Pimlico Plumbers Loses Appeal Against Self-Employed Status : Uber Next ?

Pimlico Plumbers has lost a court battle over the status of its workers, in the latest legal ruling on employment status in the gig economy.

It came as the government released a report warning that “unscrupulous” employers were in a position to exploit low-paid and low-skilled workers.

Plumber Gary Smith, who worked for Pimlico Plumbers for six years until 2011, had already won an employment tribunal challenging the firm’s view that he was self-employed.

The court of appeal rejected an appeal lodged by Pimlico Plumbers, founded by the Conservative party donor Charlie Mullins.

The firm argued Smith was an “independent contractor” rather than a worker or employee.

Smith’s solicitor, Jacqueline McGuigan, said the ruling held wider implications for gig economy firms such as Deliveroo or Uber, both of which are embroiled in rows over employment status.

“We are absolutely delighted,” McGuigan said. “The decision brings welcome clarity to the issue of employment status relating to work in parts of the economy.”

Speaking outside court, Mullins said: “I am happy. This gives some clarity. We will be looking at the full judgment and there is a good chance we will appeal to the supreme court.”

The UK’s department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said: “We are determined to make sure our employment rules keep up to date to reflect new ways of working, and that’s why the government asked Matthew Taylor to conduct an independent review into modern working practices.”

But BEIS immediately came under fire from the Green party for failing to publish a report that warned in December 2015 that gig economy workers were at risk of exploitation.

A string of labour disputes have since arisen as staff from firms such as Uber, Deliveroo and CitySprint have fought to have their status upgraded to that of workers or employees.

The report, commissioned by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, warned that a lack of clarity over workers’ status was allowing “unscrupulous” employers to take advantage of workers.

It explored possibilities including “flipping” the burden of proof in labour disputes, so that employment tribunals would consider complainants to be full employees unless a different relationship could be established.

“Some of the more unscrupulous employers will also have to start to take notice if a significant proportion of their workforce stand up for what is rightfully theirs as a result,” it said.

The Green party said the government’s failure to publish the report since it was completed in December 2015 had increased uncertainty for gig economy workers and forced them to take the risk of going to tribunal.

“It is shameful that Tory ministers have sat on the findings of the coalition’s review into employment status,” said Green co-leader Jonathan Bartley, who wrote to the prime minister in October calling for the report to be published. “As they did so workers everywhere have been living in increasing insecurity and left to fend for themselves.”

Asked why the report had been delayed, BEIS said it had been commissioned to “explore future options” and would help inform the Taylor review into employment status, which was launched a year after the report was published.

Employment law experts said the Pimlico Plumbers ruling would have significant implications for the ongoing dispute over employment status.

Natalie Razeen, employment law solicitor at Russell-Cooke, said the decision “suggests that courts are alive to the inequality of bargaining power faced by individuals in these circumstances. 

“This serves as yet another reminder to employers that they should consider the question of employment or worker status carefully.”

Marian Bloodworth, employment partner at Kemp Little, said the judgment highlighted the need for legal clarity around the status of those working on a self-employed basis and in the gig economy. 

“Tribunals and courts are increasingly willing to look behind the labels businesses use for their staff and will take into account the reality of the working arrangements and relationships,” she said.

The ruling is the latest decision to be handed down in a series of court challenges launched by gig economy workers who feel they should get the same benefits as full-time employees, such as holiday pay and pension.

A cycle courier working for the delivery firm CitySprint won the right earlier this year to paid holidays and minimum pay.

Food delivery firm Deliveroo was told last year it must pay its workers the minimum wage unless they are ruled self-employed by a court or HM Revenue & Customs.

The GMB union is supporting a group of Deliveroo couriers in Brighton who have served two weeks’ notice to their employers to offer better pay and more hours. 

Ride-hailing app Uber lost the right to designate its drivers as self-employed last year, in a ruling it has since appealed against.

Maria Ludkin, the GMB’s legal director, said: “This case, like the Uber case last October, is yet another victory for the bogus self-employed who have been treated appallingly by their employer.

“All they want is basic employment rights as are enjoyed by the majority, including the right to be paid a minimum wage and holiday pay.”

Source: The Guardian 

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

TfL Registered Cars Working In Manchester : TfL Say "Nothing We Can Do", DFT DISAGREES

TfL Registered Cars Working in Manchester

TfL say .Nothing We Can Do!

DFT DISAGREES!

TFL has a financial interest in PH licences.

Inaction is unacceptable.

A simple remedy to this would be for the regulator to amend local requirements to stipulate that all pre booked fares should begin, end, or pass through the licensing area. 'Island' arrangements to be made for necessary exceptions.  

