[vinzvinz92]

He was silly for refusing to hand over records.
I knew exactly what they would be looking for so made sure all information I gave them fitted their requirements and I never heard anymore from them.

Interesting.. Did they ask for Uber trip history or were they more interested in your privates where you should have charged $60 minimum? Did you have to follow a certain way of recording your trips Potsy?

 

[Potsy]

Interesting.. Did they ask for Uber trip history or were they more interested in your privates where you should have charged $60 minimum? Did you have to follow a certain way of recording your trips Potsy?

At the time I didnt want to even admit I was working for Uber so my records showed only private jobs that were $60 and above.

 

[Phildo]

Could be a rumour mill put out by taxi drivers to try and scare off Uber drivers??

It's a very reliable rumour...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...s/news-story/02ce0b37164effafa93ddfab86d258c7

WA Government to prosecute 37 Uber drivers

THE State Government is pushing ahead with court proceedings to prosecute 37 Uber drivers despite new laws to legalise the rideshare scheme coming into effect this week.

Last Wednesday, an Uber driver was ordered to pay $14,000 in court costs and fined $400 after failing to a produce taxi licence.

The driver was also handed a suspended conviction for the offence, which dates back to February last year.

Uber Perth general manager Tom White would not comment on whether the company funded the driver's court costs and fine, but said he would support him if he chose to appeal.

"As new regulations that recognise ridesharing finally come into effect in our state next week, it would be very surprising if the Government chose to waste even more taxpayer money targeting everyday West Australians through the courts," he said.

The remaining 37 outstanding prosecutions also relate to rideshare drivers who were unable to produce documents authorising the use of their vehicle as a taxi when requested by police.

According to the Department of Transport, the official charge is "failing to comply with a lawful requirement of an authorised officer" under the Taxi Act 1994.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman welcomed the court decision and said the department would continue to "monitor and investigate unlicensed transport operators".

She also warned "the appropriate actions will be taken" if there is sufficient evidence of an offence.

Laws introducing reforms such as new rideshare licences and reduced taxi licence fees start tomorrow.

Transport Minister Dean Nalder has also flagged introducing a $1 a trip levy for rideshare customers to compensate taxi plate owners whose business suffered with the introduction of Uber.

But a recent study carried out by Lonergan Research shows 73 per cent of West Australians are against a $1 levy to subsidise taxi losses.

According to the study survey, about 56 per cent of West Australians surveyed for the study said taxi plate owners should not be compensated at all.

Mr White said the State Government's transport reforms were supposed to open up more affordable transport choices and economic opportunity.

"We believe that when transport is made as affordable as possible, people will choose new ways to get around their cities, including leaving their own cars at home, and we will continue to advocate for our riders and driver-partners to government."

 

[Geely Gangster]

Never doubted you Phildo as I know you walk the talk Thanks for posting the article

 

[Phildo]

Never doubted you Phildo as I know you walk the talk Thanks for posting the article

I'm actually surprised - the minister had earlier implied that all charges would be dropped.

If the other 37 drivers also cop $14k in court costs then it's going to get expensive.

If anyone on here has communications in the near future with Uber then please ask if they are going to pay those costs for the drivers. Don't take any bullshit, demand a simple yes or no answer.

 

[Potsy]

I'm actually surprised - the minister had earlier implied that all charges would be dropped.

If the other 37 drivers also cop $14k in court costs then it's going to get expensive.

If anyone on here has communications in the near future with Uber then please ask if they are going to pay those costs for the drivers. Don't take any bullshit, demand a simple yes or no answer.

Phildo, this morning I did what u suggested. I sent email to uber asking if it's ok to keep driving during this transition period.
I asked for a clear yes or no answer as I'm sick of their normal responses.
I haven't received a reply yet so I'll let you know.

 

[Loz]

It's a very reliable rumour...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...s/news-story/02ce0b37164effafa93ddfab86d258c7

WA Government to prosecute 37 Uber drivers

THE State Government is pushing ahead with court proceedings to prosecute 37 Uber drivers despite new laws to legalise the rideshare scheme coming into effect this week.

Last Wednesday, an Uber driver was ordered to pay $14,000 in court costs and fined $400 after failing to a produce taxi licence.

The driver was also handed a suspended conviction for the offence, which dates back to February last year.

Uber Perth general manager Tom White would not comment on whether the company funded the driver's court costs and fine, but said he would support him if he chose to appeal.

"As new regulations that recognise ridesharing finally come into effect in our state next week, it would be very surprising if the Government chose to waste even more taxpayer money targeting everyday West Australians through the courts," he said.

The remaining 37 outstanding prosecutions also relate to rideshare drivers who were unable to produce documents authorising the use of their vehicle as a taxi when requested by police.

According to the Department of Transport, the official charge is "failing to comply with a lawful requirement of an authorised officer" under the Taxi Act 1994.

A Department of Transport spokeswoman welcomed the court decision and said the department would continue to "monitor and investigate unlicensed transport operators".

