UBER TYCOON AS TOXIC AS THEIR DRIVERS : US billionaire used secret legal system to gag "The Sun" identifying him

US billionaire used Britain’s secret legal system to gag The Sun from identifying him after arrest for rape

A US billionaire used Britain’s secret legal system to prevent The Sun identifying him after his arrest for rape.

Major Uber investor Shervin Pishevar, 43, spent £100,000 to win a legal injunction blocking us on privacy grounds.

Shervin Pishevar spent £100,000 to win a legal injunction blocking us from naming him on privacy grounds

He went public about the case last week when his lawyer confirmed the arrest at a top London hotel to US magazine Forbes.

But The Sun could not report it, or even identify Mr Pishevar, until the weekend when we challenged the High Court order.

Top media lawyer Mark Stephens said last night it was stupid somebody arrested over an allegation of rape in the UK could be reported by the American media but not the British.

Mr Stephens, of London-based Howard Kennedy, warned such court orders were paving the way for secret arrests.

A woman alleged Mr Pishevar raped her at The Ned in the City hotel in May

He added: “It is potty that you try and hermetically seal jurisdiction in this country from the rest of the world.

“This is one of the most abusive injunctions that I have ever heard of a rich and powerful person taking out in recent times.”

A woman alleged Mr Pishevar raped her in the £3,500 a night penthouse suite at The Ned in the City in May.

Cops arrested the Iranian-American Silicon Valley venture capitalist and he was led out of the hotel in a private lift.

This allowed his lawyers to argue his arrest took place in private.

Mr Piveshar went public about the case after his lawyer confirmed the arrest

Forbes claimed to have a police report confirming details. But The Sun was told it was not genuine.

The police investigation was dropped in July, shortly after we published an article limited to revealing that a billionaire was arrested for rape.

The divorcee, estimated to be worth more than £2billion, has invested in more than 60 companies including Airbnb.

Mr Pishevar is also executive chairman of Hyperloop One, a futuristic high-speed train. He was Barack Obama’s top fundraiser on his two Presidential campaigns.

Mr Pishevar’s lawyer Mark Fabiani said: “In May, Mr Pishevar was detained briefly in London in connection with an alleged sexual assault, an allegation he categorically denied. In July he was informed that no further action would be taken against him.”

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

Uber – Key Hurdle Crossed From Good Law Project Founder, Jolyon Maugham QC:

        Good Law Project Founder, Jolyon Maugham QC:

The contention that underlies my case against Uber – that it is it and not its drivers who are supplying transportation services – received a significant boost on Friday with the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirming that Uber is engaging workers and supplying transportation services. This is a powerful vindication of the decision to seek to do HMRC’s job and pursue Uber where it will not.

More difficult has been how, in practice, to advance a claim against Uber worth over £1bn in avoided VAT with a budget of a little over £100,000 in a setting where the loser is liable to the winner’s costs. My strategy to address this was two-fold.

First, I would sue Uber and ask the High Court to grant me a protective costs order so that, in the unlikely event I lost, I would not be personally bankrupted.

Second, I would seek to advance the claim in a setting where the loser is not liable to pay the winner’s costs. To this end, as I explained here, in a recent VAT return I claimed to be entitled to recover the VAT on the Uber taxi ride I took (the “Claim”). I anticipated that, if HMRC rejected the Claim, I could appeal against its rejection and my appeal would be heard in the specialist tax tribunal. Were I to lose I would not have to pay HMRC’s costs. And if I won it would be because a specialist tax tribunal had decided that Uber was charging VAT and – in such circumstances – HMRC would have no alternative but to act in the public interest and collect that VAT.

My application for a protective costs order was due to be heard on 13 November 2017. On 10 November 2017, and after some chasing, I finally received a meaningful response from HMRC to the Claim. That response is not a model of clarity but I believe – it is not possible to be certain – that it amounts to a rejection of the Claim and is a decision against which I can appeal to the tax tribunal.

A consequence of having an appealable decision in the tax tribunal is that the High Court would be unlikely to grant me a protective costs order. With that in mind, I agreed with Uber that my application for a protective costs order should be adjourned. If the tax tribunal disagrees that I have an appealable decision then I will, of course, pursue that application.

What does all of this mean? It means that I can, I believe, pursue without costs risk in the technical tax tribunal the contention that Uber is dodging VAT.

I will lodge an appeal against a rejection of the Claim to the tax tribunal in the coming week and push for the earliest possible hearing.

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

Letter To Taxi Leaks From Rob : I Wonder If Helen Chapman Is Sleeping Easily In Her Bed Tonight ?

I wonder if Helen Chapman is sleeping easily in her bed tonight? 

Almost thirteen thousand criminal record checks still to be completed on Uber drivers with alleged fake DBS certificates. 

Didn't Helen intimate she couldn't live with herself if checks on licensed hackney carriage drivers should fail to detect the presence of undesirable characteristics. 

How is this litany of failure to be halted ?

Sexual assaults, criminally negligent driving, highly dubious business practices, indifference from government tax authorities, probable financial bribery in many spheres of authority and so on and so on. 

The TfL office in charge of Taxi and private hire is an utterly worthless organisation. 

It's dragged our trade into the sewer. It seems to be a plague of pestilence emanating from America.

Such a disregard for decent business and human ethics, their desperation, a mantra of money /profit at all costs,  seems to run through so many of those gig/tech style companies. 

It won't be until the affluent upper middle classes experience this level of absurdity and diabolical dishonesty and lack of ethics that things may change.

