MasterCard Sued For £14bn In Largest Ever British Legal Claim Over Credit Card Fees.

Credit card group MasterCard is being sued for £14bn, the largest legal claim in British history, in a landmark lawsuit over allegations that it overcharged 46m UK consumers.

The claim, which MasterCard said it would oppose vigorously, is the first major case under a new framework for class action lawsuits on behalf of multiple claimants. It revolves around fees imposed by MasterCard on businesses that accepted its debit and credit cards between 1992 and 2008.

Law firm Quinn Emanuel, which filed the suit at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, alleges that these charges – known as “interchange fees” – were set at an unlawfully high level and pushed up prices for British consumers.

The claim was brought by Walter Merricks, the UK’s former chief financial services ombudsman, on behalf of around 46m consumers he claims have lost out.

It follows a 10-year legal battle between MasterCard and the European commission that ended in 2014 with the European court of justice concluding that the credit card firm’s fees for cross-border transactions were too high.

In a long statement on its website, the law firm said MasterCard has spurned a chance to settle with the commission, instead of choosing to fight its case through the courts.

“MasterCard lost this battle at every level and showed complete disregard for its cardholders and consumers at large, focusing instead on generating unlawful profits,” Quinn Emanuel said in a statement.

Merricks, who spent 10 years in charge of oversight of British financial firms, said: “The filing of this claim is the first step towards consumers obtaining compensation for what MasterCard did.

“MasterCard charged billions of pounds of unlawfully high fees for its sole benefit and to the detriment of consumers. It has already been found to have broken competition law, the basis of which was to protect consumers, and that cannot be disputed.

“There is no basis upon which MasterCard can contend that its card fees were not unlawful.”

He said that because MasterCard’s fees had already been ruled unlawful in the European court, the claim need only prove that consumers suffered losses as a result.

Under the UK’s framework for lawsuits on behalf of multiple people, which was overhauled in the Consumer Rights Act of 2015, anyone who lost out is automatically eligible for compensation unless they opt out explicitly.

Boris Bronfentrinker, a Quinn Emanuel partner, said: “Despite criticising this action publicly in July and further insulting consumers by referring to the UK’s new collective action regime as ‘unfortunate’, MasterCard has since turned over evidence [witness statements and expert reports] that allows us, even at this early stage, to robustly value the claim at £14bn.

“They are now preparing for a tough legal battle which we estimate will go to trial in 2018 unless they are prepared to make UK consumers a fair settlement offer before then.”

He said MasterCard had made “no effort” to compensate consumers who lost out, despite acknowledging that the fees had been passed on to them.

“It is not clear how MasterCard can now turn around and argue the opposite to prevent our case from succeeding,” he added.

MasterCard said: “Now that the claim has been filed, we will take time to review it in detail, however we continue to firmly disagree with the basis of this claim and we intend to oppose it vigorously.

 “We deliver real value through the benefits of security, convenience and consumer protection, and we are committed to investing in our payment services in order to continue to meet the rapidly evolving needs of all our customers.”

In a separate blog post, the company said interchange fees are good for consumers and said similar cases in the US had been thrown out of court. Interchange fees are paid by a retailer’s bank to the bank that issued a credit card used in any transaction. The retailer’s bank then charges the retailer to cover its cost. The fees are fixed by credit card companies and are often incorporated into the prices that shops then charge consumers.

Funds linked with Chicago-based Gerchen Keller Capital, the world’s largest litigation funder, will provide up to £40m to fund the litigation.

There has been one previous case under the new rules on collective action lawsuits, on behalf of pensioners who claim they paid too much for their mobility scooters. But the case against MasterCard is the first to test rules intended to allow suits on behalf of vast numbers of claimants.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2ceaeaB
via IFTTT

New Dress Code For Taxi Drivers, Plus Licensing Authority In-House MOT's

Taxi drivers in Scarborough will have to adhere to a new dress code under proposed new rules put forward by the borough council.

MOTs must also be carried out at the council’s depot under the plans, which will go out to consultation later this month.

The authority has admitted that it knows its proposals will not be popular but it is determined to ensure the service is consistent and professional.

A report, which will go before the council’s Licensing Committee, states: “As a minimum standard, males should wear long legged trousers or tailored shorts and a collared shirt which has a full body with either short or long sleeves.

“As a minimum standard, females should wear long legged trousers, knee length skirt or dress and a collared shirt or blouse which has a full body and short or long sleeves.

“Footwear for all drivers shall fit around the heel of the foot and allow for safe operation of the vehicle.”

T-shirts with offensive slogans, hoodies, sandals, football tops, tracksuit bottoms and clothes with holes or visible damage would all be banned.

The authority admits that forcing drivers to have their car’s MOT carried out in Scarborough will be unpopular.

