Damien

Uber did bring a lot of convenience but I think at it's core it's a taxi service. You can call it via an app rather than a phone call but the fundamental nature of the service the same as Addison Lee or any other taxi service that you don't flag down (which is reserved for the black cabs).

I don't see what is different enough about their service that means they think they do not need criminal record checks for a licence for example. I think it's Uber trying to operate without having to worry about regulations in local markets which would impede their ability to expand aggressively. If they had to abide by London's rules then they have no argument not to do so in Paris, or Budapest, or Oslo. That would be a annoyance to a company who are trying to expand massively and quickly. It's a trend you see in a lot of technology start-ups out of Silicon Valley - a contempt for the laws and regulations of external markets.

They want to hover above local authorities and just be 'a service'. I get the appeal because it's frustrating when we don't get something America has because of the burden of those companies entering a new market but at the same time asking for drivers to have these checks and for crimes to be reported is not unreasonable.

I am not sure how the relation between a law and regulation works. However it seems TFL have a set of conditions applied to a taxi licence which includes the proper reporting of crimes, criminal record checks and whatever that business with the health certificate is. I find it entirely believable Uber have tried to get around that. Although the fact they have software to avoid government inspections makes me think they know what they're doing.


If TFL have done something wrong here I suspect it's that they're lying about Uber not complying to appease black cabs. Not in imposing this conditions.