# Unjustly deactivated after almost 4 years ( had a 4.88 rating ) of driving for not taking a NON service dog & a 4.88 rating



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

moJohoJo said:


> My letter to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


THIS is Exactly Why NO ONE CAN TRUST UBER !

THIS IS WHY DRIVERS NEED A UNION !

UNION = JUSTICE FOR DRIVERS !

DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS !


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> THIS is Exactly Why NO ONE CAN TRUST UBER !
> 
> THIS IS WHY DRIVERS NEED A UNION !
> 
> ...


I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


----------



## Warbishop (Nov 15, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My letter to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Im sry that happened to you. It does sound like you were not treated fairly to me and some passengers are just trying to cheat the system and screw good drivers with reasonable concerns.


----------



## HPRohit (Apr 9, 2018)

Dashcam....dashcam dashcam


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

There Must be INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT REGARDING UBERS TREATMENT OF DRIVERS !

UNION OR GOVERNMENT.

IT WILL HAPPEN.


----------



## Don Fanucci (May 26, 2019)

These rideshare companies could care less about a third-party transportation provider one down Millions more to sign up nice doing business with you ✔


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Don Fanucci said:


> These rideshare companies could care less about a third-party transportation provider one down Millions more to sign up nice doing business with you ✔


THEY WONT HAVE A CHOICE SOON.

SOON THEY MUST CARE.


----------



## Don Fanucci (May 26, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> THEY WONT HAVE A CHOICE SOON.
> 
> SOON THEY MUST CARE.


I hope so for the Drivers sake


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My letter to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

HPRohit said:


> Dashcam....dashcam dashcam


I would of taken a video of the dog pulling her every which way but i just wanted to get away from her as fast as i could because i knew her ( the passenger ) and her dog were going to be trouble for me if i hung around . Her for being doped up & her dog who was unruly, dirty, not contained or controllable and obviously not a service dog . She lied to, Memo ( Uber support's name ) about having a service dog but, Memo ( Uber ) believed her & took her side .


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
&#128073;You're not the first, nor the last to come here with "I got Deactivated for spitting
In US Government's eye &#127482;&#127480;
Followed by:

Securing Legal representation (never happen)
Filing suit against the Rejected passenger (never happen)
Filing suit against the Rejected Service Dog ‍(never happen)
Filing suit against Uber (never happen)
Filing suit against the US Government (never happen)

Applying and driving for Lyft ✔&#128077;


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the report itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> and you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it.


That dog would of ripped up my seats . It was going crazy & the woman couldn't handle it .



Cold Fusion said:


> U may be "contacting an attorney" but he ain't going to take you call.
> Maybe he'll take $300 for a consultation to advise,
> You Broke a US Government Federal Law.
> 
> ...


I did not break any law . That was not a service dog . Doesn't hurt to call Attorneys to see if i get any bites .


----------



## islanddriver (Apr 6, 2018)

You can't be sure not service dog. Only thing you could have done is cancel say car trouble and go off line for the next few hour and hope that worked


----------



## Hillary_Clinton (Oct 19, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> I would of taken a video of the dog pulling her every which way but i just wanted to get away from her as fast as i could because i knew her ( the passenger ) and her dog were going to be trouble for me if i hung around . Her for being doped up & her dog who was unruly, dirty, not contained or controllable and obviously not a service dog . She lied to, Memo ( Uber support's name ) about having a service dog but, Memo ( Uber ) believed her & took her side .


Knowing who she is a big deal breaker because Uber will not give up that information even after subpoena. I would recommend getting a young attorney that would be up for the adventure. You will lose money on this but if you feel like having fun with this I wish you best of luck with your defamation case.

it would be a noble cause because they are people out there that rely on their service dog.


----------



## ilka (Mar 15, 2019)

surely if it was a service dog it would have some sort of ID tag and there would be a record of it somewhere, if not it would prove she was lying. Do a few searches yourself before you spend big money on a lawyer.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Post # 3,741 from the "I got deactivated for refusing an animal" club. You will never beat it and are permanently done. Waste of time to spend any effort "proving" it wasn't a service animal. Uber isn't going to care. It's simple Corporate Risk Management. There is no risk to deactivating you as they can at any time, for any reason, end your "partnership" (you're not an employee). Meanwhile, much bigger risk for them to stop punishing drivers for refusing "potentially" service animals and violating the law and civil liability. Guess where the risk to them is? Bye Bye, It's Lyft time for you.

You only have 2 safe choices:
1) Take the dog and as @RideshareUSA charge a cleaning fee.
2) If you really don't want to take the dog that bad jump out of the car at arrival and say "Holy Shit my car is overheating"! Then, pop the hood and stare at your engine for awhile, apologize for having to cancel, wait around until the dog and owner go away, and then don't take any rides for a few hours. Terribly inconvenient so I choose option 1.


----------



## UberUber81 (Jul 21, 2016)

I take all dogs and then charge clean up fees. I'm not deactivated and I make more money. Never cancel on a dog. Never. Cleaning fee them into oblivion.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

moJohoJo said:


> Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog





moJohoJo said:


> I would of taken a video of the dog pulling her every which way but i just wanted to get away from her as fast as i could


I'm sorry that happened to you but actually it would be better if you had a dash cam, per ada:









Last sentence under Q25, source: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


----------



## Syn (Jun 30, 2017)

Dude, next time just play dumb. Say that there was no dog & that a pax is a scammer who's just trying to get a free ride.


----------



## Chorch (May 17, 2019)

Seamus said:


> Post # 3,741 from the "I got deactivated for refusing an animal" club. You will never beat it and are permanently done. It's Lyft time for you.
> 
> You only have 2 safe choices:
> 1) Take the dog and as @RideshareUSA charge a cleaning fee.
> 2) If you really don't want to take the dog that bad jump out of the car at arrival and say "Holy Shit my car is overheating"! Then, pop the hood and stare at your engine for awhile, apologize for having to cancel, wait around until the dog and owner go away, and then don't take any rides for a few hours. Terribly inconvenient so I choose option 1.


Not even a few hours.
After the pax and dog are gone, just keep going. The pax saw you concerned about your _overheating car. _So I don't think they will report you as "didn't take me because of my dog".

That's my guess...


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> I'm sorry that happened to you but actually it would be better if you had a dash cam, per ada:
> 
> View attachment 381748
> 
> Last sentence under Q25, source: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html


Even with dashcam (which Uber won't look at), who is going to pay a lawyer $300 -$500/hr to prove all this? It's a theoretical question only.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Seamus said:


> Even with dashcam (which Uber won't look at), who is going to pay a lawyer $300 -$500/hr to prove all this? It's a theoretical question only.


Others have reported uber looking at dashcam. It's a simple matter of having that video show that she's not in control of the animal and that section of the ADA's policy with service animals.

no need to pay for a lawyer when you can point to the black and white.


----------



## Chorch (May 17, 2019)

Syn said:


> Dude, next time just play dumb. Say that there was no dog & that a pax is a scammer who's just trying to get a free ride.


I like that: no dog. Deny deny deny.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Syn said:


> Dude, next time just play dumb. Say that there was no dog & that a pax is a scammer who's just trying to get a free ride.


You're neglecting to address Uber corporate Doctrine
1. Paying Passengers & Federal Law are priority
2. Disposable oversupplied nonemployee drivers ain't


----------



## Mkang14 (Jun 29, 2019)

Unfortunatly the problem is no matter how legit your concern was they will take it as an excuse.


----------



## Don Fanucci (May 26, 2019)

Cold Fusion said:


> You're neglecting to address Uber corporate Doctrine
> 1. Pay Passengers & Federal Law are priority
> 2. Disposable oversupplied nonemployee drivers ain't


Amen &#128591;


----------



## amazinghl (Oct 31, 2018)

Thanks for playing uber, your time is up.


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


Yeah. Sue them. If they can't be able to prove that dog was a service dog, they lost.


----------



## OldBay (Apr 1, 2019)

Seamus said:


> Post # 3,741 from the "I got deactivated for refusing an animal" club. You will never beat it and are permanently done. Waste of time to spend any effort "proving" it wasn't a service animal. Uber isn't going to care. It's simple Corporate Risk Management. There is no risk to deactivating you as they can at any time, for any reason, end your "partnership" (you're not an employee). Meanwhile, much bigger risk for them to stop punishing drivers for refusing "potentially" service animals and violating the law and civil liability. Guess where the risk to them is? Bye Bye, It's Lyft time for you.
> 
> You only have 2 safe choices:
> 1) Take the dog and as @RideshareUSA charge a cleaning fee.
> 2) If you really don't want to take the dog that bad jump out of the car at arrival and say "Holy Shit my car is overheating"! Then, pop the hood and stare at your engine for awhile, apologize for having to cancel, wait around until the dog and owner go away, and then don't take any rides for a few hours. Terribly inconvenient so I choose option 1.


I wouldn't have considered it 6 months ago, but the proper response to a "fake service dog" is pouring water on the carpet and claiming it peed.


----------



## Disgusted Driver (Jan 9, 2015)

ilka said:


> surely if it was a service dog it would have some sort of ID tag and there would be a record of it somewhere, if not it would prove she was lying. Do a few searches yourself before you spend big money on a lawyer.


There is no ID, vest, licensing or recording requirement period!!!

Folks with those vests on their dogs are usually emotional support dogs which we don't have to carry. However when you refuse make sure you have video of it because they will lie and claim they were service animals. Best thing is to take them, start the ride with dash cam running and then charge a cleaning fee if possible or demonstrate dog is out of control before you throw them out.


----------



## Bonmot (Dec 14, 2018)

ilka said:


> surely if it was a service dog it would have some sort of ID tag and there would be a record of it somewhere, if not it would prove she was lying. Do a few searches yourself before you spend big money on a lawyer.


Not so. Service animals are not required to be marked as such in any way. As an Uber driver (just as in restaurants and other places generally off limits to pets), you can ask the owner if that is a service animal. If they say yes you CANNOT ask why they need the animal (HIPPA) and you cannot ask for proof in any form such as a certificate. These restrictions may seem burdensome but all you have to do is imagine if you were disabled and needed this assistance. Would you want to feel vilified and suspect? Of course the regulations mean that scumbags can get away with bringing their pet wherever they want with impunity. If you see a service dog with a clearly marked vest or other indicator, there's a pretty good chance it's a dog in training.
And in case anyone is curious, I just did a quick search of service dog tasks and found a list that included, in addition to the familiar seeing-eye dog, dogs are trained to detect and alert for severe allergens, alert for seizures and even provide treatment stimuli, diabetic alert by sensing dangerous blood sugar levels, and many other specific support functions. Some of these "dumb brutes" are even trained to alert 911 via a special dog-activated call device.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Wildgoose said:


> Yeah. Sue them. If they can't be able to prove that dog was a service dog, they lost.


I'd say you lost for spending $10,000 to $20,000 for the privilege of Ubering again! LOL



sellkatsell44 said:


> Others have reported uber looking at dashcam. It's a simple matter of having that video show that she's not in control of the animal and that section of the ADA's policy with service animals.
> 
> no need to pay for a lawyer when you can point to the black and white.


So then you know someone on this forum who got reactivated after getting deactivated for refusing a service animal? Who?


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Seamus said:


> So then you know someone on this forum who got reactivated after getting deactivated for refusing a service animal? Who?


you're jumping/misconstruing what I wrote.

There have been folks who have had success getting uber to review dashcam. This is why there are threads on the importance of one as well as the types you can get and which are the best.

if there is something written in the ADA policy that along with the dashcam footage, will prove that OP has a _right_ to refuse the ride then why would you spend hundreds on a lawyer?

pple who think that go well hand in hand with lawyers looking to make fast money.

just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't be possible.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> you're jumping/misconstruing what I wrote.
> 
> There have been folks who have had success getting uber to review dashcam. This is why there are threads on the importance of one as well as the types you can get and which are the best.
> 
> ...


You appear to enjoy being argumentative and lecturing. Dash cam is mainly to prevent you from being locked up by the po po or being liable Civilly which is far more important than stupid Uber TOS. But thanks for pointing out all the threads that exist.

Just who do you think you're sending the dash cam to? Uber??? News flash...they don't care!!! That's the point!


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

Always report first! I do take dogs but wouldn't have taken that dog. If I could do the drive by, I would.

Whenever there is a potential problem call support and complain. Crazy person shouting KILL KILL MURDER MURDER. Or racist calling me the N word .

You are screwed now. Go do something else for money.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Seamus said:


> You appear to enjoy being argumentative and lecturing. Dash cam is mainly to prevent you from being locked up by the po po or being liable Civilly which is far more important than stupid Uber TOS. But thanks for pointing out all the threads that exist.
> 
> Just who do you think you're sending the dash cam to? Uber??? News flash...they don't care!!! That's the point!


Hah I can say the same of you, what's the point? Are we not talking back and forth civilly? I guess you take digs when you're getting desperate?



FLUBBER said:


> WTF! UBER deactivated me that time for just a few hours and after speaking to their investigator he reinstated me





Trafficat said:


> I hold onto dashcam video forever. I record at very low resolution so I can store a lot of it. I ran out of harddrive space so I bought an external hard drive to store more.
> 
> Incorrect. A driver has only two weeks to submit a fare adjustment complaint, but apparently pax have no time limit. I had a fare from July refunded this month (September).
> 
> Furthermore on the pax app, you can go back in time months or longer to rerate drivers.





Uber_Paul83 said:


> Bit of an update. Got a call from someone at Uber in Australia who was very pleasant to deal with. Just gave my side of the story etc and hope to hear back in the next couple of days. Thankfully I can drive on Ola so I'm not going to be completely broke. If I'm given the all clear does anyone know if there is a way I can be compensated for lost income?


----------



## MiamiKid (May 24, 2016)

Hillary_Clinton said:


> Knowing who she is a big deal breaker because Uber will not give up that information even after subpoena. I would recommend getting a young attorney that would be up for the adventure. You will lose money on this but if you feel like having fun with this I wish you best of luck with your defamation case.
> 
> it would be a noble cause because they are people out there that rely on their service dog.


Only thing is, Uber can deactivate anyone they wish, for any reason whatsoever, and whenever they want.

Trust me, we would have already heard the cases if it weren't that way.

One more reason why I don't upgrade my 2012 vehicle. Deactivation could happen at anytime for any reason. Totally out of our control.

That's why Uber works only as supplemental income for me. Otherwise, I'd hit it way harder with an upgraded car.


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Amos69 said:


> Whenever there is a potential problem call support and complain. Crazy person shouting KILL KILL MURDER MURDER. Or racist calling me the N word .


Smollet?


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

Bubsie said:


> Smollet?


Smartest!


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

The only person who can request proof that a dog is service dog is a Judge.
Therefore, if they say it's a service dog, you're breaking the law if you don't take them.
Easy solution -- take all animals and request a cleaning or damage fee. RESOLVED.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Amos69 said:


> Always report first! I do take dogs but wouldn't have taken that dog. If I could do the drive by, I would.


Excellent. Career Suicide
Driver Deactivation be4 Uber's paying passenger steps up.
Saves on Uber paperwork


----------



## Valar Dohaeris (May 25, 2019)

I'm sorry this happened to you. Not to rub salt in the wound, but 4.88 is a sh*t rating after 4 months, let alone 4 years. 

Good luck in another line of work.


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> THIS is Exactly Why NO ONE CAN TRUST UBER !
> 
> THIS IS WHY DRIVERS NEED A UNION !
> 
> ...


Even if what you say is true, there is NO WAY to prove that this dog wasn't a service animal. By refusing to take the dog, you broke the goober rules about claimed service animals. They don't have to have a vest on or have any markings of such. Even asking them if it is a service animal is risking it honestly. Bro you are screwed. You WON'T be reactivated. Don't listen to the other dipshits on here saying to get a lawyer and file suit. You don't have a case. Goober is going to screw you. This is EXACTLY why no one should do this full time or count on goober. The person saying to unionize and all that garbage is full of shit. If we unionize we will end up screwed just like California.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Hah I can say the same of you, what's the point? Are we not talking back and forth civilly? I guess you take digs when you're getting desperate?


Kat I realize you can get reactivated. I myself was reported in an accident that a pax got hurt in (that is what they reported). There was no accident and no injury. Filled out Uber's incident report and sent in my Dash cam of the ride proving no accident took place. (Wether they looked at the Dash cam or not who knows) Was back active in 2 hours. The difference is that was in THEIR best interest in case the Pax tried to extort money from them. We are specifically talking about denying rides to animals which Uber could care less about you because it is not in THEIR interest. There is in my opinion no interest in a search for truth and justice in Uberland. Only the protection of self interest.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Seamus said:


> Kat I realize you can get reactivated. I myself was reported in an accident that a pax got hurt in (that is what they reported). There was no accident and no injury. Filled out Uber's incident report and sent in my Dash cam of the ride proving no accident took place. (Wether they looked at the Dash cam or not who knows) Was back active in 2 hours. The difference is that was in THEIR best interest in case the Pax tried to extort money from them. We are specifically talking about denying rides to animals which Uber could care less about you because it is not in THEIR interest. There is in my opinion no interest in a search for truth and justice in Uberland. Only the protection of self interest.


Yes and protection in own self interest, dash cam is better then your word against pax right?

just keeping it on topic. Thank you for confirming you're also one of those that benefited from a dash cam.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


I took one dog, small and it climbed all over the place and made a mess. No more dogs for me, this exploitation of a law is like getting a handicap placard. Anyone can claim the animal is a service animal. Your pet doesn't need to be with you in MY car.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Seamus said:


> Even with dashcam (which Uber won't look at), who is going to pay a lawyer $300 -$500/hr to prove all this? It's a theoretical question only.


Small claims Court and I'll include Contractor status v/s employee so there's no question i will prevail in a Court of Law .



Cold Fusion said:


> You're neglecting to address Uber corporate Doctrine
> 1. Paying Passengers & Federal Law are priority
> 2. Disposable oversupplied nonemployee drivers ain't


I will include employee status v/s Contractor status in my lawsuit .



Illini said:


> The only person who can request proof that a dog is service dog is a Judge.
> Therefore, if they say it's a service dog, you're breaking the law if you don't take them.
> Easy solution -- take all animals and request a cleaning or damage fee. RESOLVED.


A cleaning fee would not match the thousands of dollars in torn and shattered seats by a out of control animal that even the owner could not keep under containment .



Fat Man said:


> Even if what you say is true, there is NO WAY to prove that this dog wasn't a service animal. By refusing to take the dog, you broke the goober rules about claimed service animals. They don't have to have a vest on or have any markings of such. Even asking them if it is a service animal is risking it honestly. Bro you are screwed. You WON'T be reactivated. Don't listen to the other dipshits on here saying to get a lawyer and file suit. You don't have a case. Goober is going to screw you. This is EXACTLY why no one should do this full time or count on goober. The person saying to unionize and all that garbage is full of shit. If we unionize we will end up screwed just like California.


Nice try, Corporate office . I am adding Contractor v/s Employee status to my suit . Your not scare-ing me out of this .


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> Small claims Court and I'll include Contractor status v/s employee so there's no question i will prevail in a Court of Law .
> 
> 
> I will include employee status v/s Contractor status in my lawsuit .
> ...


LMAO... you think I am corporate! That is too god damn funny bro! I am a VERY part time goober driver in Phoenix! I am just telling you that there is no way for you to win this. Go ahead and waste money on lawyer fees because there is NO WAY they are taking this BS case on contingency!


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

There are many cases where drivers were reactivated after "investigations" for various matters. However we've never seen such a reversal for matters related to failure to transport a service animal. Uber wants to be seen by the authorities to take a very strict view on service animal mandatory pickup requirements. The only way you could possibly win in civil court is to have dashcam footage of the animal totally out of control in your vehicle - which is the only legally permitted "exclusion".


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

moJohoJo said:


> Small claims Court and I'll include Contractor status v/s employee so there's no question i will prevail in a Court of Law .
> 
> 
> I will include employee status v/s Contractor status in my lawsuit .
> ...


