Taxi Driver Online

Drivers demand Uber loosen UK insurance restrictions after price rises

https://www.ft.com/content/a020aee3-2fc ... 05203df055

Uber will hold talks with UK union bosses on Tuesday over restrictions imposed by the ride-hailing app that many drivers say have forced them into paying higher insurance premiums.

In January 2022, Uber introduced a panel of eight insurers for its tens of thousands of licensed drivers in London, and stopped allowing the cars to pick up passengers if they used policies from other providers. 

Twenty Uber drivers told the Financial Times their insurance costs had soared since 2021, with most blaming the rule. Some drivers said their premiums had nearly trebled in the past two years — far beyond price increases seen across the market in the same period.

One driver said he had been locked out of his Uber account after buying a cheaper policy from an insurer not on the panel. Another said he was forced to downgrade his coverage from fully comprehensive to third party-only because of the panel insurers’ prices. A third said he had retired after panellists refused to renew his policy.

“I have to work. When the premiums go up, I have no choice”, said Uber driver Seth Seglah. “Uber doesn’t listen. They are bullies, they can just log you off.”

Uber said it “takes the decision to suspend a driver very seriously”.

It added: “We have robust processes . . . to help ensure that we are taking a proportionate approach, with manual reviews by human teams always playing a role to ensure [drivers] are treated fairly. Any driver is able to contact us if they have any concerns.”

At quarterly talks with Uber on Tuesday, union representatives from GMB will demand that the restrictions be eased after drivers and industry experts complained that the system had forced drivers to endure higher premiums. The system has also triggered concerns about potential anti-competitive behaviour.

“It should be an open market,” said Steve ******** regional organiser at the GMB, adding that the union was asking Uber to expand the panel. “We want premiums to be as low as possible for drivers.”

More than 70 per cent of drivers may have paid more in insurance as a result of Uber’s restrictions in the past two years, according to sample data compiled by an industry price comparison website and seen by the FT.

“Normally competitors would come in and offer cheaper options,” said a senior industry executive working at a price comparison website. But the panel, which experts say features about half of the insurers offering cover for UK private hire vehicles, “is stopping the normal operation of the market”, the executive added.

“You don’t just get to call up Uber and say ‘yes, we’re not happy about these changes’,” said driver Muhammad Minar, whose premium went up 48 per cent this year, according to documents seen by the FT. “We have no power. They own too much of the market. If you work as a driver, you have no choice but to work for Uber.”

Paula Ramada, a competition economist at London Economics, said the panel “is potentially an anti-competitive vertical restraint which may well constitute an abuse of dominance by Uber”.

Uber said the insurers on the panel were selected in 2021 and accounted for “over 90 per cent” of policies sold in the private hire vehicle market in London at that time.

The panel was introduced amid pressure from Transport for London for the app to verify drivers’ policies, after reports of some of them picking up passengers uninsured.

Uber can now check drivers’ policies from panel insurers in real time through document-checking system Instadoc, which automatically uploads driver’s papers. In the last TfL licence period, Instadoc identified 174 instances of issues with insurance policies which “would not have been identified otherwise”, Uber said.

“One of our priorities has been to enhance our document-verification processes for drivers to help us deliver on our commitments to Transport for London,” said Uber.

Dan Bratshpis, boss of panellist Inshur, said the panel was not about “walling off” the market to other insurers. “It’s [about] making sure that those safeguards are in place,” he said. 

In 2023, a non-panel insurer asked to join Uber’s approved list, but the request was turned down even though it was planning to use Instadoc, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. 

In response to questions from the FT, Uber said it planned to “provide drivers with even more options” for insurance in early 2025. It said it would launch a new system to allow drivers to compare panellists’ premiums, which would “improve competition . . and deliver better prices for drivers”.

“Uber does not receive a commission and the suppliers do not pay to be on the panel,” said Uber, adding that it did not have “visibility into the price-setting” of the panellists.

_________________
IDFIMH

It's interesting that the so-called king of the free market chooses not to be when it comes to insurance.

I mean surely Uber doesn't receive any kickbacks from the chosen few.

_________________
IDFIMH

Our insurance specifically does not allow us to work with UBER.

Interesting, but you'd have thought that with a relatively small number of players in the market, a panel of eight would be sufficiently competitive. That is, assuming there's no collusion, or whatever, and taking on board the usual, er, deficiencies of this particular market

To that extent I'm wondering if maybe it's all more to do with the general rise in motor insurance prices. And, of course, there will no doubt be examples of oddities and outliers that are cited in this article, but are merely symptomatic of how the market normally works. For example, drivers who've had claims in the previous year, or been involved in incidents and/or picked up convictions, points, FPNs, or whatever

So we all know the sort of stuff that's been affecting insurance premiums in the last couple of years, not to mention the usual individual cases of hugely increased quotes because of individual circumstances.

