Uber has vowed to appeal after Transport for London said it will not be issued with a new licence and was “not fit and proper” to operate in the capital.
TfL said it took the decision on the grounds of “public safety and security implications”.
But Uber, which is used by 3.5 million people and 40,000 drivers in London, hit back, saying it would appeal and claiming the move “would show the world that, far from being open, London is closed to innovative companies”.
A union representing Uber drivers said its members face going bust as they rely on money from fares to pay for their cars.
Uber enables users to book cars using their smartphones and is available in more than 40 towns and cities across the UK.
Some 3.5 million passengers and 40,000 drivers use the app in London, but there had been growing speculation it could be banned in the city.
TfL has today informed Uber that it will not be issued with a private hire operator licence. pic.twitter.com/nlYD0ny2qo
— Transport for London (@TfL) September 22, 2017
Opponents of the firm claim it causes gridlocked roads and does not do enough to regulate drivers.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said he wants London to be “at the forefront of innovation and new technology” but insisted that companies must “play by the rules”.
He went on: “Providing an innovative service must not be at the expense of customer safety and security.
“I fully support TfL’s decision – it would be wrong if TfL continued to license Uber if there is any way that this could pose a threat to Londoners’ safety and security.
“Any operator of private hire services in London needs to play by the rules.”
Providing an innovative service must not be at the expense of Londoners safety. My response to @TfL's Uber decision. https://t.co/iEUal9VLU3 pic.twitter.com/B9V0mEKrWr
— Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) September 22, 2017
Uber’s general manager in London Tom Elvidge claimed users of its app “will be astounded by this decision”.
He said: “By wanting to ban our app from the capital, Transport for London and the mayor have caved in to a small number of people who want to restrict consumer choice.
“If this decision stands, it will put more than 40,000 licensed drivers out of work and deprive Londoners of a convenient and affordable form of transport.
(PA graphic)
“To defend the livelihoods of all those drivers, and the consumer choice of millions of Londoners who use our app, we intend to immediately challenge this in the courts.”
James Farrar, chairman of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain’s United Private Hire Drivers branch, described the decision as a “devastating blow” for its members who “now face losing their job and being saddled with unmanageable vehicle-related debt”.
Last month, Uber was accused by police of allowing a driver who sexually assaulted a passenger to strike again by not reporting the attack, along with other serious crimes.
Reaction from @jamesfarrar @United_PHD on @TfL decision to not renew @Uber license in London. #gigeconomy pic.twitter.com/ZTGdPbUH3v
— IWGB (@IWGBunion) September 22, 2017
In a strongly-worded letter, Inspector Neil Billany of the Metropolitan Police’s taxi and private hire team suggested the company was putting concerns for its reputation over public safety.
Uber has overcome obstacles in a number of cities around the world.
It was banned in New Delhi, India, after a driver was accused of raping a female passenger, but the decision was later overturned.
My statement on the courageous decision by @TfL not to issue Uber with a new licence. pic.twitter.com/rMSC06uQVr
— Wes Streeting MP (@wesstreeting) September 22, 2017
The company pulled out of Austin, Texas, when it was told its drivers would have to undergo fingerprint background checks, but resumed services after the requirement was ended.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here