This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/03/uber-loses-court-case-english-language-test-london

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Uber loses court case to block English-language written test in London Uber loses court case to block English-language written test in London
(35 minutes later)
The ride-hailing app firm Uber has lost a high court case in a ruling that means all minicab drivers in London will have to pass a written English test, including a short essay. Drivers applying for a minicab licence in the capital will have to pass a written English exam, including a 120-word essay, after Uber lost a high court battle with Transport for London.
The judge, Mr Justice Mitting, admitted this could cost the capital 40,000 cab drivers over three years but said Transport for London had no other option that was less restrictive. The San Francisco-based firm said it would appeal. Justice Mitting, presiding over the case, admitted that the requirement could see 40,000 drivers over three years either fail the test or be deterred from applying for a private hire vehicle licence.
Uber won a separate part of the case that would have seen it forced to operate a call centre to field passenger complaints. But he said TfL had no reasonable alternative test to show that drivers were competent enough in written English.
It also defeated a third requirement by TfL that drivers should have minicab insurance, even during periods when they are not working. Uber said it would appeal a verdict that London general manager Tom Elvidge called a “deeply disappointing outcome for tens of thousands of drivers who will lose their livelihoods because they cannot pass an essay writing test”.
Uber launched legal action in August after TfL said drivers should have to prove their ability to communicate in English, including to a standard of reading and writing that Uber said was too high. “We’ve always supported spoken English skills, but writing an essay has nothing to do with communicating with passengers or getting them safely from A to B,” Elvidge added.
“TfL are entitled to require private hire drivers to demonstrate English-language compliance,” said Mitting as he rejected Uber’s claim.
Tom de la Mare QC, who was representing Uber and the drivers – Hungarian national Sandor Balogh, Bulgarian Nikolay Dimitrov, and Imran Khan from Pakistan – had argued that the language requirement would result in 70,000 applicants failing to obtain a licence over the next three years.
The changes, including insurance and the provision of call centre facilities, were also likely to lead to additional costs for PHV operators, running into millions of pounds, he said.
The proposals would have a disproportionate impact on drivers from countries where English was not generally spoken and give rise to “indirect discrimination on grounds of race and nationality”.
TfL argued that the requirements were vital to ensure passenger safety and to raise standards.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I’m delighted that the courts have today backed my plans to drive up standards and improve passenger safety in London.The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: “I’m delighted that the courts have today backed my plans to drive up standards and improve passenger safety in London.
“Drivers being able to speak English and understand information from passengers and licensing requirements is a vital part of ensuring passengers get the high standard of service they need and deserve.“Drivers being able to speak English and understand information from passengers and licensing requirements is a vital part of ensuring passengers get the high standard of service they need and deserve.
“This could include discussing a better route, talking about a medical condition, or ensuring every driver is fully up to date with new regulations.”“This could include discussing a better route, talking about a medical condition, or ensuring every driver is fully up to date with new regulations.”
He said TfL would look at the ruling to ensure its policies complied. Tom de la Mare QC, who was representing Uber and three drivers – Hungarian national Sandor Balogh, Nikolay Dimitrov from Bulgaria and Imran Khan from Pakistan – had argued that the language requirement would result in 33,000 existing drivers losing their livelihoods.
He said London would lose up to 70,000 drivers when including those who would be deterred from applying, based on figures from TfL’s own finance department.
Uber claimed the proposals would have a disproportionate impact on drivers from countries where English was not generally spoken and give rise to “indirect discrimination on grounds of race and nationality”.
The company previously succeeded in challenging TfL’s plan to exempt drivers from English-speaking countries on grounds of discrimination.
De la Mare pointed to recent statistics from Trinity College London showing that 45% of private licence applicants are failing the B1 standard of English required by TfL.
One sample question from the test reads: “Write an essay (100-130 words) for your teacher about a festival in a country you know.”
Another reads: “A friend in another town is going to study at your college and wants to know about the college rules. Write a letter to your friend (100-130 words).”
Justice Mitting conceded that a “reasonably cautious view” suggested 40,000 drivers would be at risk of failing to obtain a licence. London currently has about 118,000 private hire licensees.
But he ruled that TfL, which argued that the requirements were vital to ensure passenger safety and raise standards, had the right to impose the test.
While Uber lost the legal battle over English requirements, it won on two separate disputes over drivers’ insurance and the need for a 24-hour call centre.
Mitting found in favour of Uber, which argued that its app-based system meant there was no need for it to operate a call centre to field customer complaints.
But the judge said TfL was entitled to force Uber to set up a 24-hour hotline dedicated to emergency calls.
Uber also successfully argued that its drivers should not be required to hold minicab insurance for periods when they are not working, such as during the school holidays.