She also warned "the appropriate actions will be taken" if there is sufficient evidence of an offence.

Laws introducing reforms such as new rideshare licences and reduced taxi licence fees start tomorrow.

Transport Minister Dean Nalder has also flagged introducing a $1 a trip levy for rideshare customers to compensate taxi plate owners whose business suffered with the introduction of Uber.

But a recent study carried out by Lonergan Research shows 73 per cent of West Australians are against a $1 levy to subsidise taxi losses.

According to the study survey, about 56 per cent of West Australians surveyed for the study said taxi plate owners should not be compensated at all.

Mr White said the State Government's transport reforms were supposed to open up more affordable transport choices and economic opportunity.

"We believe that when transport is made as affordable as possible, people will choose new ways to get around their cities, including leaving their own cars at home, and we will continue to advocate for our riders and driver-partners to government."

I like the fact that Uber has not said if they will cover the fines.. They are very Honest (NOT).. I do think that $14,000 was excessive. I see stories of persons that get a lot less fines for assulting a person or killing someone when drink driving.. I am sure if he appeals he would get a lesser fine..

 

[Phildo]

Phildo, this morning I did what u suggested. I sent email to uber asking if it's ok to keep driving during this transition period.
I asked for a clear yes or no answer as I'm sick of their normal responses.
I haven't received a reply yet so I'll let you know.

Ahhh.... screw Uber, it's you that DOT prosecutes. Why the hell would you trust Uber with that?

The ONLY people to deal with for ANY of this are the ones at DOT at 20 Brown Street, East Perth.

Forget about the suburban DOT offices. Forget about Uber - they'll just feed you whatever crap they want.

Tom White has shown that he's no interested in complying with the new laws (I know a few things that I can't speak about publicly).

What Uber/Tom White say and what DOT say... there's a big gap between those two right now.

DOT - 1300 660 146. Or, go there in person. It's a piss easy process.

 

[haldriver]

I like the fact that Uber has not said if they will cover the fines.. They are very Honest (NOT).. I do think that $14,000 was excessive. I see stories of persons that get a lot less fines for assulting a person or killing someone when drink driving.. I am sure if he appeals he would get a lesser fine..

Uber's way out is they pay fines and leave driver to pay expenses (that's all they ever promised).

 

[UberPig]

So Uber pay the 400
And the driver has to wear the 14 k???????

 

[Phildo]

So Uber pay the 400
And the driver has to wear the 14 k???????

Welcome to the world of Uber.

DOT prosecuted a very small handful of Uber drivers at one point to make it look like they were doing something.

The state govt knew that it would legalise Uber at some point in time, so things were dragged out until then (ie now).

For the drivers, lawyers and Uber, the obvious response was to drag things out until then.

However, it seems that DOT has racked up a few costs, which would come out of their budget if they don't reclaim those costs from the prosecuted Uber drivers.

 

[Geely Gangster]

So does anyone acutally know if the poor driver does have to pay the $14k and not Uber? That would hurt a lot!

 

[UberDriverAU]

So does anyone acutally know if the poor driver does have to pay the $14k and not Uber? That would hurt a lot!

I reckon Uber would have funded the case and will cover all of the costs. The PR certainly wouldn't be great for them if the driver had to pay for it himself and went public. And of course Uber would have required a non disclosure agreement in return for funding the defence.

 

[UberPig]

That makes sense...

 

[Geely Gangster]

GG also concurs, thinking about it more now that would be the logical outcome.

 

[haldriver]

And of course Uber would have required a non disclosure agreement in return for funding the defence.

After claiming they will cover fines why would they want a no-disclosure agreement. That would just add to our panic not knowing if they really do have our back. Uber would be yelling from every rooftop how they supported their drivers in this travesty of justice.

Now if a driver was in a serious accident and a passenger hurt they would remain very quiet.

 

[UberPig]

They don't want people to know how much they shelled out. Add lawyers onto that.... hate to think of the cost.

 

[haldriver]

Uber Victoria general manager Matt Denman urged the Government to act.

"We are delighted that our driver-partner Mr Brenner won his appeal today in the the County Court of Victoria, and was awarded costs," he said

Uber shouting from rooftops in Melbourne driver got off similar charge.

 

[UberDriverAU]

After claiming they will cover fines why would they want a no-disclosure agreement. That would just add to our panic not knowing if they really do have our back. Uber would be yelling from every rooftop how they supported their drivers in this travesty of justice.

Now if a driver was in a serious accident and a passenger hurt they would remain very quiet.

Uber Victoria general manager Matt Denman urged the Government to act.

"We are delighted that our driver-partner Mr Brenner won his appeal today in the the County Court of Victoria, and was awarded costs," he said

Uber shouting from rooftops in Melbourne driver got off similar charge.

I doubt Uber would sign an NDA with the driver that they couldn't shout from the rooftops? Seen any quotes in the media from Mr Brenner?