Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Licensing Sub Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
The Committee received a report from the Technical Licensing
Officer concerning the renewal application of the private hire operator’s
licence for Uber Britannia Ltd (UBL) in Cambridge.
The Technical Licensing Officer went through
the report in detail with the Committee, a copy of which could be viewed at the
following link (pages 5 to 11):
https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=3314
In response to a question from the Committee
the Technical Licensing Officer confirmed it was not unusual for a private hire
company to be licensed with more than one authority.
Before any further discussion took place, Asitha Ranatunga, Barrister,
representing Cambridge City Council, recommended the Committee consider a
confidential paper submitted by UBL (a redacted copy had been made available in
the public domain).
The report contained exempt information
during which the public and press were likely to be excluded from the meeting
subject to determination by the Committee following consideration of a public
interest test. This exclusion would be
made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act
1972.
Resolved (unanimously) to exclude the press and public if and when agreed confidential items of the additional report needed to be discussed.
Philip Kolvin QC
then provided a summary of the UBL submission by outlining the following about
the Applicant:
i.
Had a good operating history in Cambridge.
ii.
Had a good relationship with Cambridge City
Council.
iii.
Was popular amongst its customers.
iv.
Held a good safety record.
v.
Had no complaints from its customers to the Council.
vi.
Was ready, willing and able to make changes when
required by the Cambridge City Council.
vii.
Agreed to all conditions proposed in Appendix I
(p117) of the agenda pack.
viii.
The Directors of UBL (both DBS checked) were of
impeccable character whose job was to ensure that Uber was a cooperative and
compliant licencee.
The Committee were informed that UBL agreed
with the policy approach undertaken by Cambridge City Council, emphasising
section 5 Policy Consideration and section 6 Options of the Officer’s report.
Fred Jones advised the Committee that UBL
had been working with the City Council’s enforcement team to resolve any issues
that had occurred in the twelve month period. This was exemplified by moving
the pickup point at Cambridge City Railway Station further away from Hackney
Carriage vehicles with clear instructions to drivers on where they can and
can’t park.
After providing a working history, business
model and technology model of Uber, Philip Kolvin QC
explained that he would give a response to the objections made as highlighted
in the agenda and additional papers to the agenda pack:
i.
He referred to the list of considerations posed by
Transport for London’s (TfL) licensing decision on page 45 of the agenda.
·
Highlighted Uber’s commitment to working with the
police and reporting any known criminal offences. Referenced the second
condition on page 117 of the agenda.
·
The approach
to undertaking medical checks had changed from using the online ’Push Doctor’
service to ensuring each driver saw a doctor in person.
·
Explained that TfL only accepted Enhanced
Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) from one provider. Highlighted that lots
of providers can undertake DBS checks. Confirmed that all drivers must undergo
a DBS check.
·
Confirmed that Greyball
technology would never be used, this commitment was enshrined within their
licence.
ii.
He referred to the statement submitted by Panther
Taxi on page 191 of the agenda.
·
In order to avoid confusion between Uber and other taxis
at Cambridge Railway Station, Uber had created a blacked out zone for their
vehicles to wait within.
·
UBL’s November 2017 policy encouraged all of its
drivers to undertake safeguarding training.
·
Confirmed that UBL always reported complaints to
the relevant Licencing Authority. A driver could have their access to the Uber
App (and therefore ability to work) suspended with immediate effect if a
complaint was raised. UBL had also created a law enforcement portal and a
police working group which improved communication with the police.
·
Passengers were able to suggest shorter or
different routes to drivers with the Uber App if they were not content with the
route taken.
·
A reconfiguration of the Uber App was due to be
completed in early 2018; after every journey passengers would then receive a
receipt which identified the Licensing Authority of the driver.
iii.
He referred to the statement by Cambridge Taxi and
Private Hire Association on page 123 of the agenda.
·
He asked the Committee not to be swayed by their
threat of legal action.
·
There was no evidence to support their objections
related to public safety.
