Taxi Driver Online

More from TaxiPoint - this seems to summarise many of the issues fleshed out in the FAQ I mentioned in the early hours, so if you're not anoraky enough to read the FAQs then read this:

The in and outs of the £500 million Taxi Group Action against Uber

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... oup-Action

London’s cab drivers announced today that they are to bring a potential group legal action against Uber for damages and loss of earnings.

But what does that mean and who’s behind the action?

The Group Action is being entirely funded by leading litigation funding firm Harbour Litigation Funding. The firm are currently investigating further litigation against Uber in Melbourne, Australia.

Mishcon de Reya is a law firm based in London, with significant experience in group litigation. It is taking forward the group action against Uber. In the past few years it has acted for claimant groups in cases involving RBS, Royal Mail and Google.

Newington Communications is a corporate and public affairs agency and is supporting Mishcon de Reya in its communications around the group action, to help get as many drivers involved as possible.

Outside of Harbour, Mishcon de Reya and Newington there are several taxi industry leaders officially pledging their support to the action. These include LTDA, LCDC, UCG, Unite, KPM Automotive, Easyrentacab, Colts Cabs, Cricklewood Carriers Cab Company, Martin Cordell and Co, Sherbet Cars, Ubiquitous and of course us here at TaxiPoint.

Group Action is a term used in the UK for when multiple claimants sharing grievances with common characteristics join together to seek a remedy against the same or multiple defendants. In other jurisdictions, this is often called a class action. In England and Wales, there are various procedural mechanisms available to bring group actions which are becoming far more regularly used. Group litigation can redress the balance between individuals and large, well-funded defendants as by joining together individuals can benefit from collective strength, expertise and the sharing of costs and risks, thereby facilitating access to justice.

The Group Action will bring a claim in the High Court by licensed taxi drivers in London against Uber for loss of income on the basis that Uber has operated unlawfully under the relevant statutory framework between mid-2012 to at least the end of 2017, with the intention of causing loss to the licensed taxi trade.

The first step in the claim is to sign up as many eligible drivers as possible to participate in the claim. Any taxi driver licensed by Transport for London to work in London may be eligible to take part if they operated as a licensed taxi driver for some or all of the period between mid 2012 to at least the end of December 2017.

The Group Action aims to demonstrate a significant overall loss of income to licensed taxi drivers collectively following Uber's entry into the London market. The total value of the claim will depend on the number of licensed taxi drivers who participate. The group are working with economists and expect that damages could be in excess of £500 million. As the group collect data from participants, the group will be able to more accurately and robustly estimate the loss attributable to Uber's unlawful operation.

Again the word 'potential' is the operative word here, because nothing concrete has actually been concluded regarding taking action. Rather an odd word to include, because it undermines the whole of what's trying to be conveyed, but on the other hand it's necessary for accuracy.



Had a quick look for some information on those cases in the early hours, but couldn't find much, but seems to me that there's some kind of contractual relationship between the litigants in these cases, or at least something more direct than that between Uber and the London HC drivers.



Would certainly 'facilitate access to justice', but to repeat what I said earlier today, it still depends on a relatively powerful and clued-up group of claimants.

TaxiPoint Q&A: Mishcon de Reya talk more on the Cabbie Group Action against Uber

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/single-pos ... ainst-Uber

Richard Leedham is a Partner at Mishcon de Reya, the London law firm leading Cabbie Group Action, the claim on behalf of Licensed Taxi Drivers against Uber. In this article, he answers some questions about the claim.

What's the case all about?

We want to bring a claim in the High Court of England and Wales on behalf of licensed taxi drivers in London against Uber. The claim is based on the loss of income we know so many drivers have suffered as a result of Uber's unlawful operations since they came to London in 2012.

Many have criticised the case because they say the black cab trade have failed to modernise and that Uber's success is just an example of lawful competition.

The claim isn't about stopping Uber operating or based on complaints around uncompetitive behaviour. Competition on price, innovation, service and quality is a positive thing. What it is about is holding Uber to account for what we believe are their unlawful operations since 2012. We believe they failed to adhere to the statutory framework which regulates the London taxi trade and this has been to the detriment of licensed taxi drivers that have been operating lawfully. Uber should not be able to get away with this and Cabbie Group Action aims to hold them to account.

How did the claim come about? How did the action group begin? Who initiated the original idea?

London is renowned for its iconic black cabs and, given the allegations of Uber’s unlawful operations in a number of places, it was only a matter of time until Uber’s activity in London came under scrutiny. The team at Mishcon researched the issues involved and discussed them with key stakeholders in the London cab trade. I have experience in working on large multi party claims and we identified that the case would work well as a group action. I also regularly work with third party litigation funders, such as Harbour Litigation Funding, and together we established Cabbie Group Action.

