He actually received remedy from his credit card, which is not a regulatory requirement but rather the free market at work.
The process was pretty opaque. From what I gathered, every complainant is assigned an internal investigator/advocate. If the department determines that the complaint has merit, the complaint goes before a regulatory judge who has limited authority to issue fines, revoke licenses, etc.
The system almost worked.
(Also, what's with that weird US regulation about a purchase having to be "within my home state or within 100 miles of my home" to be eligible for some credit card protections?)
My experience with "sharing economy" taxi companies is that they really, truly, do not care about their drivers or their customers. It's a free for all where customers and drivers are basically left to sort things out themselves. IMO, this is where regulation comes in. In a city like New York, taxis are a part of our public infrastructure -- like buses, subways, etc. There should be baseline service guarantees set by transit regulators and adequate funding set aside for enforcement.
The trend seems to go the other way.
Years back small perks such as free bottled water and plugged-in cables to charge your phone while you ride were not that uncommon with drivers striving to get to the 5-star ratings.
Today getting a car that doesn't smell too much and has enough trunk space to transport two luggage bags (not a completely unreasonable expectation in case of an airport pick-up) is close to a miracle.
My pet theory is that early successful drivers quit after running their numbers (that included costs on maintenance, wear and tear, extra tires, insurance that suddenly tripled when the car went way above the typical 12,500 annual miles), the current drivers looking to milk the system for as much as possible before the music stops.
And yet it works _better_ than when things are regulated, and people seem to prefer it.
Compare the number of defects per 100,000 rides in their solution to the one they replaced, and you'll quickly see that they care very much about both riders and drivers, because there isn't any revenue without both sides of the market.
Regulation is great when it's unbiased and not just a way to enrich cronies, and does what it's designed to do. It just seems that it's extremely rare to see such effective regulation in the US. In European countries, it seems to be far more common.
Besides, I fail to see how the GP wasn't victim of fraud. He may have better luck if he went to the police instead of a commercial regulator.
Most any regulation is going to have some effect on supply, it's why they should always pass a cost/benefit analysis before implementation.
You were the one who brought up bonds though. No need for that, you can enforce regulations just fine without them. Your TLC driver's license can function as a bond -- if you don't comply with rules, suspend it.
These services are turning into gypsy cab, where the full time people are as bad as the worst scammy taxi guys, new people don't know what they are doing and every once in a while you have someone who knows their area and isn't trying to scam but they seem to be doing it just for fun.
I'm back in regular taxis more often than not anymore
I've had them try this, whenever they do, I tell them they can either come or cancel but if they don't choose, I have a competing app on my phone and I'll just call another ride.
My fiance requested a Gett ride to JFK from midtown Manhattan for the two of us. The driver checked us into the cab while he was still en route to pick us up -- a very circuitous route -- accumulating ~$20 in travel fees. He kept calling to make excuses about why he was delayed. When the driver finally picked us up, he assured us that he'd reach out to Gett to have the additional charges removed.
Two weeks later, no update. We reported the issue to Gett. They not only refused to issue a refund, but they banned my fiance from the service!
She ended up requesting a chargeback for the full fare -- not just the additional charges -- which Visa granted. We don't want to bother with the T&LC again -- neither of us have the time.
Any explanation for the "lack of evidence" piece? Seems like the record of text messages would cover that.
Or is this a dispute as to who exactly is responsible, i.e. the driver or Lyft?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pasguqsrziz4uul/TLC%20Decision.pdf...
The hearing officer seemed totally unfamiliar with the mechanics of both of ride sharing and texting. He fundamentally misunderstood the nature of my complaint and the origin/context of the text message.
It's just intuition so maybe I'm wrong, but it's interesting if true, if the T&LC has a bias towards protecting drivers. I can imagine many ways that might have come about
> I eventually gave in and canceled the request.
I was late to work and wanted to request another Lyft driver -- Uber was surging. After I canceled the hail, Lyft starting surging, as well. I ended up taking the subway to work.
Last year, I filed a complaint with the NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission against both Lyft and an individual driver after the driver refused to pick me up in the middle of Manhattan but refused to actually cancel the ride. I eventually gave in and canceled the request. Lyft refused to refund the cancellation fee. I ended up getting a chargeback from my credit card company.
I submitted the driver's text messages to the T&LC as evidence and eventually got a phone hearing -- Lyft and the driver were required to appear in person. Lyft failed to appear and got a $1,000 fine. The driver showed up but was found not responsible for lack of evidence. It was a complete waste of time.
We'll be stuck with this until regulators realize that there's a pattern of abuse and start cracking down.