UBER UPDATE UK
UBER AND TfL HOLD CRUNCH TALKS AMID LICENCE DISPUTE
The chief executive of Uber Technologies has held private talks with London’s transport supremo amid the legal battle overshadowing the ride-hailing app’s biggest British operation. Sky News reports that Dara Khosrowshahi met Mike Brown, TfL commissioner, last month to discuss the dispute. The meeting, which took place while Mr Khosrowshahi was on his way to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, has not been pub- licly disclosed. It came two months after Uber was banned by regulators in London for the second time in little over two years. “TfL has identified a pattern of failures by the company including several breaches that placed passengers and their safety at risk,” it said at the time. “Despite addressing some of these issues, TfL does not have confi- dence that similar issues will not reoccur in the future, which has led it to conclude that the company is not fit and proper at this time.” The ban sparked a furious response from Uber’s UK chief, who branded it “extraordinary and wrong” . A court is expected to hear Uber’ s appeal towards the end of the first half of the year. Mr Brown is due to leave his role in May to lead the restoration of the Houses of Parliament. Uber depends on London for the profit it generates for the wider, loss-making business. The content of the discussion between Mr Brown and Mr Khosrow- shahi was unclear, although the fact that the meeting took place is likely to provoke criticism given the fact that Uber’s continued operation in London is the subject of future court proceedings. The two men met twice during the course of Uber’ s previous Lon- don ban, according to reports at the time. An Uber spokesperson said: “We are appealing TfL’s decision. “Safety is our top priority which is why we have robust systems and processes in place. We are working closely with TfL to address their concerns and requests, as we have since 2017. “When it comes to safety on our platform our work is never done and we will keep listening, learning and improving.” TfL failed to respond to a request for comment. Saqiq Khan is due to stand for re-election as London Mayor in May, making the decision to ban Uber - which counts 3.5 million London- ers as customers - a potentially politically risky call.
UBER AT RISK OF BIRMINGHAM BAN AMID LONDON ROW
Uber will be denied a new licence in Birmingham until a safety dis- pute in London is resolved, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for the ride-sharing giant in Britain. The Birmingham licence expires at the end of this month. Uber has applied for a five-year extension. However, the city council will delay its decision until the outcome of Uber’s appeal against a ban- ning order by Transport for London (TfL) is known, according to senior sources. Uber will also be allowed to operate in Birmingham until the appeal is heard. It is understood that the council has encountered no prob- lems with the service, but it would be a “matter of concern” for the city if the TfL ban were upheld. The move is a blow to Uber as it seeks to convince authorities that it is tackling complaints about passenger safety and its treatment
86
of drivers. Birmingham is one of the Silicon Valley company’s biggest markets outside London and failure to secure a new deal would send a signal to other cities. Uber’s licence in Manchester expires next year. London, where there are 45,000 drivers, is the key battleground. TfL identified a “pattern of failures” that put customer safety at risk and said Uber “is not fit and proper at this time”. Uber described the decision as “extraordinary and wrong”. Birmingham’s Labour-run council declined to comment. Uber would not comment on its licence in the city. It said it was “working closely with TfL to address their concerns and requests”.
PASSENGER CHARGED MORE THAN £500 FOR TRIP HOME FROM XMAS PARTY
A woman getting a 40-mile trip home in a Uber vehicle follow- ing a Christmas party was taken 84 miles and charged nearly £530.
Ashleigh Cooper had been out in London at her work’s Christ- mas party when she ordered an Uber to take her back. The accounts manager was quoted around £200 for the journey from St James’s Park, in central London, to Gillingham, Kent, which should have been 40 miles long. But according to the Daily Mail, her driver ended up tak- ing her on a 89-mile route, arriving via the M25. At one point she fell asleep and woke up alone in the car at a petrol station while the driver refuelled. When she eventually arrived home she received a whopping charge of £529.77 showing the route heading west before almost working round the entire southern half of the M25. Horrified, she got in touch with Uber’s customer services to request a refund for the journey on Friday, December 13. The 27-year-old said: “I wouldn’t have accepted that journey if it had come up on the quote. The first thing I did the next morning was take it up with Uber and I finally got a call back four days later.” While Uber admitted their driver took her on the wrong length jour- ney, they said they were unable to offer a refund for the journey and instead offered her £275 in Uber credit. They also said she would need to take it up with Transport for London (TfL). Ashleigh added: “After all the bad customer service, I want com- pensation. Their ‘compensation’ offer of Uber credit to use for future rides is insulting. I don’t understand; I paid by card, I have never had Uber credit, I wanted to get paid back the way I paid.” She has also criticised the cab-hailing app for not looking after females travelling solo on their service. She added: “Me and my friends have taken Ubers from London home before and it was over £100. I don’t use Uber that often, I don’t want to use them again.” Ashleigh has been trying to get a response from TfL since she was instructed to take her query up with them. An Uber spokeswoman said: “We are always happy to review a trip if there are concerns about the route taken, and provide a fare adjustment where appropriate.”
The route the Uber driver took while tak- ing Ashleigh home to Gillingham in Kent
FEBRUARY 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