The report adds: “The Council is aware that the requirement for all vehicle MOT tests and compliance checks to be undertaken at the council depot in Scarborough is of concern to the trade. 

“Presently an MOT may be undertaken at any MOT certified garage, anywhere in the country, with the additional compliance checks being undertaken by Licensing Officers over a two week period, twice a year.

“The consistency of existing MOT tests is of concern, particularly considering the results from two licensed vehicle operations conducted since October 2015, where faults were found with vehicles which had only recently undergone and passed an MOT test.”

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2cIog9R
via IFTTT

A Level Playing Field.... Or Deregulation To A One Tiered Service?

News broke over the weekend that the DVSA were going to scrap the Taxi driver test as from December 2016.

Yes, you heard it right, after many years of calls for a mor level playing field the DVSA, instead of calling for all private hire drivers to undertake the same requirement, have decided to scrap the Taxi driver test.

The decision came out of the blue and Local Authorities were only officially informed this Tuesday.

On the face of it, the decision is unbelievable! 

Over 200 Local Authorities have mandated the DVSA test as a requirement for Taxi drivers Licence.

The DVSA have a captive market for this.

The only reason I can see to relinquish this Money spinner is the Government intend to deregulate further and see this test as a barrier to new entrants (refugees) seeking to enter the trade.

I think the situation requires close scrutiny.

Meanwhile in London, it is widely believed that the Government/TfL are on course for a full scale Private Hire deregulation to break the back of the Taxi trade. 

On Tuesday, TfLTPH put out a notice that the Licensed Taxi rank at the Tate Modern, installed at a cost met from the licence fee of Licensed Taxi drivers.....would be suspended to assist the dropping off of passengers arriving for he GQ magazine awards, an event attended by Mayor Sadiq  Khan. 

A notice was also attached to the rank post. 

What happened next was absolutely disgraceful. Far from being a place where attendees could be dropped off, the rank itself was taken over by a aggressive marshals and was used by private hire as a private hire rank. 

While minicabs took control of the rank directly outside the main exit point if the venue, Taxis had to queue in Great Guilford Street. 

The whole situation became a shambles as pre booked PH vehicles were blocked in by packs of touts assured by the marshals.

Later into the evening, although no compliance officers were sent to the location to stop the illegal plying for hire and in a bid to save face, TfLTPH put out this series of tweets

We would stress at this point that although previously informed by TfL, not one representative from a Licensed Taxi org connected to the Joint Ranks Committee bothered to turn up and check out the proceedings. The unfolding saga was documented quite clearly on Twitter throughout the evening, into the early morning. 

A colleague of Taxi Leaks phoned LTDA's Richard Massett Wednesday afternoon, for clarification on what had happened the previous night at the Tate Modern. 

Executive committee member Massett, also chair of the Joint Ranks Committee, said he had been informed of the notice to suspend the rank, but had no idea what had happened. 

Is this the best we can expect to get, after paying money to this org, to represent our best interests?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2c09jjE
via IFTTT

Taxi Divers Strike Action Over Access To Cambridge Rail Station, Supported By Local MP

Daniel Zeichner, Cambridge MP, centre, backs taxi drivers.

Taxi drivers are threatening strike action and launched a petition to save Cambridge station rank fearing “chaotic" scenes and clashes with other road users if it is moved.

Cambridge Hackney Carriage Association, which represents more than 200 taxi drivers, fears changes at the rail station will mean they are being sidelined as transport bosses “pander to cyclists and buses".

The association is being backed by Cambridge MP Daniel Zeichner.

Paul Bradley, General Secretary of the association, said: “We are concerned that the public Station Road rank where it always has been near the station is being taken by stealth. It is in everybody's interest for it to remain there and for taxis to have access through the bus gate so they can safely exit away from the Station Road rank instead of the congestion at the new drop off/pick up point which they have allocated to taxis, deliveries and the public all in a little area. I think this will be chaotic and a lot worse than is currently there now.

“There are other options to consider which can work better without pandering to just buses and cycles. We are doing our best to avoid demos and strikes but if we are not listened to and our views at the least considered, I fear this may happen."

He added: “We have started an online petition to 'Save the Station Rd Rank' and hope the public to get behind this too as its their rank and the will be affected greatly too."

The petition says: “They plan to relocate the Station Road public taxi rank to an obscure location. Cambridge Hackney Carriage Association (CHCA), a voluntary organisation, are campaigning to keep the public taxi rank, that has been serving the public for decades.

“The operational taxi rank is currently close to the bus stop, flats, shops and most importantly, it's seconds away from the station doors. That makes it part of the hub. Why is this important? New plans will mean the public will have to walk for several minutes, possibly pulling luggage in adverse weather conditions (rain, cold, snow, etc) to the far end of Station Road where they have to cross a busy junction to get a taxi. Public safety cannot be compromised.