·
All drivers were regularly vetted through DBS
checks.
·
Stated that Uber drivers were self-employed.
·
Confirmed that none of the Uber vehicles in
Cambridge had disabled access. However, as Uber drivers expanded in the area
accessible vehicles would be encouraged.
·
Uber’s fare prices could surge, this was due to
supply and demand at the time of the journey. The customer would always be
warned about the surge before proceeding with the booking so they had the
option of declining it. The Uber App did not allow the drivers to manipulate
the pricing to make it surge.
·
He referred to the statement on local malpractice
and strongly refuted it. Stated that if a breach did occur Uber had a 24/7
support team on hand to respond to the allegations.
iv.
He referred to the statement by a member of the
taxi trade from Brighton and Hove in the additional document pack.
·
The data breach took place in America and involved
limited customer data which did not include any financial information such as
credit card details or dates of birth.
·
There had been no threat to customers in the United
Kingdom.
·
UBL wrote to Cambridge City Council to notify them
of the breach and reassured that they had worked to ensure no further breach
occurred.
·
All of Uber’s data handling approaches and measures
met recognised data standards to ensure security.
v.
He referred to the statement by Alpha on page 123
of the agenda in the additional document pack:
·
Stated that under Uber’s terms and conditions the
acceptance of booking and passenger’s contract was with the driver not UBL.
This did not impact on the safety of the customer.
In response to Members’ questions Philip Kolvin
QC, Helen Hayes and Fred Jones said the following:
i.
Agreed that upon receiving any allegation or
complaint relating to the serious behaviours of the drivers (as outlined in
Appendix I (p117), reasonable steps to restrict the driver access to the Uber
App would be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable.
ii.
The introduction of the Deregulation Act had set
national standards for private hire vehicles to allow greater freedom for
operators to work across borders. It was perfectly legal for a driver to be
issued a licence with one licensing authority and to work within another
authority. The system was dependent on
good relationships between the licencing authority and the authority where the
driver was driving.
iii.
A good relationship between Uber and the local
licensing authority allowed issues reported to be resolved quickly.
iv.
Uber drivers would be available for hire in
Cambridge whether the licence would be issued or not; but dispensing a licence
locally would allow Uber to build upon its local taxi trade meeting the
standards of Cambridge City Council.
v.
Uber customers could complain through the App as
they were asked to rate their journey immediately after it took place. If a driver was rated below four stars, more
details were requested and logged on the driver’s profile. This would allow
Uber to identify repeat patterns of behaviour and determine if that driver
should be given access to the Uber App.
vi.
The second source of complaints was the Licensing
Enforcement team which alerted Uber of complaints and then kept a record.
vii.
The Uber App’s reconfiguration would allow
additional information about the driver to be shown. Customer receipts would
also display the Licensing Authority of the driver and their contact number.
viii.
Global Positioning System (GPS) data allowed the
tracking of the journey, where the complaint happened and the driver’s details.
This could be shared with relevant outside organisations, such as the police or
local authority if and when needed.
ix.
No location data or financial data had been
accessed from the specific data breach referenced. Agreed that no breach of any
data was acceptable.
x.
UBL had a dedicated team dealing with law
enforcement at national and local level. They were able to communicate with the
police with ease through a specific e-mail address.
xi.
The Uber App was configured in a local area which
would determine which driver was available for hire within the closest distance
to the passenger before alerting that driver of the fare.
xii.
Data was held in a secure virtual location known as
the ‘cloud’ which the operator and each individual driver could access at any
point.
xiii.
The cloud satisfied the Section 56.2 legal
requirement of keeping a record of all the Uber journeys throughout the UK.
Crucially, this information was immediately accessible to any authorised
officer of a council or law enforcement agency if requested.
xiv.
An Uber taxi could be tracked at all times by the
person who booked it so if a vulnerable family member was travelling alone
their family could ensure they safely reached their destination.
