I should be very much obliged if you would kindly provide me with copies of: 1. Any notice supplied by Uber to TfL of any material change concerning Uber's booking systems and anangements for making bookings; 2. A copy of the independently-verified assurance procedure report or an explanation as to why TfL has not yet received it.

---

Our Ref:         FOI-0034-1920

Thank you for your request for information regarding Uber.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require.

However, in accordance with the FOI Act, we are not obliged to supply the information requested as it is subject to a statutory exemption to the right of access to information under section 31(1)(g), which relates to information where disclosure would be likely to prejudice the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes listed in subsection 31(2) of the FOI Act, specifically, ‘(2)(c)the purpose of ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise’.

In this instance the exemption has been applied as the information is held only for the purposes of ascertaining whether a Private Hire operator is complying with the regulations, in accordance with our responsibility for regulating the private hire trade in London. This information contains details which otherwise would not have been made available to us and the exemption applies to protect our ability to clarify and confirm details on specific issues regarding general licensing concerns. The prejudice would be caused by disclosure because it would affect our ability to engage with the taxi and private hire trade and would inhibit the free flow of information, particularly where there is disclosure of information about confidential and commercially sensitive data. Effective working between the trade and the regulator relies on a safe space where information can be shared at a sufficiently early stage to avoid the need for formal enforcement action.

Additionally, disclosure of information about the business processes employed by private companies is also likely to prejudice the commercial interests of those companies if it is disclosed to the wider public, which would include business competitors. This information would also therefore be covered by section 43(2) of the FOI Act which exempts information where disclosure would be likely to prejudice commercial interests. Provision of commercially sensitive information that was provided to us in the context of our position as licensing authority would provide business competitors with an insight into the management and commercial processes of Uber which would place it at an unfair disadvantage.

In both cases, TfL recognises that there is a large amount of interest from the public and the taxi and private hire trade in this matter. Our decisions potentially affect the livelihoods and choices of many people who live and work in London, and as a public authority with a regulatory role, TfL expects its decision making to be transparent and open to scrutiny. Although there is considerable interest in this matter, it should be borne in mind that this information is held by us in the context of our role as the licensing authority of London’s taxi and private hire trade.

Disclosure in these circumstances would be likely to prejudice our ability to exercise our regulatory functions efficiently and effectively, particularly in the context of investigations, as the investigated party would be less likely to co-operate if a running commentary or detailed, commercially sensitive material were to be given out through FOI disclosures. Effective working between the trade and the regulator relies on a safe space where information can be shared at a sufficiently early stage, which may avoid the need for formal enforcement action. Even if enforcement action is required, the relatively free exchange of information is useful to all parties.

These exemptions benefit the public as it enables greater oversight of private hire operators and better scrutiny of services by the regulator. TfL benefit because proactive discussion avoids costly enforcement activity, delayed access to information and increased bureaucracy. Finally, the taxi and PHV trade benefit from being able to share information in confidence because it allows them to provide full answers to regulatory matters whilst protecting their commercial interests.

Therefore, whilst we acknowledge there is some public interest in disclosure, we consider that the balance of the public interest supports the use of these exemptions in order to enable the effective and timely sharing of information between TfL and the taxi and PHV trade. There is also a very strong public interest in preserving TfL’s ability‎ to act as an effective regulator (through the sharing of information), which ensures that the services offered by the trade are safe and compliant.

Lastly, we also consider the information is exempt in accordance with section 41 of the FOI Act on the grounds that it was provided to us in confidence. The information requested is of a sufficiently confidential nature regarding Uber’s internal business operations, with no expectation that it would be used for any purpose other than consideration within the context of our role as licensing authority, and therefore disclosure of this information would constitute an actionable breach of confidence. Since section 41 is an absolute exemption, we have not gone on to consider the balance of the public interest in respect of this exemption.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Jacob
Senior FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
General Counsel
Transport for London

[email protected]

Back to top

---