What is Mishcon's role and who will make decisions about the case?

Mishcon will act as the lawyers on the claim. At the moment we are focusing on building support for the claim through Cabbie Group Action. We want as many drivers as possible to hear about the claim and register their interest through the website. We will then provide enough information to those drivers for them to decide whether they want to proceed with the claim, the first part of which will be to become a client of Mishcon. This is called the "book building" phase.

Once this phase is complete, a representative committee of drivers will be formed to take decisions about the claim and give instructions to Mishcon on behalf of the group. In actions such as this, where this is such a large group of claimants, representative committees are very common. We will provide details to all interested drivers on how the committee will operate in due course.

Who is Harbour?

Harbour is a leading litigation funding firm. Harbour will be funding the group action, subject to a minimum number of drivers signing up, and will pay all of the legal costs in return for a share of any damages received. It means cabbies will not have to pay their own legal fees. If the group action is not successful, it also means they won’t have to repay Harbour. It is only when there is a win, and damages have been received, that Harbour will get a pre-agreed share of the award.

Why are you taking action against Uber, rather than TfL? Don’t TfL carry the blame for what has happened?

Cabbie Group Action focuses on Uber's alleged unlawful behaviour between 2012 and at the least the end of 2017. We completely appreciate the trade's frustration towards TFL, but this action is focused on Uber's unlawful activities.

The separate group action proposed by the UGC shows the strength of feeling that exists in the taxi trade on this issue. Cabbie Group Action benefits from a focused and streamlined approach which we consider has the best chances of addressing the damage that has been caused by Uber's unlawful actions. A legal finding that Uber has operated unlawfully should force the regulator to come to the correct conclusion over Uber's suitability to hold an Operator's license.

Cabbie Group Action is a fully funded claim with no costs to the drivers themselves. In only six weeks our Cabbie Group Action campaign has already signed up almost a third of the entire fleet of taxi drivers in London and continues to add sign ups on a daily basis. With legal counsel from Mishcon de Reya, who have an enviable track record and financial backing from Harbour Litigation Funding we believe we can have a real impact for taxi drivers.

How many drivers do you need to sign up and what kind of compensation will they receive?

We want as many drivers as possible to be part of the claim and have been really encouraged with the numbers that have signed up so far. It is too early to tell what level of compensation drivers are likely to receive: as we collect data from participants we will be able to more accurately and robustly estimate the loss attributable to Uber's unlawful operation.

Can drivers who have not suffered a loss financially, but worked more hours to achieve the same income, make a claim for losses?

At this stage, we need to gather as much evidence as we can in order to put together the best possible case, this includes a drop in earnings as well as having to work longer hours. If you have suffered a negative impact in either of these ways from Uber’s unlawful operations, you may be eligible to take part.

How confident of success are you?

We wouldn’t be working on this if we didn’t think that the claim against Uber was a good one. While nothing is certain, we have significant experience in group litigation. In recent years we have acted successfully for claimant groups in cases involving RBS and Royal Mail.

Does this group action stop any future legal cases against both Uber and the regulators?

This group action only relates to the period between 2012, when Uber entered the market, and the end of 2017. It does not prejudice any future legal cases against Uber outside of this period or which relate to different facts. It is also separate to any action against the regulator.

If Uber offer to settle outside of court, who accepts/rejects the offer?

The representative committee mentioned above will take decisions about the conduct of the litigation, including whether to accept or reject a settlement offer.

What is the next step?

The book build phase, during which we hope to sign up as many drivers as possible, is ongoing. Those who have expressed an interest will be hearing from us soon regarding how they sign up as a client of Mishcon de Reya and will receive further information about how the claim will work and what it will involve.

What roles do the trade stakeholders backing this action play in the group action? Is there any financial incentive for them to be involved?

We are delighted that so many stakeholders in the cab trade, including TaxiPoint, have been supportive of the group action. They play a key role in encouraging cabbies to sign up to take part. None of the trade stakeholders are receiving a financial incentive in exchange for their support. They are backing this because Uber should be held responsible for its actions.

So how do I sign up?

The best way to sign up to express your interest is by visiting http://www.cabbiegroupaction.co.uk

For completeness, this is another TaxiPoint piece about the separate action *against TfL* by the UCG, published a few days ago:


UCG to launch group legal action against TfL, Uber and Westminster Magistrates Court

September 14, 2018

Perry Richardson

Taxi organisation United Cabbies Group has instructed senior commercial QC to provide a legal opinion on taking legal action against Transport for London, Westminster Magistrates Court and Uber along with support from a “key group of trade suppliers”.

