Friday, November 16, 2018
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Saturday, November 10, 2018
We read Chris still needs £5400 in 20 days
If the 300 odd who have donated, put in again it would need about £16 each.
I’m sure we can get it over the line. I will definitely be putting in again, but it’s going to need a big push from everyone again.
I will definitely be doing that!
Latest update on MyTaxi - Worker Rights.
Just an update.
After an amazing start to our campaign to raise £18,000 we have somewhat slowed down - we need to hit the £15,000 target by the end on November and £18,000 by the end of December.
Therefore, to hit these milestones by these dates we have just over £5,400 to raise within the next 20 days - can I ask that you please help to share the crowd justice link as widely as possible?
I'm aware of some friction on social media and would like to share some thoughts on what an employment tribunal could achieve:
Here are my thoughts on why an employment tribunal is the right thing to do and what we could expect to gain - I hope you will think about supporting.
Uber VAT liability because they are the principal?
The European court recently decided that Uber are a transportation provider instead of a software company, the UK employment tribunal service decided that Uber drivers are limb-b workers instead of self- employed contractors because Uber "control" the driver, thus making Uber London Limited the "principal" in the contract. Jolyon Maugham argues that because Uber London is the "principal" then they must be subject to VAT liability on the whole fare – I think we all agree on this point - when I was a member of the LCDC we financially supported Jolyon.
Therefore, does "control" of the driver amount to VAT liability because of the fact, who is doing the "controlling" is the "principal"?
Could MyTaxi avoid VAT liability if they don’t "control" the driver?
We identified some time ago that if MyTaxi "control" the fares (fixed prices), suspend the driver for scrubbing jobs and deactivate drivers without reason etc. then there is a strong argument that they "control" the driver much in the same way as Uber "control" their drivers – should an employment tribunal agree that MyTaxi drivers are limb-b workers much in the same way Uber drivers are limb-b workers, then clearly MyTaxi would potentially be the "principal" in the contract, thus it’d be MyTaxi who are making the VATable supply, therefore, they would potentially be liable for VAT on the whole fare - just as Jolyon Maugham is claiming Uber London are.
If MyTaxi amended their driver T&C’s to reflect that we are independent drivers who "ply for hire" independently, didn’t do fixed prices and didn’t suspend or deactivate drivers without reason, and if any passenger complaint was dealt with by the regulator (TfL) instead of MyTaxi, then it’d be almost certain that MyTaxi was only our "agent" and not the "principal" therefore, not exposed to the claim that they "control" the driver in any way, furthermore, if they didn’t control the driver then there could be no way it could be argued that they were the "principal" and subsequently would not be exposed to any VAT liability claims.
Why is all of this is important for the future of the taxi trade?
In reality, both Uber & MyTaxi work in the same way, the only difference being the price the passenger pays – the only way that the taxi trade improves our position is by clarifying the employment status and VAT status on both taxi and private hire apps, we do this the following way;
(1) If Uber "control" their drivers then they must be the "principal" in the contract, therefore, it’s Uber London who is providing the VATable transport services – so, Jolyon Maugham must be right, Uber must pay 20% VAT on all of their fares.
(2) If MyTaxi don’t have any "control" over the drivers contractually or otherwise and the regulator deals with any passenger complaints, suspensions or revocations for bad behaviour and not MyTaxi, then it must be said that MyTaxi do not "control" the driver and therefore are not liable to employment claims or exposure to VAT liability as they are truly operating as a "non-controlling" "agent" for the driver – that said, this currently isn’t the case, because MyTaxi are contractually very controlling and they do suspend and deactivate drivers without reason and this will only get worse if not challenged.
What is the answer?
I believe that it’s very clear, private hire apps have to "control" their drivers because of the nature of the legislation, therefore, private hire companies are the "principal" in any contract so must be subject to VAT on the full fare.
If MyTaxi and all Taxi App companies want to "control" the driver, then they must equally be the "principal" in any contract and subject to the same employment & VAT liability as private hire companies like Uber - that said, if MyTaxi have no arbitrary "control" of drivers then they would avoid any employment or VAT liability.