Below is an (unredacted) extract from the DFT's response to a recent petition requesting action on the abuse of cross boarder hiring legislation. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2lwQwv9
via IFTTT

TfL Complain About Video, Recorded In A Public Place, Showing Badge And Bill Check.... by Jim Thomas.

   Screen shot from the Londonist video on YouTube

There didn't seem to be an issue when TfL gave the Londonist, a propaganda video which named the head of compliance and two alleged compliance officers. 

    Screen shot from the Londonist video on YouTube

The video appeared on the Londonist social media outlets and also posted on YouTube.

    Screen shot from the Londonist video on YouTube

So it was that just after midnight, Taxi Leaks posted the article about the fiasco around the London City Airport. 

To emphasise the biased harassment being dished out by TfL COs, we added the you tube video made from footage gained from FaceBook, showing a CO trying to take signage from a driver which they said had to be removed. 

We believed that if it was good enough for the Londonist to post footage of a compliance operation on social media, then it would be OK for us to do the same.

 

Just after the video was posted we received an email from YouTube saying a complaint had been received over a privacy matter. It appears the first CO's Christian name and badge number was mentioned. It seems there's be rule for them, and a different rule for us...

In our video, the drive refused to handover his signage but removed it on request. When he asked why it had to be removed, he felt the answer written down on the complaint was not what the first CO who appeared to be senior to the other two had originally said. 

The Taxi driver repeated his query, but was told the team was moving on. 

Taxi Leaks has now removed the identification issues and re edited the video shown below. 

What did the compliance officer at do in our video that was so wrong, he didn't want to be recognised ?

Surely, if you've got nothing to hide, filming in a public place, shouldn't be an issue. 

    

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

Is TfL Compliance's Biased Harassment Of Black Cabs, Resulting In PH Free For All Around City Airport ?

Neighbours around the City Airport fear they will be living in a ghetto, unless minicab drivers using their streets as a toilet and unofficial pick up point change their anti-social behaviour.

People living in Newland Street and adjoining roads have complained of feeling unsafe with up to 20 or more cars queueing along the half mile route as they wait for pick ups at neighbouring London City Airport.

We are seeing the same behaviour in Newland Street that we saw around Heathrow, with Private Hire drivers urinating and defalcating in residence front gardens.  

Paula Black, who has lived in nearby Sheldrake Close for more than 20 years reported seeing drivers littering and relieving themselves in the street. She said: “It doesn’t feel nice anymore. This is the worst we’ve seen it. 

“It’s a lack of respect for the people who live here whether they’re older people or children. It’s like we don’t matter,” the 49-year-old added.

Hurkhan Ahmed, 28, who has lived in nearby Winifred Street all his life, said: “Kids run between these cars. The drivers park so close to a bend, a blind spot for drivers. Any drivers coming down the road will only see someone crossing at the very last moment. I had to emergency stop because of some of the cab drivers’ parking.”

Grandmother Elaine Bullard, 61, who also lives in Sheldrake Close and claims to have seen a driver urinating up a wall near her home, said: “I’m not knocking the airport. It’s the drivers themselves not being respectful.”

Tony, a local yellow badge Taxi driver said: "Where the hell are compliance, I'll tell you where, they're at the airport terminal given Licensed Black Cab Drivers Badge and Bill checks, checking for the heinous crime of having unofficial signage and generally harassing Taxi drivers. They arrive do their checks on Black Cabs and then leave, completely ignoring the minicabs sofa ding filth and disease around the area."

According to Hurkhan, drivers are using the streets around the hub to avoid paying charges while waiting for pick ups at the short stay car park.

Acknowledging the neighbours’ concerns, a spokeswoman for London City said the airport had written to minicab firms in the area to advise them of “appropriate behaviour”, but admitted it does not employ minicab drivers or have regulatory rights over them.

She added: “We have been liaising with the London Borough of Newham over the issue and believe their proposed controlled parking zone for the Royal Docks area is the best solution.

“We have been fully supportive of the implementation of such a system, which we understand is due to be introduced this year.” 

A spokesman for firm Addison Lee said: “We have been made aware in the past of concerns from residents about drivers using Newland Street for waiting.

“We deal with incidents on a case by case basis, working with residents to identify vehicles so we can speak to the driver and ask them to move on.

“We will continue to use our driver communication channels to instruct drivers not to wait in Newland Street, and will monitor the area with our quality assessors who will routinely visit this and other streets around the airport.”

An Uber spokesman added: “We take any reports of antisocial behaviour very seriously, and what has been alleged is clearly unacceptable.

