AIRPORT AILMENTS
GATWICK AIRPORT TAXI DRIVERS’ UBER COMPLAINT DISMISSED BY COUNCIL SPARKING ANGER
Crawley BC has closed its investi- gation into claims by Gatwick taxi drivers that Uber was operating illegally at the airport, a decision that has ignited anger amongst local drivers. The drivers, backed by Unite the Union, alleged that London- registered Uber vehicles were “destroying their livelihoods” by taking a significant portion of airport fares, effectively using the Uber app as a “virtual rank” and operating out of Crawley itself. The council’s licensing committee, after receiving legal advice from Philip Kolvin KC, concluded that the drivers’ claims “lack any legal substance.” In his advice Kolvin KC found “no wrongdoing” in Uber drivers being sent to airport car parks to wait for their bookings, as this showed the firm was ‘organ-ising its vehicles in an orderly manner rather than allowing them to clog up local roads’. He also dismissed concerns of the airport directing people to Uber- marked bays in the pick-up area. Mr Kolvin’s
report added that
Uber was not operating in Crawley and there was ‘nil chance of securing a conviction against Uber for doing so’. Licensed taxi driver and Unite representative, Nick Venes, expressed his disbelief at the council’s findings: “To turn round and say that they do not operate in Crawley…I think I must be living in cuckoo land. We know they operate – we see them every day.” Despite the drivers’ frustration,
22
committee members acknow- ledged their limited power. “It is most certainly a case where legislation has not kept up with technology,” said committee leader Michael Jones. He further stated: “We regretfully end up in a position where the legal advice is almost completely unequivocal. There is no prospect of successfully challenging these activities. It would require a change in legislation to prevent what is happening, and that is not something this council has any power over. This must be taken up with those in Parliament.” Committee chair Imran Ashraf pledged to continue writing to Ministers and TfL about the concerns, despite previous letters going unanswered. Meanwhile, on behalf of Unite the union, Don Barnes, Branch Secretary, Gatwick Taxis, told PHTM: “We would like to clarify our position regarding Uber’s oper- ations at Gatwick Airport. We believe that Mr Kolvin KC’s assertion that Uber is not operating in Crawley and Gatwick Airport is incorrect. It is important to note that this is merely his opinion, not an established legal fact. “Following the recent investigation, we
sought
clarification from the licensing department regarding the 150 Uber vehicles waiting in the authorised waiting area at the South Terminal. We specifically asked whether all these vehicles had pre-booked jobs at the time, but the licensing department
failed to provide a clear answer. “Furthermore, Uber itself instructs its drivers (as stated on their website) to
proceed to the
authorised waiting area, where they will be placed in a queue and assigned jobs on a first-come, first-served basis. This effectively functions as a virtual rank system, despite Uber not being licensed to operate in Crawley. “Given these serious concerns, we urge Unite the Union to conduct a thorough review of the situation to ensure full compliance with licensing regulations and to uphold fairness for all operators. 1. Uber’s licensing in Crawley – if Uber is not licensed in Crawley but is still directing drivers to an “authorised waiting area” at Gatwick, it raises questions about whether they
are
effectively operating in the district without a proper licence.
2. Pre-booked v rank-based system – the claim that Uber drivers are being placed in a “virtual queue” and assigned jobs on a first-come, first- served basis could resemble a taxi rank system rather than a private hire pre-booking model. If true, this could be in breach of private hire licensing regulations. 3. Lack of transparency
licensing authorities – the failure of the licensing department to clarify whether the waiting drivers all had pre- booked jobs adds to concern. If they
the don’t, it
strengthens the argument that Uber is operating outside of its licensing permissions.”
APRIL 2025 PHTM
from
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86