The
Chair called a comfort break at 12:30
The
Committee resumed at 12:45
Summing Up
The Technical Licensing Officer made the following points:
i.
It was compulsory for all drivers licenced by
Cambridge City Council to undertake safeguarding training.
ii.
The rewording of condition 2 of page 117 would change to the following
(additional text underlined with deleted text struck through);
2. Potential new
Operator condition:
“Uber Britannia Limited must report to the Council
any allegation or complaint relating to certain serious behaviours, specifically:
- Sexual misconduct
- Violence
- Aggressive or rude behaviour
- Discrimination
- Theft
- Plying for hire
Upon receiving any allegation or complaint relating
to the above serious behaviours the Operator must take reasonable steps to
restrict the driver’s access to the App within 24 hours as soon as
practicable possible and in any event within 24 hours and whilst any
investigation is on-going. All complaints will be reported by the Operator to
the Council within 72 hours one working day of receiving the
complaint.
iii.
Conditions 1 & 2 recommend by Cambridge City
Council would be implemented as soon as possible.
iv.
Condition 3 recommended by Cambridge City Council
should be implemented by the end of June 2018.
v.
Referred to section 5 of the Officer’s report and
reminded the committee to consider if UBL were judged to be fit and proper to
hold an Operator’s Licence. Taking into account the information that they had
received and the submission made by Uber.
Asitha Ranatunga
Barrister,
made the following points:
i.
Highlighted the legislative provisions on pages 9
& 10 of the agenda pack.
ii.
Options for consideration were on 6.2 of the
Officer’s report. The Committee had the power to impose additional conditions
if reasonably necessary on those conditions which had already been agreed.
iii.
The licensing history which had been presented
could be taken into account however it was important to focus on the facts
relevant to Cambridge.
iv.
To focus on the objections and evidence within
Cambridge pertinent to the application.
v.
Decisions reached by other local authorities were
not binding and the committee should think carefully on those decisions and be
fact specific when considering the application.
vi.
The data breach in 2016 referenced could be taken
into consideration but also when and where it occurred, the response taken and
the reassurances that had been received at this Sub-Committee.
vii.
Could consider the duration of the licence but if
the Committee wished to change the recommendations in the Officer’s report the
reasons should be clear.
Members withdrew at 12.55 pm to consider their decision and reconvened
at 2:35 pm. whilst retired Members received legal advice on the wording of the
decision.
Decision
The Sub Committee resolved
to renew the Operator’s Licence for a period of 5 years subject to the
following conditions (as agreed);
1. “Uber Britannia Limited must not use ‘Greyball’ technology for
the purposes of avoiding regulatory or law enforcement activity in connection with its Cambridge City Council operator licence”
2. “Uber Britannia Limited must report to the
Council any allegation or complaint
relating to certain serious behaviours, specifically:
i. Sexual misconduct
ii. Violence
iii. Aggressive or rude
behaviour
iv. Discrimination
v. Theft
vi. Plying for hire
Upon receiving any
allegation or complaint relating to the above serious behaviours the Operator
must restrict the driver’s access to the App as soon as reasonably practicable
and in any event within 24 hours, and whilst any investigation is on-going. All
complaints will be reported by the Operator to the Council within 1 working day
of receiving the complaint.”
3. “When
a booking is made under Uber Britannia Limited’s Cambridge City Council
operating licence, the booking confirmation and receipt provided to a passenger
will identify that the driver is licensed by Cambridge City Council. This condition will come into effect no later
than the 30th June 2018”
Reasons for
reaching the decision were as follows:
Following Cambridge
City Council’s Licensing Policy, as we found no valid objections or reasons to
refuse UBER’s Cambridge Operator’s Licence, we decided to renew UBER’s
Operators licence for a further five years on the basis that we consider UBER
to be a fit and proper operator.
Report author: Luke Catchpole
Publication date: 05/01/2018
Date of decision: 18/12/2017
Decided at meeting: 18/12/2017 - Licensing Sub Committee
Accompanying Documents: