Full article as published in the Sunday Times:
Andrew Gilligan
August 13 2017, 12:01am, The Sunday Times
Uber has been accused by police of failing to report sex attacks and other “serious crimes” committed by its drivers, and of obstructing officers trying to investigate them.
The company, which operates in more than 20 British cities and 633 worldwide, faces a licence review in London, its biggest European market.
In a letter obtained by The Sunday Times, Inspector Neil Billany, head of the Metropolitan police’s taxi and private hire unit, said he had “significant concern” that Uber seemed to be “deciding what [crimes] to report”, telling police only about “less serious matters” that would be “less damaging to [its] reputation”.
Billany accused Uber of “allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public” by keeping from police crimes committed by drivers — including at least six sexual assaults on passengers, two public order offences and an assault.
In at least one of the sex cases, Uber continued to employ the driver, who went on to commit a more serious sex attack against a second woman passenger.
Billany said: “Had Uber notified police after the first offence, it would be right to assume the second would have been prevented.”
The victims complained to Uber and were left “strongly under the impression” it would tell police, but it did not do so, he added.
In the year to February 2017, Scotland Yard recorded 48 allegations of sexual assault involving Uber drivers, mostly reported by passengers but some made via the regulator, Transport for London (TfL).
Billany said Uber’s failure to report the public order cases meant the Met learnt too late to prosecute.
The letter — dated April 17 and sent to Helen Chapman, head of taxis and private hire at TfL — was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the chairwoman of the London Assembly’s transport committee, Caroline Pidgeon.
She said she was “deeply concerned”, adding: “This apparent cover-up of reports about such serious criminal activity is shameful.”
TfL said the failure was “totally unacceptable” and formed “part of the consideration” about whether it would extend Uber’s licence. It was renewed in May, but only until September 30, amid concerns about Uber’s operations. Billany’s letter may have played a part.
Billany said one incident was a road rage incident classified as a firearms offence. The Uber driver took “what the passenger believed to be a handgun from the glovebox and left the vehicle to pursue the other party on foot”, Billany said. The “gun” turned out to be “pepper spray . . . legally classified as a firearm”, whose possession “clearly appears to be a criminal offence”.
When police asked for the passenger’s name, Uber “refused to provide any further information” without a formal request under the Data Protection Act. Uber said the “pepper spray” was a legal can of criminal identifier spray. It did help police when asked and said the refusal was a misunderstanding. It reported all incidents to TfL, it added.
“We were surprised by this letter as in no way does it reflect the good working relationship we have with the police,” it said. “We advise people to report serious incidents to the police and support any subsequent investigations, but respect the rights of individuals to decide whether or not to make such reports.”
THE LETTER IN FULL
From Inspector Neil Billany of the Metropolitan police to Helen Chapman, Transport for London’s head of taxis and private hire
“Dear Helen,
Concerns with Uber not reporting Serious Crimes to Police
On the 4 March 2017 Uber have had contact from a passenger informing them of a serious incident involving an Uber (and TfL Licensed PHV) driver. The nature of the allegation was that during a booked journey a road rage incident has developed between the driver and another road user. During this incident the driver has taken what the passenger believed to be a handgun from the glovebox and left the vehicle to pursue the other party on foot. At this point the passenger has fled the vehicle in fear.
On becoming aware of this incident Uber have spoken to the driver and ascertained that it was in fact pepper spray he had taken from the glovebox and not a handgun. Pepper spray is legally classified as a firearm and every weapon carried on the street represents a threat to public safety.
At this point Uber have dismissed the driver and made LTPH Licensing aware. On becoming aware of this on the 10 April 2017 the MPS have opened an investigation into what clearly appears to be a criminal offence.
Further contact has taken place between the MPS and Uber in an attempt to identify the passenger (a significant witness) and also to find out why Uber haven’t reported this directly to police. Uber have stated to the MPS that they are not obliged to report this, or similar matters, and are only required to notify TfL as per regulations. Uber have refused to provide any further information unless a formal request under the Data Protection Act is submitted.
Another more worrying case took place last year. The facts are that on the 30 January 2016 a female was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. From what we can ascertain Uber have spoken to the driver who denied the offence. Uber have continued to employ the driver and have done nothing more. While Uber did not say they would contact the police the victim believed that they would inform the police on her behalf.
On the 10 May 2016 the same driver has committed a second more serious sexual assault against a different passenger. Again Uber haven’t said to this victim they would contact the police, but she was, to use her words, “strongly under the impression” that they would.
On the 13 May 2016 Uber have finally acted and dismissed the driver, notifying LTPH Licensing who have passed the information to the MPS.
The second offence of the two was more serious in its nature. Had Uber notified police after the first offence it would be right to assume that the second would have been prevented. It is also worth noting that once Uber supplied police with the victim’s details both have welcomed us contacting them and have fully assisted with the prosecutions. Both cases were charged as sexual assaults and are at court next week for hearing [sic].
“Uber hold a position not to report crime on the basis that it may breach the rights of the passenger. When asked what the position would be in the hypothetical case of a driver who commits a serious sexual ssault against a passenger they confirmed that they would dismiss the driver and report to TfL, but not inform the police. While the process for sharing information between LTPH Licensing and the MPS works this clearly represents a further risk as it is reliant on more links in a chain.
In 2016 the MPS were made aware of 6 sexual assaults, 2 public order offences and 1 assault which were first reported to Uber and then subsequently to LTPH Licensing. The delay in the offence occurring and a report coming to the attention of police ranged from a matter of weeks to 7 months. The two public order offences mentioned above are subject to a 6 month prosecution time limit so subsequently both were taken no further as by the time we became aware of the offence we had no power to proceed, despite both having clear evidence of an offence taking place.
The significant concern I am raising is that Uber have been made aware of criminal activity and yet haven’t informed the police. Uber are however proactive in reporting lower level document frauds to both the MPS and LTPH. My concern is twofold, firstly it seems they are deciding what to report (less serious matters/less damaging to reputation over serious offences) and secondly by not reporting to police promptly they are allowing situations to develop that clearly affect the safety and security of the public.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Billany”
Share
Save
http://ift.tt/2uRWLhD
from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2fC5xOL
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment
TO BOOK HEATHROW TAXIS CALL 01908 263263