TfL’s ability to deliver major projects in wake of Crossrail cost overruns

City Hall halts London Overground ticket office closures but many will still see opening hours reduced

Transport for London confirms bus cuts will go ahead despite passenger opposition

GOT A STORY?

As the original London news and scrutiny site we've been casting an eye over the capital's public services and politicians since 1999.

 

Many of our top stories started with a tip-off from a reader - if you've got something you'd like us to cover get in touch and we'll do the rest.

Stay In Touch

  • E-mail
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2022 · Terms of Use · Privacy Policy