Posts by kirker

Crowdfunded lawyer suing Uber told he can't swerve taxi app giant's £1m legal bill

"This isn't about shady practices like Crossley was found guilty of, it's about someone standing up for "right" and big business using massive legal bills to try and stop him taking it further."

This might be plausible if he hadn't accepted a massive payoff from the black cab trade into his "crowdfunding" campaign. In the richest of ironies, those monies aren't subject to tax because they're considered "donations."

"This guy is trying to get a ruling on the VAT - and if he wins it sounds like Uber could be on the hook for a very very large amount of cash."

His estimate is utterly preposterous. Even if he did somehow magically win back VAT for every ride provided by Uber in the UK & EU to date, it'd likely be an eight-figure sum, not ten (!!).

"It sounds like they are deliberately loading up the legal fees - nah, one barrister isn't enough, lets use 5, sort of thing - in an attempt to frighten him off."

Having worked with barristers on various legal matters on numerous occasions, the fees sound typical to me. It costs a bloody fortune to pursue cases in courts of law.

Re: Who is ultimately responsible for collecting/paying the VAT

"It is noted that there is no cash/credit transaction between the driver and Uber (outside of tips.)"

Well, yes and no. Uber pays drivers via direct deposit into their bank accounts. While it's not *literally* a cash transaction, it's nearly the equivalent of one.

In any event, a British court has already ruled that Uber is a transportation service, not a "technology company," so even with independent operators as drivers they should still be on the hook for the same taxes/fees required of black cab drivers.

Nearly all income estimates for Uber drivers (both in the UK and elsewhere) are off-base, if only because obtaining pay stub data is all but impossible. Uber certainly doesn't hand it over, nor are its drivers required to do so.

Regardless, the 'best guesstimates' typically fail to take into account the surge pricing that serves as the main reason drivers work for them. £40/hour isn't uncommon on weekends when the Tube stops running and pissed wankers want to get home and pass out as quickly as possible.

Who the hell is still using Lyft? And why put up with junk texts 'n' calls, huffs FCC

"Who the hell is STILL using Lyft?"

Um, me? I know you blokes in the UK are unfamiliar with it, but Lyft is better in nearly every way than Uber -- and unlike Uber, its C-suite isn't filled with assholes harboring delusions of global domination.

"Why would you put up with junk texts 'n' calls, huffs FCC"

I don't suppose the FCC -- or The Register, for that matter -- checked to see if Lyft was actually *sending* junk texts? I'm a regular user of nearly two years and have received nary *one* junk text from them. In any event, it was most likely a simple error on Lyft's part, one they may not have even realized the implications of when they put it into their TOS. (I think it's safe to say at this stage that both Uber and Lyft have received myriad terrible legal advice.) In the aggregate, Uber has committed VASTLY more affronts to personal privacy, e.g. its parlour-trick "God View" function that it's shown off at private parties which pinpoints the precise location of any given celebrity or politician at that precise moment.