You're in the wrong here because you didn't ask the two questions. You're not going to have anyone to take to small claims court.


----------



## Babak (May 25, 2016)

From my experience 9/10 dogs I’ve had in my car aren’t Service Dogs.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Did you ever think maybe... just maybe the dog was trying to get away from the crackhead.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

It also says included in my lawsuit will be a suit against Uber for classifying me as a Contractor v/s Employee . They are in control of us & i can give you or anyone else why we are not contractors when they determine what a driver can or cannot do . Look up online why we are not contractors for Uber .


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Did you ever think maybe... just maybe the dog was trying to get away from the crackhead.


Or they senced the driver was a go nowhere loser


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Demon said:


> You're in the wrong here because you didn't ask the two questions. You're not going to have anyone to take to small claims court.


Added will be Contractor which i am not verses Employee which i am so i won't lose either way .


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

moJohoJo said:


> Added will be Contractor which i am not verses Employee which i am so i won't lose either way .


You'll never make it to court.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Illini said:


> The only person who can request proof that a dog is service dog is a Judge.
> Therefore, if they say it's a service dog, you're breaking the law if you don't take them.
> Easy solution -- take all animals and request a cleaning or damage fee. RESOLVED.


A cleaning fee does not cover a dog tearing or ripping up your seats with a dogs claws . Nice try, anyways .


----------



## Mordred (Feb 3, 2018)

Uber views drivers as less than dirt. Always have a, daahcam. Never think that they are on your side.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Valar Dohaeris said:


> I'm sorry this happened to you. Not to rub salt in the wound, but 4.88 is a sh*t rating after 4 months, let alone 4 years.
> 
> Good luck in another line of work.


I was a 9.2 but it only dropped to a 4.88 because there are a few passengers who wake up on the wrong side of the bed or will want you to follow navigation step by step instead of you, the driver using an alternate route to save time and money because you know a shorter route .


----------



## Illini (Mar 14, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> A cleaning fee does not cover a dog tearing or ripping up your seats with a dogs claws . Nice try, anyways .


Ever hear of seat covers?
Let us know how your conversation with your attorneys work out for you. They're going to cost a lot more than seat covers or replacing your seats.


----------



## WEY00L (Mar 6, 2019)

Bubsie said:


> There are many cases where drivers were reactivated after "investigations" for various matters. However we've never seen such a reversal for matters related to failure to transport a service animal. Uber wants to be seen by the authorities to take a very strict view on service animal mandatory pickup requirements. The only way you could possibly win in civil court is to have dashcam footage of the animal totally out of control in your vehicle - which is the only legally permitted "exclusion".


Untrue.
I was deactivated for refusing to take a dog.
I tossed the dog out of my car after it jumped on my seats with it's muddy paws.

I was later reactivated after talking with Uber on the phone.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

WEY00L said:


> Untrue.
> I was deactivated for refusing to take a dog.
> I tossed the dog out of my car after it jumped on my seats with it's muddy paws.
> 
> I was later reactivated after talking with Uber on the phone.


That wasn't a legal exclusion, that was Uber.


----------



## Immoralized (Nov 7, 2017)

OP fell for the service animal scam by rider like thousands before him.
Move on with life because you just lost that ten buck per hour job.
You can't afford a lawyer to take on Uber or the rider and don't have enough brains to win by self representing yourself in any court room.

Next week would be another poster with the same old "I was deactivated because I refused to take a service animal" thread again.
Every week it the same and surprisingly are from some posters that been around the block a few times and should know better.

If this was OP 1st time offending he maybe able to beg Uber by getting down on his hands and knees for some leniency and saying that he will take all future animals from here on out. Beg & cry say you got ten kids to feed and you'll starve without this job and will do anything to reform and be a super good ant. Only chance to save that job. Only way Uber will see him as no threat from getting sued to high heavens if he does refuses a legitimate service dog in the future.

Eat that humble pie and get forgiven but it probably too late if OP sent messages that his going to sue them.


----------



## Defensive Driver (Aug 27, 2019)

You could have just Canceled the ride when you saw the passenger. It would have been like you were never there at all.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Illini said:


> Ever hear of seat covers?
> Let us know how your conversation with your attorneys work out for you. They're going to cost a lot more than seat covers or replacing your seats.


Not in small claims .



Immoralized said:


> OP fell for the service animal scam by rider like thousands before him.
> Move on with life because you just lost that ten buck per hour job.
> You can't afford a lawyer to take on Uber or the rider and don't have enough brains to win by self representing yourself in any court room.
> 
> ...


I've taken over 13,600 trips, Ubering . It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out at least 100 of these trips were taken by a passenger with an animal(s) . This dog was not a service dog . She was drugged up . My car, my choice . I'm not getting my car thrashed by one single uncontrollable dog for a net $2 profit .


----------



## Immoralized (Nov 7, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> Not in small claims .
> 
> 
> I've taken over 13,600 trips, Ubering . It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out at least 100 of these trips were taken by a passenger with an animal(s) . This dog was not a service dog . She was drugged up . My car, my choice . I'm not getting my car thrashed by one single uncontrollable dog for a net $2 profit .


It up to you to prove to Uber that it was not a service dog. You can't say it not a service dog blah blah blah because the rider is going to be saying it is a service dog blah blah blah. It ur word against the rider word and if you don't have any evidence proving that case beyond a reasonable doubt then you got no case with Uber.

Since it ur word against the rider word. Uber wants no part in that dispute and to cover Uber a$$ from been sued they have deactivated you because they don't want to get sued for discriminating against disabled person with a service animal. You didn't offer Uber anything proving that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and no ur word isn't better then the rider word. Uber has given you both the benefit of the doubt of telling the truth and it comes down to risk management purely.

They will be sorry to see their commission go by deactivating you but they don't want to get sued for millions and are unwilling to take that risk at this time. Nor will they spend the time or money investigating the rider if he or she has a legitimate service animal or not and the rider knows this. It is why you are deactivated like all the other drivers she has deactivated that didn't take her mut.

You knew Uber had a zero tolerance against anyone refusing to take a pet and owner that claims it is a service animal. Which many has said before only a judge can rule on that and I'm pretty sure you are not a judge. So you have to take the matter up in front of a judge and make a case against this rider now that she doesn't actually have a service animal then show Uber that you won that court case and you'll be reactivated if you want to go down that road.

You are not the 1st driver deactivated like this and you are not the last. Another forum member next week will make a thread exactly like you did for exactly the same matter. Uber doesn't have a judge under employment to decide who is a legitimately disable person that has a service animal either. They can't rule on the matter. That the extent of the protection that exist for discriminating against disable person. Of course as you seen the law is very open to abuse but it there to protect actual disable person with a service animal from been discriminated against.

In Uber eyes you broke the law. It unfortunate but it is clearly written in the community guidelines and mentioned in the terms & conditions that you agreed to that you will take any animal and rider on their platform that claims it is a service animal and will not discriminate them or their animal. You broke that agreement and they terminated ur account. Just as you said "My car my choice." Uber has decided it their platform and you no longer have access to it and it their choice. You got deactivated because you failed to uphold on ur end of the agreement with Uber. Which was by ur choice as you said.

What I'm trying to say is that you got no case with Uber. The only case you might have is with the rider. Call a lawyer now and they will tell you the same thing.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> .... I did nothing wrong .....


Yes, you did. You signed up with Uber.

It says so right in the TOS.... "we can do whatever you want, and you will bend over and take it" .... and you did agree to that, so why complain now?!.... I'm still driving... but I drive as if it was my last day driving for them. I know I can get cut for no reason at all, at any time. Own it.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Yet another deactivated by service dog thread. It simply astounds me.


----------



## Immoralized (Nov 7, 2017)

CTK said:


> Yet another deactivated by service dog thread. It simply astounds me.


Be another one next week. This industry is quite different from others where they learn quickly and try not to make the same mistakes once it has happened a few times but for rideshare. Everyone thinks they are above the rules and somehow special driver. Therefore repeating the same mistakes over and over again indefinitely.


----------



## 2starDriver (Mar 22, 2019)

In the perfect world; There should be a registrAtion screen if the rider has pet when first signing up for rider account. If it is service pet, rider should upload the certificate and be verified. When the request received pets picture should pop up along with little notification on the app. This is the only way to prevent unfair deactivations.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

2starDriver said:


> In the perfect world; There should be a registrAtion screen if the rider has pet when first signing up for rider account. If it is service pet, rider should upload the certificate and be verified. When the request received pets picture should pop up along with little notification on the app. This is the only way to prevent unfair deactivations.


How have I not seen you before... You're as rare as your name.

there is no scenario where anyone can ask someone who has a service animal, to produce the papers.

you can ask two questions.

and you can refuse service if the dog is off leash, not in owners control, and so forth.

but other then that you cannot ask for papers/cert and cannot deny.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

2starDriver said:


> In the perfect world; There should be a registrAtion screen if the rider has pet when first signing up for rider account. If it is service pet, rider should upload the certificate and be verified. When the request received pets picture should pop up along with little notification on the app. This is the only way to prevent unfair deactivations.


For the 10,00th time, THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE. No "proof" exists or is required for a service animal, as per the ADA law.


----------



## WindyCityAnt (Feb 24, 2019)

I literally would have canceled as I drive by for safety. It’s to dangerous of a spot to pick anyone up at. You won’t get dinged for the cancel % either. Move along.


----------



## DexNex (Apr 18, 2015)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


----------



## 2starDriver (Mar 22, 2019)

sellkatsell44 said:


> How have I not seen you before... You're as rare as your name.
> 
> there is no scenario where anyone can ask someone who has a service animal, to produce the papers.
> 
> ...


So every pet welcome.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

OP: "My car my choice."

Uber: "Our app, our choice. Bye, Felicia!"


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

Mista T said:


> OP: "My car my choice."
> 
> Uber: "Our app, our choice. Bye, Felicia!"


Yep, bascially... it's your car, and you have a choice to drive with uber or not.


----------



## Urazi (Mar 3, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


You do slavery for uber and in the end master wins..


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Another reason to not wear trade dress. Shuffle pax move on


----------



## DrivingUberPax (Apr 25, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


I don't know if it's in your market yet but, at this point it doesn't matter if it's a service dog or not. Sometime last week i went to my riders pick-up & upon my arrival they had a dog that clearly wasn't a service animal. Low & behold uber has now added "uber pet". No e-mail or message from uber letting drivers know this is now a thing. I'm positive riders are paying an extra fee for this. I'm also positive drivers don't see a penny of the extra fee. We are being royally screwed with zero lube & being put in a position where we have to accept any and everything from these people for the low low price of 69 cents per mile. Independent contractor my ass.



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Another reason to not wear trade dress. Shuffle pax move on


Iass.I haven't had the trade dress on my car for the better part of a year.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady .  I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Sounds like a cancellation of "Not safe to pick up".

Try Lyft.

idk If dog owners are required to have documentation or not that the animal is indeed a service animal but if your still bothering Uber bc they deactivated you about the dog, than just tell em you'd like to see the service animals documentation to prove you broke policy.


----------



## Clevername (Mar 28, 2019)

What reason did you give for cancelling the ride? That, I think was your mistake.


----------



## FormerTaxiDriver♧ (Apr 5, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


I take all dogs, and treat them with great respect! &#129322;


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Uberdriver914 said:


> Sounds like a cancellation of "Not safe to pick up".
> 
> Try Lyft.
> 
> idk If dog owners are required to have documentation or not that the animal is indeed a service animal but if your still bothering Uber bc they deactivated you about the dog, than just tell em you'd like to see the service animals documentation to prove you broke policy.


Service animals don't have any documentation, that would make the problem worse.


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

Demon said:


> Service animals don't have any documentation, that would make the problem worse.


I feel like service animals not having documentation makes the problem even worst then. So I can pick up a dog on the street and call it my service animal? What service is it providing? I feel like that's unfair. Theirs a lot of unfair things going on with these rideshare companies. Low wages is at the top of my list.


----------



## kingcorey321 (May 20, 2018)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


you need to learn. there is zero cleaning fee from a service dog. a dog could shit piss throw up hair everywhere. slobber .
uber and lyft policy there not able to issue a cleaning fee for service animals. you can look it up in the tos on the app under service animals.
i never though this was the way to do business . i would refuse every animal . screw lyft and uber .


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

Many of you have the wrong attitudes towards man's best friend. An "Embrace the dog" message should be sent to each driver as they go online. Some of you have real issues that should be addressed in your next counseling session. You see a dog at the pick up? A little preparation leads to great fun! Suggestions to help your "doggy ride"

1- Carry a rubber ball and the next time you get a dog in the car play a game of fetch! Throw the ball off the windows and the dog will start bouncing all over the car chasing it as the owner tries in vain to control it. FUNNY! 
2- You are making a mistake claiming the service animal peed in your car. Claim the OWNER peed in your car and the chances of a cleaning fee improve!
3- Carry a good silent dog whistle. Last time I did this the dog went berserk in my car and the owner couldn't apologize enough and gave a good tip.
4- Use it as an opportunity to fart in the car! So easy to blame the smell on the dog!

Attitude means everything!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Uberdriver914 said:


> I feel like service animals not having documentation makes the problem even worst then. So I can pick up a dog on the street and call it my service animal? What service is it providing? I feel like that's unfair. Theirs a lot of unfair things going on with these rideshare companies. Low wages is at the top of my list.


It doesn't. If they were required to have documentation anyone could just write certificate on a piece of paper and viola, they have a service animal.
Asking the two questions will weed out most if not all of the fakers.
Nothing unfair about it, everyone knew about this when they signed up.


----------



## Mkang14 (Jun 29, 2019)

FormerTaxiDriver♧ said:


> I take all dogs, and treat them with great respect! &#129322;
> 
> View attachment 382101


Real question is who would purchase that pillow? -o:


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

4 year mark is when deactivations usually happens.


----------



## charmer37 (Nov 18, 2016)

Don Fanucci said:


> These rideshare companies could care less about a third-party transportation provider one down Millions more to sign up nice doing business with you ✔


Pretty much


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

DrivingUberPax said:


> I don't know if it's in your market yet but, at this point it doesn't matter if it's a service dog or not. Sometime last week i went to my riders pick-up & upon my arrival they had a dog that clearly wasn't a service animal. Low & behold uber has now added "uber pet". No e-mail or message from uber letting drivers know this is now a thing. I'm positive riders are paying an extra fee for this. I'm also positive drivers don't see a penny of the extra fee. We are being royally screwed with zero lube & being put in a position where we have to accept any and everything from these people for the low low price of 69 cents per mile. Independent contractor my ass.
> 
> 
> Iass.I haven't had the trade dress on my car for the better part of a year.


I'm a male &#128522;


----------



## EX_ (Jan 31, 2016)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


You messed up by acknowledging any incident occurred.

Always use plausible deniability, and just cancel/decline the ride without engaging the pax.


----------



## UberLAguy (Aug 2, 2015)

Can I do a fake shuffle dance next time I see sight of a dog like this one ?


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

kingcorey321 said:


> you need to learn. there is zero cleaning fee from a service dog. a dog could shit piss throw up hair everywhere. slobber .
> uber and lyft policy there not able to issue a cleaning fee for service animals. you can look it up in the tos on the app under service animals.
> i never though this was the way to do business . i would refuse every animal . screw lyft and uber .


You missed my point entirely. Please re-read it.


----------



## UbeRoBo (Nov 19, 2015)

It's all in the terms that you foolishly agreed to. Consider it a blessing in disguise. Now perhaps you can focus on a real job that pays real wages and real benefits.


----------



## mrpjfresh (Aug 16, 2016)

Seriously... just go to Harbor Freight and buy a moving blanket for literally under $5. Makes cleanup a breeze and not just for service dogs. Outside of a dash cam, some type of seat protection should be one of your first purchases imho.

There was a thread recently where a paxhole with a dog threatened the driver with deactivation but really didn't want to because "she was a woman and there are not enough women drivers". These true paxholes know the game and are happy to play it. Either you play it as well or get played.

If the dog is that much of an immediate danger (like snapping or lunging at me as I put down my blanket), take a video with your phone and get on the phone with support right there and then. Don't even give them the opportunity to lie before you can. I think you saw the trainwreck, assumed how the ride was going to go and cancelled. I do this all the friggin time with stumbling drunks and screaming idiots; you just can't do this with dogs because of federal law and the lies pax will tell to Uber. If that dog had attacked you, then you'd really have a lawsuit on your hands especially if support told you you had to take it.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

UbeRoBo said:


> It's all in the terms that you foolishly agreed to. Consider it a blessing in disguise. Now perhaps you can focus on a real job that pays real wages and real benefits.


Yeah like Lyft!


----------



## Dice Man (May 21, 2018)

I feel you.
Once I took a passenger claiming it's a service dog.
Definitely it wasn't.
I just took it to avoid the accusations later.
ONE star is all I could do after the ride.


----------



## nickd8775 (Jul 12, 2015)

Dice Man said:


> I feel you.
> Once I took a passenger claiming it's a service dog.
> Definitely it wasn't.
> I just took it to avoid the accusations later.
> ONE star is all I could do after the ride.


That's not all you can do. You can get a cleaning fee. A melted Hershey bar on plastic wrap on your back seat looks like dog poop.


----------



## Dice Man (May 21, 2018)

nickd8775 said:


> That's not all you can do. You can get a cleaning fee. A melted Hershey bar on plastic wrap on your back seat looks like dog poop.


They want a cleanup fee receipt, to pay you back .
So basically you are losing your time for nothing.


----------



## UbeRoBo (Nov 19, 2015)

Seamus said:


> Yeah like Lyft!


Knock yourselves out! You guys choose to settle for such a low paying crap job. Life is short and 33 cents per mile isn't a good way to spend it. Don't sell yourself and your family short. Learn a skill and get a real job and enjoy a much better quality of life. Daily TNC payouts isn't going to get you ahead in life.


----------



## Wonkytonk (Jan 28, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


Go here: https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-state-assistance-animal-laws

Scroll down and find your state. 
Determine what the laws are concerning fraudulently representing a pet as a service animal, or representing oneself as a disabled person entitled to service animal protection.
If a law exists file a complaint against that rider and request that they contact uber for that passenger's information.

Contact Uber let them know what you've done, and and follow up with the state agency to determine if they've found that rider's dog is not a service animal.

If so contact uber again and make them aware that that pax was lying and demand reinstatement and payment of lost wages.

Concurrently follow legal proceedings as you see fit against that rider make sure you have available what your earnings have been over the last three months so you have a number you can throw out there for what their fraud cost you.

Good luck.


----------



## New Uber (Mar 21, 2017)

Oh..come on! I've cancelled dogs before and nothing happened


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

New Uber said:


> Oh..come on! I've cancelled dogs before and nothing happened


Yes but we are talking about Uber rides not your Tindr app. Stay on topic please!


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Mista T said:


> OP: "My car my choice."
> 
> Uber: "Our app, our choice. Bye, Felicia!"


London: "Our city, our rules. GTFO!"


----------



## Uberdriver914 (Jun 15, 2019)

I still don’t understand what is classified as a service animal and what service does it provide to the owner. If it’s a veteran find I get it. If it’s a legally blind person I get that too. But if it’s fluffy from rich entitled neighborhood going to get a pedicure how is that a service animal. Pax’s need to have their accounts coded upon sign up and include their ‘service animal’ in the app. 

I for one have taken birds, dogs, cats, I think one person even had a rooster once idk I didn’t bother asking / I rather not know.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Uberdriver914 said:


> I still don't understand what is classified as a service animal and what service does it provide to the owner. If it's a veteran find I get it. If it's a legally blind person I get that too. But if it's fluffy from rich entitled neighborhood going to get a pedicure how is that a service animal. Pax's need to have their accounts coded upon sign up and include their 'service animal' in the app.
> 
> I for one have taken birds, dogs, cats, I think one person even had a rooster once idk I didn't bother asking / I rather not know.


