Uber keeps London licence but its legal woes are far from over

Uber securing the right to continue operating in London can be filed under the heading “undeserved victory”.  

A year after Transport for London (TfL) rejected its application over safety concerns, it was declared a “fit and proper operator” at Westminster magistrates’ court. Its appeal was successful appeal “despite historic failings”.

Critics of TfL and London major Sadiq Kahn sought, when the licence was removed, to portray them as indulging in protectionism (of black cabs among others) and of “restraint of trade” by trying to stymie a novel and disruptive service greatly valued by Londoners.

This was just so much twaddle.

A major reason for the decision was a flaw in the company’s systems that allowed unauthorised people to upload their photographs to drivers accounts and to use them to pick up passengers.

Some 24 drivers shared their accounts with 20 other people. That might look like small beer when set against a 45,000 strong driving corps but between them, they accounted for 14,788 rides. Now take a step back and consider the consequences of the wrong person making use of such a flaw. It should be enough to make any right thinking person shudder. Taxi services of any stripe have to be carefully regulated for that reason.

It’s not as if Uber being denied a licence was a fatal blow to ride hailing. There clearly being a demand, it might, if upheld, have served to encourage more palatable alternatives.

The mayor and TfL have made clear that they will continue to monitor the company closely. So they should. Ditto the authorities in the other parts of Britain where the firm operates.

They should not hesitate to act if there is any evidence of backsliding. Passenger safety is too important for it to be otherwise.

In the meantime, attention will inevitably shift to another issue, one involving the rights of Uber’s drivers rather than its passengers, namely their status as “self employed” contractors.

Two of them have been been involved in a tortuous and long running court battle, arguing that the company unlawfully denied them the rights accorded to more traditional employees, such as holiday pay, sick pay, even the minimum wage. 

Uber likes to say that its drivers value the flexibility offered by its working arrangements. This is a fallacious argument because it would be perfectly possible to maintain that flexibility at the same time as upholding basic workers rights. 

The drivers and their backers have held their nerve all the way through and they have been winning.

A victory would make ride hailing a better, and more ethical, business. Its users can be reassured. It will survive this, with or without Uber, and the prices will remain competitive.