Uber says it has changed as London licence ban appeal begins

Uber has launched a legal fight to regain its London licence, claiming that “wholesale” changes to its business practices should allow it to continue operating in the capital – although it admitted the original decision to punish the company was right .

The San Francisco-based ride-hailing firm was told last year the licence for one of its most important foreign markets would not be renewed because of concerns about public safety and security, such as background checks on drivers.

Lawyers representing Uber, which is still allowed to operate in the capital while it goes through the appeal process, told Westminster magistrates court on Monday that it has moved to clean up its act since Transport for London, the transport authority overseen by the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, decided against a licence renewal.

“We accept TfL’s decision in September was the right decision based on evidence at the time,” Tom de la Mare QC said. “TfL had considerable concerns about [Uber’s] fitness that warranted its refusal to renew. [This has] led to wholesale change.”

TfL rejected the company’s application to renew its licence because of a “lack of corporate responsibility” in relation to reporting serious criminal offences by drivers against passengers, driver background checks and obtaining drivers’ medical certificates showing they are fit to drive. The licensing body also said it was concerned by Uber’s use of Greyball, a software that can block regulatory bodies from gaining full access to its app and undertaking regulatory or law enforcement duties.

The firm could turn to higher courts if it is not satisfied with the outcome of the hearing at Westminster magistrates court. Judge Emma Arbuthnot said she would likely decide the case on Tuesday.

De la Mare said Uber has passed TfL’s last three inspections, showing a “perfect record of compliance” and added that three non-executive UK board members have been hired to ensure “total compliance to the letter and spirit” of regulatory obligations.

“[This shows] the change of a business that grew very fast to one that has grown up,” he said. “It is profound and very much for the better.”

Changes include proactively reporting serious incidents to the Metropolitan police rather than placing the onus on drivers and passengers, and altering the app so users are told Uber has accepted their booking and their driver is licensed by TfL.

Tom Elvidge, the general manager of Uber in the UK, told the court: “I agree that Uber London Limited (ULL) and Uber generally was undergoing a period of significant change and, in light of what was available to TfL, given the mistakes that ULL made, I absolutely accept that decision in September.”

He said the move “certainly accelerated” changes. He added that among the failings before he took charge were Uber’s lack of clarity over whether the company or drivers accepted passengers, which has implications for workers’ rights.

He also said online eye tests that relied on the honesty of would-be drivers were not a good idea.

Nevertheless, Judge Arbuthnot indicated an 18-month provisional licence would be too long for her to grant.

“I would’ve thought, if I were to renew the licence, 18 months would be rather too long,” she said.

Martin Chamberlain, the lawyer for TfL, said the steps Uber had taken should be seen in the context of its past conduct and any licence that the judge awarded should be short and subject to stricter conditions, which the regulator has agreed with Uber.

The judge will rule whether Uber is “fit and proper” to hold a licence in the capital now, rather than whether TfL’s decision was correct in September.

Uber says up to 3.6 million passengers regularly use the taxi-hailing app in London and it has 45,000 drivers in the city.

The Uber chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, told staff at the time of the licence loss that TfL’s initial verdict was the “cost of a bad reputation” in the past. Since September’s decision, Uber has also been stripped of its licence by Brighton – a decision it is appealing against – and York. It has, however, gained new licences in Sheffield, Cambridge, Nottingham and Leicester.