The "system" doesn't really have a system. There are true service animals, that are actually trained to do things. And then there are Emotional Support Animals, who haven't had any training (other than being taught to not bite anyone, hopefully), and there is NO system for logging them, monitoring them, recording them, etc. People know that if they say their EMA is a Service Animal they can get away with murder, so they often will lie. "He provides me emotional support, and that's a service, right? So he's a service animal!"

So, how do you know if it is a true Service Animal or not?

Unfortunately, two things are working against the driver here...

One, people don't want to share their disabilities. So if a service animal is there to monitor someone's blood sugar level (example), would the person want to admit they are a diabetic? Would they want to admit that their health is so bad that they need a dog with them 24/7? People don't like to admit weakness. And admitting it repeatedly probably sucks - go to the store, tell the cashier, then tell the manager, then tell the person in line behind you. Go to a restaurant, tell the waiter, then tell the manager, then tell the people at the next table. Get in an Uber, tell the driver, who rolls his eyes in disbelief. I imagine it gets old after a while.

Second, there may be no way to tell visually if the animal is a service animal or not. If someone comes to the car with a mild-mannered dog, can you tell if that dog is there to monitor blood sugar levels? Of course not! How would you know? Therefore, it's impossible to tell.

Now, some animals are clearly NOT in control, and therefore not properly "trained" by professionals to be Service Animals. Those are the ones that should be denied. But Uber doesn't care, so if you deny and the pax complains, you're toast.

It's a real conundrum, and the consequences are likely getting deactivated if you don't take the animal. Being allergic doesn't cut it. My car my rules doesn't cut it. Proving that you are right about the lie of an EMA doesn't matter. It sucks all around.


----------



## AnotherUberGuy (Oct 26, 2018)

This has been debated many times on many threads and many of the salient points have been repeated here. The key takeaway is, as someone said above, Uber wants to be seen as taking a hard stance on this issue, because this is advantageous to Uber for a number of reasons. If you don't take the dog, and you are reported, then you are deactivated forever, period end of story. No matter what 999 great reasons you have, or the 99999$ you wish to spend on a court case that will ultimately go nowhere, or your otherwise sterling driving record, or your 8 years of anting experience, or anything else. Uber doesn't care, and they can deactivate you for whatever reason they choose. Yes, it sucks, but it is what it is. 

The bottom line is: suck it up and take the dog.


----------



## Gill002 (Jan 19, 2016)

Next time anything like this happens
Never ever claim you rejected them because of the dog

Inform them that your safety was compromised and the dog jumped on the center console and you almost crashed your car etc etc

Make it a liability on their end, always bring the safety issue up
They will think 3 times before ****ing you up because forcing someone to do something will make them liable in the future


----------



## Christina Green (Jan 27, 2019)

HPRohit said:


> Dashcam....dashcam dashcam


Stupid people like this is why I have a camera. I've been asked why I have a camera pretty simple . Uber scammers CYA


----------



## LyftUberFuwabolewa (Feb 7, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


I would have deactivated you for your poor writing/communication skills.


----------



## Jctbay (Dec 8, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Make sure to message Uber immediately and state that the dog was a real life version of Clifford the Big Red Dog.



moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady .  I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


I hate Uber, that being said they did inform us of the law.

No one has to prove their dog is a service dog. You have to take any dog the customer says is a service dog.

They warned you, and then deactivated you for ignoring the multiple warnings they sent us.



Syn said:


> Dude, next time just play dumb. Say that there was no dog & that a pax is a scammer who's just trying to get a free ride.


Oh, I like that. Manilla is thrown into a tizzy over hear say.

GOOD!


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

AnotherUberGuy said:


> This has been debated many times on many threads and many of the salient points have been repeated here. The key takeaway is, as someone said above, Uber wants to be seen as taking a hard stance on this issue, because this is advantageous to Uber for a number of reasons. If you don't take the dog, and you are reported, then you are deactivated forever, period end of story. No matter what 999 great reasons you have, or the 99999$ you wish to spend on a court case that will ultimately go nowhere, or your otherwise sterling driving record, or your 8 years of anting experience, or anything else. Uber doesn't care, and they can deactivate you for whatever reason they choose. Yes, it sucks, but it is what it is.
> 
> The bottom line is: suck it up and take the dog.


Should just Sticky AUG's Post ..and leave it at that


----------



## DoubleDee (Apr 22, 2019)

A good Uber driver takes any kind of animal no questions asked. Be it a small, clean, well behaved dog in a carrier ... or a dirty, mangy, flea infested Golden Retriever accompanied by a hood rat.


----------



## uberparadise (Aug 2, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> THIS is Exactly Why NO ONE CAN TRUST UBER !
> 
> THIS IS WHY DRIVERS NEED A UNION !
> 
> ...


Think how the police union reacts to complaints. They laugh and barely take it seriously. They stand in unity and protect their own. We get no protection and are guilty without trial.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

Demon said:


> It doesn't. If they were required to have documentation anyone could just write certificate on a piece of paper and viola, they have a service animal.
> Asking the two questions will weed out most if not all of the fakers.
> Nothing unfair about it, everyone knew about this when they signed up.


You can buy a fake certification online as well as a fake service dog vest.



Dice Man said:


> They want a cleanup fee receipt, to pay you back .
> So basically you are losing your time for nothing.


You have your own business. There's nothing saying that you can't clean car seats. Use Microsoft Word to create a receipt. It works every time for me. Just don't get greedy


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Best thing I ever got was a rear seat protector. The leather is protected from 2 and 4 legged animals and their discharges.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

Bubsie said:


> Best thing I ever got was a rear seat protector. The leather is protected from 2 and 4 legged animals and their discharges.


Those and floor tubs. Not that Weathertech stuff. The invisible kind that matches your carpet.


----------



## BogusServiceAnimal (Oct 28, 2019)

This is starting to be a daily thing. 

Just sign up to sue Uber and be done with rideshare. It's only going to get worse from here.


----------



## Dodger Royal (Nov 27, 2019)

BogusServiceAnimal said:


> This is starting to be a daily thing.
> Just sign up to sue Uber and be done with rideshare. It's only going to get worse from here.


were you not deactivated?


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

BogusServiceAnimal said:


> This is starting to be a daily thing.
> 
> Just sign up to sue Uber and be done with rideshare. It's only going to get worse from here.


With Uber for sure.

Someone will start a driver based rideshare, not losing a billion a year on self driving cars that are 10 years out according to Waymo.

Uber will disappear if self driving cars don't happen in a couple of years.

Not putting money on that.


----------



## BogusServiceAnimal (Oct 28, 2019)

Dodger Royal said:


> were you not deactivated?


Yup. Happy as a clam and waiting on my settlement checks. They'll pay off 30% of my original car's value.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

BogusServiceAnimal said:


> Yup. Happy as a clam and waiting on my settlement checks. They'll pay off 30% of my original car's value.


You do know most of the settlement checks are $60-$200.

I have received 4 so far.

Not gonna pay off anything but a few beers.


----------



## Dodger Royal (Nov 27, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> You do know most of the settlement checks are $60-$200.
> I have received 4 so far.
> Not gonna pay off anything but a few beers.


Cheep kar


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

Buck-a-mile said:


> You do know most of the settlement checks are $60-$200.
> 
> I have received 4 so far.
> 
> Not gonna pay off anything but a few beers.


Maybe his car was worth around $3-$4k.


----------



## BogusServiceAnimal (Oct 28, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> You do know most of the settlement checks are $60-$200.
> 
> I have received 4 so far.
> 
> Not gonna pay off anything but a few beers.


Two checks. $3k+ each. I'm good, y'all.


----------



## kc ub'ing! (May 27, 2016)

moJohoJo said:


> No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog


Unjustly! You did a lot wrong my man.

Let this be a lesson to you noobs! No it is not a service dog. Take it anyway. Pax will say it's a service dog and you will be deactivated.


----------



## GreggRuled (Nov 28, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


Why do all that? You will lose. Just sign up with Lyft.


----------



## crusoeatl (Apr 6, 2017)

Defensive Driver said:


> You could have just Canceled the ride when you saw the passenger. It would have been like you were never there at all.


It really doesn't work that way. Uber has records of the cancelled ride. It does not show on your app but they have it. The non-existent trip DOES NOT dissapear. So if someone complains they look at the time frame and the driver who cancelled. They will deactivate you temporarily until they talk to you. It is up to the person you talk to to believe you on what happened or not. And if that person decides to permanently deactivate you - nothing you can do. It is really up to that one person. But the moral of the story is just because you cancel a ride does not mean like you were never there at all. I thought so too until it happened to me.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Another reason to not wear trade dress. Shuffle pax move on


I'm in, California and not only do i not know what Trade Dress is but i can tell you that not a single person dresses any differently for Uber . We all wear our regular clothes, usually jeans and a T shirt .No one dresses up .


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I'm in, California and not only do i not know what Trade Dress is but i can tell you that not a single person dresses any differently for Uber . We all wear our regular clothes, usually jeans and a T shirt .No one dresses up .


&#128526;


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I'm in, California and not only do i not know what Trade Dress is but i can tell you that not a single person dresses any differently for Uber . We all wear our regular clothes, usually jeans and a T shirt .No one dresses up .


Not your personal clothes silly, the stickers that identify your car as an Uber vehicle.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Not your personal clothes silly, the stickers that identify your car as an Uber vehicle.


He jiving you


----------



## AsleepAtTheWheel (Nov 17, 2019)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


I agree and don't agree. I've had many dogs and some are by people that don't seem to have a lot of money and ask me nicely if they can bring their dog with them. Some are support animals and every time I do get dog hairs all over the seats but it's 14.95 right down the road for a carwash ten times a day if I need it and free vacs. Now if some crack head got in with a pitbul that bit me, I would stab the dog to death and get him for the blood clean up. Just charge for honest things. Like if a dog did explosive poop all over your seats. 
It's like with smokers. If we are on a long ride and the guy is like is it cool if I smoke? I figure if I say no I get a 1 star. If I say yes I have a chance of getting a 1 star from the next rider if they hate smoke and can smell it. Had some old Mexican lady the other day like that. I thought I had deoderizer in my trunk but was out. She complained for a good 7 minutes and I'm like. Don't care! You will live lady.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

A real trained service dog lays down on the floor immediately.
I do Uber Assist, and get a few veterans with service dogs a month.
I have a lint roller, rarely have to use it when a real service dog was in the car.

I also get older women with a poodle.
They usually sit in the owner's lap

No problem.


----------



## tc49821 (Oct 26, 2017)

I laugh too ,o 4.999999 5,000 rides. Uber is a scumbag company,they just gonna coa. You could have 20,000 rides and all 5 stars.

Get a complaint about not taking a service animal. You probably gonna get decativted. Common sense would be o this driver had some many rides w out any issues. Na Uber doesn't care. Even a dash cam they probably not gonna want to even bother watching it.


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

AsleepAtTheWheel said:


> I agree and don't agree. I've had many dogs and some are by people that don't seem to have a lot of money and ask me nicely if they can bring their dog with them. Some are support animals and every time I do get dog hairs all over the seats but it's 14.95 right down the road for a carwash ten times a day if I need it and free vacs. Now if some crack head got in with a pitbul that bit me, I would stab the dog to death and get him for the blood clean up. Just charge for honest things. Like if a dog did explosive poop all over your seats.
> It's like with smokers. If we are on a long ride and the guy is like is it cool if I smoke? I figure if I say no I get a 1 star. If I say yes I have a chance of getting a 1 star from the next rider if they hate smoke and can smell it. Had some old Mexican lady the other day like that. I thought I had deoderizer in my trunk but was out. She complained for a good 7 minutes and I'm like. Don't care! You will live lady.


You have missed my point. It's not about actually collecting a fee, it's about arming yourself against malicious complaints, which could lead to deactivation.


----------



## Phil Lee (Apr 29, 2019)

Ever Uber needs basic protection in the form of a rear dog seat cover (stows in trunk), emesis bags, and Dual dash cam like VanTrue with GPS mount and a really big memory card that will document entire shift.

Led safety flashers if you blow a tire. Towing insurance. Commercial insurance if you are not doing this as a temp thing. Uber compatible car repair warranty and service intervals if you are doing 30k miles a year.

Document the entire ride, pre and post, during.
To meet consent laws, note the audio and video usage in Uber profile and require they cancel if they don’t agree. This is a click wrap contract. If that dog leaves hair or dirt all over clean it for next PAX and charge fee.


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I'm in, California and not only do i not know what Trade Dress is but i can tell you that not a single person dresses any differently for Uber . We all wear our regular clothes, usually jeans and a T shirt .No one dresses up .


I've always refused to wear my trade dress. I would consider it if they came out with a trade kilt. You know, for better air/conditioning.


----------



## Phil Lee (Apr 29, 2019)

Mkang14 said:


> Unfortunatly the problem is no matter how legit your concern was they will take it as an excuse.


Don't set yourself up to try and figure out the ADA, even well lawyered institutions get sued. The best thing is to take the rideshare + dog.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


take it as a blessing in disguise, you deserve better from a company you work for, better things will come your way, And when they do you will be glad you left the platform


----------



## Mkang14 (Jun 29, 2019)

Phil Lee said:


> Don't set yourself up to try and figure out the ADA, even well lawyered institutions get sued. The best thing is to take the rideshare + dog.


Yes, I agree.

That's been told on this board many times. But it seems some still try to justify not taking them &#129335;‍♀.


----------



## Ms.Doe (Apr 15, 2016)

Phil Lee said:


> Ever Uber needs basic protection in the form of a rear dog seat cover (stows in trunk), emesis bags, and Dual dash cam like VanTrue with GPS mount and a really big memory card that will document entire shift.
> 
> Led safety flashers if you blow a tire. Towing insurance. Commercial insurance if you are not doing this as a temp thing. Uber compatible car repair warranty and service intervals if you are doing 30k miles a year.
> 
> ...


Uber compatible car repair warranty? what company offers that?


----------



## TomH (Sep 23, 2016)

Don Fanucci said:


> These rideshare companies could care less about a third-party transportation provider one down Millions more to sign up nice doing business with you ✔


So true!


----------



## Phil Lee (Apr 29, 2019)

Ms.Doe said:


> Uber compatible car repair warranty? what company offers that?


A car warranty that does not care if you Uber. Various certified pre owned vehicles have extended warranties. They also.sell a warranty that goes for X years regardless of mileage. At 30k a year one can get up quickly and face major repair costs. Depending on the manufacture/brand they may rule out covering. One can look for vehicles that look like a business executive car but also can be equipped as a fleet car or applications of heavy use.


----------



## Ms.Doe (Apr 15, 2016)

Phil Lee said:


> A car warranty that does not care if you Uber. Various certified pre owned vehicles have extended warranties. They also.sell a warranty that goes for X years regardless of mileage. At 30k a year one can get up quickly and face major repair costs. Depending on the manufacture/brand they may rule out covering. One can look for vehicles that look like a business executive car but also can be equipped as a fleet car or applications of heavy use.


Thanks!


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

RideshareUSA said:


> You have missed my point. It's not about actually collecting a fee, it's about arming yourself against malicious complaints, which could lead to deactivation.


Or maybe not doing stupid things you have been warned against that will get you deactivated.


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> Or maybe not doing stupid things you have been warned against that will get you deactivated.


Yes, true. However this thread is relating to service animals, authentic and not. Please stay on topic if commenting. Thank you!


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

RideshareUSA said:


> Yes, true. However this thread is relating to service animals, authentic and not. Please stay on topic if commenting. Thank you!


That was exactly on topic Uber told you to accept all dogs that no one has to prove that they're a service dog. Uber warned you that they would deactivate you if you didn't take service dogs or any dog. The guy got deactivated


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Immoralized said:


> It up to you to prove to Uber that it was not a service dog. You can't say it not a service dog blah blah blah because the rider is going to be saying it is a service dog blah blah blah. It ur word against the rider word and if you don't have any evidence proving that case beyond a reasonable doubt then you got no case with Uber.
> 
> Since it ur word against the rider word. Uber wants no part in that dispute and to cover Uber a$$ from been sued they have deactivated you because they don't want to get sued for discriminating against disabled person with a service animal. You didn't offer Uber anything proving that you are innocent beyond a reasonable doubt and no ur word isn't better then the rider word. Uber has given you both the benefit of the doubt of telling the truth and it comes down to risk management purely.
> 
> ...


Your post is a good one & you do seem relatively intelligent with explaining Uber's side however, after stating, " discriminating against disabled person with a service animal " it's the burden of proof . You or Uber cannot prove she was disabled or that it was a service animal and can you / Uber show 100 % proof that Uber drivers are Contractors when Uber has control over their
drivers ? The answer is, no . The ADA imposes a rule that the owner must maintain control of the animal at all times and as previously mentioned she could not maintain control of the dog . Her dog was all over the place, pulling her this way and that way . Additionally, she was dirty in appearance and looked exactly like a meth head who just woke up with a bad hangover . Both her and her dog undoubtably presented a safety concern not only with her being all doped up & her dog, fithy jumping all around uncontrollably inside my vehicle while i was transporting her to their destination .



UbeRoBo said:


> It's all in the terms that you foolishly agreed to. Consider it a blessing in disguise. Now perhaps you can focus on a real job that pays real wages and real benefits.


I'd like to see proof of that . In fact i never knew about this ( if i did sign & there was an agreement ) related to service dogs .


----------



## Misunderstood Pirate (Aug 25, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


lol attorneys?

Go back to whatever job you had before


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

*California;
.
Penal Code - PEN
PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
_ ( Part 1 enacted 1872. )_

*TITLE 9. OF CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON INVOLVING SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC DECENCY AND GOOD MORALS [261 - 368.5]*
_ ( Heading of Title 9 amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1111, Sec. 2. )_

*CHAPTER 12. Other Injuries to Persons [346 - 367g]*
_ ( Chapter 12 enacted 1872. )_
*365.7. *
(a) Any person who knowingly and fraudulently represents himself or herself, through verbal or written notice, to be the owner or trainer of any canine licensed as, to be qualified as, or identified as, a guide, signal, or service dog, as defined in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 and paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) As used in this section, "owner" means any person who owns a guide, signal, or service dog, or who is authorized by the owner to use the guide, signal, or service dog.
_(Added by Stats. 1994, Ch. 1257, Sec. 12. Effective January 1, 1995.)_


----------



## TXUbering (May 9, 2018)

Tell em that you feared their service animal was going to attack YOUR service animal and that if they don't reinstate you, that you're going to sue them under the ADA laws.

Something tells me they won't bother investigating, like they don't bother investigating on their "partners" behalf.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

moJohoJo said:


> Your post is a good one & you do seem relatively intelligent with explaining Uber's side however, after stating, " discriminating against disabled person with a service animal " it's the burden of proof . You or Uber cannot prove she was disabled or that it was a service animal and can you / Uber show 100 % proof that Uber drivers are Contractors when Uber has control over their
> drivers ? The answer is, no . The ADA imposes a rule that the owner must maintain control of the animal at all times and as previously mentioned she could not maintain control of the dog . Her dog was all over the place, pulling her this way and that way . Additionally, she was dirty in appearance and looked exactly like a meth head who just woke up with a bad hangover . Both her and her dog undoubtably presented a safety concern not only with her being all doped up & her dog, fithy jumping all around uncontrollably inside my vehicle while i was transporting her to their destination .
> 
> 
> I'd like to see proof of that . In fact i never knew about this ( if i did sign & there was an agreement ) related to service dogs .


Uber doesn't have to prove she was disabled. You were in the wrong & they released you. What are you complaining about?


----------



## Dodger Royal (Nov 27, 2019)

_"I will be contacting Attorneys this week ."_


Misunderstood Pirate said:


> lol Attorneys ? Go back to whatever job you had before


Dog Walker


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Buck-a-mile said:


> That was exactly on topic Uber told you to accept all dogs that no one has to prove that they're a service dog. Uber warned you that they would deactivate you if you didn't take service dogs or any dog. The guy got deactivated


I don't recalled


TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Another reason to not wear trade dress. Shuffle pax move on


What is trade dress ? I live in, California and i don't even know what trade dress is . Out here we dress up for no one .