MyTaxi is not going to give up this "control" freely, therefore, we MUST force them into a position whereby the only option for them is; (a) If they want to "control" drivers then that comes with employment & potentially VAT liability, or; (b) they release ALL "control" of the driver contractually or otherwise, and accept that they are a "non-controlling" agent for the driver – the only way we force this position is to support and employment tribunal case against them.
Moreover and even more important, if a passenger complains about a driver, then any decision to reduce a drivers ability to source work must be a licensing decision by the regulator and not a decision by an unregulated app company – should TfL decide to suspend or revoke a drivers licence and the ability to earn a living is reduced in any way then the driver has the magistrates court to appeal any restriction of work because of a suspension or revocation – this can be the only way that drivers are protected from arbitrary decisions from unregulated app companies going forward.
I hope this is clear.
Thank you for your continued support.
Friday, November 09, 2018
Wednesday, November 07, 2018
UBER’S future in London is again in doubt after black cab drivers were granted a judicial review of the decision to award a new licence to the controversial taxi firm.
A High Court judge has allowed the cabbies to take action against Westminster magistrates’ court and the alleged “bias” of Emma Arbuthnot, the senior district judge and chief magistrate of England who decided the Uber case.
Granting the application, Mr Justice Walker also said Uber had “gravely misled the regulator and the court”.
In August, six weeks after Arbuthnot ruled in favour of Uber, it was revealed that her husband James, a former Tory MP, works for a strategy firm which advised one of Uber’s main investors.
She said she had been unaware of the connection but withdrew from a future Uber case she was due to hear about Brighton’s refusal to renew the company’s licence.
A judicial spokesman said: “It is essential that judges not only are, but are seen to be, absolutely impartial.”
Submissions by Robert Griffiths QC, acting for the United Cabbies Group, said Arbuthnot had failed to explain why, if she was not qualified to hear the Brighton case, she had been qualified to hear the London one.
In his ruling, Walker said the cab drivers’ arguments “merit consideration at a hearing. Uber had gravely misled the regulator and the court. The failure to make an express finding that it had indeed turned into an entity that was ‘fit and proper’ may, at least arguably, reflect an impermissible approach.”
Transport for London, the regulator, refused to renew Uber’s licence in September last year, saying its behaviour fell below the legal test of being “fit and proper”. Uber appealed. In her decision, Arbuthnot said TfL had been right to refuse a licence at the time, since Uber had deceived both it and the High Court in a previous action.
However, she said Uber had since improved and gave it a temporary, 15-month licence to allow it to prove that it deserved a longer licence. Calling her reasoning “unlawful” and “illogical”, Griffiths said Arbuthnot was not allowed to reprieve Uber “in anticipation of it becoming fit and proper” but was obliged to decide whether it was actually fit and proper at the time of the case.
Uber, which can operate while the case proceeds, declined to comment.
UCG WITHDRAW FROM TfL ENGAGEMENT POLICY
Your committee has unanimously taken the decision for the UCG to withdraw from the engagement policy with Tfl.
This decision was not taken lightly and it will have no impact with the representation individual members receive.
Our organisation will not be complicit in the systematic destruction of our trade.
Our organisation is made.up of members who are fighters who are honourable and are not afraid of doing the right thing.
Our trade is fighting for its very existence the UCG was formed to fight for our trade to put the interests of the trade first second and always.
The UCG is unique within the trade because we don’t seek popularity we do what is right not what is popular. I hope you agree with your committee and continue to back it.
The full text of our letter to TfL is reproduced below.
General Secretary on behalf of the UCG Committee
Dear Mr Robinson,
The UCG has been part of the so-called ‘Engagement Policy’ and party to Trade / TfL meetings since January 2017; we have attended every meeting since then.
We have now concluded that further engagement with TfL is not only completely pointless but also not in the best interests of our members.
We entered the EP with an open mind and determination to give TfL a fair hearing in the hope that you would listen to our input and act accordingly where appropriate.
Naturally, we could never agree on every subject, but you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve important issues; Illegal PH Plying for Hire via apps, High Court definition of P4H and Uber driving a coach and horses through the regs being just three examples.
TfL has said to the UCG on two occasions ‘We have heard your opinion if you don’t like it take us to court’.
This arrogant attitude is not only unacceptable but is beneath contempt for a Regulator.