“This will affect everyone including people with disabilities (wheelchair users), the elderly, lone travellers, visitors, tourists, families with young children. Consequently this will affect customer experience and will inconvenience rail users."

Part of CB1's highly anticipated Station Square will open this month, station operator Abellio revealed.

The area right outside the existing station building will provide space for a taxi rank, disabled parking, short stay parking bays and drop-off points.

Rising bollards will be fitted in Station Road, meaning only walkers, cyclists, buses and some delivery vehicles will be able to access the interchange directly. Taxis and cars will use the northern access road to get in and out of this part of the development.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2c1v0eW
via IFTTT

Tom Scullion Follows His Article, With Letter To Local MP Emily Thornberry.

Dear Emily 

Thank you for you letter dated 24 August 2016 and the copy of the Mayors response which, at best, is disappointing I have attached a link to a journal published today on social media highlighting the taxi trades plight and the lack luster responses from Tfl and the Mayor http://ift.tt/2cgF7yM

As you can see Tfl are actively supporting illegal practices from the PHV market and neglecting the Taxi trade at every turn. 

We the Taxi trade have tried every diplomatic avenue to reach out to the Mayor and Tfl and have received  "short shrift"  and false promises. Now the trade will protest on the Streets bring London to its knees, not something I agree with, but I can see why the Taxi trade has been forced to raise awareness to the general public. 

PHV drivers licensed by Tfl are not safe and we need clear demarcation between Taxis and PHV drivers. All of Tfl's reporting lump both sectors togethe for example, last year Tfl reported (after a FOI request) that 154 sexual  attacks including 32 counts of rape were committed by Taxis and PHV drivers... The reality is none were committed by Taxis.

The same applies to claims experienced in terms of accidents. PHV drivers crash all day every day because Uber encourage their drivers to work 80 plus hours per week with a workforce, many of whom are driving in the UK for the first time, under European driving licenses. We the Taxi trade who by the way are the safest surface transport provider in the World, are paying hefty insurance premiums as a result.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support an hope you will continue to see both sides of this very sad predicament in the future.

Kind Regards

Tom Scullion

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2cgF0n1
via IFTTT

The Final Straw.....by Tom Scullion

I recently read that PHV drivers are removing their Tfl badges from their cars to avoid detection from the police and Tfl, these drivers are never going to have H&R insurance and we all know that they can get away with it due to the lack of interest from Tfl and plod. Tfl are very quiet over the ANPR controls...

The PHV industry know they can get away with murder due to the complete lack of enforcement from Tfl, case in point , PHV drivers and company's "pass themselves off" as Taxi companies type in a search on google for taxis at Heathrow airport you will not find one single Taxi company

http://ift.tt/2c1Q6IA

Tfl  are supposed to police the Internet to prevent false advertising from unscrupulous company's but they just can't be bothered,  no wonder the PHV industry cut every corner in terms of CRB checks and proper H&R insurance.

I still can't get my head around the amnesty period for PHV drivers to comply with the law in terms of hire and reward insurance Tfl know that most of the 110,000 PHV drivers in London are not properly insured and are let loose on the general public.

These drivers do not have to adhere to the law of the land until October 1st 2016, in the interim, Tfl are guilty of allowing the general public to be placed at risk under their watch, fully in the knowledge that a large percentage of mincabs licensed by Tfl are uninsured.

Fleet control and compliance:

Tfl's new enforcement squad should write to every mini cab driver and request current photos of vehicles with badges, a copy of their hire and reward insurance, MOT expiry dates  CRB etc Tfl could create an electronic form to allow the drivers to upload the documents and photo's and any driver who does not comply with this request should have their license revoked with immediate effect and if a driver is caught driving without validation from Tfl should have their car impounded then sold at auction and a life time ban from holding a PHV license.

Question :

When are Tfl and the Mayor going to invoke the congestion charge for PHV drivers in London the reason I ask is that the Mayor has not stuck to his word in regards to a "Renaissance for the Taxi trade" 

We as a trade, are furious with false promises and no actions from the Mayor or Tfl instead, we have over aggressive Tfl plastic enforcement offices hassling Taxi drivers for not having the requisite amount of No smoking stickers, why the sudden purge has there been complaints by the public seeing punters smoking in the back of cabs ? No... not a one,  its just Tfl's way to retaliate to the voice of the trade who have highlighted Tfl's woeful management of the Taxi and private hire product.

We were promised :

Full access to every bus lane 

An expansion of operation Neon and other enforcement initiatives 

More Taxi ranks and rest areas across London

Control over Uber drivers at Heathrow airport and the surrounding areas to stop the disgusting behavior by Uber drivers, an update from Tfl and HAL regarding the Uber feeder park would be welcome but not forthcoming in the very near future

Please share the stats on Uber park movements and the amount of visits of Tfl inspection officers week on week. 

A Green finance package to purchase or lease "New technology, environmentally  friendly Taxis" there was talk of Tfl bulk purchasing from the manufacturers and passing the discounts onto the cab drivers

A request to government for VAT exemption for "Green Taxis".

And what did we get so far:

No congestion charges levied on PHV

No restrictions on the boundaries where London PHV drivers can operate it should work like a suburban drivers license, but no, TfL allows their PHV drivers to operate out side the M25 and all around the country some reports as far as Bristol we see them plotting up at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted  airports emblazoned with their Tfl Licence giving the public the impression that they are legal and above board, nothing could be further from the truth, where do Tfl draw the boundary line?

The latest fiasco is the credit card acceptance in London Taxis, we all accept and agree with 100% acceptance but Tfl have railroaded these project forcing drivers to pay hundred of pounds to a cartel of company's who can supply a fixed unit in the back of our Taxis without any risk assessment of the dangers to the Taxi drivers who will be enticed into the back of the cab by the criminals who will, I can assure you,  rob and attack Taxi divers. There is a reason for a partition window in a Taxi it's there to separate the passengers from the drivers to protect both parties. 

The trade have had enough of words and false dawns and have now voted on mass to  demonstrate on the streets of our Capital city to make the public aware of the dangers of the PHV industry and the recent FOI report that Tfl did not want to be published ( insert file and Pic  154 sexual reports and rape ) why did Tfl want to hide the facts from the public? We don't want to do this,  but if Tfl want to kill our trade their will be ramifications.

Favoritism

Tfl have a "special relationship with Uber" un minuted cozy meetings, coaching from senior Tfl management, super tolerance over the operators license in three buildings none of which complied with the rules in terms of insurance and call center requirements, they still don't have a land line ffs. 

Surprise, surprise Uber are taking Tfl to court over the Mayors cast iron decision to level the playing field with a compulsory English language test. I hope Mayor Khan will defend his promise and take Uber to task through the courts.

This will test the metal.

Road management or lack thereof: 

We as a trade have endured months of unnecessary hardship and financial loss due to Tfl's stupid SCH which has not improved safety, congestion or air Quality, in fact,  it has proved to be a complete unworkable, ill conceived disaster from start to finish.

We need to STOP this lunacy now, Tavistock Place needs to restored to its former glory, Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street need to have full inclusion of Taxis as we our part of the surface transport infrastructure as important if not more than any empty bus clogging the streets of our Capital.

Tfl have forced our hand, all acts of diplomacy has been  has been met with a slap in the face, every straw has a breaking point.

Be lucky

Tom Scullion

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2bTHsPa
via IFTTT

TfL's Night Tube Avert, Insults The Licence Taxi Trade....UCG Complain To Commissioner Mike Brown

Offensive and Inappropriate Night Tube Advert

Mr Brown,
I am writing to you to complain about a night tube advert run by TfL that is both misleading, offensive and wholly unbecoming of TfL as the Taxi regulator.

I find it beggars believe that I should be writing such an email to a professional public body as to the tone and content of one of it's adverts.

There is a night tube advert of which a copy of the image has been forwarded to me by one of my members genuinely upset and aggrieved at this.

Upon opening this image I too was shocked, how could an advert like this pass any type of scrutiny before being released, this of course assumes that it is thoughtless, careless and stupid rather than vexatious.

I enclose a copy below, the words that cause offence are:

THE NIGHT TUBE
Tourists and Londoners rejoice! The central and Victoria lines run at night on Fridays and Saturdays, so no more drunken 3am chats with a black-cab driver for us.


What is this supposed to mean? That Black cab drivers are drunk while driving passengers? That conversing with a black cab driver is disdainful? The very fact that a cab driver is out there driving passengers home safely (while their wives/husbands/partners are at home in bed) seems to have escaped you, we too would like to sleep at the same time as our families. Working shift patterns is stressful, places great strain on family life and complications for long term health.

The gratitude we receive from our regulator is a disrespectful slur on our character, the fact it comes from our regulator suggests that even our regulator is subliminally telling passengers not to use us. The closing words "for us" is meant to mean what?

You do know that Londons Taxis have been driving your tube staff home late at night on discounted rates for many years. Is that what is meant by "for us"?

On behalf of the London Taxi Trade I insist that this advert and all it's electronic images are forthwith removed immediately and a full apology made to the London Taxi Trade.

I have also made a formal complaint to the Advertising Standards Agency.

Len Martin
Chairman
United Cabbies Group

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2ceHAd9
via IFTTT