Or a sense of 'stop this insane carousel of profit and to hell with a sense of decency '. 

Do we have to wait till someone’s wife/daughter/sister/mother is raped and murdered before action is taken?

Taxi Leaks Extra Bit :

In a reply to an FOI received earlier this week, TfL admitted they haven't bothered to contact all the 13,000 Uber drivers thought to have fake DBS certificates. 

They  admitted they have only written to just 2,621 private hire drivers, saying that they will need to obtain a new enhanced DBS check through GB group.

There has been no mention of any revocations, or suspensions while this process is ongoing. 

Later this week we heard 5 Uber drivers were convicted of fraud and theft. All received prison sentences 4 were suspended. 

All these drivers are still registered with TfL on the TfL licence checker as Private Hire drivers. 

Helen, what does an Uber Driver have to do to get their licensed revoked. Are you that scared of Uber’s legal team, that you would overlook this matter ?  

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2hjej1E
via IFTTT

Uber driver accused of sex assaults loses private hire licence

An Uber taxi driver accused of sexually assaulting two of his passengers in Leeds has lost an appeal to keep his private hire licence.

Leeds City Council claims Naveed Iqbal used his brother's Uber driver login while he was away and assaulted two women on separate occasions. 

The city's crown court heard no charges had been brought, but a judge said it was him who carried out the attacks "on the balance of probabilities". 

He was told to pay £1,500 in fees.

Mr Iqbal, 39, shared a Volkswagen Sharan people carrier with his brother, also an Uber driver, and picked up fares at night while his sibling worked in the day.

The court heard two women were picked up in Leeds city centre after nights out in December 2015, with the women sitting in the front passenger seat on both occasions. 

Providing evidence via video-link, one woman said she fell asleep in the cab and woke up to find the driver of the vehicle fondling one of her breasts. 

'Technical fault' defence

Another told the court she was taken to a dark road near her home and the Volkswagen's driver "put his hands on my chest and under my clothes".

Leeds City Council found the Uber driver account logged in at the time of the assaults belonged to Mr Iqbal's brother, but he was in Pakistan at the time. 

Mr Iqbal denied using his brother's Uber login and sexually assaulting the two women, blaming a "technical fault" on the phone or the Uber app.

Judge Simon Batiste told him the vehicle which picked the women up was "only ever used by two people" and one was out of the country.

Dismissing his appeal to retain his licence, he said: "We are satisfied that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

"He's extremely fortunate that criminal charges have not been brought against him."

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/2mgHGr0
via IFTTT

London bus with Specsavers advert on the side loses its roof in a crash

A London bus driver perhaps needs to follow the advice of the advert on the side of his bus after this little bump. The double decker that was about 16ft tall lost a large portion of its top deck after going under a 12ft 6ins tall. The bus is now also 12ft 6ins tall. But in a cruel twist of irony, the bus had adverts for Specsavers on the side. A witness said: ‘I heard a lorry sounding its horn and looked round. It was trying to warn the bus in front of it about the low bridge.

‘But the bus didn’t slow down at all and only applied its brakes after the impact. The roof was left hanging off. ‘There seemed to be two learner drivers and an inspector on the bus. I’d say it was going no more than 20 mph when it crashed.’ The roof was sliced open by the impact of the crash in Old Oak Common Lane, North-West London, this morning at around 10am but luckily no passengers were on board at the time.

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

If You Get A Ticket Dropping At The Ned, Don't Pay It...You Must Appeal.

Again, our largest trade orgs are failing to sort out the problems costing drivers dearly. Instead of dealing with the issues, they appear to be arguing over who can attend meetings, it's a disgrace.

Hotel Cars at the Ned Hotel are not recieving tickets, but Taxis are ??? 

During the restricted time period, Taxi passengers requiring the Ned Hotel are pointing out, that the hotel's cars are parked outside the entrance. Many having luggage insist they should be dropped at the hotel door and not hundreds of yards away, at the beginning of the Bank Junction restriction. 

As soon as Taxis go past the restriction signs, they are automatically issued with a ticket by CoL. 

Amazingly, the Hotel has informed us that their cars, seen above parked outside, do not get issued with tickets. 

The issue over Taxis dropping at the Ned, should have been sorted out months ago. But it appears to be very low on the New United Trade Group (NUT group) agenda. 

The LCDC's Heather Rawlinson, who has unselfishly helped many hundreds of drivers, regardless of org or union status, has emailed the City of London about this situation, asking why the cars are not being given tickets but Taxis are.  So far Heather hasn't received a reply. 

Heather's advice:

If you have been issued a ticket dropping at the Ned (and haven't proceeded through the Bank Junction) DO NOT PAY IT. You must appeal. 

Virtually all tickets appealed are being cancelled. 

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

Uber Lose Appeal Against Landmark Ruling And Must Treat Drivers As Employees

Uber ordered to treat drivers as employees with full rights after losing appeal in landmark case

Uber has lost its appeal against a landmark ruling ordering it to treat its drivers as employees, paying them minimum wage and affording them full rights including sickness and holiday pay.

Two drivers, James Farrar and Yaseen Aslam, won the first round of the case in October last year.

But Uber challenged the ruling at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in London, saying it could deprive drivers of the “personal flexibility they value”.

Judge Jennifer Eady QC handed down her judgement months after Uber was dealt another blow by Transport for London (TfL), which said it will not renew the firm's licence.

The US-based Minicab operator has launched a separate appeal against that decision.

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