Minicab Driver Yaseen Aslam Takes Uber On In Court An Wins....Twice

Isn’t it amazing, that a humble PH driver can take Uber to court and win not once but twice 

Yet our largest org, with allegedly half the trade as members and an advertised  £1m war chest, wants to wait till Uber are relicensed before they even think about taking action of any sort !!!

LONDON: A British-Pakistani private hire driver who took the taxi giant Uber to court and won has said he is “humbled” and thankful that he was able to take on the world’s largest minicab firm.

Yaseen Aslam, from High Wycombe, was one of the two drivers who brought an employment case against Uber on behalf of a group of 19 of its workers, who argued they were employed as limb workers by the firm rather than being self-employed.

In an interview with this correspondent, Yaseen Aslam, whose parents migrated from Azad Kashmir’s District Mirpur to Britain as a labourer from Pakistan, said he took up the case against Uber with the help from his trade union -- IWGB trade union which represents the precarious low paid workers who had faith in him and provided him offer of legal team against the multi-billion dollars taxi giant, which employed over a dozen team of most expensive lawyers.

Aslam said he was glad that a landmark case against the taxi giant has been won twice and although Uber has appealed against the original decision yet he is “confident” that judges will rule in favour of Uber drivers.

Yaseen and James Farrar, who are the founders of the United Private Hire Drivers which is the UK’s largest trade union for drivers, first brought the case against Uber to the employment tribunal in 2015 and won where the judge ruled that Uber drivers, part of the so-called gig economy, are not self-employed and should be granted basic employment rights such as being paid the national minimum wage and getting holiday pay. The first tribunal trial was in July 2016 and the verdict was announced in October 2016. Uber appealed to EAT and trial was conducted in September 2017 and got in verdict Nov 2017. Uber then appealed to the Supreme Court in December 2017 which was rejected in January 2018. Now a date has been set at the Court of Appeal in October 2018.

Uber appealed the tribunal decision and took the case to Employment Appeal Tribunal decision where Yaseen Aslam and his colleague meaning the case could end up in the Supreme Court next year but Yaseen Aslam and his colleagues are confident that it’s too late for the Uber.

Following the verdict Uber appealed to the Supreme Court to hear this case but the Supreme Court rejected Uber’s request, and sent it back to court of appeal. Court of appeal has issued a date for 30 October 2018 for the trial.

Uber has told the court that it could deprive riders of the “personal flexibility they value”. It claims that the majority of its drivers prefer their existing employment status but the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain (IWGB), which backed the appeal, said drivers will still be able to enjoy the freedoms of self-employment – such as flexibility in choosing shifts – even if they have worker status.

The union said the decision showed companies in the gig economy – which involves people on flexible working patterns with irregular shifts and minimal employment rights – have been choosing to “deprive workers of their rights”.

Yaseen Aslam said it is time for the Mayor of London, Transport for London and the government to step up and use their leverage to defend worker rights rather than turn a blind eye to sweatshop conditions.

He said: “If Uber are successful in having this business model, obliterating industrial relations as we know them in the UK, then I can guarantee you on every high street, in retail, fast food, any industry you like, the same thing will go on.”

Yaseen Aslam said he was willing to fight the case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. He said the two legal victories are good for workers and the judge has confirmed twice that Uber is unlawfully denying our rights.

He said: “It’s about making sure workers across the UK are protected. Companies are hiding behind technology, bogusly classifying people as self-employed so they can get away from paying minimum wage. That can’t be allowed to happen.”

Yaseen Aslam got so entangled in his legal fight with Uber that he was hounded by the giant and he had to even approach the police. Fed up with the Uber, he quit his job and now works as an IT consultant for the Ministry of Defence. He divides his week between working for the Defence Ministry and dedicating himself to the union activities, leading private hire drivers in activism against the Transport for London and Uber, demanding rights for private hire drivers. “We have won because of union and unity and I will continue to be a unionist for myself and others. We have a duty towards others,” said a resolute Yaseen Aslam.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2k2KMLb
via IFTTT

Insults galore

This in another one TESt 

Can't believe this insult from the substandard 

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2IEbx6J
via IFTTT

Sunday Report :"Only license Taxis can rank up", Said EdThompson...They Lied Back Then...They're Still Lying Now.

It has been bought to the attention of Taxi Leaks that a reply to driver’s complaints from then spokesperson Luke Howard included a number of incorrect statements.

Mr Howard says;

“It is perhaps worthwhile letting you know something about the current legislation covering 'immediate hirings'. There were a number of court case rulings before 1976 that stated that minicabs should not be available 'for immediate hire'. This changed however, when legislation was passed in that year (for areas outside London) and in 1998 when legislation introduced private hire licensing in London for the first time.

The act of 1976 as Mr Howard quite rightly points out does not apply to London and therefore is irrelevant full stop.

The 1976 and 1998 legislation does not have this 'not for immediate hire' restriction.

Even though the 1998 act makes no reference to ranking or parking of mini-cabs, doesn't make it legal for them to do so. 