“Whilst this issue is not confined to Uber, we would urge residents to report such behaviour so we can take the appropriate action.”

A council spokeswoman said enforcement officers have been monitoring the area and have issued four penalty notices to date following complaints. (Four penalty notices....is this a joke? If it were black cabs, the council traffic wardens would have run out of penalty notice books by now)

She added: “We are in contact with the various minicab companies to look at long term sustainable solutions.”

The council have also said they can now issue warnings banning drivers from neighbourhoods around the airport with community protection notices issued to any who return and a £100 fine if they breach the terms of the notice for a third time. (So why haven't they been doing this...4 penalty notices)

“We hope this action will deter mini-cabs from negatively affecting the quality of life of our residents,” she said.

Meanwhile the council noted a consultation over Residents Parking Zones continues with people living in the area urged to contribute to make sure measures are introduced to “best impact on the issues that matter to them”. 

However, the council spokeswoman said: “As London City Airport do not allow minicabs to use the official taxi rank, the issues caused by minicabs congregating in residential streets is likely to remain, unless the RPZ is in effect during the Airport’s core operating hours. 

Editorial Comment :

It should be up to the residents and local council to sort out this situation. This lays squarely at TfL's feet, as it is their policy of dishing out 600 PH licensing every week that has caused the problem at London's Airports. Plus the fact, their compliance teams have been ordered not to involve themselves with the problems away from the Taxi rank. 

A note to the council spokeswoman: Its not the City Airport who do not allow minicabs to use the official Taxi rank, it's Government legislation. Taxi ranks are for Taxis. Minicabs can only pick up pre-booked jobs....that's the law. A law that at present TfL are ignoring. Another example of the woefully inadequacies of our biased licensing authority who come down heavy handed on the licensed Taxi trade. 

TfL hold the key to a perfect solution to this problem, but according to compliance officers at the airport, orders come down their chain of command to leave PH alone.

 Top officials on TfL surface transport, are a disgrace to the office the hold. 

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

An Uber driver who bought a £37,000 Mercedes explains why he's not earning as much as he thought he would. No don't laugh 😂😂😂

An Uber driver has complained he's losing money on the service after being forced to take cheaper fares.

Glasgow driver David Dunn told a parliamentary select committee on Monday that he paid £37,000 for his Mercedes E-Class to drive on Uber Exec.

Uber Exec rides are targeted at business passengers and can cost almost double the standard Uber X fare. To justify the higher fare, drivers need to drive more expensive vehicles like Mercedes and Audis.

But Dunn said just 5% of his rides were Uber Exec passengers, forcing him to pick up cheaper Uber X fares.

Now, he said, he's stuck with the more expensive car, the associated costs, and not enough income. He added that after taxes and costs, he didn't earn minimum wage.

"I find myself running about with an E-Class doing jobs for £2.25 – that's unheard of," he said. "Black cabs charge £6 or £7."

Dunn added Uber won't negotiate with him on its 25% commission, and adds that he can't refuse cheaper jobs. "If I refuse a job three times, they penalise you and switch you off."

A second, London-based Uber Exec driver, Syed Khalil, added that he had to work 40 to 50 hours a week to break even, and up to 90 to make a profit.

He said he had spent around £40,000 on an E-Class, which he was repaying in instalments. He said Uber charged him 27% commission.

"I have to pay £350 [a month] for car instalments, and you must pay £150 for private insurance, you must have that," he said. "Before you start the ignition and have one passenger, it's costing at least £500 a month. That's a fixed cost."

Khalil said he didn't earn minimum wage either and added that most drivers he knew relied on benefits for additional support.

Dunn said it was "very expensive" to work for the platform, and that a flood of new drivers restricted his earnings.

He said: "It's not great. It's got to the stage where it's very expensive for us to work.

"The number of drivers are restricting what you earned before. It's a great platform, no doubt. [But] it's the most expensive booking service for any driver. It's expensive for us, and cheap for the public."

Uber bottled it and wasn't represented at the committee, although it did put forward one driver with a more positive story.

London-based driver Steven Rowe said Uber drivers who complained "should get full-time employment" if they wanted added job security.

When it came to paying off the costs of private car hire insurance, he added that he "drives carefully".

Rowe isn't paid additional fees by Uber, but a quick Google search on his name shows that he often appears in the news making positive comments about the company.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2k3t33I
via IFTTT

Bromsgrove Councillor Slams District Council's Decision To Refuse Policy Making Taxis Wheelchair Accessible

A BROMSGROVE councillor has slammed the district council’s decision to refuse a policy making all taxis in the town wheelchair accessible.