The UCG say it is now time for drivers to support action for the right earned by completing the Knowledge of London, abiding by strict regulations enforced by TfL and being forced to drive a prescribed purpose-built vehicle which is both Wheelchair Accessible and subject to very rigorous Conditions of Fitness.

“This is an unprecedented legal challenge against Uber, Transport for London and Westminster Magistrates Court. It will shock many how Uber operate and are allowed to operate under the watchful blindness of the regulatory body there to protect” says Robert Griffiths QC and Barrister Stuart Jessop of 6 Pump Court, Temple.

This group action will take action:

1. Against Westminster Magistrates and Judicially Review the decision to grant a license to Uber on the basis of conflict of interest and flawed reasoning.

2. Against Transport for London under multiple causes of action including its failure to regulate the statutory regime.

3. Against Uber under multiple causes of action including economic torts and the interference of your exclusive right to ply for hire.

In a statement made the UCG added: “It has long been known by members of the trade that Uber operates a model which is identical to hailing and therefore infringes London taxi drivers’ exclusive right to ply for hire. This action will seek to address that injustice.

“In this action we will forcefully pursue the argument that TfL knew or ought to have known that Uber is not and has never been a fit and proper person to hold an Operators’ Licence.

“One of the many reasons why it will be argued that Uber is not a fit and proper person includes issues relating to its corporate structure and fiscal operations.

“This is a concerted, comprehensive and unprecedented action against key parties including the regulatory body (TfL) and will seek to bring each and all parties to account for their part in the damage caused to our 360-year-old trade.

“Other similar actions are exclusively seeking damages, but this action will seek more than damages for any previous loss. It will seek to protect our exclusive right to ply for hire and ensure that PHV drivers and London Taxi drivers compete fairly.

“It will seek to protect the trade from current and further threats to its exclusive right to ply for hire and ensure that the distinct Two-Tier System is restored and not eroded.”

“We will seek to protect and preserve your exclusive right to ply for hire from current and future threats, the two-tier system has to be restored” added Darren Rogers from Chiltern Law

Although the initial instructions have been given by UCG, this is not a singularly UCG action. The United Trade Action Group (UTAG) is made up from a “wider group of taxi supporters”.

The UTAG will rely on donations made via a crowdfunder to proceed.

Slight exaggeration there

Wow.

Getting a third of taxi drivers to do anything is a large challenge, getting a third to sign up to this already is amazing.

I really wish them well.

_________________
IDFIMH

Maybe, but I'm still of the view that there is merit in the 'plying' angle.

Unlike the Chief Magistrate.

_________________
IDFIMH

Occasionally wondered what happened to this. Didn't think it was a runner, but looks like it's still going ahead...

Or at least I'm assuming it's the same action.

But searching for this thread, amazing the number of threatened legal actions that I've forgotten about. No doubt some have been dumped, others maybe still in the pipeline, and of course Covid is a big factor in stuff like that, which is often snail's pace stuff at the best of times.


London cabbies plan to sue Uber for damages

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/london-ca ... r-damages/

Thousands of London taxi drivers plan to sue Uber for damages alleging the ride-hailing firm operated unlawfully.

The planned group legal action could, if successful, hit Uber with a bill for millions of pounds.

The action, part of a planned anti-Uber campaign by black-cab drivers this year, claims it didn’t follow private hire rules between 2012 and 2018.

Uber said it “operates lawfully in London and these allegations are completely unfounded”.

The group action, which will be launched by law firm Mishcon de Reya, will allege that for six years Uber operated unlawfully in London.

Taxi rules in London mean that people have to contact a centralised office for minicabs, whereas they can hail a black cab on the street.

The lawsuit will claim that between 2012 and 2018, Uber let people hail its drivers directly, contravening those rules.

Litigation specialist RGL Management, which is also working with the cabbies to bring the case, said more than 4,000 had signed up so far.

There are about 5,200 further registrations being processed, with hundreds of enquiries per day, it said. The firm is funding a marketing campaign, and is looking to sign up as many as 30,000 eligible drivers.

A full-time driver over those six years could claim about £25,000 in lost earnings, it added. The group action is aiming to bring a case to the High Court no later than the first quarter of 2022.

An Uber spokeswoman said: “Uber operates lawfully in London and these allegations are completely unfounded.

“We are proud to serve this great global city and the 45,000 drivers in London who rely on the app for earnings opportunities, and are committed to helping people move safely.”

Uber has had a torrid history in the UK capital including previous lawsuits.

In February 2019 cab drivers lost a legal challenge which argued that Uber’s London operating licence was granted by a biased judge.

Uber then went on to lose its licence to operate in London in November 2019 after safety concerns.

But in September last year it was spared a London ban after a judge upheld an appeal against Transport for London’s decision over safety.