Just going back to the year 2002, a judge made a decision on the definition of “plying for hire” and found two mini-cabs cabs guilty of such an offence based upon case law...

The PCO/TfL have never sort to overturn the judgement laid down by the court and we believe, in this instance, they may be acting outside their remit and role by interpreting what they believe the “right to ply for hire” actually is, even though they and their lawyers know of recent court decisions like the judgement in Eastbourne......!

The requirement now is that the booking must be recorded before the journey commences, so it is legitimate for the vehicles to be waiting as describe.

In the complaints made to TfL/PCO the private hire vehicles in question were describe as being parked on red routs, double yellow lines, zig zag lines and 24 hour bus lanes. Legitimate?

This was a very misleading statement from Mr Howard and we asked why it was made?

At that time, TfLTPH did not reply!

Just because the legislation of 1998 did not include the phrase "minicabs should not be available for immediate hire" does not mean that it is now legal for them to do so. 

This part of the original act has never been repealed, replace or challenged and still stands in common law.

This is again more proof of the lenient attitude shown towards private hire’s illegal activities and proof also of TfL/PCO reluctance to enforce current legislation.

  

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2FNcwMk
via IFTTT

Sunday Special Report : They Lied To Us Then....They're Still Lying To Us Now. Blast From The Past.

It has been bought to the attention of the Anderson shelter that a reply to driver’s complaints from spokesperson Luke Howard includes a number of incorrect statements.

Mr Howard says;

“It is perhaps worthwhile letting you know something about the current legislation covering 'immediate hirings'. There were a number of court case rulings before 1976 that stated that minicabs should not be available 'for immediate hire'. This changed however, when legislation was passed in that year (for areas outside London) and in 1998 when legislation introduced private hire licensing in London for the first time.

The act of 1976 as Mr Howard quite rightly points out does not apply to London and therefore is irrelevant full stop.

The 1976 and 1998 legislation does not have this 'not for immediate hire' restriction.

Even though the 1998 act makes no reference to ranking or parking of mini-cabs, doesn't make it legal for them to do so. Just going back to the year 2002, a judge made a decision on the definition of “plying for hire” and found two mini-cabs cabs guilty of such an offence based upon case law...

The PCO/TfL have never sort to overturn a judgement laid down by the court and we believe, in this instance, they may be acting outside their remit and role by interpreting what they believe the “right to ply for hire” actually is, even though they and their lawyers know of recent court decisions like the judgement in Eastbourne......!

The requirement now is that the booking must be recorded before the journey commences, so it is legitimate for the vehicles to be waiting as you describe.

In the complaints made to TfL/PCO the private hire vehicles in question were describe as being parked on red routs, double yellow lines, zig zag lines and 24 hour bus lanes. Legitimate?

This is a very misleading statement from Mr Howard and we would ask why it was made?

Just because the new legislation of 1998 did not include the phrase "minicabs should not be available for immediate hire" does not mean that it is now legal for them to do so. This part of the original act has never been repealed, replace or challenged and still stands in common law.
This is again more proof of the lenient attitude shown towards private hire’s illegal activities and proof also of TfL/PCO reluctance to enforce current legislation.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2HTEwno
via IFTTT

4 May is Remembrance Day (Dodenherdenking) in The Netherlands.

An occasion that is very dear to our family. My uncle Ronnie was wounded as he dropped into a field during Operation Market Garden (17–25 September 1944) an unsuccessful Allied military operation planned, and predominantly led by, the British. 

The success of the operation depended on taking a series of nine bridges, the last being at the city of Arnhem over the Rhine river. Airborne and land forces succeeded in the liberation of the Dutch cities of Eindhoven and Nijmegen, but failed in keeping their farthest positions in and around the city of Arnhem including the bridge over the Rhine.

4 May is Remembrance Day (Dodenherdenking) in The Netherlands. On this day we remember the victims of wartime violence.

Members from the team from the Taxi Charity for Military Veterans, join members of the British embassy to attend Remembrance ceremonies  across The Netherlands.

London Taxis, taking our veterans to ceremonies across The Netherlands 

London Taxi Radio's team (Joe Cartwright, John Cox) have been keeping us informed on Periscope. See video link below:

https://www.pscp.tv/LondonTaxiRadio/1gqGvpEvAjQxB

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2KEvTee
via IFTTT

Brighton Council Explain Why They Never Relicensed Uber.

Brighton is the latest to revoke the car-hailing service’s license. Here’s why…

It’s official: Uber’s application for a new license in Brighton has been rejected by Brighton and Hove City Council on the basis that the company is not a “fit and proper” private car hire operator.

Councillor Jacqui O’Quinn explained the decision, saying: “Our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL (Uber Britannia Limited) are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence.”

She added: “All Brighton and Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for.

“In the original application in 2015, UBL gave a firm commitment to adhere to the standards set out in the Blue Book and only to use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers. We do not feel the spirit of this commitment has been kept to.

“In the panel’s view, large numbers of taxis operating in the city that do not meet our Blue Book standards puts the safety of residents and visitors at potential risk.

