UBER UPDATE UK
MAYOR REVEALS SHOCKING REASONS UBER’S LICENCE WAS NOT RENEWED
Sadiq Khan revealed that one of the rea- sons Uber didn’t have its licence renewed was that a driver who was suspended for possessing an ob- scene image of a child was able to con- tinue driving. Transport for London did not grant Uber a new licence to operate in London because of “several breaches that placed passenger and their safety at risk”. Speaking to James O’Brien on LBC, the Mayor of London said: “TfL, as the regulator, has to have the safety of the public as a priority. “Let me tell you the two biggest concerns that TfL has. There have been 14,000 times a passenger has got into an Uber car and the person they thought was driving them wasn’t that driver. “Then, number two, there have been examples when drivers had been suspended or dismissed due to serious concerns. I can now tell you one of them was a driver having obscene photographs of a child on their social media device. “Yet those drivers who had been suspended or dismissed were able to play the system that Uber has and drive people around. “Public safety is a priority and the independent experts that TfL hired said the systems aren’t robust. “How can TfL not err on the side of caution and say we’re not con- vinced, we’re not going to renew your licence. I don'’t care how big Uber is. When I’m the Mayor, I want a system where everyone plays by the rules.”
LAWYER URGES COURT TO THROW OUT UBER’S LATEST APPEAL OVER VAT BILL
An epic court battle against Uber took another twist as the car- sharing giant came a step closer to being liable for a potential £1.5 billion in unpaid VAT. The Good Law Project won a case against bosses at HMRC who must now reveal whether the agency assessed Uber’s VAT tax liabilities last month. But Uber subsequently filed an appeal against that deci- sion before HMRC would have been forced to make the disclosure. According to the Irish News, on Monday 2 December the Good Law Project, which is run by anti-Brexit campaigner Jolyon Maugham QC, filed documents with the Court of Appeal to have Uber’s own appeal urgently thrown out. Mr Maugham told the PA news agency: “The more time passes without an assessment being raised the more VAT is lost – forever. Whatever costs Uber run up pursuing a hopeless appeal will be dwarfed by the £4m or so lost every week if no assessment is raised. We hope and expect the Court of Appeal to give this ruse the short shrift it deserves.” The Good Law Project initially attempted to take Uber to court to force them to disclose their tax affairs, but attempts for a protective costs ruling failed, making the case unviable financially. Instead, the group took HMRC to court demanding the taxman assess Uber for VAT liabilities. It calculates that Uber could be on the hook for £1.5 billion. HMRC had previously claimed it had made no assessment, but once the court case was launched, it declined to confirm whether the
JANUARY 2020
position had changed or not. Uber argues that because it is a platform that brings drivers and rid- ers together, rather than a transport business, it is the driver who is liable for VAT on any rides rather than the company. But because the threshold for VAT is only for individuals earning more than £85,000 a year, none of the drivers needs to charge it. HMRC claimed in court its dealings with Uber were commercially sensitive information which could undermine confidentiality, but this was dismissed by the court. Mrs Justice Lieven said she did not accept HMRC’s argument “that this approach would undermine taxpayer confidentiality because any third party could judicially review HMRC and then seek disclo- sure of the taxpayer’s affairs”. Despite Uber and HMRC’s attempts to withhold any potential infor- mation through the courts, company documents show the firm recognises the VAT issue could heavily impact the business. Uber Technologies’ accounts in the US say: “Losing the (case in which drivers can be classified as workers) may lead the UK tax reg- ulator (HMRC) to classify us as a transportation provider, requiring us to pay VAT (20%) on gross bookings both retroactively and prospectively.” The most recent UK accounts filed with Companies House also add: “The company is involved in a proceeding in the UK involving HMRC, the tax regulator in the UK, which is seeking to classify the company as a transportation provider.” Uber declined to comment.
UBER LONDON APPEALS TFL REFUSAL TO RENEW ITS OPERATOR LICENCE
Uber filed an appeal on Friday 13 December 2019 against a decision by TfL to strip the taxi app of its right to operate in the city. The appeal was filed at Westminster Magistrates’ Court after TfL rejected Uber’s application over safety concerns. The ride-hailing app’s Northern and Eastern Europe general manag- er Jamie Heywood rebutted the accusations, saying safety is Uber’s “top priority”. “We are committed to Londoners and are working closely with TfL to address their concerns and requests, as we have since 2017,” he said as the licence renewal was rejected in November. TfL refused to grant the company a new licence due to what it called a ‘pattern of failures’ on safety and security, the latest stage of a long-running battle with the authorities. The taxi app has roughly 45,000 drivers in London who will still be able to take rides until the appeals process is exhausted, which could take months or even years. Uber, which was also denied a licence by TfL in 2017 before a judge restored it on a probationary basis, said it had changed its business model over the last two years and would go further. TfL director Helen Chapman said: “We found Uber not fit and prop- er to hold a new private hire operator’s licence on 25 November. We note that Uber has submitted an appeal and it will now be for a magistrate to determine if they are fit and proper.” The regulator said in November that unauthorised drivers were able to upload their photos to other Uber accounts so that a driver other than the one whose image appears on the app, one picked up pas- sengers. Some of these drivers were unlicensed, while one had received a police caution for distributing indecent images of chil- dren, TfL said. Jamie Heywood added: “We uncovered this issue, we raised this with TfL and put in place an effective fix. We are further strength- ening our robust systems and processes through a new facial matching process which we believe will be the first of its kind in London.”
71 2
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