So it's all mashed up and blamed on the competitive deficiencies of Uber's panel. Maybe the panel has had the effect of pushing up premiums, but I'd guess the much bigger factors are the market generally, and individuals' particular circumstances.

On the other hand, I could be talking complete nonsense

why does uber need to have it's own panel anyway ? Surely that's what brokers and comparison sites are there for ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

It's in the article, Edders

Dispute the argument if you want, but at least acknowledge it in the first place

Stuart I had read the article but my comment still stands there is no neccessity for them to do this, it reeks of the "company store" mentality

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Maybe worth considering that under TfL alone Uber licences something like 50,000 drivers

And that its systems are highly automated - indeed, a high level of automation is one of Uber's basic premises - no radios, cash payments, etc. In fact, notoriously difficult to actual speak to anyone, at least as compared to the traditional trade, and whether face-to-face or by telephone.

So then there was a big problem with Uber drivers being caught uninsured. No doubt stuff like cancellations and non-renewals etc.

So because of that, and because very difficult to keep track of 50,000 drivers using more traditional methods, Uber introduces a system such that drivers' insurance can be scrutinsed in real time, and tied-in with their automated systems. I'd guess, for example, if a driver cancels a policy, or doesn't renew, then he'll immediately be locked out of Uber's systems - job done.

Compare that to more traditional, council-led scrutiny and compliance. For example, if I cancelled my policy tomorrow, not sure how or if the council would catch up with that - could get away with it until my plate needs renewed in a couple of years?

(Unless, of course, something happened in the meantime.)

And, I mean, check out Mr Sudbury's insurance stuff in another section - when the plate was renewed his council didn't even check that the insurance policy was hire and reward, and it didn't come to light until there was an accident. And even the ombudsman said nothing to see here as regards the council's conduct

And, of course, as I've often said, there sometimes seems to be a bit of Tall Poppy Syndrome about Uber - because of their size and clout, they're subject to more rigorous scrutiny than many others, and brought to book for stuff that other more traditional operations would get away with (maybe the most obvious being the whole employment status thing )

(Of course, because of sheer size Uber will be subject to greater scrutiny than an operation with 50 cars, say, but that's a slightly different issue.)

So to that extent the basic premise behind Uber's insurance panel seems fair enough - they have to be able to comply with Uber's systems, which presumably isn't necessarily an easy ask.

Knowing uber's history I find it hard to believe that they are effectively doing council insurance checks out of public interest.

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I suspect they have an arrangement that should a driver not pay his premium they will inform Uber straight away who will then log them off.

_________________
IDFIMH

Maybe it's poober's way of getting rid of surplus drivers? Price them out of the market with insurance price hikes.

Nobody HAS to work for them.

Indeed - that's what the article was all about

There were, er, 'irregularities' uncovered regarding the insurance status of Uber drivers in London, therefore Uber introduced the panel system because of pressure from the regulator Transport for London, so that the insurance status of drivers could be checked on an ongoing and immediate basis, thus a more robust system of scrutiny.

And Uber not really doing 'council insurance checks' here (if only because TfL is a dedicated transport regulator covering all of London's borough council areas).

Like the average council, no doubt TfL checks the insurance status for applications and renewals, but not during the currency of the licence, which seems to be where the problems were arising - thus the onus was put on Uber to ensure the ongoing insurance status of drivers during the currency of the licence.

Which I'd guess is what is expected normally - councils check insurance for applications and renewals, but after that it's up to the licensees, and the private hire circuit may have some responsibility in that regard. But, I mean, if an owner-driver for ABC Cars in Anytown cancels his insurance, or the insurer cancels his policy, who is to know about that? I doubt if that would routinely be flagged up by the council's scrutiny/compliance procedures. And the circuit may be required to know when its cars' insurance expires, and thus require individual vehicle owners to present renewal documents, or they're off the circuit

But unless the council or circuit are checking insurance status of every car every day, how are they to know about non-routine insurance irregularities?

Which is why a circuit with 50,000 cars, which mabe subject to a bit more scrutiny than the average circuit, was highlighted in the press etc as having uninsured drivers on its system. Hence it was thought that the panel was a way to ensure every one of the 50,000 drivers was insured all of the time, via the Instadoc system.

So, basically, if a driver with ABC Cars becomes uninsured on a non-routine basis, neither the circuit nor the licensing council might know about this until some time later. Uber drivers in London would be immediately locked out of their system

(And because HC circuits aren't regulated (in England, at least) legal responsibility lies with individual vehicle proprietors. Ditto HCs not attached to a circuit, which was why I used the example of my own council, and Sudbury's - in the former there's no routine scrutiny of insurance status after renewal, as far as I know, and in the latter case even at renewal the council didn't check that the policy covered hire and reward.)

So it's not so much about Uber 'doing insurance checks out of the public interest', but one of necessity born of irregularities highlighted via the press and TfL.

(But, of course, Uber do an even better PR job of making virtue out of necessity )

Even Uber's meetings with the GMB are geared around a quarterly cycle