Seamus said:


> Even with dashcam (which Uber won't look at), who is going to pay a lawyer $300 -$500/hr to prove all this? It's a theoretical question only.


Wrong . Contingency agreement .



Buck-a-mile said:


> A real trained service dog lays down on the floor immediately.
> I do Uber Assist, and get a few veterans with service dogs a month.
> I have a lint roller, rarely have to use it when a real service dog was in the car.
> 
> ...


I agree . One of my many reasons why i strongly thought this was not a service dog . On top of that she was drugged out . Looked exactly like a drunk meth head that just woke up after three days of sleeping . I'm not kidding .


----------



## Misunderstood Pirate (Aug 25, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> I don't recalled
> 
> What is trade dress ? I live in, California and i don't even know what trade dress is . Out here we dress up for no one .
> 
> ...


Can u prove she was drugged out?


----------



## Gone_in_60_seconds (Jan 21, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


*Three words: You are expendable.*


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> Small claims Court and I'll include Contractor status v/s employee so there's no question i will prevail in a Court of Law .


You still have to follow the ToS you agreed to and federal law . Case dismissed



moJohoJo said:


> I will include employee status v/s Contractor status in my lawsuit .


Matters not, you still have to follow policy and law

Case dismissed



moJohoJo said:


> Nice try, Corporate office . I am adding Contractor v/s Employee status to my suit . Your not scare-ing me out of this .





moJohoJo said:


> A cleaning fee would not match the thousands of dollars in torn and shattered seats by a out of control animal that even the owner could not keep under containment .


Lol, you're a clown.


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> That was exactly on topic Uber told you to accept all dogs that no one has to prove that they're a service dog. Uber warned you that they would deactivate you if you didn't take service dogs or any dog. The guy got deactivated


Ok, one more time. I said yes, take all animals and file the claim just in case of a malicious complaint. It's all about protecting yourself.


----------



## Talcire (May 18, 2016)

EX_ said:


> You messed up by acknowledging any incident occurred.
> 
> Always use plausible deniability, and just cancel/decline the ride without engaging the pax.


Agree. Do not engage and certainly, do not answer the phone. No good can come from answering the phone. No one calls unless there is a problem and this gig does not compensate for problems. If a rider complains that you did not answer, say you were calling them at the same time.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> Wrong . Contingency agreement .
> [


LOL good luck!


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> I will be contacting Attorneys this week .


I just emailed over 6 Attorneys . More importantly this incident raises more concerns of this trip being a safety issue with the dog jumping all around inside my car and the dog's owner being on dope and out of her mind then it is for denial of a fake service dog .


----------



## TDR (Oct 15, 2017)

Just imagine dog 🐕 bite you. Than with correct talking and strategy your are the winner. Good luck


----------



## Uber_Jay2 (Dec 17, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


*You need to short and to the point.* If you started the trip and/or cancel before started then you realize they have an animal. Simply follow this:
Ask the pax is that their service animal. *(No identifying tags are required)*
Pax Answer is *Yes *- No more questions take the trip. You aren't legally allowed to ask about their diagnosis under ADA that's their accommodation. A service animal will most likely not damage your vehicle, and the pax are still responsible for that service anima even if it did.
Pax Answer is *No *- Kindly say I don't allow pets in my vehicle I do apologize. (_Some people are allergic to pets)_
a. Make sure after you cancel for that reason,
b. GO OFFLINE, send a message to Uber (I prefer this over contacting over the phone) that you did indeed ask if it was a service animal they replied no remembering the name is crucial here.* (CYA - Cover Your Ass)* most pax don't know how to report right away as you would. D*on't DELAY THIS process.*
c. GO ONLINE and continue.

If she would have reported you then you already covered your basis, and you remember when the trip was. Do NOT take another trip until you communicate that to Uber. I agree with some of the statements of the previous posts. We need to help one another and stop ripping each other down. I hope that this suggestion will HELP someone else if they come across this. If you don't quickly notify them in writing of what you did to verify they will side with the PAX.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> *California;
> .
> Penal Code - PEN
> PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680]*
> ...


Thanks . I'll bring this up after my consultation w/ one of the Attorneys i have contacted . Attorneys are most likely aware of the law . . With the dog not being contained & her being all doped up and out of her mind safety was my main # 1 concern .


----------



## tc49821 (Oct 26, 2017)

Boca Ratman said:


> You still have to follow the ToS you agreed to and federal law . Case dismissed
> 
> Matters not, you still have to follow policy and law
> 
> ...


Federal law Trump's all. Many times companies have you sign a contract and the terms are blantely illgeal. Just cause you sign it doesn't mean the company can not be punished. For example signing your willing to work thru your breaks at a retail job. That state might require mandatory breaks,the company can still get in trouble.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

tc49821 said:


> Federal law Trump's all. Many times companies have you sign a contract and the terms are blantely illgeal. Just cause you sign it doesn't mean the company can not be punished. For example signing your willing to work thru your breaks at a retail job. That state might require mandatory breaks,the company can still get in trouble.


Yes, but that does not apply here.


----------



## Modern_Slave (Dec 1, 2018)

Uber deactivated you?


----------



## Unleaded (Feb 16, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Every time someone fakes a service dog, it puts the work of real service dogs in jeopardy. Trained service dogs provide assistance in everyday life to those who need it. The consequences are not just limited to a hostess asking your bouncy dog to stop putting his paws on someone else's table. You and your dog's actions, no matter how benign, will have impact on the people around you, and one misstep can cause people to believe that all service dogs are just over-glorified pets.

You wouldn't pretend to be blind to get a reduced bus fare. You wouldn't pretend to be a paraplegic to use a wheelchair at the supermarket. So, please don't try to pass your pet off as a service dog. Be respectful to those in need of service animals and leave your pets at home.


----------



## doggerel (Apr 23, 2017)

TDR said:


> Just imagine dog &#128021; bite you. Than with correct talking and strategy your are the winner. Good luck


The other night I am finishing up a delivery and a woman is walking two large dogs outside, struggling to keep them under control. They are both bloodthirsty, lunging and barking at me. If I had continued to walk on the sidewalk, I have no doubt one or both of them would have bitten me. There is NO DOUBT.

She (*****!) refused to leave the sidewalk, and I had to walk a large path around her.

Part of me just wanted to continue my stroll right through them. Let myself get bit. Sue and collect that moneys.

Not gonna lie. The thought crossed my mind.

But it also crossed my mind that one of them might bite or rip off my willie. It is the only thing that moved me around them.

Maybe it is time to wear a cup.


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


You failed to make a phone call to Uber immediately afterward and telling Uber that the dog was out of control and **bit you on the arm** (or leg etc). That is the only way you have a chance of not getting fired when denying a dog for whatever legit reason.

These riders are abusing ADA and dont have to prove it was factually a service animal in order to get you fired for a single instance of refusal to take a service animal.

Most millenial pax are scumbags btw.



Valar Dohaeris said:


> I'm sorry this happened to you. Not to rub salt in the wound, but 4.88 is a sh*t rating after 4 months, let alone 4 years.
> 
> Good luck in another line of work.


Or it means you don't give a **** when the pay is so low it drives you to bankruptcy.



moJohoJo said:


> I just emailed over 6 Attorneys . More importantly this incident raises more concerns of this trip being a safety issue with the dog jumping all around inside my car and the dog's owner being on dope and out of her mind then it is for denial of a fake service dog .


You didn't think this through beforehand. You lost the cat and mouse game. You either accept ride and file cleaning fee (or rate pax 1 star) or make a sharp right turn the moment you see a dog in the distance.


----------



## doggerel (Apr 23, 2017)

Yes.

Fight fire with fire.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

Don Fanucci said:


> These rideshare companies could care less about a third-party transportation provider one down Millions more to sign up nice doing business with you ✔


yay a post i've read a million times already in various shapes and forms. congratulations - your originality is inspiring!


----------



## Valar Dohaeris (May 25, 2019)

EphLux said:


> Or it means you don't give a @@@@ when the pay is so low it drives you to bankruptcy.


Wah wah wah. Get a new gig. Uber drivers can be such sad sacks.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

It has been stated on here (UP) over and over. Service providers are allowed to ask two questions only:

1. Is that a Service Animal?
2. What service is it trained to perform?

And, you better have a dash cam recording their answer if you plan on denying service based on their answer/s. Even then, passenger can lie to Uber and deactivation almost certain. Heck, passenger doesn't even need to have any animal with them, and if they utter those two words, _Service Animal = _Deactivation.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

That's messed up. But how do you know it's accurate?



UberLaLa said:


> Heck, passenger doesn't even need to have any animal with them, and if they utter those two words, _Service Animal = _Deactivation.


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Clevername said:


> What reason did you give for cancelling the ride? That, I think was your mistake.


Unsafe to pick up . The dog was a safety risk and her being all doped up was another safety concern . . When you have a meth head that looks pretty drunk & like she just woke up after 3 days of sleep and an uncontrollable dog there's no telling what either one or both of them would do while i was driving . I feared for my safety .


----------



## Fast Times @ UBER (Apr 22, 2017)

If Uber is a Technology company why do they cAre if you take a dog or not? According to them, they just match drivers and passengers. Seems like the dog issue is between the rider and the independent contractor driver.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Fast Times @ UBER said:


> If Uber is a Technology company why do they cAre if you take a dog or not? According to them, they just match drivers and passengers. Seems like the dog issue is between the rider and the independent contractor driver.


Yeah, they don't care.

It's the federal government who cares.


----------



## dauction (Sep 26, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> Unsafe to pick up . The dog was a safety risk and her being all doped up was another safety concern . . When you have a meth head that looks pretty drunk & like she just woke up after 3 days of sleep and an uncontrollable dog there's no telling what either one or both of them would do while i was driving . I feared for my safety .


The first thing a lawyer will tell you is to shut up about her being drugged up...it has nothing to do with you refusing to take a dog because you CANT Prove she was wasted ...


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

sellkatsell44 said:


> Others have reported uber looking at dashcam. It's a simple matter of having that video show that she's not in control of the animal and that section of the ADA's policy with service animals.
> 
> no need to pay for a lawyer when you can point to the black and white.


I've had Uber look at Dashcam, the way I know is I never watched the YouTube video I uploaded regarding an incident with drunk newly weds. But shortly after sharing with Uber, I noticed 3 hits and I haven't even played it, it was still in my creator tool site of YouTube, and that site won't count views against me as I'm the creator who Uploaded it.



MiamiKid said:


> Only thing is, Uber can deactivate anyone they wish, for any reason whatsoever, and whenever they want.
> 
> Trust me, we would have already heard the cases if it weren't that way.
> 
> ...


No normal person in their right mind of frame will depend solely on Uber unless they are between jobs.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


You had a tough choice to make. Here are some issues to consider & tips -

Given that her dog was out of control, if it had ever been a fully-trained service animal, it likely is now 'under-trained' and no longer qualifies as such
Review a good book, like this self-help book for representing yourself in Small Claims Court in California from Nolo.
Read the laws yourself. Learn the legal definitions of any terms you don't understand
Most large cities have small claims court advisers, which can help you, especially if they see that you have already done some homework yourself 
Search here, Reddit, and Google for cases of people subpoenaing/suing Uber and using small claims courts to sue Uber/passengers to learn what they did
As a starting point, consider suing pax for defamation (lying to Uber about you) & damages (the loss of your livelihood)
You want to write your lawsuit in a way that it forces her to demonstrate to the judge that her pet is indeed a fully-trained service animal and that if she can't do that, then you win the case
In your lawsuit, keep to the topic. Don't wade into extraneous issues, such as if you should be an employee
Use precise language. Don't generalize. Find a way to say everything in a way that is 100% factually correct 
Use the court to issue a subpoena to Uber to learn the pax's full name, contact info, and get a full copy of the complaint she made about you. Also get a copy of what you told the Uber investigator
Remember, your version of the events doesn't carry much weight, without evidence. Instead try to find evidence that backs up your claims, however slim, because some evidence is better than none
As a part of any future settlement, require that pax retract her complaint against you


----------



## Korean Ant (Mar 30, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .




















Just take the dog n claim for damage fee IF there is a next time...
If not accept ur fate, n move on.
Its for the best of u.
No need to waste ur time tryna get back into a dead end gig.
GL either way...&#128591;


----------



## EphLux (Aug 10, 2018)

Valar Dohaeris said:


> Wah wah wah. Get a new gig. Uber drivers can be such sad sacks.


Uber is the sad sack, Dara.


----------



## doggerel (Apr 23, 2017)

Fast Times @ UBER said:


> If Uber is a Technology company why do they cAre if you take a dog or not? According to them, they just match drivers and passengers. Seems like the dog issue is between the rider and the independent contractor driver.


Yup. Why would a "lead-generation company" care about whether or not I take a dog?


----------



## Korean Ant (Mar 30, 2019)

doggerel said:


> Yup. Why would a "lead-generation company" care about whether or not I take a dog or not?


They obviously have to play by the books n abide by the State n Federal law regarding ADA if they dont wanna get sued by all the riders with their fake service animals...
Its easier n cheaper to deactivate a driver than have a rider sue them in court for having a partner not abide by the ADA. &#129318;‍♂


----------



## doggerel (Apr 23, 2017)

Korean Ant said:


> They obviously have to play by the books n abide by the State n Federal law regarding ADA if they dont wanna get sued by all the riders with their fake service animals...
> Its easier n cheaper to deactivate a driver than have a rider sue them in court for having a partner not abide by the ADA. &#129318;‍♂


You should read the new legal agreement you signed recently. They no longer consider us "partners" or in a "partnership." They now define themselves as a "lead generation company."

They aren't a "rideshare provider," they now claim. We are.


----------



## ElPasote (Nov 30, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> There Must be INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT REGARDING UBERS TREATMENT OF DRIVERS !
> 
> UNION OR GOVERNMENT.
> 
> IT WILL HAPPEN.


I am in agreement with you, but here is the thing--Nothing is ever going to change until Drivers, themselves, get organized and start fighting for their rights. I have been driving for Uber for almost four years and it has become painfully obvious to me that the only one who truly benefits from this two way partnership is Uber, while it is the driver who must absorb the losses. My beef with Uber, is not so much about money, as much as it is about their callous, inconsistent and indifferent attitudes towards drivers. The bottom line is that Uber could not give a rat's a** about their drivers--to them, drivers are a cheap resource that they can use to generate profits for themselves. If you think about it, how many other companies are out there who use and/or exploit their workers in order to fund their businesses.


----------



## Korean Ant (Mar 30, 2019)

ElPasote said:


> I am in agreement with you, but here is the thing--Nothing is ever going to change until Drivers, themselves, get organized and start fighting for their rights. I have been driving for Uber for almost four years and it has become painfully obvious to me that the only one who truly benefits from this two way partnership is Uber, while it is the driver who must absorb the losses. My beef with Uber, is not so much about money, as much as it is about their callous, inconsistent and indifferent attitudes towards drivers. The bottom line is that Uber could not give a rat's a** about their drivers--to them, drivers are a cheap resource that they can use to generate profits for themselves. If you think about it, how many other companies are out there who use and/or exploit their workers in order to fund their businesses.


We can be replaced by anybody thats why they dont give a rats ass about us drivers...
If im gone n ur gone nothing changes, the supply is there to replace us any given second...
If we were valuable to them they would treat us better.

Just like in a company, the ones who who r valuable to the company, the ceo/boss treats them with care n with utmost respect n pays them enough for them to stay..
The ones who are not valuable to the company, they can replace them everyday n they still wouldnt really give a rat's ass about it...
Im not defending uber but nobody is forcing us to keep driving either...
We r willingly doing this to ourselves...

If u were working for a company, but didnt like the way u were treated or paid, what r u gonna do?
Try to negotiate n if it doesnt work out ull quit n take ur talents elsewhere right?


----------



## Working4peanuts (Jan 16, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> Unsafe to pick up . The dog was a safety risk and her being all doped up was another safety concern . . When you have a meth head that looks pretty drunk & like she just woke up after 3 days of sleep and an uncontrollable dog there's no telling what either one or both of them would do while i was driving . I feared for my safety .


Next time, the second you see a pax like this with a dog, stop the car.

Roll the windows up. Turn off the ac. Light up a cigarette even if you don't smoke.

Keep puffing until there is no oxygen left in the car. Then proceed to pick up the pax. When she opens the door, she'll definitely cancel the ride. If she asks you to put the cigarette out, tell her you are nicotine dependent and cannot stop smoking at any time.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

doggerel said:


> Yup. Why would a "lead-generation company" care about whether or not I take a dog?


They got sued - 


> National Federation of the Blind of California, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-4086 (N.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleges that Uber Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary and affiliate entities (collectively, "Uber"), violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., by failing to take the necessary steps to ensure that transportation providers using the Uber mobile software application ("Drivers") do not discriminate against blind or visually disabled riders who travel with service animals


----------



## ElPasote (Nov 30, 2019)

Korean Ant said:


> We can be replaced by anybody thats why they dont give a rats ass about us drivers...
> If im gone n ur gone nothing changes, the supply is there to replace us any given second...
> If we were valuable to them they would treat us better.
> 
> ...


Well said. You are very correct, the reality is that drivers are not that hard to replace. I just looked up Ubers turnover rate and from what I found it said that only 4% of drivers stay with Uber/Lyft for a year, which, as stated, is a "notoriously high" turnover rate. When I talk about drivers organizing, what I think would work best for us is if we lobbied our representatives to enact laws at the local/state/federal levels, which would offer more protections to ride share drivers, as I don't think that trying to organize as a labor union would be that effective, or at least in most states.

You are also correct in stating that we have choices and certainly one of those choices that we do have is to leave. For me, I have already made up my mind to stop driving for Uber completely at the end of the year--however, just because I plan on giving up rideshare does not mean that I still will not advocate for change. On a final note, I do understand that Uber was not created solely for the purpose of helping people find rides--the reason that Uber was formed was to make a profit. With that said, I don't have a problem with any company that is in business to make a profit, but I do have a problem with a company that takes advantage and/or preys on other groups of people for profit, such as the way that Uber preys on its drivers.


----------



## 2smart2drive (Jul 9, 2019)

OldBay said:


> I wouldn't have considered it 6 months ago, but the proper response to a "fake service dog" is pouring water on the carpet and claiming it peed.


If the dog is a true "service dog" - it's mess is not covered u set the cleaning fees - however, after imperious complainants from different drivers about the same service dog leaving puddles behind, that particular rider's account t will be deactivated - but absolutely nothing will happen after 1 (even 2) reported "service-dog's mess"

C'est la vie (at least, in California)


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

dauction said:


> The first thing a lawyer will tell you is to shut up about her being drugged up...it has nothing to do with you refusing to take a dog because you CANT Prove she was wasted ...





moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record...... with over 13,000 trips taken realize I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . Taking her, being all drugged up with an uncontained, uncontrollable dog would of put me at risk for a deadly accident with her dog jumping all over the place, her being all doped up & out and half being of her mind . This scenario presented more of an issue regarding everyones safety which presented more of an issue then taking a ( non ) service dog . ( " Safety is out #1 priority says Uber " ) I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth . Safety was my main concern .





Korean Ant said:


> View attachment 382979
> 
> View attachment 382992
> 
> ...


WITH HER BEING ALL DOPED UP AND HER DOG NOT BEING CONTAINED OR CONTROLLED THIS WAS A SAFETY ISSUE .



Korean Ant said:


> They obviously have to play by the books n abide by the State n Federal law regarding ADA if they dont wanna get sued by all the riders with their fake service animals...
> Its easier n cheaper to deactivate a driver than have a rider sue them in court for having a partner not abide by the ADA. &#129318;‍♂


Good because by ADA rules the dog must be contained and controlled at all time . This was more of a safety issue then anything else .


