Boycott Addison Lee

Just got back from a meeting and discovered an email from BBC Today program in my inbox.

Now either this is for today, in which case I missed it... or it's for tomorrow, in which case a call first thing is fine.

I suspect it was for today though, given the name of the program. Did they get in touch with anyone? Was anything on the show?

The 'Today' programme (BBC R4) ends at 9am, so probably for tomorrow morning. No mention of it this am - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9716000/9716061.stm

The Addison Lee bins, the ones outside pubs with a QR code... Are they just a QR code, or do they have the branded bit in the middle of them?

I was pondering how easy it would be to replace them with this:

Like the idea of 'culture hacking' (is that the term) their QR codes, but no one really uses them, do they? In any case, I can't figure out a way to use the one you've just posted. Where does it link to?

It links back to this thread, via goo.gl

I'd been thinking of printing it out and pasting it over the top of theirs.

You could replace it with anything, a QR code linking to Goatse (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx) maybe?

Is this a ree?
It made me smile anyway.

It links back to this thread, via goo.gl

I'd been thinking of printing it out and pasting it over the top of theirs.

You could replace it with anything, a QR code linking to Goatse (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx) maybe?

or just the hailo app

So what net income is the figure beyond which saving in a pension changes from being tax planning to EVIL tax avoidance?

£10k per annum?
£50k per annum?
£100k per annum?

Please show working...

thats not exactly what I was saying, just that there has been a proven link between being rich and greediness.

I think there might be a pay wall but this is as good working as you will get:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428611.100-poor-little-rich-minds-the-price-of-wealth.html

If you go out to the newsagent its 21 April issue might still just get a copy.

However, as buffalo bill, says we should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Addison Lee release statement saying TfL has failed in its injunction to keep them out of bus lanes: http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/561

Looks like TfL have failed with their injunction: http://www.addisonlee.com/press/read/561
"Transport for London has been forced to abandon its application for a mandatory injunction requiring Addison Lee and its chairman John Griffin to withdraw their letter to drivers stating that they are entitled to drive in London bus lanes and to send out a further letter instructing them not to do so."

Great, so this will embolden John Griffin and his drivers to now ignore the law.

There is more to this and the suggestion is that TfL have not failed. ipayroadtax is reporting that Addison Lee must get it's cabs out of the bus lanes. The AL release suggested that the injunction has failed but they're focusing on the detail that John Griffin was to retract the letter and that AL should not pay fines on behalf of their drivers. It seems they're suggesting that the court decided AL could pay fines on behalf of their drivers and Griffin need not retract his letter. But it still seems that AL should not be in the bus lanes as the court cannot overturn that decision as it is currently the legal situation.

The AL press release is largely spin. Reports are suggesting that TfL find that release laughable; more details soon!

Thanks winter. Look forward to hearing more!

The court's decision is now at http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/how-could-addison-lee-repair-the-relationship-with-cyclists/

From this:

it is, in my judgment, appropriate to grant the interim declaration sought by Mr Chamberlain subject to the additional wording by way of clarification requested by Ms Demetriou QC and agreed by Mr Chamberlain viz.
“The indemnity given in respect of fines and other liabilities incurred as a result of contravention of legislation governing the use of bus lanes in the Addison Lee Driver Notice of 14 April 2012 (and repeated subsequently) is void and unenforceable as respects contraventions of that legislation occurring after 14 April 2012.
However, any decision of the Defendants, taken in a particular case after a fine has been imposed or other liability incurred for contravention of the legislation governing the use of bus lanes, to discharge, or reimburse any person in respect of such a fine or liability, would be lawful.”
...
This was subsequently confirmed in the undertaking proffered by Ms Demetriou QC on behalf of the defendants being in the following terms:
“The Respondents will not communicate to any person, in advance of a fine or liability being incurred by such person for contravention of legislation governing the use of bus lanes on or after 25 April 2012, that they will discharge or reimburse such fine or liability whether pursuant to the indemnity contained in the Addison Lee Driver Notice of 14 April 2012 or otherwise.”

The court's decision is really then that they should not, in advance of an offence, offer to indemnify them against this offence. Should they wish to pay fines relating to an offence, they are allowed to do so.

