Taxi Driver Online

Strip Uber's licence to operate in London after it 'failed to report sex attacks on passengers', MPs say

MPs have called for taxi firm Uber to be stripped of its licence to operate in London after a string of controversies. The cross-party group wrote a letter to Transport for London (TfL) urging it not to renew the firm’s licence when it expires at the end of the month. The letter, signed by ten Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs, claims Uber is an ‘unfit and improper operator’ after police accused it of failing to report sex attacks on passengers by drivers.

Writing to the TfL Commissioner Mike Brown, Labour MP Wes Streeting said: ‘The safety of Londoners must be at the forefront of decisions taken about the taxi and private hire industry in our capital city. We do not believe that Uber has shown itself to be a fit and proper operator.’ It comes after the Metropolitan Police accused Uber of failing to reveal at least six sex attacks and an assault.

In the 12 months to February 2017, police recorded 48 allegations of sexual assault involving Uber drivers, reported only by passengers or via TfL. Inspector Neil Billany accused Uber of being selective about the crimes it reported, only telling police about ‘less serious matters’.

Uber has also come under fire for failing to give drivers basic employee benefits. In October an employment tribunal ruled its drivers should be classed as workers, not as self-employed. The decision, which it is appealing against, means Uber could be entitled to pay pensions and holiday leave.

In May TfL signalled its uncertainty over the taxi firm by only granting it a four-month licence following the expiration of its first five- year licence. A TfL spokesman said: ‘This will allow us to conclude our consideration of a five-year licence.’

The US-based company, which was originally licensed in London in 2012, has also raised eyebrows over its tax affairs – with claims it has avoided paying an estimated £40million in VAT by exploiting a legal but controversial loophole. Taxi-hailing smartphone apps are supposed to pay 20 per cent VAT on booking fees.

But Uber avoids this by treating its 40,000 UK drivers as separate businesses – most drivers earn less than the £85,000 a year threshold for VAT registration. But two of its main rivals, Gett and Mytaxi, both said they do pay VAT on their fees. Uber collects an estimated £200million a year in fares, meaning HMRC could be losing out on at least £40million a year in VAT, according to calculations by Reuters.

Politicians claim the practice is giving Uber an unfair advantage. The firm also cuts its taxes by channelling profits to the Netherlands. In his letter, Mr Streeting, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Taxis, added: ‘Competition in the taxi and private hire industry is welcome, but it must be on a level playing field and the safety of passengers must be paramount. ‘In cities around the world, Uber has shown itself to be an unfit and improper operator. ‘It’s time that London followed cities in the United States, Canada, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Germany, Bulgaria and Hungary by revoking Uber’s licence.’

Earlier this year, the Mail revealed how David Cameron and George Osborne allegedly told aides to lobby Boris Johnson against curbs on Uber. When Mr Johnson was Mayor of London in September 2015 he threatened to curtail Uber’s activities. He claimed that Uber drivers were breaking the law ‘in lots of minor ways’, which London’s authorities were unable to keep up with.

An Uber spokesman said: ‘More than 40,000 drivers rely on our app to make a living, with average fares last year of £15 an hour after our service fee. Drivers who use Uber are licensed by Transport for London and have been through the same enhanced background checks as black cab drivers. ‘Our technology goes further to enhance safety with every trip tracked and recorded by GPS and we employ former Met Police officers who work closely with the police.’

_________________
IDFIMH

Uber spokesperson needs coaching before they open their mouths,what about the 13,000+ fiddled DBS checks they had done.

Is it just me, or is this complete nonsense?

Aren't Uber just doing the same as Gett and Mytaxi, while the article says they're doing things differently?

And aren't Uber just doing the same as the vast majority of established taxi and PH despatch operations?

The issue is whether or not they take a cut of the fares.

If a firm takes a cut of a job, then that firm is liable for the vat on the whole of the job. Even if the job was undertaken via a self employed driver.

All firms have to charge vat on their weekly subs/dues.

As for the other app companies I can't see how they can differ from Uber in respect of vat, unless they charge the customer a fixed fee. Maybe the booking fee as allowed on the London tariff chart.

_________________
IDFIMH

Should V.A.T. not be paid on the whole fare as it is collected into their bank account before being paid to the driver,it is the gross turnover that V.A,T. is applied to.

Most drivers with established operations will be doing at least *some* account work, and the fares for that normally get to the driver via the office bank account, so that would be totes awkward for the mainstream trade.

You're saying if an office charges drivers a %age of the fares rather than a flat fee (as is the norm for the conventional trade) then that would make the whole fare subject to VAT, rather than just how much the driver pays the office?

I hear what you're saying, but presumably Uber are claiming it makes no difference whether it's a flat fee or a %age?

And the article seems to be saying that it's simply down to the employment status of drivers, and not whether fees are a flat rate or a %age.

According to this piece the reason Uber doesn't charge VAT on fees to drivers is because they're charged from a Dutch subsidiary, and thus under EU law don't have to pay VAT on it.

So the self-employed drivers thing is a bit of a red herring - that's the norm, for Uber, Gett, mytaxi and all the more conventional taxi and PH despatch operations. The difference is that Uber bills driver fees from a company based in the Netherlands, while all the rest bill driver fees from UK-based businesses.

This isn't the full piece, which is quite lengthy, but there's a link below:




https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-uber- ... KKBN18Y1Z6

I'm not sure the EU thing really matters.

The customer is paying Uber, Uber are paying the driver less their cut.

Thus Uber are liable for the VAT on the service they supplied.

Quite a bit of case law on this stuff in the TDO Court Case database.

_________________
IDFIMH