----------



## Korean Ant (Mar 30, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> WITH HER BEING ALL DOPED UP AND HER DOG NOT BEING CONTAINED OR CONTROLLED THIS WAS A SAFETY ISSUE .
> 
> 
> Good because by ADA rules the dog must be contained and controlled at all time . This was more of a safety issue then anything else .


Ur right. 
Only way to prove this n win is if u had a dashcam...
GL brother!


----------



## moJohoJo (Feb 19, 2017)

Korean Ant said:


> Ur right.
> Only way to prove this n win is if u had a dashcam...
> GL brother!


We'll see . I contacted at least 6 Attorneys by email . Since it's the Thanksgiving weekend i don't expect to hear much until next week although i have already gotten one email back requesting what hours the Attorney can call me next week . RE : Safety issue ,


----------



## Korean Ant (Mar 30, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> We'll see . I contacted at least 6 Attorneys by email . Since it's the Thanksgiving weekend i don't expect to hear much until next week although i have already gotten one email back requesting what hours the Attorney can call me next week . RE : Safety issue ,


If u had a dash cam u prob will get reinstasted.
If u didnt and its ur word against ur rider...it will be an uphill battle...
Either way best of luck to u, n keep us posted pls.
&#128591;&#128591;&#128591;


----------



## Wildgoose (Feb 11, 2019)

After reading this Lyft service animal's policy, We as drivers have less choice to deny but we have choice to report (after ride) rider's abuse of lyft policy to get them deactivated from Lyft platform. I am going to report whoever try to abuse service animal policy from now on.
Should read this policy... . https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013080048-Service-animal-policy#rights


----------



## rkozy (Apr 5, 2019)

Seamus said:


> 2) If you really don't want to take the dog that bad jump out of the car at arrival and say "Holy Shit my car is overheating"! Then, pop the hood and stare at your engine for awhile, apologize for having to cancel, wait around until the dog and owner go away, and then don't take any rides for a few hours. Terribly inconvenient so I choose option 1.


It's much easier just to take the damn dog, cat, turtle, fish...whatever the F#(k it is...and drive the pax to their destination. Then, scour your car's interior for any sign of a "reportable mess" that can be billed to the service animal. The quicker you submit the photo after the ride, the more credible it's going to appear to Uber.

If a pax gets a $20-$40 surprise on their credit card, it might force them to rethink the whole "rideshare with my dog" strategy they're currently using.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

rkozy said:


> It's much easier just to take the damn dog, cat, turtle, fish...whatever the F#(k it is...and drive the pax to their destination. Then, scour your car's interior for any sign of a "reportable mess" that can be billed to the service animal. The quicker you submit the photo after the ride, the more credible it's going to appear to Uber.
> 
> If a pax gets a $20-$40 surprise on their credit card, it might force them to rethink the whole "rideshare with my dog" strategy they're currently using.


Can't collect anything on a service animal.


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

This is a cautionary tale. When I had a surprise trip to SNA from my waiting spot at LGB, I took the trip, which included a dog. I love animals. I still feel the nerves about what they would do to the car. At first he was not declared any kind of a service or support animal, "fake" or real. But it came out. Lovely happy dog, on his leash, no carrier. "Oh he just sits on my lap. Won't be a problem at all." At that point, "Oh you reminded me! I forgot the take his letter!" She ran back into the house. She gave me the leash. There I am, talking to happy smiling "Tim". She was going on a charter plane. Said he needed no kennel being a service dog. Boom, declaration. She researched her Flight and was very resourceful. Dog in car. Airport reached. It was dark night. I took a Rematch from SNA, then two more before cutting my plans down. I was not feeling well. Morning light showed me dog hairs EVERYWHERE in the back seat. I screamed inside. At the same time I had left my phone someplace. No pictures. I went to my usual car wash and spent most of an hour extricating the hairs out but there was no additional charge because of free vacuum and my microfiber towels. I did not bother reporting it. Riders have 30 days to rate/change-rate us, and it is best a chapter in the past.

Sitting in one airport queue, getting a ping for a trip to another airport, from someone living in the vicinity, is interesting. I would not had this experience otherwise. Beware, that airport queue does not guarantee airport pickup. And sometimes the car goes to the dogs.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

kingcorey321 said:


> you need to learn. there is zero cleaning fee from a service dog. a dog could shit piss throw up hair everywhere. slobber .
> uber and lyft policy there not able to issue a cleaning fee for service animals. you can look it up in the tos on the app under service animals.
> i never though this was the way to do business . i would refuse every animal . screw lyft and uber .


Not true.


----------



## kingcorey321 (May 20, 2018)

SuzeCB said:


> Not true.


very true. turn your phone on go to the tos in service animals. check cleaning fees on service animals read it all. post back and correct your answer .
no disrespect intended


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

kingcorey321 said:


> post back and correct your answer .
> no disrespect intended


I do believe you owe the lady an apology. No disrespect intended.



> VI. Cleaning fees
> 
> Riders cannot be charged cleaning fees for shedding by their service animals. Riders will be refunded any cleaning fees charged for shedding by their service animals.
> 
> A rider can be charged a cleaning fee if a driver provides compelling photographic evidence showing that a service animal in the rider's party urinated, defecated, or vomited in the driver's vehicle. The rider may contest that such a mess occurred. If a rider contests a cleaning fee, Lyft will evaluate the dispute and will determine within two weeks whether to refund the cleaning fee. Lyft will provide the rider with a written explanation of its decision if requested by the rider.






















kingcorey321 said:


> post back and correct your answer .
> no disrespect intended


Uber is not as driver-friendly, but eventually...



> *Cleaning Fees for Service Animals*
> Riders will be refunded any cleaning fees charged for shedding by their service animals. You may contest that such a mess occurred by responding to the fee notification email to notify customer support. If a rider contests the cleaning fee, Uber will make a reasonable good faith effort to determine whether a mess occurred.
> 
> You will not be charged for the first or second reported mess involving a service animal's bodily fluids. You can be charged for the third reported mess involving a service animal's bodily fluids.
> ...


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

kingcorey321 said:


> very true. turn your phone on go to the tos in service animals. check cleaning fees on service animals read it all. post back and correct your answer .
> no disrespect intended


It says the pax won't be charged the first or second time, not that drivers won't be paid.

Read it again.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

moJohoJo said:


> I contacted at least 6 Attorneys by email . ... i have already gotten one email back requesting what hours the Attorney can call me next week . RE : Safety issue ,


Going down the path of a "safety issue" at this point is just going to be a waste of your time and money. The dispute between you, her, and Uber is not governed by the ADA service animal regulations.

It is instead governed by the much more restrictive contracts between you & Uber and Uber's settlement with the American Federation for the Blind, which dictates how Uber has agreed to resolve Service Animal complaints.

Given that you have no evidence, aside from your own testimony, Uber must take her version of the events over yours. So, if she told Uber that she had her animal under control, that's it. Not even suing or arbitrating with Uber at this stage would help you because Uber followed its contractual obligations correctly.

The only option you have is to go after her for service dog fraud, defamation, and damages against you. Now, your dispute solely with her would be governed by the ADA act. And if by going against her, you can obtain evidence showing that she did not have a legal service animal at the time of the incident, then you can take that evidence to Uber in arbitration to be reactivated, but you will not be getting any damages even then from Uber.

If you wish to take the attorney route, then I suggest you seek out a good dispute-resolution attorney who can win your case quickly with a well-written 'Intent to sue & submit complaint to the court' letter that reads her the riot act of all the bad things that could happen to her unless she settles out of court with you immediately.

The letter could even imply that you have video evidence of her dog being out of control. She doesn't know you didn't record her from a dash cam ;-)

I guess you could theoretically sue Uber, but trying to prove that their service animal policy violated your rights would take a team of expensive attorneys to win.

BTW. this is not legal advice.


----------



## kingcorey321 (May 20, 2018)

can you expla


SuzeCB said:


> It says the pax won't be charged the first or second time, not that drivers won't be paid.
> 
> Read it again.


can you please explain to me what that means ? so you think uber will pay you for a mess and not charge the pax ? i think uber will tell us to fly a kite .


----------



## 58756 (May 30, 2016)

The thing about any dog is I will take them no matter what because even if they don't say service dog, and they letter look at ratings reasons, and see "Didn't take Service dog," that is when they'll decide in their head "Oh look, I can select that option", and bam sent to Uber for deactivation.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

kingcorey321 said:


> very true. turn your phone on go to the tos in service animals. check cleaning fees on service animals read it all. post back and correct your answer .
> no disrespect intended


it says you can't get a fee for the shedding but you can for an actual mess


----------



## 68350 (May 24, 2017)

I got a cleaning fee for a service animal for drooling a big puddle on my seat. $50. 2 years ago. Hair, probably not.


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Seems to me if it is uncontrollable, it was not very well trained as a service dog, but what do I know?

This is why I prefer driving a hatch back ( with enough room , I drive 2018 Prius ) because when I get a shaggy service dog ( or any dog that's shaggy ) the pooch goes in the back, no ifs or buts. If I get some hairs in the hatch area, I don't have to stop driving and clean it right away.

My advice is to accept all dogs, though I do ask the owner if the dog was recently walked ( you know what I'm talkin' 'bout :smiles: ).

Given your description of the person, you had a right to reject her. However, how I would have handled it is to make a report immediately to Uber, and explain you rejected the ride because the person was.....blah blah ( give your reason ) and it was NOT because of the dog. People can complain and tell Uber it was a service dog, whether or not it was in fact a service dog ( and many so-called service dogs came from diploma mill type training services. A real service dog, the ones like my handicapped brother has, spent many months with police trainers, -- they give away two per year to handicapped here in my city ) and that's going to get you deactivated until you get it cleared up with the office. Now then, I'd take a picture of her and the dog if possible, to back up your claim.



68350 said:


> I got a cleaning fee for a service animal for drooling a big puddle on my seat. $50. 2 years ago. Hair, probably not.


Small dogs, if they are not real shaggy, I make the owner put the pooch on the floor, or on her/his lap. Never on the seat, the got claws and saliva.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

kingcorey321 said:


> can you expla
> can you please explain to me what that means ? so you think uber will pay you for a mess and not charge the pax ? i think uber will tell us to fly a kite .


That's exactly what they've done.


----------



## Kick poor Ant in guts (Jul 10, 2018)

moJohoJo said:


> My email to Uber - Yeah, i saw her , She had her dog, a dirty Golden Retreiver, a big dog with dirty gold brown shaggy hair . She had the dog on a dark colored leash . No markings, no nothing to indicate it was a service dog .The dog looked big . It seemed almost half her size . She was under 5 ' Feet tall, ( estimated at 4' 10 " tall ) and she was disheveled ( hair dirty, clothes, untidy looking )
> and no more then 100 lbs . She was a small woman and she was drugged up or intoxicated on something . I could even hear that in her voice when she called me . Anyways, her dog kept pulling her in different directions . She was unable to contain the dog . It was completely out of control, pulling her this way and that way and if that dog ever got inside my car, i thought it would of destroyed my seats & interior . This is the reason why i didn't take her . Watch, because she'll try getting another Uber with that dog & and then you'll see that I'm telling you the truth . After that happens i need to get my driver account reactivated . I did nothing wrong . I've taken 10's of dogs without any problem but this dog was different and last week i even took 2 cats with long hair . The passenger was Asian, a very nice lady . I dropped her & a male friend off on Overpass Rd. from, Turnpike Road . She called me first & asked me if i would allow her to take her cats along . Look at my record . I've taken all dogs but they've been orderly, clean and the owner had their dog contained & controlled. but her dog was really unruly, uncontrollable . I swear under penalty of perjury that what i said in the foregoing is 100 % the truth .. This was not a service dog .


Overpass and Turnpike Rd??????
Sounds like a copy and paste effort from a US based forum, I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can offer proof the incident was authentic.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

moJohoJo said:


> We'll see . I contacted at least 6 Attorneys by email . Since it's the Thanksgiving weekend i don't expect to hear much until next week although i have already gotten one email back requesting what hours the Attorney can call me next week . RE : Safety issue ,


I'll save you a bit of waiting around. No attorney would take this on contingency ("Saul Goodman" would even refuse this), it's too much hassle with too little (or no) reward (most wouldn't take it even just on retainer). Going against Uber (other than to get a subpoena on the pax info) would be a waste of your time. They can deactivate you for any non-protected reason. Service dog, no service dog, as long as it's not because of a protected class (your race, religion, etc.), they can deactivate you because they wanted you to paint your car purple and you wouldn't. You don't even want to get me started on the alleged "safety issue", real safety issues that happen, don't even get addressed (having to stop places that aren't safe to load/unload because of pin placement, as an example). A bunch of the pax are drunken/drugged out (allegedly) fools, that probably aren't terribly safe to have in the car with you. Yet, that's the gig you signed up for.

You had mentioned the small claims route earlier. In theory, there is a potential path for you there. You could make a claim against the pax themselves. You'd be claiming that they committed fraud (claiming a non-service dog as a service dog to Uber), which resulted in damages to you (your deactivation from Uber, the same as if they had falsely claimed you were drinking in the car or something). With no dash cam, it's going to boil down to your word against theirs (which is going to depend highly on the judge you happen to get). They, of course, are going to claim that their highly trained service dog was being an angel and you just didn't like having to take it, therefore they, properly, reported you to Uber and you got the deactivation you had coming for rejecting Federal law. The judge wasn't there (heck, I wasn't there and even I wonder if that might have been the case, there are many dishonest drivers who advocate making up just such stories on this forum alone). IF you had dash cam, I'd say pursue it, but without it, I just don't know that it would be worth it (of course, if you had a dash cam, you probably wouldn't need to as Uber would have reactivated you).

Take this as a life lesson. If you drive again (Lyft or whatever), get a dash cam. I can't stress that enough, get a dash cam! Ask the two questions on it (plus you can get the dog being out of control on it) and clearly state that you are refusing because of the dog being out of control (which applies even to a legitimate service dog). Then make sure you contact Uber first (and offer you dash cam footage). Contrary to some of the nay sayers on here, I assure you they will look at it (and it's saved several drivers bacon). Lastly, and while this is the least "legal" information/suggestion I can give, it's probably the most important for you in here. Rideshare is a side gig, it's advertised as a side gig, and anyone who depends on it as full time employment has a nasty surprise coming one day. Do not rely on it as a primary thing, it can (and as you have seen, will) eventually be pulled out from under you (either through something that is your fault, or possibly with no fault of your own). It's not a real job (nor was it ever intended to be).


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> I'll save you a bit of waiting around. No attorney would take this on contingency ("Saul Goodman" would even refuse this), it's too much hassle with too little (or no) reward (most wouldn't take it even just on retainer). Going against Uber (other than to get a subpoena on the pax info) would be a waste of your time. They can deactivate you for any non-protected reason. Service dog, no service dog, as long as it's not because of a protected class (your race, religion, etc.), they can deactivate you because they wanted you to paint your car purple and you wouldn't. You don't even want to get me started on the alleged "safety issue", real safety issues that happen, don't even get addressed (having to stop places that aren't safe to load/unload because of pin placement, as an example). A bunch of the pax are drunken/drugged out (allegedly) fools, that probably aren't terribly safe to have in the car with you. Yet, that's the gig you signed up for.
> 
> You had mentioned the small claims route earlier. In theory, there is a potential path for you there. You could make a claim against the pax themselves. You'd be claiming that they committed fraud (claiming a non-service dog as a service dog to Uber), which resulted in damages to you (your deactivation from Uber, the same as if they had falsely claimed you were drinking in the car or something). With no dash cam, it's going to boil down to your word against theirs (which is going to depend highly on the judge you happen to get). They, of course, are going to claim that their highly trained service dog was being an angel and you just didn't like having to take it, therefore they, properly, reported you to Uber and you got the deactivation you had coming for rejecting Federal law. The judge wasn't there (heck, I wasn't there and even I wonder if that might have been the case, there are many dishonest drivers who advocate making up just such stories on this forum alone). IF you had dash cam, I'd say pursue it, but without it, I just don't know that it would be worth it (of course, if you had a dash cam, you probably wouldn't need to as Uber would have reactivated you).
> 
> Take this as a life lesson. If you drive again (Lyft or whatever), get a dash cam. I can't stress that enough, get a dash cam! Ask the two questions on it (plus you can get the dog being out of control on it) and clearly state that you are refusing because of the dog being out of control (which applies even to a legitimate service dog). Then make sure you contact Uber first (and offer you dash cam footage). Contrary to some of the nay sayers on here, I assure you they will look at it (and it's saved several drivers bacon). Lastly, and while this is the least "legal" information/suggestion I can give, it's probably the most important for you in here. Rideshare is a side gig, it's advertised as a side gig, and anyone who depends on it as full time employment has a nasty surprise coming one day. Do not rely on it as a primary thing, it can (and as you have seen, will) eventually be pulled out from under you (either through something that is your fault, or possibly with no fault of your own). It's not a real job (nor was it ever intended to be).


Exactly. And a judge can do more than a driver can to determine the legitimacy of the claim that it's a service animal. Make them have the dog task, ask questions about temperament and training, questions about the disability, etc.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

One thing to remember about Gr*yft* and animals. Gr*yft* requires that you consider all animals service animals. Gr*yft* will not permit you even to ask the questions that Federal Law permits. You must assume that every animal is a service animal, further, Gr*yft* *REQUIRES YOU TO LIKE IT.* Gr*yft* also requires you to like it when the fake service animal sheds all over your car; when the next customer one stars you for the dog hair, when the fake service animal makes a mess in your car and when the fake service animal shows hostility toward you or actually attacks you. Gr*yft* requires you to like it when any of the foregoing occur. Mere compliance with the law is not sufficient, you must LIKE it, as well.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> One thing to remember about Gr*yft* and animals. Gr*yft* requires that you consider all animals service animals. Gr*yft* will not permit you even to ask the questions that Federal Law permits. You must assume that every animal is a service animal, further, Gr*yft* *REQUIRES YOU TO LIKE IT.* Gr*yft* also requires you to like it when the fake service animal sheds all over your car; when the next customer one stars you for the dog hair, when the fake service animal makes a mess in your car and when the fake service animal shows hostility toward you or actually attacks you. Gr*yft* requires you to like it when any of the foregoing occur. Mere compliance with the law is not sufficient, you must LIKE it, as well.


I know that you're a bit bitter towards "Gryft", but that's overstating it a bit (and by a bit, I mean a country mile). Sure, they require you to take service animals (Federal law does really, not "Gryft"). You could even say that they would require you to be polite about it (liking it is a bit extreme). They certainly do allow the questions though (and they do allow a refusal of non-service animals) in their policy. It would be much more fair to say that you can (and their policy specifically mentions you can) ask the two questions, but do you trust yourself enough to judge the answers correctly? If you do, maybe you shouldn't.

Per "Gryft's" policy (https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013080048-Service-animal-policy#rights):
_*How can I tell if a service animal is a true service animal? What if I think a passenger is misrepresenting their dog as a service animal?*_
*
The good news is that cases of service-animal fraud are rare in our community and will put passengers at risk of deactivation. But if you want, you may ask two questions of riders who report their animals are service animals: (1) Is the animal required because of a disability? And (2) what work or task has the animal been trained to perform? These questions will usually prove to you that the animal in question is a service animal.
That said, we don't want you to risk your own deactivation by guessing incorrectly. Some passengers use service animals for reasons that aren't obvious, like epilepsy or heart conditions. Not all service animals wear tags, and they come in all shapes and sizes. For these reasons, it's best that you accommodate animals when they're reported to you by riders as being service animals.*
_* If you have a question about the policy, or would like to report a rider who you suspect is abusing the policy, you should contact Lyft Support and the Service Animal Hotline after you've completed the ride.*_

They make a good point about most drivers not being able to guess correctly (although their point about fraud being rare is obvious bunk). I'm a subject matter expert on it, and even I've come across (not in driving directly, but in a sensitive building access case) someone I know is lying, but they have answered the questions correctly (and frankly, knowing full well they are lying, if I went against it, I would still lose). Most drivers, as evidenced by these many posts on the subject, have no real idea on what the rules are (or any real knowledge of service dogs at all, many still believing they are only guide dogs, or that they need IDs/vests). I guess in my own personal case, I just look at it like well, if the dog is behaved enough to not be "out of control", even if I know they are lying, ultimately, what do I really care. No one likes to be lied to, but it's not worth causing myself the problems that would come from calling them on it.