Addison Lee are not legally allowed to use bus lanes and would incur fines relating to this should they enter them for a reason other than pre-arranged pick-up or a set-down of a passenger. This has not changed.

The court did not go into detail of the judicial review relating to allowing PHVs to use bus lanes but it has recommended that this be expedited to reach a decision before the Olympics.

Further, from the hearing:

1. As stated above, the defendants accept or at least do not dispute that, on the face of the legislation, it is an offence for a PHV driver to drive in a bus lane marked as available for use by taxis. Any PHV driver who does so would, on the face of the legislation, commit a criminal offence contrary to s. 8 of the 1984 Act.

2. Anyone who does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence intending to encourage or assist its commission himself commits an offence pursuant to s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, unless he can avail himself of the defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act.


60-61:
“While there may be nothing untoward in one man agreeing to pay another’s fine after the offence is committed, it seemed to me that an agreement to indemnify a man against any fines he might incur in the future if he pursued a certain course of conduct was open to the gravest of objections.
Both counsel agree that there is no decided authority on this point and this does not surprise me, because it seems to me almost self-evident.

(Emphasis mine)

To clarify; TfL's injunction was successful. The only part that failed was the request for Griffin to withdraw original letter. This is the part Addison Lee released.

AL press release is cherry picking at it's finest

1. For all these reasons, it is my conclusion that it is both necessary and just and convenient to grant the injunction sought by TfL in the form sought ie until determination by the Administrative Court of the judicial review proceedings in claim CO10424/2011 or further order, an injunction restraining the defendants from causing, encouraging or assisting any private hire vehicle driver to use bus lanes marked for use by taxis during the hours when restrictions apply, save to pick up or set down passengers subject to the cross-undertaking by TfL as set out above. I will also grant the interim declaration as set out above, accept the undertakings proffered by the defendants and make an order that the judicial review proceedings be expedited.
   

To clarify; TfL's injunction was successful. The only part that failed was the request for Griffin to withdraw original letter. This is the part Addison Lee released.

It seems to me that even that is put on dodgy ground by this bit

Criminality on the face of the legislation

1. As stated above, the defendants accept or at least do not dispute that, on the face of the legislation, it is an offence for a PHV driver to drive in a bus lane marked as available for use by taxis. Any PHV driver who does so would, on the face of the legislation, commit a criminal offence contrary to s. 8 of the 1984 Act.


2. Anyone who does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence intending to encourage or assist its commission himself commits an offence pursuant to s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, unless he can avail himself of the defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act.


3. In Drake v Morgan [1978] QB 56, Forbes J had to consider whether a union could lawfully indemnify its members in respect of fines imposed for criminal offences. It held on the facts that the union could do so, but only because the indemnity had been given after the criminal offences had been committed. Forbes J said this at 60-61:
“While there may be nothing untoward in one man agreeing to pay another’s fine after the offence is committed, it seemed to me that an agreement to indemnify a man against any fines he might incur in the future if he pursued a certain course of conduct was open to the gravest of objections.
Both counsel agree that there is no decided authority on this point and this does not surprise me, because it seems to me almost self-evident. To say effectively: “Go out and picket. Never mind if you commit an offence. We will pay your fine,” is in all probability incitement to commit an offence, and certainly aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring one.”


4. Forbes J’s reasoning was followed by Scott J (as he then was) in Thomas v National Union of Mineworkers [1986] QB 20, at 77. Scott J held that the resolution in that case, to indemnify members who might commit offences while on the picket line against any fines imposed, was contrary to public policy and void. Although the terms of the order made in that case do not appear from the report, it appears that Scott J was prepared to grant an injunction restraining the South Wales union from making any payment pursuant to that resolution.