At all meetings when awkward but cogent questions are asked, TfL either avoid answering or defer the answer to a later date; that date never appears.
We have asked for Minuted Meetings since Jan 2017, but that request is constantly refused, and we are expected to rely on your selective ‘meeting notes’.
We feel that the outcome of all TfL meetings is a fait accompli with a pre-determined outcome and have no faith in TfL’s lacklustre approach to interacting with the trade organisations/unions.
We note that the Commissioner met once again with Mr Khosrowshahi from UBER this time on Monday 22/10/18 and yet the London Taxi Trade struggle to get a meeting with the commissioner and when we do it feels he is there out of sufferance.
Our history goes back to 1654 and for TfL to treat the trade with such contempt is nothing short of scandalous, TfL inherited the World’s finest Taxi service, you didn’t create it.
The question we are asking ourselves is 'are we "failing to engage" or "engaging to fail".
The UGC is no longer prepared to be complicit with TfL in their attempt to destroy our honourable and unique trade.
Therefore, we will not attend any further meetings with TfL, be they TOPS, Senior Reps or Commissioner meetings.
The GLA report found you to be ‘Woefully Inadequate’ and theUCG must concur with their opinion.
UCG General Secretary
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT : EDITORIAL COMMENT.
At last our orgs are waking up to the fact that TfL believe themselves to be superior in every way to our trade and not listening to anything we have to say. Just looking at their recent accounts shows they haven't got a clue, and as a result are haemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Their crazy traffic schemes have virtually bought this wonderful city to gridlock in a bid to get people onto a new tube line that is massively over schedule and massively over budget.
Today's announcement is a bold move by the UCG and should be followed 100% by the other trade representative groups.
While many believed that you can do more from inside the tent looking out than outside the tent looking in, in reality what happened last January (in my opinion) was no more than an invitation to come into the tent to be pissed on.
Just look at when members tried to change the LTDA from the inside. As soon as rank and file drivers stood up and asked awkward questions.....they were expelled en masse. Representation....not at any price.
ACTION ACTION ACTION !!! Announcement from the Independent Taxi Alliance (ITA)
Who are the ITA???
The Independent Taxi Alliance is a proactive umbrella group, formed to highlight corruption through legitimate protest. Non attributed
Remember, if we roll over with the Bank Junction exclusion, we will be perceived to be weak and ineffective. It's time to answer the call.
If the trade is to exit stage left....lets make sure we go out fighting tooth and nail.
Tuesday, November 06, 2018
Last Nights Attacks On Taxis In The Lisson Green Area. Plus Video Of Group At Marylebone Station Rank
Everyone on social media has probably seen what happened last night on Lisson Grove. A gang of approx 20 young Arab looking youths damaged a number of Taxis, using traffic cones from the road works on Rossmore Road, smashing windscreen and and denting side panels.
The police were called but on arrival were also attacked by the group and decided that as they were seriously outnumbered, to retreat to Rossmore Road and wait for backup.
Backup arrived in the form of officers wearing riot gear carrying shields. But by the time they went on to Lisson and Church Street, the group had disbursed.
This happened last year and the year before on Guy Fawkes night ... so you would have thought the police would have been ready to responded quicker but no. It appears the Taxi trades troubles in this area, are right down the bottom of police priority, as we’ve seen with the way muggings against Taxi Drivers have been recorded as thefts from motor vehicles. The unit we've been instructed to report these attacks too is a police shop which shuts at 5pm. As the attacks are currently happening under cover of darkness, the unit is a waste of time.
This has got to change.
It is now up to our orgs who need to lobby and put pressure if the police, council and local MPs to get action as this has gone on long enough. The local MP Karen Buck has offered to help, yet hasn't been approached by our org actually situated in the area.
We can’t have no go areas for cabs in central London.
Below is a video of the latest sightings of the Lisson Grove Muggers...taken last week.
Video courtesy Mick the governor
The group have become more confident and have spread out attacks across the West End and Kensington. They are now a regular sight on Regent Street, Piccadilly, Knightsbridge and South Ken.
The police know who these individuals are, they know where they live but have done little to combat these attacks on Cabbies.
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT
Sunday, November 04, 2018
This is what we are up against....Uber's support goes right to the top of British government.