Failure to report serious crimes and allowing the driver to continue driving for Uber: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/uber-fail... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uber-drivers-accused-of...

Failure to properly check medical certifications: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1897962/investigation-reveals-...

Failure to follow up DBS (criminal records) checks (can't find an article about that one).

Use of Greyball to dodge regulators checking on the service: https://www.ft.com/content/2ab3c0e8-0076-11e7-96f8-3700c5664... (not specific to London but they're being sued all over the place for it)

TfL's statement about the ban - https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/septem...

More than 400 London cab drivers charged with crimes last year [0]. Not sure if this includes Uber, but from your comment, Uber doesn't report to DBS, so it doesn't. When you judge a service, you should really ask "compared to what". I prefer knowing the name and track record of my driver, not to mention an easy way to report mis-behavior, a history of my ride and ability to share my location. I don't have any stats, but from my experience, these factors greatly increase safety and comfort

[0] https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/over-400-london-cab-dr...

> The FOI showed the number of people charged who gave their occupation as a taxi driver or minicab driver.

That would include Uber drivers.

> I prefer knowing the name and track record of my driver

You know their name, but their track record? You can see previous ratings, but that's not exactly going to include "1*, driver sexually assaulted me" is it?

I personally never had a negative enough of an experience to warrant a bad rating, but I know people in the US that rated their drivers a low score for some reason (poor navigation, speeding, cell phone use), and they subsequently had an Uber rep reach out to them to discuss. It seems that they take the ratings very seriously. And it also shows because many of the drivers I spoke to were concerned about their ratings and even offer such amenities like water and cell chargers to make the ride more pleasant. As for yellow cabs in NY, many times I've witnessed the cab driver speaking on his phone and refusing to open the door before final destination is disclosed. Also, reports about not picking up minorities or people in less wealthy neighborhoods. These bad behaviors have gotten better over the years, but I attribute that to more competition from Uber

Oh definitely. I think Uber has, on the whole, improved the rider experience here in London. That doesn't excuse them from complying with regulations like ensuring drivers have valid DBS checks though.

> Enhanced DBS checks are carried out on drivers every three years when they renew their taxi or private hire driver's licence, and every individual's fitness to become a licensed taxi or private hire driver is considered on a case-by-case basis.

And failure to properly conduct DBS checks is one of the four reasons given by TfL for suspending Uber's license.

Uber drivers were accused of 32 sexual assaults on passengers in 2015/16. In 2015, 126 London taxi drivers were charged with violent or sexual offences — or 521 over the past five years.

Source pls.

> Failure to properly check medical certifications

I can't see why doctors forging documents for people that they later use to become drivers is anything to do with Uber. The article even says those doctors did the same for drivers applying to other minicab companies.

This does appear just to be a summary article and a bit more background would be good.

A click on the subject tag gives me some recent political criticism from the Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on taxis (who knew such a thing existed?) -

"It stands accused by the police of failing to properly handle serious allegations of rape and sexual assault of passengers.

It had to be dragged through the courts to recognise its responsibility to provide even the most basic rights and protections to Uber drivers. Its business model is based on saturating London's taxi and private hire market to drive its competition off the road."

> What "threat to Londoners' safety and security"?

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/vv598m/uber-drivers-a...

That is factually a quote from the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, as reported in the article. It is not the journalist's job to provide specifics on the behalf of others.

Investigative journalism? Sort of is their job.

You're not just supposed to blindly reprint things people say.

Admittedly everyone does it anyways, but still.

> You're not just supposed to blindly reprint things people say.

They did not reproduce what he said as though the content of his statement was factual - they reproduced it to report what he had said.

To illustrate the point further, they had his quote:

> Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: "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."

and then several paragraphs later they had this from an Uber driver:

> But one driver with Uber in London said: "I don't think it is a fair decision. Uber offers a flexible schedule, and a weekly income."

The also reported on statements by "Fred Jones, head of cities for Uber across the UK and Ireland", and "Uber's general manager in London Tom Elvidge".

Reporting on the statements of a range of parties interested in a particular dispute is perfectly reasonable journalism, and should not be compared to opinion-led journalism where the statements of favourable individuals are rewritten as though they were facts.

To clarify, I'm not claiming that the BBC as an institution is devoid of opinion-led journalism, I just don't think that demanding that journalists substantiate the claims of interested parties (as O.P. did) is very reasonable.