5. It was Ms Demetriou QC’s submission that the indemnity contained in the Notice was not unlawful and that the authorities relied upon by TFL are inapplicable because, in particular, they concern indemnification in respect of action which indisputably amounted to a criminal offence whereas the present case is plainly in a different category. In particular, she submitted that the basis for the claim for judicial review is that the TROs are unlawful and that their breach does not therefore amount to a criminal offence; and that TFL’s submissions therefore beg the very question raised by the claim for judicial review (and which would be raised as a defence to any criminal prosecution against the defendants for issuing the Notice). Further, she submitted that, as TFL accepts, the defendants would have a further defence of “acting reasonably” under s.50 of the Serious Crime Act 2007; and that it follows that, if prosecuted under s.44 of that Act, they could rely by way of defence on their reasonably held belief that the TROs were unlawful even if their EU law defence were rejected.
   In my judgment, these submissions suffer from a number of flaws which it is unnecessary to examine in detail. However, it seems to me that the fundamental flaw is that the indemnity given in the Notice covers “..any fines or other liabilities that may result from using the bus lanes as a result of this advice..” If Eventech succeeds in the judicial review proceedings, there will be no valid and enforceable fines or other liabilities. Thus, the indemnity can only sensibly apply in circumstances where an offence has been committed and therefore is contrary to public policy and void.

Basicly, I read that as saying that since the letter has already gone out, there's little point in pulling it, but that if any of the drivers are charged by the police for driving in the bus lanes (as a criminal charge) then our mate Griffin could now find himself charged under s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, and that he's also been put on notice that a 'defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act' would not be successful.

I would suggest that the above is in fact a coded way of the Judge saying "I can't tell you to pull the letter, but if you don't there are big consequences'

But then again, IANAL

From TfLOfficial Twitter account: TfL’s High Court injunction prevents Addison Lee from instructing its drivers to use bus lanes.

AL's lawyers must have been a bit pissed that they were making statements on behalf of AL to TFL confirming the letter to drivers would not be sent when John Griffin had already hit send.

Basicly, I read that as saying that since the letter has already gone out, there's little point in pulling it, but that if any of the drivers are charged by the police for driving in the bus lanes (as a criminal charge) then our mate Griffin could now find himself charged under s. 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, and that he's also been put on notice that a 'defence of “acting reasonably” pursuant to s. 50 of that Act' would not be successful.

So basically all we need to do is get a few videos of AL cars in bus lanes and then John Griffin should end up being charged with a criminal offence.

It might be even easier than that...

1. In a recording shown on ITV’s London Tonight on 16 April, Mr Griffin was pictured in the rear passenger seat of an AL vehicle (registration LR11 KVL), saying to the driver:
   “OK, driver, I’d like you to go into the bus lane now and I will indemnify you against any fines or any activities. This is not an endorsable offence and any money you are charged I will pay”.
   The reporter then says:
   “An extraordinary instruction from the passenger in the back – break the law. The driver does as he is told. The passenger is his boss, John Griffin, head of the UK’s biggest minicab firm.”
   The recording shows the driver doing as instructed and driving in the bus lane, on what appears to Mr Mason, in his Second Witness Statement to be Euston Road.
   
   
   

An offical complaint to the police, about this incident might be enough.

It's just like with the rioters - an attempt to defy the rule of law is a much more serious matter than the actual individual offences. Griffin deserves a criminal record.

Given that AL drivers take the branded car they rent home with them when they are not working etc surely they shouldn't be allowed to claim preferential self employed tax status. He should be made to pay minimum wage and then I think his drivers might not constantly have to make a trade off between feeding themselves and seriously endangering other road users.

Hes a dinosaur. I've worked with loads of old chairman and MDs like him over the years and while they proved to be excellent businessmen in the past, they always go extinct eventually.

If their employees are lucky they either retire or die of old age before the damage done to their otherwise sound businesses is irreversible.

At the end of the day Griffin will walk away from this with no major problems. Hes a very rich man close to his seventies. Its his drivers who are going to suffer from a boycott and the PR damage. Yes he might earn a few million less this year but hes hardly going to be choosing between food or fags is he?

I met with Addison Lee's PR Head and health and safety Manager this morning looking at working with them on cycle training and cycle awarenss training with their drivers. They have been working on setting this prior to the recent events and did contact LCC regarding this a while ago. They currently do have an element of cyclist awarenss information in their driver diploma training.

They wish to communicate the following:

“Addison Lee follows up every complaint about our drivers where we can identify the vehicle involved. We would encourage cyclists to send any complaints to us by email or even Twitter – we look at them all, including the videos and act on them with our drivers. Driver training for both new and existing drivers is a big focus for the company and we’re also working to address cyclist safety / awareness specifically.”