UBER UPDATE
ARRIVAL OF UBER RAISES CONCERNS AMONG ESTABLISHED IPSWICH TAXI FIRMS AND DRIVERS
The arrival of Uber has raised concerns among established Ipswich taxi firms and drivers. Uber has had a presence
in
Ipswich since 2021, as it partnered with Hawk Express, but on 13 May, Ipswich BC approved a full oper- ating licence, which has left some taxi services with mixed feelings. A spokesman for Fast Cabs said: “Ipswich is such a small town - this will affect all taxi companies and drivers in such a big way. “Ipswich is quiet and; we all spend a lot of money per month on advertising our companies for our self-employed drivers to earn their
living, to support their families.” Meanwhile, Mohammed Miah, a driver for Hawk Express, said the company’s introduction to Ipswich could not only hurt companies but also drivers. He believes Uber can create a situation where drivers registered in other towns could come to Ipswich and operate under the banner of Uber, which would “take businesses away”. “But it’s not all bad, Uber is a big company coming into our town,” Mr Miah added. “It would boost the town’s reputation, especially with away fans coming in for Premier League games.”
Additionally, a spokesman for Fine Cabs raised concerns over contracts handed to taxi firms by Suffolk County Council. They feared companies could be outbid and potentially lose out on school- run contracts from the council. The cab firm spokesman said: “But what if being as big as they are Uber is the cheapest bidder, then it takes away crucial funds for us.” Cllr Ruman Muhith, who sits on the Ipswich BC Licensing and Regulatory Committee, said that while Uber’s introduction to Ipswich is a positive for the town, local taxi companies should be protected.
UBER SUED FOR £250M BY LONDON CABBIES OVER BREACHING PRIVATE HIRE LICENSING RULES
A group of more than 10,000 black cab drivers is suing Uber after accusing it of breaching booking rules in London, in a move which could cost the ride-hailing giant more than £250m. A group action claim has been filed in the High Court over Uber’s operations in the capital between May 2012 and March 2018. The cabbies allege Uber allowed its drivers to accept bookings directly from customers, rather than going through a central system like minicab services. The legal claim says that this booking system was “unlawful” because it did not comply with private hire rules, and that Uber deliberately misled TfL about how the system worked in order to get its licence. The cab drivers say that during this
18
time they suffered losses as a result of having fewer customers or having to work longer hours to compete with the popular app. RGL Management has filed the group action, known as BULiT21, on behalf of the London cabbies, who are being instructed by solicitors at law firm Mishcon de Reya. “Uber has consistently failed to comply with the law that applies to PHVs in London” said Richard Leed- ham, partner at Mishcon de Reya. It is anticipating that the total claim value could be more than £250m, with each cab driver’s claim worth up to £25,000. A spokesman for Uber said: “These old claims are completely un- founded. Uber operates lawfully in London, is fully licensed by TfL, and proudly serves millions of passen- gers and drivers across the capital.”
RGL Management said it thinks up to 30,000 cab drivers who operate in London could be eligible to join the group and make a claim against Uber. It is appealing for more drivers to join the action in the coming weeks. Michael Green, the director of RGL Management, said: “RGL is pleased to file this claim form today on behalf of over 10,500 London cabbies, a major legal milestone in holding Uber to account for its failure to comply with the relevant legislation in the UK’s capital. Garry White, a black cab driver for 36 years, said the claim seeks “justice and fair compensation” on behalf of London drivers. “Uber seems to believe it is above the law and cabbies across London have suffered loss of earnings because of it,” he said.
JUNE 2024 PHTM
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
