Uber will be able to continue operating in London, after a court decided the ride-hailing firm should be awarded a new 15-month probationary licence, after being told of sweeping changes to its practices.

The ride-hailing firm’s future in one of its biggest global markets had been in jeopardy after Transport for London ruled last September that it was not “fit and proper” to hold a private hire vehicles operator licence.

At the start of a two-day hearing, Uber admitted that London’s original decision not to renew its five-year licence had been correct. TfL cited concerns about public safety and security, including a failure to report crimes or alleged crimes to the police, and to conduct proper background checks on drivers.



But Uber’s lawyers convinced Westminster magistrates court that it had since cleaned up its act, while continuing to operate in the capital pending its appeal.

The chief magistrate, Emma Arbuthnot, said Uber had not been a fit and proper firm but now, taking into account its new governance, she found it fit and proper to hold a licence. She said Uber should pay all costs of the appeal. TfL’s lawyer said a figure of £425,000 had been agreed.

Uber’s lawyers told the court that after wholesale changes, and the appointment of new management in the UK to ensure full compliance with regulations, it had fully passed TfL’s three latest inspections.

Changes include proactive reporting of serious incidents and ensuring drivers only operate in areas where they are licensed.

TfL argued that Uber’s steps needed to be seen in the context of its past conduct, demanding a shorter licence than previously awarded.

Helen Chapman, director of licensing regulation and charging at TfL, told the court that Uber had resisted regulation over the first five years of operation, and there had been “insufficient time” to see whether the firm had really changed.

She said: “We’ve had five years of a very difficult relationship, where Uber has felt that it hasn’t required regulation.” She said it had been “frankly frustrating” that TfL was made aware of issues via the media rather than Uber.

Lawyers for black-cab drivers had argued against licensing Uber. Gerald Gouriet QC, representing the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, warned that an “Uber in sheep’s clothing” had appeared before the court.

Uber says it has around 3.6 million passengers regularly using its service in London, with 45,000 drivers. Speaking after the verdict, Tom Elvidge, general manager of Uber in the UK, said: “We are pleased with today’s decision. We will continue to work with TfL to address their concerns and earn their trust, while providing the best possible service for our customers.”

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I believe everyone must play by the same rules, no matter how big or powerful they are. After years of operating poorly in London, Uber has now accepted that TfL’s action in refusing to renew their licence was totally justified. Today our stance has been vindicated by the court.

“Uber has been put on probation – their 15-month licence has a clear set of conditions that TfL will thoroughly monitor and enforce.

“As a result of us standing up for Londoners, Uber has been forced to overhaul the way it operates not just in London but across the world.”

The chair of the London assembly’s transport committee, Caroline Pidgeon, said TfL would need to strongly enforce conditions, adding: “The safety of Londoners must come first and we will be keeping a close eye on the way Uber operates.”

The San Francisco-based firm attempted to draw a line under past controversies with the appointment of a new chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, last August, who said the company needed to change.

Aside from the issues in London, Uber had been drawn into scandals including conduct in its head office, the treatment of staff, and allegations of using its software to evade regulators in other cities.

Beyond compliance with London’s regulations, Uber has also offered some improved conditions for UK drivers, including limited insurance, limits on working hours and a 24-hour phone line for support.

But it has continued to fight employment tribunal rulings giving rights to its so-called “partners”, leading to accusations of whitewashing rather than substantive change.