In the end, the dash cam is going to be your best witness, but personally, I'd only push the issue if you either really know what you're asking and why, or if the dog is actually really out of control. Otherwise, it might be a lose/lose for you. I think that would be a much more fair way to put your point (minus the animosity towards "Gryft").


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> * The good news is that cases of service-animal fraud are rare in our community and will put passengers at risk of deactivation.*


The reality is that this is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. "Service" animal fraud is common. As soon as you say anything about an animal, it magically becomes a "service" animal.



Pawtism said:


> * But if you want, you may ask two questions of riders who report their animals are service animals: (1) Is the animal required because of a disability? And (2) what work or task has the animal been trained to perform? These questions will usually prove to you that the animal in question is a service animal.*


That is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. As soon as you ask the questions, the customer and Gr*yft *both, assume that you are being "hostile" and unwelcoming and that you do not like the animal or the policy. The customer will then make an embellished report to Gr*yft*, which Gr*yft* will believe, dashboard camera or no. Remember:

A. With either TNC, you are guilty even when proved innocent.
B. Gr*yft* requires you to like it.



Pawtism said:


> _*to report a rider who you suspect is abusing the policy, you should contact Lyft Support and the Service Animal Hotline after you've completed the ride.*_


".........in response you will receive a form e-Mail or text that states that we do not allow this sort of conduct. Your report will then be ignored and deleted..............."



Pawtism said:


> They make a good point about most drivers not being able to guess correctly


That is true. Despite that, though, just as you must submit proof to receive a handicapped parking placard/sticker, you should have to do that for the animals.



Pawtism said:


> (although their point about fraud being rare is obvious bunk).


Such is the dictate of experience.



Pawtism said:


> I'm a subject matter expert on it,


I will not disagree with that. You are even reasonable about it, despite your having need of the _aminal_. I have little doubt that you face more than a little discrimination because of it.



Pawtism said:


> , if I went against it, I would still lose).


Indeed, you would. The problem with laws like this that allegedly are intended to "level the playing field" is that they tilt it the other way and open it to players who are unqualified. It gives fuel to the arguments of cynics like me who define the law as "the means by which the weak establish a tyranny over the strong.". The results of that are never good.



Pawtism said:


> In the end, the dash cam is going to be your best witness,


As a rule, neither F*ub*a*r* nor Gr*yft* even will look at what you submit from your dashboard camera. If they tell you to send it, they will ignore it, UNLESS, you publish it on YouTube or the Fourth Estate gets hold of it. Only that gets the attention of either one.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The reality is that this is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. "Service" animal fraud is common. As soon as you say anything about an animal, it magically becomes a "service" animal.
> 
> That is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. As soon as you ask the questions, the customer and Gr*yft *both, assume that you are being "hostile" and unwelcoming and that you do not like the animal or the policy. The customer will then make an embellished report to Gr*yft*, which Gr*yft* will believe, dashboard camera or no. Remember:
> 
> ...


Whoa! How did this bitter driver become a Mod?!? UP is sliding down into the muck.

Edit: or maybe being taken over by the cab industry as an anti-Rideshare platform


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> The reality is that this is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. "Service" animal fraud is common. As soon as you say anything about an animal, it magically becomes a "service" animal.
> 
> That is more of Gr*yft*'s spin and lies. As soon as you ask the questions, the customer and Gr*yft *both, assume that you are being "hostile" and unwelcoming and that you do not like the animal or the policy. The customer will then make an embellished report to Gr*yft*, which Gr*yft* will believe, dashboard camera or no. Remember:
> 
> ...


Obviously I don't disagree that fraud is rampant, but I fear far too many drivers (and perhaps you as well) put the blame on "Gryft" when it should be rightly placed squarely on the shoulders of pax who make false claims. It's not just a service animal issue either. If I falsely claim that you were drinking in the vehicle while we were on the ride, "Gryft" isn't the problem for taking such a serious accusation, well, seriously. I (as the pax), would be, for making it as a blatantly false claim. In that instance, the problem is the pax, not "Gryft". It's easy to demonize the ride share companies (hell, they actually do create enough of the problems, that it's super easy to), but they've done enough, that they are actually to blame for, that we need not lay blame for the pax actions on their doorstep.

Put the blame where it actually belongs, I suppose is my point. "Gryft" didn't write the ADA (hell, if given the choice, I'm sure they'd scrap it), "Gryft" didn't make false complaints against a driver (the pax did, "Gryft" is just addressing them, and they do have to be very careful about taking them seriously), and "Gryft" certainly didn't "level the playing field" (companies like "Gryft", and people like many of the drivers here even, are exactly the reason the ADA is tilted the way it is). In a perfect world, no one would ever fake a service dog, and every driver would take a real service dog every time, but that's not the world we live in (and I'd be unemployed hehe).

There are many ways in which ride share companies can be the enemy, but they aren't wrong in this policy (at least, the one for service animals). Blame the law itself if you wish (you'll get a bit of disagreement from me on some points, but you'll get some agreement on others), definitely blame pax making false complaints (about anything really), but it seems silly to blame "Gryft" specifically as they really have no other options as it stands.

As for the videos, you and I both know they will watch them (maybe youtube is the best solution, but they will watch them), specifically service dog ones, as we both know that multiple drivers (like Elelegido) have successfully used their recordings to avoid fake service dogs, multiple times. So that's another claim that's a bit extreme.

For those wondering which videos I'm referring to (here's the ones he put on YouTube anyway)...






and


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)




----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Grokit said:


> View attachment 384647
> 
> View attachment 384648
> 
> ...


This is good info. If I was Uber's council, I would suggest they amend the order some of this is listed. For example, telling a driver that they are perm deactivated prior to the investigation step that shows that if the dog bit them (as an example) they actually wouldn't be perm deactivated, seems unneeded. Other than the order it's in, I don't see any major issues with it. It looks like video reviews would happen in review of reliable evidence stage. I would agree with many of the drivers that having a $25 bounty on the termination of a driver, creates a potential for more false claims (intentionally trying to terminate drivers and collect $25). Although, on the other hand, I can also understand why they want to give a credit (a "please don't go the DOJ route" credit, basically).

Would I be out of line asking if you worked for Uber (GLH or phones or whatever)? Feel free to tell me "no comment" if you wish, obviously you're entitled to your privacy if you want. :smiles:


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

Pawtism said:


> This is good info. If I was Uber's council, I would suggest they amend the order some of this is listed. For example, telling a driver that they are perm deactivated prior to the investigation step that shows that if the dog bit them (as an example) they actually wouldn't be perm deactivated, seems unneeded. Other than the order it's in, I don't see any major issues with it. It looks like video reviews would happen in review of reliable evidence stage. I would agree with many of the drivers that having a $25 bounty on the termination of a driver, creates a potential for more false claims (intentionally trying to terminate drivers and collect $25). Although, on the other hand, I can also understand why they want to give a credit (a "please don't go the DOJ route" credit, basically).
> 
> Would I be out of line asking if you worked for Uber (GLH or phones or whatever)? Feel free to tell me "no comment" if you wish, obviously you're entitled to your privacy if you want. :smiles:


Issuing the $25 credit is a sly legal tactic to make it more difficult for the rider to sue Uber (should the rider accept it).

This is part of the settlement agreement from the American Federation of the Blind's lawsuit against Uber a few years ago and is publicly accessible on the Internet.

Nope. I'm not an Uber insider.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Grokit said:


> Issuing the $25 credit is a sly legal tactic to make it more difficult for the rider to sue Uber (should the rider accept it).
> 
> This is part of the settlement agreement from the American Federation of the Blind's lawsuit against Uber a few years ago and is publicly accessible on the Internet.
> 
> Nope. I'm not an Uber insider.


Ah ok, I'd seen the settlement a while back, but had never noticed this specific break down for Uber Customer Service, thanks for showing it to me.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> "Gryft" isn't the problem for taking such a serious accusation, well, seriously.


Gr*yft* is indeed to blame for taking adverse action against the driver before the driver has an opportunity to defend himself or before it can substantiate the complaint.

Gr*yft* is to blame because it always believes the customer and never believes the driver.

F*ub*a*r* is really not much better.

Let us consider F*ub*a*r*'s double standards. F*ub*a*r* will waitlst as well, for a similar complaint. Currently, London has suspended F*ub*a*r*'s licence to operate there. Despite that F*ub*a*r* has not shut down. It continues to operate while it appeals. I can just imagine the caterauling that would come from F*ub*a*r* HQ if it were told to shut down immediately. F*ub*a*r* and Gr*yft* both shut down the driver. Neither allows the driver to operate while they are still making a determination. Their current method of handling these complaints shows a double standard. This is in keeping with the deportment of both. They are above the law.

When Department of For Hire Vehicles receives a complaint against a cab driver, he can still drive while the Department investigates. He can drive up to the day of the hearing. He must bring his hack licence with him to the hearing and hand it over to the Bailiff before the hearing starts. If the Administrative Law Judge determines liability on the part of the driver and that a suspension or revocation is in order, he will have the Bailiff retain the licence and render it unto the DFHV.

Both TNCs should have a similar policy. While they investigate, the driver should continue to drive. If they can substantiate the complaint, they can take the appropriate action. If they dismiss the complaint, they can inform the driver that it was dismissed.

I have greater contempt for Gr*yft* because it requires that I like it. This comes from personal experience.


Thanks to @Grokit for his useful and informative post. The fake service animal gets a pass on the first two drivers in whose car it makes a mess. The first two drivers get nothing if a fake service animal makes a mess. That is Beta Sigma to an extreme.

THERE IT IS, RIGHT THERE IN THE POLICY STATEMENT: If it is the driver's word against the rider's, you believe the rider.

The first substantiated complaint of a mess should have a five hundred dollar clean-up fee.
The second should be one thousand dollars.
The third should be one thousand dollars and permanent ban from the Uber platform.

It is extremely rare that a properly trained service animal makes a mess in a car.
It is extremely rare that a properly trained service animal attacks a driver.
It is extremely rare that a properly trained service animal destroys a car.

It is quite common for passengers to have fake service animals. Upon any objection by a driver to an animal, it suddenly becomes a "service" animal.



Grokit said:


> Whoa! How did this bitter driver become a Mod?!?


It is a good thing, for any number of reasons, that you do not get to determine who is fit or not fit to be a moderator.

If you have any questions on the source of my alleged "bitterness", your most recent post should answer said questions, should there be any.

[QUOTE="Grokit, post: 5632695, member: 185069"Edit: or maybe being taken over by the cab industry as an anti-Rideshare platform[/QUOTE]

The TNCs do enough to damage their own reputation as it is. They need no help from cab drivers or companies.

Keep in mind that in my market, Uber offers taxis. I use it. This makes me an Uber driver.
In addition, I have a car other than my cab that I use when I drive UberX or Lyft. This also makes me an Uber driver in addition to being a Lyft driver. While I would say a _Te Deum_ if the TNCs were shut down to-morrow, this is not necessarily part of an "anti-rideshare" crusade. It is more a complaint about systematic mistreatment of the drivers by the TNCs. While you have posted something informative on F*ub*a*r*'s policies, I have little doubt that Gr*yft*'s are not dissimilar, especially when it comes to believing customer over driver.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Gr*yft* is indeed to blame for taking adverse action against the driver before the driver has an opportunity to defend himself or before it can substantiate the complaint.
> 
> Gr*yft* is to blame because it always believes the customer and never believes the driver.
> 
> ...


So, let's assume that instead of the service animal complaint, it was a driving while drunk complaint, or a reckless driving complaint (which we both know people falsely claim as well). They should not suspend but instead just wait and see? What happens when it turns out that it's not a false complaint and someone gets killed? Someone like me comes along and says "They were warned about the danger and took no action! That makes "Fuber" as liable as the driver is!" (and I'd be right). You're thinking like a driver. Step out of that role and look at the situation as a whole. A company (any company really) has to address the relevant legal concerns it has facing it. It has liability issues that frankly, most drivers can't even comprehend (I suspect you can/will though, if you're honest about it). You have some fairly unique experiences compared to most drivers (dispatching/running a cab office for example). While you may not like/agree with many of the legalities, you at least seem to understand them.

So you tell me, you're dispatching, you're told that a driver is flat out running red lights, and is going to kill someone. Your company already has one case you've had to settle because you were warned about this over and over and you did nothing (and that settlement specifcally says you MUST take action when you receive such a warning). You have no reason to disbelieve the rider (they aren't making otherwise ridiculous statements, and they seem credible). Do you send him back out, knowing full well that if it's true and he crashes into someone, you're going to be questioned (probably fired as a good faith gesture, after all, you're expendable) for why you dispatched them out again, your company will probably be sued (and be found liable, as you'd been warned)? Somehow, I think that if the shoe was on your foot... you don't dispatch them either. There is a reason why, cops, as an example, are put on admin leave after any kind of incident (even if they are 100% in the right). Liability.

What are they supposed to do? Let someone who is, allegedly, causing them liability just keep going? Because the person who gets hit by the drunk/careless driver is certainly going to use that against them. They've already been nailed once for millions, and you know if they don't honor the settlement agreement, they'd get nailed again. A driver is allegedly refusing service animals, and they do nothing and the next pax also happens to have a service animal and also allegedly gets refused, how do you think that's going to go for them? They were warned that this driver was discriminating, and yet they did nothing to stop it and they discriminated again. I could certainly argue that they are condoning it by not addressing it, especially when they have a history of it and there is already a settlement agreement in place. Driving drunk/reckless, refusing service animals, it's all liability to them.

As for the London situation, that's based on UK law. What do you want to bet if there was a 100,000 fine a day for operating during the process, they'd shut down instantly? The operate based on the laws at hand. In this case, there are liability concerns that don't exist in the London case. As for the "accident" in the car thing, well, I agree with you that there shouldn't be a 2 time freebie. However, I believe that was written in because "Fubar" drivers... and I know this will come as a shock to you... have a habit of lying and faking messes to game the system. Shocking, I know... They had to put something in place to address that. Personally, I'd say any driver that fakes a mess should be immediately deactivated, but as my whole point has been, there is no direct liability for that (worst that will happen is a pax will dispute it and they'll get it credited back), so that's something they don't address instantly (even though I wish they would). We can't all get what we want, I suppose.

Bottom line, they take the steps they do, because they have to (which has been my whole point all along). Don't blame "Gryft/Fubar" for the actions of a bad pax, blame the bad pax (as they are the one making the false complaint). The companies are simply doing what they have to, to avoid liability (in the service dog case, they are specifically complying with a settlement agreement they've already made, because of past inaction). They're actually MORE likely to suspend, pending investigation, someone who allegedly refuses a service animal than someone who is allegedly driving drunk (because there is already a settlement agreement in place).


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

*Q: *


Pawtism said:


> So, let's assume that instead of the service animal complaint, it was a driving while drunk complaint, or a reckless driving complaint (which we both know people falsely claim as well). *They should not suspend but instead just wait and see?*


 (emphasis mine)

*A:* Yes.



Pawtism said:


> What happens when it turns out that it's not a false complaint and someone gets killed?


There will be a police report which indicates that the driver was intoxicated. Odds are his vehicle will be undriveable, so that puts him out of action, anyhow. He will be arrested. If the police report shows that the driver was intoxicated, then suspend him pending outcome of his court case.



Pawtism said:


> Someone like me comes along and says "They were warned about the danger and took no action!


The Uber investigated the report. There was no way to verify it.



Pawtism said:


> You're thinking like a driver.


..............and your complaint is__________________________________________?



Pawtism said:


> Step out of that role and look at the situation as a whole. A company (any company really) has to address the relevant legal concerns it has facing it.


I have been out of the role of driver and have been an official of a cab company. I have dealt with such reports in the past. I always called the driver to the office to explain himself. I refused to take any action against the driver until I could determine the accuracy of the report.



Pawtism said:


> It has liability issues that frankly, most drivers can't even comprehend


Due to my experience, I can comprehend it. I have fought collision cases where my driver was intoxicated and I had received a report about it in the past. I had a record of the action that I took, which was to call the driver into the office, have him explain himself and issue him a warning that was on record in his file. Never has my company been held responsible for the driver's being intoxicated. I have had one or two reports from dispatchers about drivers' being intoxicated. I had the dispatcher raise the driver, found out where he was and had the dispatcher call the police. They actually did catch up to one driver, pulled him over and did arrest him. I had an arrest report. I suspended the driver.



Pawtism said:


> You have some fairly unique experiences compared to most drivers (dispatching/running a cab office for example). While you may not like/agree with many of the legalities, you at least seem to understand them.


Yes to all of the above, which is why I make the statements that I do. This should go double for the TNCs, as they are aware that the majority of the reports that they receive are false and are just attempts to hustle a free ride.



Pawtism said:


> What are they supposed to do? Let someone who is, allegedly, causing them liability just keep going?


Until they can substantiate it, yes.



Pawtism said:


> blame the bad pax (as they are the one making the false complaint).


I blame both: the customer for lying; the TNC for believing it when it knows that it is false.



Pawtism said:


> They're actually MORE likely to suspend, pending investigation, someone who allegedly refuses a service animal


Gr*yft* will waitlist someone who does haul the animal but does not like it. The law does not require you to like it, Y-E-T. Even Gr*yft*'s stated policy reads only that you must carry them. It does not state that you must like it, but, if you do not like it, Gr*yft* will waitlist you. In fact, Gr*yft* will acknowledge that you hauled the animal, which is all that both the law and Gry*ft*'s stated policy dictate, but still will record that you did not do haul the animal.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> *Q: * (emphasis mine)
> 
> *A:* Yes.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand on your first quote there. I mean if they kill someone AFTER the report was made (and they were allowed to continue driving). As for you having a situation like that, there must be some strange liberal laws there (although being DC, that wouldn't surprise me), as in most states, the company would absolutely be held liable for failing to act on a credible report of a drunk driver that was allowed to continue driving.

Uber investigated the report and there was no way to validate it? Hard to do if they haven't actually investigated it yet. Without suspending the driver (to investigate it), if the next pickup is the exact same thing, they haven't investigated anything yet. That's my point, they have to actually investigate it (which means pulling the driver off the road to do so). You, yourself, pulled a driver into the office (by your own admission, which in the cab world is the same as a temp suspension on a platform) until you could make a decision one way or the other.

You thinking like a driver clouds your judgement. TNCs can't know it's false until they have investigated it, and they can't risk the liability until they can substantiate it (or cast doubt on it). You presume they know it's false, because you're thinking like a driver. When you remove yourself from that role, you simply have 2 sides to a story, once you get both sides, one likely makes more sense (or has more evidence) than the other, and only then can you lean one way or the other. Sure, lots of pax lie about stuff, but just as many drivers do too, and the TNCs know this as well. As you're thinking like a driver, you're not taking into consideration how much the drivers lie and game the system (although we see drivers freely admitting it all the time here). For every pax who says they have a "service dog", I can show you a driver that says "just claim you didn't see them and drive away". Drivers are just as guilty as the pax when it comes to lying, so no, they don't know that the claim is false.



Another Uber Driver said:


> I have been out of the role of driver and have been an official of a cab company. I have dealt with such reports in the past. I always called the driver to the office to explain himself. I refused to take any action against the driver until I could determine the accuracy of the report.


This is the part you're not seeing. You DID take an action against the driver. You brought them into the office (temp suspended them) and investigated it (had them give their side of the story). That's all the TNCs are doing. They suspend the platform and get the drivers side. If the driver is clear, then great, they're back up and running. If not, then they have to deal with it. The TNCs are doing EXACTLY what you did running a cab company. They just don't have a direct office they can pull them into, so they suspend access and deal with it via email and such. It's the same process though, and an intelligent one at that (which is why you did it as well).


