Why do London taxis still make us pay in cash?

Dinosaurs drive among us.

I think we’ve all been there. You’ve finally managed to grab a cab somewhere in Soho after scrambling to get home for an hour and a half on a Saturday night. Once you get in you realise that you’re out of cash and moreover, as usual, this taxi doesn’t take cards. So instead of getting home quickly, your cabdriver takes a detour to get you past an ATM on the way. You easily end up trying out a few cash points, because the first one was out of money and the second had technical problems. What was supposed to be a fifteen-minute ride home has turned into a 25-minute tour of London, all the while adding to the mounds of pollution in the city air. Lovely. 

As a native Dane it has been a rude awakening living in London and realising that an overwhelming majority of taxis do not accept cards. Most other European countries have long since implemented electronic payment systems in taxis on a national level. In Denmark, card swipe machines were replaced for chip and PIN devices last year, after the cabs had enjoyed card payments for more than two decades. According to representatives of the Danish and German taxi industry, the ability to pay by card heightens security for the cab driver in that payment is guaranteed. It has also given the industry a much-needed boost, in that more people are taking longer journeys in taxis, since they can rely on the security and ease of paying by card.

Somehow, this development has eluded London's taxis. Here it's common practice for cabs to drive past an ATM if a customer is without cash, making the trip more expensive for the customer. Not to mention, that the cab emanates even more CO2 when it is kept at a standstill for several minutes while the transaction is being made.
But never mind the environment (note the sarcasm). In an automobile and diesel heavy industry, this is not the argument that will win over the taxi industry. Like one card-accepting cabdriver said to me this weekend: "We have some dinosaurs in this industry. I don't get why they can't understand that this would be better for all of us?! We would get longer trips, more customers and we'd be far more sure of getting paid."

Lately, apps like Hailo and GetTaxi have been developed to make electronic payments possible in taxis via tablet or smart-phone. I have personally used both apps regularly, refusing to partake in the cash-chaos. And they’re effective. With a little click you can easily order a nearby cab within seconds and once you’ve put in your details the payment is made securely via your credit or debit card at the end of your journey. In my opinion, it’s pretty brilliant to make the stress of getting home after hours in London, a lot easier. But even these systems have some serious issues for customers and taxis alike.

One app-accepting cabdriver recently informed me that customers using Hailo need to watch out for the amounts deducted on their account. Because the app doesn’t entail end-of-journey approval of the final amount, some London cabdrivers have begun exploiting the app by driving on and debiting the customer for more than the journey itself. Now we aren’t talking about major amounts, but nevertheless, this is payment fraud. Another issue is that not every cab has signed up with these apps, making it sometimes impossible to get a free cab via the app. And in that case, you’re just back to square one.

So if the apps can’t always be relied on for electronic payments and card terminals aren’t being installed in the taxis, then what are we supposed to do? I’m far from the only one frustrated with this situation. Friends and colleagues alike have often complained about the necessity for cash when taking a cab. Not to mention that a massive tourist destination like London, should be considering the amount of foreign customers who are not prepared to pay for their cabs by cash. It’s just not customer-friendly or for that matter, very modern. So why does paying for a cab via card have to be such a hassle?

As far as I can understand, the issue of implementing card payments is an on-going discussion for the taxi industry in London. It seems to me that the benefits regarding security, increased earnings and the environment are great, whereas I don’t quite see the negatives of implementing card payments. People will still pay cash if they can or prefer. Yes card transactions have fees – but these are usually directed at the customers and will therefore have minimum impact on the cab drivers themselves. So what is the problem? I guess only the dinosaurs can answer that.

Photograph: Getty Images

Sandra Kilhof Nielsen is a freelance writer and former reporter for Retail Banker International, Cards International & Electronic Payments International.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.