They must have had 7-8,000 signed up last time, so this looks like a different process.

It's the same law firm (Mishcon de Reya), and looks like the same legal basis for action (that Uber effectively illegally plying for hire).

But looks like this 'litigation specialist' RGL Management is signing drivers up, and the United Cabbies Group which seemed to be signing up drivers last time round seems to have disappeared:

http://www.cabbiegroupaction.co.uk/

So I'm guessing it's a similar action, but they're kind of starting from scratch again.

Anyway, think they'll have a job signing up 30,000 London HCDs, because there can't be many more than 20,000 in total these days (if that), and highest total ever was something like 24,000?

I suspect they elaborated a bit last time, and the latest numbers are more accurate.

_________________
IDFIMH

Be surprised if most don't sign up as they have diddly-squat to lose, and serious money to gain.

As this must be costing serious money to go through the courts the legal firms behind this claim must be pretty confident.

_________________
IDFIMH

Yesterday I said that the action was based on Uber effectively plying for hire, but was a specific basis for the action ever stated last time round? Can't be bothered wading through all that again, but on reflection I don't think a specific rationale was ever outlined, particularly now that I've read some of the new stuff - so see below for a bit more on the rationale.

Anyway, recall that the United Cabbies Group seemed to be organising the drivers last time round, and a firm called Harbour Litigation was funding the action on a no-win, no-fee basis. Well it looks like UCG has disappeared, and so has Harbour. In Harbour's place is a firm called RGL Management, and they seem to be trying to organise the drivers as well. So there's no obvious direct trade involvement now, at least as a group.

But Mishcon de Reya is still the firm of lawyers involved. Note the single short paragraph from yesterday's article, which is why I thought they were maybe going for the plying for hire angle:


However, a Daily Mail piece on it all actually states the basis of the action in another short paragraph:


Ah, so it's that one

But there's a shiny new website for the action, with a fancy pants slogan for it all: BULit21

But like last time, there's a huge amount of stuff about the action process and how to get involved etc, but nothing I can see about the precise legal basis, except for the claim that Uber breached the private hire regulations.

There's also a video, which is worth watching instead of reading the website.

Some interesting things to look out for in the video:

- the RGL CEO makes it clear that they need lots of bodies on board to make the action viable, hence the campaign. Even if 100 drivers got £20,000 each, that's just £2m - chickenfeed when all the lawyer's fees, the RGL cut and the various PR costs etc are skimmed off. They need thousands of drivers to make it viable.

(And I think now that the potential 30,000 drivers being targetted is because they're saying retired drivers would be able to claim.)

- RGL's legal director outlines the legal basis right near the start. Again, it's because the Uber drivers have been accepting the bookings directly rather than through the operator (which I think was eventually simply sorted with a software tweak?)

- There are three HCDs interviewed (one retired). Their spiel is less about the actual legalities than the age old HC v PH stuff that we've heard over and over for the last few decades. So nothing new there, therefore their stuff seems more about PR than the legal substance of the case.

- One slightly amusing angle. Remember the driver from Inverness who looks more like a councillor than a driver? Well his female equivalent appears in the video as one of the London cabbies

But as far as the whole process is concerned, very interesting what the RGL chap says, at about 5.30, that: "...at some point this case would be capable of commercial negotiation and settlement".

Ah, so obviously hoping Uber will cough up without going to court. Which I suppose is how a lot of these things work.

On the other hand, this is Uber's response, as quoted in the Daily Mail:


Maybe just about sums it up?

Anyway, worth a look at the video, which for most of us is adequate, but link to the website is below that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6VdANftQok

https://bulit21.com/

I have to say that I fear this will fail Uber are a well oiled machine when it comes to court cases and always have an answer for everything

Clearly they are struggling to get enough on board to go ahead with it but to be honest I can't see any reason why Licensed cabbies shouldn't sign up there is no alternative class action which may or may not have a better chance

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

Indeed, but I wonder why Mishcon de Rey and RGL think it's a goer? If the drivers don't have to commit any money then obviously the legal eagles must think they have a chance, since even if it never gets to court these things don't come cheap.

But, as I said last time, if we could all take action against competitors when they did something wrong then the courts would be full of it. Of course, it obviously requires a lot of litigants to launch a class action like this, but surely this kind of thing would have been tried previously in the trade if it was a goer...

(And see next post below.)


Again, as I said last time, once they're asked to provide financial information necessary to assess their losses and suchlike, maybe that puts a lot of them off - maybe a bit like the badgeholders eligible for the Covid grants in Scotland.

And had a quick look at some social media stuff, and one driver saying RGL want stuff like badge photos when they sign up

So I wonder what happened to UCG's 'instructions to senior commercial QCs' etc?