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> You misunderstand on your first quote there. I mean if they kill someone AFTER the report was made (and they were allowed to continue driving).


......same answer, with the proviso that the report was investigated, could not be substantiated and everything was documented.



Pawtism said:


> the company would absolutely be held liable for failing to act on a *credible* report of a drunk driver that was allowed to continue driving.


 (emphasis mine)

The operative word is the one emphasised. The mere presence of a report does not make it "credible". In the case of the TNCs, they have numerous reports that they never were able to substantiate. I had similar as both a cab company and insurance company official. I have been asked for both in the discovery process.



Pawtism said:


> Uber investigated the report and there was no way to validate it? Hard to do if they haven't actually investigated it yet.


If your hypothetical scenario is that there was a report and two minutes later, the driver was involved in an at-fault collision, was found to be intoxicated, the defence is that I had just received the report and it does take time to investigate it. Until I can confirm or deny the report, I am not going to interfere with a driver's purse.



Pawtism said:


> Without suspending the driver (to investigate it), if the next pickup is the exact same thing, they haven't investigated anything yet. That's my point,


HUH?



Pawtism said:


> they have to actually investigate it (which means pulling the driver off the road to do so). You, yourself, pulled a driver into the office (by your own admission, which in the cab world is the same as a temp suspension on a platform) until you could make a decision one way or the other.


I did pull the driver into the office. I put out a message to him to come to the office during business hours. I did let him work until it was convenient for him to present himself. Had he failed to show up, I would have cut off his dispatch until he did. I never admitted that I kept him off the air or street until I could make a decision. I admitted only to telling him to come to the office.

If they want to pull the driver into the office to investigate, that is fine. They can tell the driver to present himself on __________ between the hours of ________ and __________. It is not necessary to pull the driver off the street for seventy two to one hundred sixty eight hours.



Pawtism said:


> You thinking like a driver clouds your judgement.


It does no such thing.



Pawtism said:


> TNCs can't know it's false until they have investigated it,


Conversely, they can not know that it is true until they investigate it.



Pawtism said:


> and they can't risk the liability until they can substantiate it (or cast doubt on it).


There is no liability for an unsubstantiated complaint.



Pawtism said:


> You presume they know it's false


I stated that they are aware that they receive many false complaints. They are aware that there are twitter and facebook postings that tell people to report the driver for being high or drunk so that they can get a free ride. They are aware that this fraud is rampant. That is what I stated.



Pawtism said:


> you simply have 2 sides to a story, once you get both sides, one likely makes more sense (or has more evidence) than the other, and only then can you lean one way or the other.


Until I have everything in, I refuse to take adverse action against anyone.



Pawtism said:


> Sure, lots of pax lie about stuff, but just as many drivers do too, and the TNCs know this as well.


........and the solution is always take adverse action against the driver and always believe the customer?



Pawtism said:


> game the system (although we see drivers freely admitting it all the time here)


I am one of them. When the TNCs play fair, I will. Until that day comes, do not expect me to play fair while they cheat. The whole business model of the TNCs from Day One has been to tie the hands of the other players in the market while they have both hands free and holding weapons. They could not survive in a fair marketplace, so they pay for an unfair one.

.


Pawtism said:


> For every pax who says they have a "service dog", I can show you a driver that says "just claim you didn't see them and drive away".


Given current conditions, the driver who does that is not thinking or paying attention. The passenger is going to tell the TNC that the driver left because of the animal, The TNC is going to believe the customer. The TNC is going to take adverse action against the driver. In the instant quote, I am not arguing what is proper, improper, right or wrong. I am arguing that the driver's conduct is not too smart, because he should be aware of the situation and carry the dog, if it is Uber. If it is Lyft, he should carry the dog and like it.



Pawtism said:


> Drivers are just as guilty as the pax when it comes to lying, so no, they don't know that the claim is false.


Conversely, passengers are just as guilty as drivers when it comes to lying, so no, the TNCs do not know that the claim is true.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> ......same answer, with the proviso that the report was investigated, could not be substantiated and everything was documented.
> 
> (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


I agree that they can't know if it's true or false until they investigate, which is why they suspend... and investigate. They don't assume it's true (or false), they have a credible complaint (I said credible, not factual). I claim to have a service dog. You've not seen my trainer, you weren't at any of my training sessions, other than the picture in the mod board (and in my profile), you've never actually seen my dog (which I could, theoretically, be making up even having one). Yet, it's credible (although you still couldn't swear to it), that I have one. I clearly have the knowledge, I clearly know the law (and my state is one of the ones where it's illegal to falsely claim service animal status), so my claim is credible. If, as a rider, I call up Uber/Lyft and say, "I just had this ride, and the guy driving (I describe him) was all over the road! I think he's drunk or high or something, you need to do something about it, he's going to kill someone!" They can confirm that I just took a ride, that my description matched the driver, that would be a credible claim. Is it true or am I just after a free ride? An investigation will have to be done to find out. However, if they just let him keep driving, and he does kill the next pax, my complaint will be part of the record (and you'd better believe the next pax family will be using it against Uber/Lyft). Joe "Drunkard" Driver doesn't have much in the way of assets to go after (especially if they totaled their car), but Uber/Lyft does. One of the first question their attorney will ask is "Why'd you let someone, who you had a credible complaint about being drunk, keep driving?" And you don't need to be an attorney to know that "I didn't want to mess with his purse" is the wrong answer (especially in front of a jury, who will not be lawyers either).

You think there is no liability for an unsubstantiated complaint, but that is simply incorrect (legally speaking). You can minimize liability with a dis-proven complaint (although even that may not completely remove it), but a credible one (not even a "proven" one), that simply hasn't been vetted yet, is still fraught with liability. I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but what you think you know about limiting liability is simply wrong. You're presenting an argument from a philosophical standpoint, not a legal one (that it shouldn't count against the driver until/unless it's proven). There are certain claims, (and they are often credible, even when the pax is lying) that they simply HAVE to take seriously enough to temp suspend (call into the office, as it were) the driver to investigate. The temp suspension isn't punitive, it's to get information. If the driver has a plausible explanation (such as dash cam footage of the trip where they drove as if there was a cop in the car with them, which then makes the claim not so credible), then great, they'll be back on the platform, no problem. The police deal with this often as well. Let's say I call the cops and tell them someone stole my car. Turns out it's my wife who has it, is a registered owner on it, like me. They pull her over, you'd better believe they are going to do a high risk stop on her (they think she's a car thief). Now, once they have everything under control and investigate, they're going to see that she's legit, and of course, let her go (unless she did something stupid, like resist). My claim that my car was stolen was credible (but untrue). Now, of course, they have to decide if I blantantly lied to them (and filed a false report, which is a crime), or just found my car gone and innocently thought it was stolen. However, that's a matter for another time. They did have to act on my credible claim though.

As for drivers trying to just drive past the person with the service dog, yeah, we both know that's a bad plan, so you'll get no disagreement from me there. My only disagreement is that saying you have to "like it" is a bit extreme, and that it's totally the pax that should be blamed for making false claims (service dog, drunk driving, etc.) as the TNCs are doing what they pretty much legally have to (not as in there is a law saying they have to, but they are stupid if they don't, of course in Uber's case, there is actually a settlement agreement saying they have to with service dogs). If I claim that you called me names, they don't need to suspend, but if I claim that you're driving drunk, they pretty much have to (to investigate), unless I make it as an non-credible claim (such as, "The driver was ok, but if I say he was drunk I get the trip free, right?", that would be an non-credible claim).

EDIT: Since we mentioned drivers pulling some of the same stuff, I suppose it's worth mentioning that could go both ways too. A driver could notify Uber/Lyft that they saw a pax abusing their child, as an example. I'd recommend not doing it (as it's likely to snowball with cops getting involved, CPS, etc.), but theoretically, they could. My only concern there would be that once cops/CPS gets involved, if it can be proved you are lying, there are criminal penalties for that. Maybe your argument should be that there needs to be stiffer penalties for when pax do lie. I could get behind that one. Sadly, we both know how easy it is, even if Uber/Lyft did take it seriously and deactivated pax, to setup a new pax account.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> I agree that they can't know if it's true or false until they investigate, which is why they suspend... and investigate.


.....so the driver should suffer adverse consequences even if he did nothing? In most cases, the complaint can not be substantiated, but the driver still suffers. Why should he? Either Uber or Lyft can produce figures that show that an overwhelming majority of these complaints can not be substantiated.



Pawtism said:


> They don't assume it's true (or false), they have a credible complaint (I said credible, not factual).


When did "my driver was drunk" or "the driver would not carry me because of my animal" become a "credible" complaint? If that were the standard, EVERY complaint would become "credible". That the majority of them can not be substantiated proves that most of them are not, in fact, "credible".



Pawtism said:


> I claim to have a service dog. You've not seen my trainer, you weren't at any of my training sessions, other than the picture in the mod board (and in my profile), you've never actually seen my dog (which I could, theoretically, be making up even having one). Yet, it's credible (although you still couldn't swear to it), that I have one. I clearly have the knowledge, I clearly know the law (and my state is one of the ones where it's illegal to falsely claim service animal status), so my claim is credible.


I believe you because I have read any number of your posts, and, as you state, you demonstrate a clear knowledge of your subject matter.



Pawtism said:


> If, as a rider, I call up Uber/Lyft and say, "I just had this ride, and the guy driving (I describe him) was all over the road! I think he's drunk or high or something, you need to do something about it, he's going to kill someone!"


That is merely your statement. That does not make it "credible".



Pawtism said:


> They can confirm that I just took a ride,


................as they could confirm that anyone took a ride.............The mere taking of a ride lends little, if any, credibility to a statement about it.



Pawtism said:


> that my description matched the driver,
> 
> 
> > Anyone who takes a ride can describe the driver, if he is paying attention. That, alone, lends little, if any, credibility to a statement about a ride or a driver.
> ...


Here is what several cab companies did when one driver wanted to complain about another.

The complaining driver could submit his complaint. If he expected management to act on it, he put up a fixed sum of money (twenty five to one hundred dollars). If the complaining driver put up his money, the respondent driver was immediately put off the air. (If he drove at night, they would call his home to let him know that there was a complaint about him.). The respondent driver then came to the office. Management heard both sides of the question, asked questions, checked records. Management then made a determination. If the complaint was substantiated, the responding driver received the appropriate penalty. Part of his penalty was the time off the air. Management then refunded to the complaining driver the surety that he had rendered.

If Management could not substantiate the complaint (note here "not substantiate"); that is, if the complaining driver could not prove his case, regardless of whether or not the respondent driver had disproved the complaint, the surety that the complaining driver posted was forfeit to the respondent driver as compensation for the time lost to respond to the complaint.

If Uber were to require this from customers, there would be far fewer complaints. Despite that, it is unrealistic to expect that any company would require this from a customer.


----------



## Shoaib Abu Abdullah (Feb 13, 2019)

As I always tell my colleagues, uber is a ****ing *****. How could u refuse a family member.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Another Uber Driver said:


> .....so the driver should suffer adverse consequences even if he did nothing? In most cases, the complaint can not be substantiated, but the driver still suffers. Why should he? Either Uber or Lyft can produce figures that show that an overwhelming majority of these complaints can not be substantiated.
> 
> When did "my driver was drunk" or "the driver would not carry me because of my animal" become a "credible" complaint? If that were the standard, EVERY complaint would become "credible". That the majority of them can not be substantiated proves that most of them are not, in fact, "credible".
> 
> ...


The driver isn't being punished (this is, again, where you're thinking like a driver), the complaint is being investigated (only after the investigation, might the driver be punished, and by your own point, if it's unsubstantiated, they won't be, it will be dismissed). And yes, just about every complaint is credible (unless it's ridiculous, as in my "I can get a free ride, right?" example). Again, you're looking at this philosophically, not legally. Should my wife be pulled out of our car at gunpoint when she did nothing wrong (in my stolen car example)? No, she "shouldn't" (philosophically), but legally, she will be. The drivers "shouldn't" have to deal with false complaints (or people throwing up in their cars, or people putting the pin in unacceptable locations, and about a million other things they "shouldn't" have to deal with), philosophically, yet they still do. There is a reason that my alma mater, while having two routes in the pre-law program (philosophy and political science), had the grand majority go through the political science route. With philosophy all you can really do is sit around and think deep, deep thoughts about how broke you are. You're demonstrating why. While philosophy is great for reflecting on some things, in the practical, legal, world, it's not terribly useful. Once in a while you come across someone like Hume, where, at least, it can be directly applied to logic, but by and large, the philosophical points you are trying to make are simply trumped by the legal realities that come up. Realities like, liability, and how in your perfect world, a driver would never have to face a false complaint (and wouldn't commit an act that would cause liability), and the fact that neither of those conditions is true, in the real world.

Sure, Uber/Lyft could come up with some kind of way to punish those who make false complaints (and I'd even agree that they should, both philosophically and legally). However, you and I both know that the pax can just abandon that account, and create a new one. Perhaps, this, is what needs to be first addressed? Heck, I'd even agree with that (for legal reasons above and beyond, but still including, protecting drivers from false claims). In fact, I could even make an argument that not doing so, winds up creating some liability for Uber/Lyft (think about a case where a sexual predator actually assaults a driver, gets banned, then comes right back using same name and everything on a new account, and attacks another driver... potential liability, in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a case where that point was raised). So if you want to argue that, I'll join you. However, the fact remains that once a credible complaint has been made, the actions they currently take, are the ones they pretty much have to. Note, I said credible, not factual, you need to understand that a complaint can still be credible even if someone is lying, if it's not obvious they are lying at the time (if you need another example, that's why SWATing is such a problem currently). It's like my stolen car example. Once they've determined it's my wife in the car, now they have to address if I was lying (intentionally filing a false report), or if I was honestly believing my car had been stolen (say my wife got off work early and I didn't know she had stopped by to pick up my car for some reason). This is the part you're mentioning now, with how you used to handle it (and I'd agree it should be done, although they'd have to address first the ease of creating a new account). None of that changes the actions they had to take in assuming that my car had actually been stolen (and pulling my wife out at gunpoint on a high risk stop). While, philosophically, I definitely see the point you're trying to make, it simply doesn't (and can't) translate into the real/legal world.


----------



## rkozy (Apr 5, 2019)

doggerel said:


> You should read the new legal agreement you signed recently. They no longer consider us "partners" or in a "partnership." They now define themselves as a "lead generation company."
> 
> They aren't a "rideshare provider," they now claim. We are.


If Uber is now reclassifying itself as a "lead generation company" then they no longer need a ratings system, or driver metrics (AR%, cancel rate, etc.) to track our performance. We are independent drivers. Uber is merely giving us the sales leads to drum up our own business.

If a customer has an issue with a ride I gave them, Uber should no longer be involved in the dispute. They were merely selling me a "sales lead" for transportation services.

If a customer didn't like how I drove, or how I behaved during the ride...then they need to sue me in court. Uber has no jurisdiction in that two-party dispute.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> The driver isn't being punished


Invent any name for it that you will, the bottom line is that the driver suffers for something that he did not do. Thus, he is being punished, which he does not deserve.



Pawtism said:


> (only after the investigation, might the driver be punished, and by your own point, if it's unsubstantiated, they won't be, it will be dismissed)


Once more, you attempt to twist my words. Dismissal, or not, WHO is going to cover the driver's losses during the unwarranted suspension? No one. The driver still suffers. The driver is being punished and punished for something that he did not do.

.


Pawtism said:


> And yes, just about every complaint is credible


You can try to "argue" all that you will that the mere existence of a complaint automatically makes it "credible". You can not prove that "argument".



Pawtism said:


> Should my wife be pulled out of our car at gunpoint when she did nothing wrong (in my stolen car example)? No, she "shouldn't" (philosophically), but legally, she will be


Your "wife and stolen car" analogy breaks down at several points and is an invalid comparison. You continue to "argue" it as if it were valid.

Here are two places where it breaks down:

1. There is some investigation into the complaint before action is taken. The police show up at your home (or to the place from which you state the vehicle was stolen). You demonstrate that _thar' ain't no vee-hick-kull raht cheer whar' Uh dun' left it_. You give the _occifers_ information on the vehicle that allows them to determine that you own it..

Conversely, there is no preliminary investigation of a false accusation before action is taken. Uber or Lyft receives the complaint. Uber or Lyft employ your false "reasoning" that the mere existence of a complaint automatically makes it "credible". Uber or Lyft immediately put the driver out of work with no reason to do so.

2. The question of your wife's driving it is resolved in a matter of minutes. The po-po stop the vehicle, remove the driver, The po-po establish the driver's identity. They call you, or, bring you to the scene. If the former, they ask you if you know a "Jean Paw Tizzum". You tell the po-po that this is your wife. The po-po let her go. If the latter, you arrive, see your wife, See that she is shaken. You approach her and ask what is wrong. The po-po ask you if you know her. You inform them that she is your wife. The po-po let her go. Yes, she is a bit shaken, but, you tell her that you did not know that she had the car, you called her and she did not answer so you assumed that the vehicle was stolen and reported it as such. Unless she had taken it to go to a job interview and the traffic stop caused her to miss it and not get the job, there is no financial loss. The matter is resolved in minutes; hours at the most.

Conversely, it takes a minimum of seventy two hours to clear the false accusation. The driver suffers the loss of three days' work. There is no recompense to the driver. It can take up to three hundred thirty six hours to clear this false accusation. The driver is now behind on his rent, utilities and other bills and is reduced to going to Big Sally for his sustenance. Once more, there is no recompense to the driver for the damage done to him by this false accusation. As it is, given the garbage pay, the driver is forced to sleep in his car eventually. False accusations only hasten the process.

.


Pawtism said:


> The drivers "shouldn't" have to deal with false complaints (or people throwing up in their cars, or people putting the pin in unacceptable locations), philosophically, yet they still do.


This is another invalid comparison.

There is recompense for the ralphing. It does not cover all of the damage, but, there is something. It is difficult to get it, but, it can be done. There are numerous and major flaws in the recompense for "rider made a mess", but, you can get something. You get nothing for your losses during an unwarranted suspension.

There are ways both to avoid the stick in an "unacceptable" ;location and be compensated.

For the former to work best, admittedly, you do have to know what you are doing out here; something that the majority of TNC drivers do not. If I see the stick in a location that I consider too difficult to cover, I decline the ping. In certain places, such as a swath of my city from Capitol Hill to Georgetown, as well as Kalorama and Adams-Morgan, I do not accept stacked pings on UberX. I do this because I can not see where the pick up address is, thus, I do not know if I can cover the ping easily, or not. I do not know if it is going to be more trouble than it is worth to cover it. Thus, I decline it. It is different in residential areas, as the overwhelming majority of stacked pings there are equally coverable. On Lyft, I can see the address of the stacked ping. When I get stuck at a light (an easy thing to do in the Capital of Your Nation), I can do a few touches and it will show the address. As I do know what I am doing out here, I can decide if it is worth it to cover the ping or take out the ping. I accept stacked pings on Uber Taxi, because cab rates pay.

Conversely, you can not avoid harm from a false accusation. The accusation is made, believed, the driver suffers punishment. There is no way to avoid it.

If you go to the stick and that is not where the customer is, you either can go to where the customer is, run your trip and collect your paltry recompense, or, you can remain at the stick, let the five minutes expire and collect your no-show. There is some form of compensation.

Conversely, there is no compensation to the driver for his lost "wages".



Pawtism said:


> the pax can just abandon that account, and create a new one. Perhaps, this, is what needs to be first addressed?


......or he can buy gift cards or smart cards and use those. There are ways to stop a duplicate account. The TNCs simply choose not to do so. They caterwaul about how they are "on your side for your safety". In fact, one of the early arguments was that as the TNC has all of this information on the customer, said customer should be aware that the odds of their getting caught over anything untoward are sure, certain and One. It was a similar argument used for Uber Taxi, Hail-O and MyTaxi. Until recently, if you went to pick up Jean and John came out without Jean, you did not have to haul John. You reported it as "fraudulent rider". That obtains no more.



