Uber loses licence to operate in London

All Uber had to do was comply with its legal obligations yet it failed to do so.

It only has itself to blame.

Khan isn't helping. TfL has just taken its livelihood away and he is complaining that Uber is going to law about it.

Your argument becomes circular. They have broken the law (pending an appeal) because being a fit and proper person is a legal requirement for holding a licence.

They have in effect broken the law though by failing to comply with their legal obligations.

They have in effect broken the law though by failing to comply with their legal obligations.

Your argument becomes circular. They have broken the law (pending an appeal) because being a fit and proper person is a legal requirement for holding a licence.

That’s the first I have heard of it, which obligation?

Background checks, investigating complaints and cooperating with the regulator.

Background checks, investigating complaints and cooperating with the regulator.

And many women say they are reassured by some of its features. such as the ability for customers and their friends and family to track the journey and the driver; the door-to-door service that keeps people from waiting on the road; and knowing who is collecting them.

Uber has some 3.5 million registered users in London, and many people prefer the service to the alternatives on offer.

"I'm so annoyed," says 26-year-old marketing manager Lisette Henry of the licence loss. "London nightlife is one of the best in the world and I think it's going to restrict a lot of people having access to that."

She uses the app every week and says she depends on it for late-night journeys from the airport after work trips.

I just had a little read and yea the back ground checks seems fair enough, complaints weren’t mentioned in what I read and the regulator was just mentioning the checks?

There is no natural justice in losing a licence for the reason that background checks were inadequate when the regulator has not passed on police concerns about them and the regulator has not communicated with the company in recent months on the matter.

han has acted precipitately in revoking the licence and digs the hole he is in even deeper by complaining when the company takes legal action against his decision. That just makes him look foolish - what else, other than legal action, would anyone expect?

I don't so much think that they should be above the law as that the law should be different. My points throughout the thread have been pretty clearly directed to that.

If I stopped responding to a particular point it's probably because I thought it had ceased to be informative and become tedious.

The case has been appealed and will go to court.
If Uber has failed to comply with its legal obligations, it can have no complaints about the decision.

What I have trouble with is those saying even if they have broken the law, we should excuse them because they are popular. Big companies are not above the law.

I also find it funny than Uber, who for so long has argued it has no employees as a justification for not paying holiday pay, sick pay or other traditional employment benefits, is now saying how unfair this whole affair will be on those employees.

Your justification for that law being different though was that the relationship between Uber and its drivers was similar to that of HungryHouse and a takeaway company, which is simply a factually incorrect observation.

Yes, but if you bought a dodgy takeaway via HungryHouse, HungryHouse shouldn't be shut down. All HungryHouse is doing is hooking up consumers with providers.

We are increasingly going to see technology companies like uber providing a much more free and direct link between consumers and providers of services. My point earlier in the thread about applying 'old frameworks' to such new phenomena was in relation to this. The problem with set regulations is that they don't adapt to the times and therefore stifle innovation. Here they're just getting in the way.

I don't think uber is presenting one product though. Uber's proposition is basically that anyone can sign up and drive a car. Uber will stick them on its map and you can get a ride from them. That set up is inherently more risky than a traditional cab company, I'd say even with background checks and so forth, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Likewise, in some ways AirBnB is more risky than a traditional hotel room. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

I'm no fan of Uber and big companies should not be above the law, but it very much appears that they have been dealt with in a high-handed, unfair and arrogant way. I will be very surprised if the court allows the revocation to stand on those grounds alone, leaving any points that matter to be handled in due course (as should have happened)..

I do think people should be wary of the business model Uber uses too. There are clear concerns with huge corporations aggressively undercutting competitors by running at a loss, with the intention of riving competitors out of business, gaining a monopoly and then raising its prices.

Uber is running at a huge loss and clearly the low prices are unsustainable. Indeed people only need to see how Uber raised its prices hugely during the tube strikes to guess what they will do once they have a large market share.

The answer is to license some competitors (like Lyft), not find spurious ways to get rid of Uber.

The whole point of these apps is that prices rise at popular times and fall at quiet times.

That's why I do think there needs to be state interference in the market, especially with regards to competition law. A market which is too free allows a handful of corporate giants to dominate and drive everyone else out of business.

I do think there should be restrictions on the model Uber is using though.

You appear to be arguing that the state should license a tiny number of companies to operate (as long as Uber isn't one of them) to avoid the situation whereby the big players can use their size to reduce to market to a tiny number of suppliers. Can you see the problem with that?

You also appear to believe that it is reasonable to force low prices when demand is low but not allow higher prices when demand is high. Yet hundreds of thousands of your peers have signed a petition demanding their low cost taxi source back.