[ad_1]
After failing to obtain the renewal of a license to operate a private vehicle leasing service in London last September, Uber – the controversial start of transportation valued at about $ 62 billion – finally got a brief respite. Today, Uber appeal judge (Uber London Limited, or ULL) against the city's transport regulator, Transport for London, said the company would obtain a temporary license of 15 months, so that she could continue on conditions that TfL stated that she had not met before, before potentially applying for a regular five-year license after having demonstrated that she was playing now well.
"While ULL was not a physically fit person … she's now a healthy person, and I'm giving a license," Chief Justice Emma Arbuthnot said in her ruling. She said that her decision had just seen substantial documentary evidence that Uber had changed her practices and seemed to want to comply with them. It noted that TfL entered the case noting that it would not oppose Uber London Limited (ULL) obtaining a license in itself.
He will also pay £ 425,000 in court fees for this case.
Uber has been in London since 2012, with 300 drivers this year and 48,000 registered drivers in 2018. Just under 3.6 million drivers have used it in 12 weeks, said its British General Manager Tom Elvidge this week . .
But this aggressive growth came with a dark cloud, with many saying that it did not consider safety and other regulations and best practices in doing so. "The attitude of previous managers seemed to be developing the business, no matter what happens," noted Arbuthnot.
TfL grants a license "if it is satisfied that the applicant is a physically fit person". The issue in dispute was the fact that TfL did not think that was the case, and Uber was appealing that.
The decision comes after two days of testimonials and reviews that have highlighted both how Uber is currently seeking to position itself in the eyes of the public and its regulators, as well as the many issues that the company has had and continues to have among its detractors.
The case of the United Kingdom and its culmination – the quintessence of a fight between a lion and a unicorn, both animals on the arms of the United Kingdom (motto: "God and my law", well about Uber and his situation) have become a touchstone for how the Uber regulatory scuffles could be played out in other markets. The company, in essence, is not only on the lookout for its regulatory violations in the UK, but for its approach to how it builds its business at the expense of rules, security and more again.
Uber could have asked for permission for his five-year license, but yesterday he applied for an 18-month provisional / probationary license, which became a 15-month application by the time his lawyer, Tom de la Mare was spreading his closing arguments. "Negotiation," said Arbuthnot with a raised eyebrow.
The company has spent the last two days admitting its many shortcomings in the appeals process. "We did some pretty stupid things," said De la Mare, Uber's attorney, in her final plea. But he also explained how the company was taking steps to change its procedures and practices on all points that TfL had failed.
Many assumed that there would be some kind of license granted today, much of TfL's arguments over the last two days seemed to rest on Uber's character and if compliance with the rules was a strong enough indication of a changing culture company.
"It's not because the behaviors are historical that they are not taken into account," said Martin Chamberlain, TfL's attorney. "Ask if the changes that have been made adequately address these flaws."
"We had five years of very difficult relationships, where Uber felt that they did not require regulation in the same way that we regulate others," Helen Chapman, director, said today. licensing and regulation at TfL.
That was the case, she noted, for the way Uber had failed to talk to TfL regarding a data breach that affected 57 million users worldwide, including some UK. Uber identified, but then tried to keep the incident undeclared, although the violation was eventually discovered by Bloomberg. "Our frustration [was] that we have identified this issue through the media rather than directly from Uber, "noted Chapman.
One of the main issues at stake was how Uber monitored and reported complaints on the platform, and in particular how it relayed these complaints to the police in cases where they related to criminal activity. "Uber pledges to report any complaint that could be considered criminal," said De La Mare, describing a new reporting procedure that has been put in place that will include six-month reviews on the process for S & # s 39, ensure that it is the best practice and be followed.
Another was if Uber had used anything to systematically escape a regulatory review.
The company allegedly developed a service, Greyball, which it claimed to use to violate its terms of use; but was revealed in a New York Times report to be used to essentially "hide" its activities from law enforcement and regulatory officials. TfL had raised this issue too – specifically, if she was using Greyball in London. "Greyball has never been used in the UK," said De la Mare.
Another key issue that has been the subject of much discussion has been the checks Uber conducts on the drivers that he embarks on and maintains on his platform. One was about their eyesight and their health: the company was using a remote health test (not in person) called Push Doctor (which allowed to raise a lot of money, maybe to be through lucrative contracts?).
The name of the start-up was basically dragged by both parties this week: TfL asked if it was an effective way to check people and conclude that Uber was too superficial in his checks of security. Uber willingly agreed and said that it was wrong to use it.
Go ahead, it will be worthwhile to see what Uber is putting in place now is simply a lip service, or if the zebra has really changed its stripes. "It certainly works best when an operator seeks permission rather than forgiveness," Chapman said.
Source link
