More questions for Fife Council over rejected Uber objections

New evidence is raising further questions about Fife Council's handling of public objections to Uber's booking office licence in Fife.

At September's Regulation and Licensing Committee hearing, 431 objections were disregarded after Uber's solicitor argued that they had not been properly signed.

Fife Council subsequently apologised, acknowledging that the issue had not been identified by officers before the hearing.

But further questions have now emerged, including an apparent discrepancy in the number of objections submitted and written evidence that Fife Council's Head of Licensing had previously confirmed that a digital signature was acceptable.

635 objections, but only 431 considered

East Fife Taxi Association's records show 635 template objections were submitted within the required period.

Yet only 431 objections appeared in the process which ultimately came before the committee.

That leaves an apparent discrepancy of 204 objections.

This raises a separate issue from the dispute over signatures. Before considering whether an objection was technically competent, there is a more basic question:

What happened to the other 204 objections?

EFTA holds records relating to the submission of the template objections, and the discrepancy between the number recorded as submitted and the number subsequently put before the committee now requires explanation.

“Happy to accept your digital signature”

There is another important piece of evidence.

One objector submitted an objection electronically and then specifically asked Fife Council to confirm that the email was acceptable because it had been digitally signed using the objector's name.

On 11 February 2026, Fife Council's Head of Licensing, Tom Brown, replied:

“Hi, happy to accept your digital signature.”

The original correspondence identifies the objector, but UberFife has removed identifying information because it is not relevant to the issue.

The objection itself concluded with the objector's typed name and included a postal address.

That is significant because the EFTA template similarly required objectors to provide their name and address.

It raises a straightforward question:

If Fife Council's Head of Licensing expressly confirmed that this form of digital signature was acceptable, why were objections subsequently disregarded because they were not signed?

The correspondence does not, on its own, determine the legal validity of every objection. It does, however, provide a contemporaneous written record of the advice being given by the Council department responsible for administering the process.

What were Fife Council's rules for electronic objections?

Schedule 1 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 contains the statutory requirements governing objections to licence applications of this type.

The legislation also makes specific provision for electronic communications.

Paragraph 16A allows a licensing authority to determine that applications, objections and other documents may be submitted electronically and provides for how statutory signature requirements can be satisfied electronically.

Information requests have now been submitted seeking Fife Council's paragraph 16A determination and the rules it established for electronic submissions and authentication.

That should establish precisely what Fife Council had formally determined would constitute an acceptable electronic objection.

There is a related question too:

How was Uber's own licence application submitted and signed?

The application itself is also subject to statutory requirements concerning writing and signature.

If Uber's application was submitted electronically, the records should establish the procedure under which Fife Council accepted it.

Were signed paper objections also submitted?

There is a further issue.

At least one objector has stated that, in addition to submitting an objection electronically, a signed paper copy was also sent to Fife Council.

Records are now being sought to establish exactly what was received and when.

Other objectors who sent or delivered signed copies should retain any evidence they have, including emails, postal receipts, copies of letters and correspondence with Licensing.

How has Fife treated electronic objections in the past?

The issue potentially extends beyond this particular Uber application.

The objection requirements in Schedule 1 are used across a range of Civic Government licensing functions.

Information requests are therefore also being made about Fife Council's historical treatment of electronically submitted objections.

In particular, records are being sought of previous objections submitted electronically using typed names, email signatures or other forms of electronic authentication which Fife Council accepted as competent.

That should help establish whether the approach taken to the Uber objections was consistent with the Council's previous licensing practice.

Questions that remain unanswered

The issue is no longer simply whether 431 objections contained handwritten signatures.

Why do EFTA's records show 635 objections submitted within the required period when only 431 were subsequently dealt with?

What happened to the apparent missing 204 objections?

Had Fife Council formally determined to accept electronic objections under paragraph 16A?

If so, what form of electronic signature or authentication had it specified?

Why did the Head of Licensing expressly confirm that a digital signature was acceptable?

Were other objectors given similar advice?

Were any physically signed objections excluded from consideration?

How had Fife Council treated similarly signed electronic objections in previous licensing cases?

And how was Uber's own application submitted, signed and authenticated?

These are factual questions which should be capable of being answered from the Council's own records.

Information requests have been submitted seeking those records.

UberFife will publish the responses and supporting documents as they become available.