Following a year-long consultation members of the council’s Licensing Committee decided there was no evidence to make all licensed taxis across the district wheelchair accessible.

Instead the committee decided the 13 already wheelchair accessible taxis (seven Hackney Carriages and six private hire vehicles) be promoted more prominently.

Coun Christine McDonald, who represents Rubery South, said Bromsgrove District Council ‘needed to bring itself into the 21st century’ and ‘remove such unwanted needless discrimination against the disabled.’

“I was embarrassed to be a member of Bromsgrove District Council when it refused a policy to ensure all New Hackney Cabs would over a ten year period become wheelchair accessible.

“It is absolutely deplorable that a council condones such discrimination against the disabled.

“While neighbouring authorities have all brought in policies that all New Hackney Cabs have to be wheelchair accessible, Bromsgrove has refused to do the same.

“This is clear discrimination and I am sure if one of the councillors used a wheelchair it would be a different story.

“Anyone using a wheelchair knows how difficult it is in Bromsgrove to get hold of a taxi that is wheelchair compliant.”

Committee Chairman Coun Rita Dent, said: “While the outcome was that members were not satisfied there was sufficient evidence to support amending the council’s policy the outcome to promote the right taxis to meet our residents’ needs was really positive.

“We are now planning our promotional campaign

Meanwhile, back in TfL's London....

QUESTION TO BARONESS GREY-THOMPSON DBE AND DR ALICE MAYNARD CBE :

Dear Tanni and Alice, please tell us how this lady is going to access the Bank Junction when the Taxi exclusion kicks in ?

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2lo4vDQ
via IFTTT

State Of The Trade : TfL's Non Compliance And Harassment Agenda

We've decided to suspend the daily compliance statistics as you can't report on negative action.

The idea of this daily report was to try to show that the new wave of compliance officers were doing a sterling job, but unfortunately driver observations have revelled the opposite to be true. 

Of all the sightings, mainly during the days, it seems the army of COs only concentrate on Licensed Taxis. The main bone of contention appears to be over ranking and the forming of unauthorised standings. Yet these new recruits seem to be oblivious of Private Hire cars, forming illegal ranks, waiting in restricted areas and touting (illegally plying for trade). 

When approached by drivers asking why they are not enforcing compliance towards Private Hire drivers, the COs answer they haven't been told to, or they've only been ordered to deal with Licensed Taxis. 

This whole issue has become quite a disgrace as its obvious TfL are harassing and purposely picking on a Taxi Drivers. 

Most new recruits are badly trained, do not have a grasp of Hackney carriage legislation and are only concentrating on certain contraventions of Taxi drivers. Point in question was illustrated in a PR video on the Londonist blog, that showed compliance officer, telling a licensed taxi driver to remove a sticker from his rear window. Reason given was it was blocking his rear view.

Taxi Leaks recently enquired about the blocking of rear views by the badly sited Credit Card a Readers. We were informed that on vehicles that have two wing mirrors fitted....it is not a legal requirement to have a clear rear view from a centrally fitted mirror. They sited a delivery van as an example. 

Surely, if it's good enough to block the rear vision with a credit card reader, then a transparent Union membership sticker, should also be fine. Just more proof of TfLs agenda of harassment. 

We saw this basis agenda last year when top brass including Garrett Emmerson  and Helen Chapman went out with operation neon officers accompanied by Steve McNamara (LTDA), Grant Davis(LCDC), Peter Rose(Unite) and Eddie Nestor from BBC radio. Members of the group were touted in soho but no action was taken against the touts. 

None of the trade representatives made official complaints about the incident.

Sadly our representative orgs appear to be more interested in having a cosy relationship with TfL rather than truly representing their membership. Demos and trade media have become all about recruitment, hence the rise of the driver lead Independent Taxi Alliance. 

There has been much talk about the drivers -nearly half the trade- who refuse to subscribe to any org or union....but can you blame them. 

What have trade orgs won for the trade over the passed decade....I can't think of one victory.

All meetings with TfL appear to be in-camera with no minutes taken and very few reports making it into trade media. 

Perhaps the time is right for a driver revolt.

It is now blatantly obvious that TfL are behind the trades exclusion from the Bank Junction on the premise that it will speed up bus journey times. The resulting congestion to the surrounding area has not been taken into consideration at the the talks held with ITA, mediated by the RMT, City planners were unable to produce any data to support their claims. 

We are informed that the industrial action will go ahead at the Bank Junction daily from March 1st. 

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2kJ6cyE
via IFTTT