“We recognise there are strong feelings on this issue and would like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions to the hearing.”

“Our priority is the safety of residents and visitors”

The announcement comes months after Transport for London (London’s transport regulator) decided to strip the firm of its license, based on concerns about Uber’s “approach and conduct” and passenger safety.

Speaking about the move last September, TfL concluded that Uber had shown “a lack of corporate responsibility” with regard to potential safety and security issues.

“Private hire operators must meet rigorous regulations, and demonstrate to TfL that they do so, in order to operate,” said TfL in a statement.

They added: “TfL has concluded that Uber London Limited is not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license.”

In all this time, TfL has refuse to talk about the increasing amount of Uber rapes and sexual assaults. Uber parapet rose last year by 50% to over one a week. 

Also TfL swept the 13,000 fake DBS certificates scandal, under their carpet. 

Uber has announced its intention to appeal both London and Brighton’s “disappointing” decisions.

Addressing Brighton’s ban on their cars, a spokesman for the company said: “This is a disappointing decision for the thousands of passengers and drivers who rely on our app in Brighton and Hove. 

“We intend to appeal so we can continue serving the city.”

Uber is licensed to operate in 80 areas across the UK, having succeeded with 35 applications in the last year, including in Cambridge, Glasgow, Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield. 

The firm – which has also seen its license to operate revoked in York – has since taken steps to comply with various initiatives in London to improve safety, and its appeal against TfL is due to be heard in the high court in June.

However, it emerged last November that Uber, which has 75 million users across the world, had concealed a hack that affected 57 million customers and driversin 2016.

It was hidden by the company which paid hackers a ransom of $100,000 (£75,000) to delete the data.

At the time, Uber’s chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi told the BBC: “None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it.

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2IhXfZi
via IFTTT

This is why Uber has been banned in Brighton : TfL Happy To Have 10,400 Unchecked Uber Drivers In London

Brighton is the latest to revoke the car-hailing service’s license. Here’s why…

It’s official: Uber’s application for a new license in Brighton has been rejected by Brighton and Hove City Council on the basis that the company is not a “fit and proper” private car hire operator.

Councillor Jacqui O’Quinn explained the decision, saying: “Our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL (Uber Britannia Limited) are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence.”

She added: “All Brighton and Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for.

“In the original application in 2015, UBL gave a firm commitment to adhere to the standards set out in the Blue Book and only to use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers. We do not feel the spirit of this commitment has been kept to.

“In the panel’s view, large numbers of taxis operating in the city that do not meet our Blue Book standards puts the safety of residents and visitors at potential risk.

“We recognise there are strong feelings on this issue and would like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions to the hearing.”

“Our priority is the safety of residents and visitors”

The announcement comes months after Transport for London (London’s transport regulator) decided to strip the firm of its license, based on concerns about Uber’s “approach and conduct” and passenger safety.

Speaking about the move last September, TfL concluded that Uber had shown “a lack of corporate responsibility” with regard to potential safety and security issues.

“Private hire operators must meet rigorous regulations, and demonstrate to TfL that they do so, in order to operate,” said TfL in a statement.

They added: “TfL has concluded that Uber London Limited is not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license.”

Uber has announced its intention to appeal both London and Brighton’s “disappointing” decisions.

Addressing Brighton’s ban on their cars, a spokesman for the company said: “This is a disappointing decision for the thousands of passengers and drivers who rely on our app in Brighton and Hove. 

“We intend to appeal so we can continue serving the city.”

Uber is licensed to operate in 80 areas across the UK, having succeeded with 35 applications in the last year, including in Cambridge, Glasgow, Nottingham, Leicester and Sheffield. 

The firm – which has also seen its license to operate revoked in York – has since taken steps to comply with various initiatives in London to improve safety, and its appeal against TfL is due to be heard in the high court in June.

However, it emerged last November that Uber, which has 75 million users across the world, had concealed a hack that affected 57 million customers and driversin 2016.

It was hidden by the company which paid hackers a ransom of $100,000 (£75,000) to delete the data.

At the time, Uber’s chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi told the BBC: “None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it.

TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT : by Jim Thomas.

IN THEIR DREAMS....PULLING THE WOOL OVER THE MEDIA'S EYES 

IN REALITY : Juma Ali Omar, 43, of Barking was charged with dangerous driving on 6 April.

He is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court today.

Omar has also been charged with possessing identity documents with intent, using a motor vehicle without third party insurance and driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

One of Ubers's 13,000 drivers with a fake criminal record DBS certificate. TfL knew about these fakes in January 2017 and swept this information under the carpet.

When this news broke in the national press, Helen Chapman said that all 13,000 would be required to resubmit their DBS checks. Only 2,600 did this and TfL have not insisted on the other 10,400 taking action. Instead they feel it's ok to have all these drivers out there with no criminal record checks saying that the matter will sort itself when they need to relicense in three years time.

Another three years with 10,400 unchecked drivers like Juma Ali Omar out there ???

from Taxi Leaks https://ift.tt/2KAqOmR
via IFTTT