Pawtism said:


> . However, the fact remains that once a credible complaint has been made, the actions they currently take, are the ones they pretty much have to.


You continue to assume that the mere existence of a claim makes it "credible". As I have convincingly demonstrated, more than once, you can not do that.



Pawtism said:


> you need to understand that a complaint can still be credible even if someone is lying,


I never denied that. This is putting words onto my keyboard. Conversely, you must understand that the mere existence of a complaint does not automatically make it credible.



Pawtism said:


> It's like my stolen car example


The flaws of that example and its lack of validity have been demonstrated convincingly.

You will not convince me that what the TNCs do with these false accusations is right or "what they must do". It will not happen.

.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> Invent any name for it that you will, the bottom line is that the driver suffers for something that he did not do. Thus, he is being punished, which he does not deserve.
> 
> Once more, you attempt to twist my words. Dismissal, or not, WHO is going to cover the driver's losses during the unwarranted suspension? No one. The driver still suffers. The driver is being punished and punished for something that he did not do.
> 
> ...


Then what you're advocating is to purposefully hurt drivers who have done nothing wrong.


----------



## Youburr (Aug 22, 2019)

Wow it seems like it would be okay for a driver to drive around with their own service animal.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Demon said:


> Then what you're advocating is to purposefully hurt drivers who have done nothing wrong.


That would be incorrect. Not only am I not doing that; the gentleman who disagrees with me is not doing that.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Another Uber Driver said:


> That would be incorrect. Not only am I not doing that; the gentleman who disagrees with me is not doing that.


It's correct, you are advocating punishing drivers who have done nothing wrong.

Pawtism pointed out that you're only seeing this from a driver's perspective. The company sees the bigger picture and that's what you're missing.

When a company gets a complaint about a driver and they don't take quick and appropriate action they're liable when that driver hurts someone and eventually that company is going to go out of business and all the other drivers will be out of work.

We're seeing this in London we're Uber is fighting to stay in business.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> IIt's correct, you are advocating punishing drivers who have done nothing wrong.


Naw, man, like you're the 1 who's saying they should punish drivers who ain't done nothing wrong, see? You & that other guy whatsisname, you know?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Freddie Blimeau said:


> Naw, man, like you're the 1 who's saying they should punish drivers who ain't done nothing wrong, see? You & that other guy whatsisname, you know?


When a complaint comes in, how do you know the driver did nothing wrong?
Nothing stops Uber from suspending with pay.


----------



## Grokit (Sep 8, 2019)

_*Quick review -*_



Another Uber Driver said:


> As a rule, neither F*ub*a*r* nor Gr*yft* even will look at what you submit from your dashboard camera. If they tell you to send it, they will ignore it, UNLESS, you publish it on YouTube or the Fourth Estate gets hold of it. Only that gets the attention of either one.





Grokit said:


> Whoa! How did this bitter driver become a Mod?!? UP is sliding down into the muck.
> 
> Edit: or maybe being taken over by the cab industry as an anti-Rideshare platform





Another Uber Driver said:


> It is a good thing, for any number of reasons, that you do not get to determine who is fit or not fit to be a moderator.
> 
> If you have any questions on the source of my alleged "bitterness", your most recent post should answer said questions, should there be any.




> Edit: or maybe being taken over by the cab industry as an anti-Rideshare platform





Another Uber Driver said:


> Keep in mind that in my market, Uber offers taxis.I use it. This makes me an Uber driver. ... In addition, I have a car other than my cab that I use when I drive UberX or Lyft. This also makes me an Uber driver in addition to being a Lyft driver.


@Another Uber Driver wants me to buy that he has succumbed to becoming a slave to "F*ub*a*r"*and "Gr*yft*", but I give him too much credit for that.

Now, I'm willing to believe he's been behind the wheel of rideshare vehicles to get some firsthand experience, but that's as far as my gullibility goes.

He earned too much money in the cab industry, had too much managerial experience, is too well spoken, and too bitter for me to believe that he would allow himself to be reduced to fighting for scraps in the garbage piles behind the megalithic TNC towers.

My take is that he is now working as a highly-paid, cab industry lobbyist, intentionally pushing anti-TNC sentiments amongst the Rideshare workforce, in order to to increase worker discontentment, much as a union organizer would spread insidious rumors about the "company."

But who knows? Maybe @Another Uber Driver is actually a co-owner of his cab company and is hanging out with us for cheap thrills as he works to bring about the regulation of rideshare.


----------



## WNYuber (Oct 5, 2019)

Grokit said:


> Whoa! How did this bitter driver become a Mod?!? UP is sliding down into the muck.
> 
> Edit: or maybe being taken over by the cab industry as an anti-Rideshare platform


I wouldn't be surprised if I was made mod or even PRESIDENT of this site after what I'm going to do for RS drivers everywhere in my Erin Brockovich lawsuit. I will represent each and every driver from the slander that these filthy Pax spew.


----------



## Freddie Blimeau (Oct 10, 2016)

Demon said:


> When a complaint comes in, how do you know the driver did nothing wrong?
> Nothing stops Uber from suspending with pay.


Like it's the same way they know the driver did do something wrong, you know?

Right & ain't nothing like what stops Uber from firing you neither, see.

So like do we got some more "news" or is this like it for today, man?


----------



## Sydney Driver (Dec 3, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> THIS is Exactly Why NO ONE CAN TRUST UBER !
> 
> THIS IS WHY DRIVERS NEED A UNION !
> 
> ...


Agree, if uber is not taking thw driver"s side when unjust happens, then we are left with no choice. Uber should have drivers back because we are partners.



UberUber81 said:


> I take all dogs and then charge clean up fees. I'm not deactivated and I make more money. Never cancel on a dog. Never. Cleaning fee them into oblivion.


I m.pretty sure that passenger will not agree to pay for cleaning. And that will be then on the driver,



UberUber81 said:


> I take all dogs and then charge clean up fees. I'm not deactivated and I make more money. Never cancel on a dog. Never. Cleaning fee them into oblivion.


I m.pretty sure that passenger will not agree to pay for cleaning. And that will be then on the driver,


----------



## Slim pickings (Nov 18, 2019)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


To get a cleaning fee now u have to show serious damage. If u can clean it with a wipe there's no cleaning fee.



Chorch said:


> Not even a few hours.
> After the pax and dog are gone, just keep going. The pax saw you concerned about your _overheating car. _So I don't think they will report you as "didn't take me because of my dog".
> 
> That's my guess...


Really? Not my experience. If everything is not perfect these primadonas will try anything to affect u. I was deactivated for a few days bc Some pax said my car smelled like pot. I spray a lavender deodorizer which smells great. I sent pix to Uber of the bottle. Still was deactivated until they "investigated ".


----------



## LordBinky (Dec 11, 2019)

UberUber81 said:


> I take all dogs and then charge clean up fees. I'm not deactivated and I make more money. Never cancel on a dog. Never. Cleaning fee them into oblivion.


Is that done through the app, or is it a private cash transaction between driver and rider? Is there a set charge? Thanks


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

I'm in Northampton, a consensus top-50 great small towns in America. 

It's really not all that small, though it is most certainly great. Northampton's downtown sprawls out in all directions. And you'll have to walk a good ways to come across anything resembling a national chain store or restaurant.

It's a mecca for artists of all stripes and filled with restaurants spanning the globe of ethnic cuisine. The signs on the storefronts are uniformly eye-catching, but not gaudy. There's three or four music venues in town and even a full-fledged record store. Need I say more?

But the population generally falls into two psychic categories: Lovingly warm people and extraordinarily touchy people. Did I mention that Smith College -- one of the fabled Seven Sisters all-female colleges -- provides much of the town's energy?

It is here that I almost met my Uber demise, courtesy of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

My rider I see is with a dog. A big dog at that. And not a dog with a harness or anything to suggest that it is a service animal.

When the able-bodied rider gets in and fails to say hello, fails to lay down a blanket on the backseat -- which is de rigueur when travelling with a service animal, and fails to identify her companion as a service animal, I assume the ticked-off personality. Because, frankly, I am.

Let's see. What's the most sarcastically ambiguous comment I can make once that precious minute of silence ticks by on the clock? Ah, I've got it!

"Is the dog really necessary?

You see, I was asking whether it was a service animal. That's obvious, isn't it? Ok, maybe not, but on technical grounds, the verbal construction is defensible.

Guess what? Turns out she's not one of the lovingly warm inhabitants of Northampton.

In short order, I'm read a riot act which sounds as practiced in its volatility as it is indignant. Yes, I believe she's been down this road before. Except, at this point, I've decided we're not going down any roads at all. 

During her spiel she accused me, among other insulting characterizations, of being a ****ing ablist. Being called a ****ing anything disqualifies a rider from getting to first gear with me. The fact that I had no clue what an ablist was didn't mitigate my determination to boot her and her very well-mannered pup to the curb.

I might have been drama queening a bit, but I told her that being in such an agitated state as she is concerns me that her dog might create a danger to me while I'm driving. And with that, I cancel the trip and tell her to leave.

She exits and leaves the door open. A seemingly insignificant detail to our story, but one which might have saved my bacon in the end.

I know that she's going to report me and that refusing service to people with service animals is the third rail you don't want to come within a stone's throw of as an Uber driver. I remember well all the cautionary tales spun about this very scenario on the Uber People Message Board.

Except that I wasn't throwing her out because of a disdain for people accompanied by animals in my car. In fact, I've never said no before and many times the dogs were simply everyday household pets. I love animals and the opportunity to facilitate greater togetherness between human and animal companions delights me.

But her attitude from word one -- or I should say non-word one, since she couldn't bother to summon up a hello -- greased her skids. When she started hurling abusively personal invective at me, her fate was sealed.

So I thought it essential to pre-empt any report she would inevitably file about the incident and with the backdoor open just started banging away on a message describing the unsettling event. But then I got a ping, which erased the message screen. In my haste I hadn't gone offline.

I didn't want to lose the freshness of the details, so I decided to drive off somewhere that would allow me to compose the message in peace without looking directly at the perpetrator. I got out of the car, closed the open door and drove down the block and into an empty parking lot. 

As I recounted the incident I focused on this "****ing ablist" business. Rolled the word over in my head and soon understood it is probably spelled "able-ist" and implies an insensitivity to disabled people. Not in the least true and I feel especially righteous now after divining the word's meaning.

My message goes off to someone in the Uberverse and I head home, shaken by the incident. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. An episode of my own doing. Guilty on that count as charged. But her verbal assault violated my cardinal rule of service: At least show a little courtesy when entering my home on wheels. Volunteer that much and you have an outstanding chance of getting more than your money's worth from an empathetic and sensitive driver. Don't do it and get Mr. Hyde. Or at least Helen Wheels.

Having filed my report, I anxiously await the dropping of the other shoe, which is sure to follow. It's awaiting me when I get home.

Hi Robert,
We are investigating a service denial report from a rider on one of your recent trips. They have reported that you refused them service because of a federally protected trait. Your account has been placed on hold while we look into this report.

Please note that this investigation can only be completed by a member of our specialized support team and cannot be handled at a Greenlight Hub location.

Thank you for your patience while we look into this matter. You should expect to hear from a member of our team soon. If you have any information that you think would be helpful at this time, please let us know.

Sent by Jhon on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 3:35:12 AM

Ruh-Roh.

I was unable to retain my original report on the incident, since it was made via the app, but subsequent conversation was conducted via email, beginning with my reply:

Jhon,
I did file a report of my own on this incident earlier in the evening. If you'd like I can re-submit it as part of this thread. The gist of my account was that the rider was asked to leave the car due to a loud and haranguing tone filled with expletives, not because she had a dog with her.

I would be happy to avail myself to you to speak on the phone if you'd like further clarification.

Best,
Robert

That might read cool, calm and collected, but in truth I was terrified that my goose was finally cooked.

But I did recall another detail, which I submitted the moment it occured to me:

Jhon,
I just realized one more detail about the inicident, which I believe will support my account of what happened.

If I had refused the ride as I've been accused based on the presence of a service animal, then surely the timeline would show that shortly after the dog got in the car I would have ended the trip.

But the record will show this is not the case. Only after being hollered at for what at least seemed like minutes on end, did I end the trip.

I believe this detail fully supports my contention that it was not the presence of the dog which led me to cancel the ride, but the verbal abuse of the rider.

If, however, my deactivation becomes permanent, will Uber alert me to this?

Thank you,
Robert

In spite of this critical detail, my feeling of foreboding persisted and it was with renewed interest that I revisited what the trusty message board had to say on the matter. 

Nothing I read was reassuring; all commentary suggested that while Uber can overlook certain transgressions, they are unyielding on this topic. I learn that even if you have an allergy triggered by an animal, you are forbidden to deny a ride for this reason. In essence, your allergy disqualifies you from being a driver. This is what I was up against.

Uber's reply to my email certaily did not at first blush help matters.

WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY
Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 10:23:16 PM · UberX

We received a claim that you refused to provide transportation to a rider with a service animal, Robert.

We take claims like this very seriously, and have temporarily restricted access to your account as we investigate further. I would like to speak with you about this claim at your earliest convenience. You can reach me on my direct line, (415) 231-2999. I will be in the office today until 7:00 MST.

I look forward to talking with you.
Sent by Erik A. on Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 7:16:19 PM

The message clearly did not start out encouragingly. But after contemplating it, I did feel I was being thrown a lifeline in the shape of a telephone line when Eric indicated that he wanted to hear my side of the story.

Everything I'd read on the Uber forum convinced me I was destined to be a victim of not only my own hubris, but of a law that Uber of all people would not want to run afoul of. 

I was, however, getting a hearing. And I knew I had a strong case. But would I get an open-minded judge?

It was Erik that I spoke to. I feared I might get passed on to a representative that came in cold and might be disinclined to assess the incident dispassionately. I was greatly relieved about speaking to Erik, as I felt I'd already laid the groundwork for an ardent defense.

I felt I was effective, both from my presentation and the tone Erik projected in his questions. I knew I had a high hurdle to clear when trying to justify the comment which had so set her off: "Is the dog really necessary?"

The best approach I felt was to volunteer up front that I had said this. In essence, I'd be emphasizing that I deserved some culpability for what transpired, and I hoped my candor would be disarming. Particularly if he didn't have to raise the issue first.
I told him what I said, but with one critical omission. I told him I asked her whether the "dog is necessary." That way I could posit the question as an awkardly-constructed inquiry about whether the rider's companion was a service dog. By omitting the word "really", I greatly reduced the question's sarcastic component, and I knew that would be vital toward gaining his confidence in my story.

Another point that I felt it important to linger on was my concern that the dog might act up in unforeseen ways if the rider continued to act erratically while we were in motion. I hoped to convey that pittting the safety of everyone in the vehicle against her rights under the ADA would warrant a judgment on my behalf. To underline the sincerity of my thought I told him that the dog had been perfectly calm throughout her tirade, but the risk of what might happen when the car was moving deeply concerned me. I felt this line of defense was well-received.

One inquiry of his particularly intrigued me in its substance. 

He asked whether at any time I left the car after the rider and her dog exited the vehicle. I was caught off-guard, but quickly realized that indeed I had. I told him about how she had left the car door open and after my initial effort to send a message on the app I had gotten out and closed it. 

He received my answer with a little more interest than I would have thought appropriate, but then it occured to me that perhaps the rider had embellished her story by claiming I'd gotten out of the car and harrassed her. I felt the question was just a little offbeat and irrelevant if there wasn't some hidden context to it. My answer wasn't exculpatory but it was related with an unpracticed tenor and I think it might have signaled to him that my story held water.

Furthermore, I know that the app can trace movements of not just vehicles, but also people, should they be holding the phone while in motion outside the car. And the tracking is precise enough to support my story and discredit hers, if indeed she invented a menacing detail. Only problem was that I couldn't recall whether I held my phone while moving to close the car door or had left it inside the vehicle.

Notwithstanding this possibly exonerating moment, there was an exchange that I'm sure registered with him. When I recounted the story, including the dialogue as best I could recall between the rider and me, I stuttered without affect when I got to the "****ing able-ist" charge. 

My voice quivered a bit as I approached the obscenity and at first it wouldn't come out. I even asked him whether it was OK if I quoted her profanity. I think he could tell that it was difficult for me to say "****ing" in polite conversation -- and in fact it was. It's a word I scarcely ever use, regardless of the familiarity of my company. So I know that went well and I didn't have to worry about being called on an act, since it wasn't one.

So I uttered the expletive and then the word that followed it. Having possibly already won a heart and mind, I took the opportunity to express my bewilderment at the term "able-ist." I related my helplessness in understanding what I was being berated for and also how only later had I figured out what it meant by its context. His response was extremely reassuring.
"I see why that threw you. It's not a commonly-known word outside the disabled community and has only recently become widely used within it." The sentiment was offered sympathetically. 

It was then and there that I began to entertain the thought that perhaps somehow I was going to get off the hook, in spite of all the draconian expectations I'd accumulated reading the message board.

At the close of the conversation, I sensed Erik was more than cordial; he was sympathetic. Would that be enough to carry the day in the face of one of the most difficult obstacles an Uber driver could ever face? Of this all-important question, I couldn't possibly be confident. But I knew my presentation couldn't have been any better and I also knew it accurately reflected the facts.

A couple of hours later, the app, which had steadfastly refused to slide to the "You are Online" screen did just that. I had lived to drive another day.


----------



## bobby747 (Dec 29, 2015)

dont feel sorry for you at all. anyone with half a brain. knows pax will lie about thier dogs. take all dogs or quit. the rule is against you 100 %. 
I will take a saint bernard. 200 lb. dog. cause I know what will happen if WE DONT...


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

Slim pickings said:


> To get a cleaning fee now u have to show serious damage. If u can clean it with a wipe there's no cleaning fee.
> 
> 
> Really? Not my experience. If everything is not perfect these primadonas will try anything to affect u. I was deactivated for a few days bc Some pax said my car smelled like pot. I spray a lavender deodorizer which smells great. I sent pix to Uber of the bottle. Still was deactivated until they "investigated ".


Receiving a cleaning fee is not the intent. Please take the time to comprehend, what you are reading.
Try not to be like MoreCrapHere!


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alloverthemap said:


> I'm in Northampton, a consensus top-50 great small towns in America.
> 
> It's really not all that small, though it is most certainly great. Northampton's downtown sprawls out in all directions. And you'll have to walk a good ways to come across anything resembling a national chain store or restaurant.
> 
> ...


That's a clear violation of the ADA & the reason why the law exists.


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

Demon said:


> That's a clear violation of the ADA & the reason why the law exists.


So sue me


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alloverthemap said:


> So sue me


You're lucky the passenger didn't and that you didn't get a ticket,


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

A ticket? I never moved.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alloverthemap said:


> A ticket? I never moved.


Yes, not moving would be why you get the ticket.


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

It was in a damn parking lot


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alloverthemap said:


> It was in a damn parking lot


Yes. In some states you get a ticket for denying a person with a service animal.


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

And I would venture to guess in some of those states you can get a ticket for loud and abusive language toward another human being in a public place. There. We're even.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Alloverthemap said:


> And I would venture to guess in some of those states you can get a ticket for loud and abusive language toward another human being in a public place. There. We're even.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Alloverthemap (Sep 3, 2017)

Good luck is what I've already had with that.


----------



## Reregirl73 (Mar 22, 2019)

OldBay said:


> I wouldn't have considered it 6 months ago, but the proper response to a "fake service dog" is pouring water on the carpet and claiming it peed.


Go a step further and get fake dog crap. There are a few different ones so it wouldn't be the same if you use it more than once.


----------



## Another Uber Driver (May 27, 2015)

Alloverthemap said:


> I'm in *Northampton*, a consensus top-50 great small towns in America


 (emphasis added)

You _are_ being facetious, *correctamundo?*.



Alloverthemap said:


> Did I mention that Smith College -- one of the fabled Seven Sisters all-female colleges -- provides much of the town's energy?


Your average Smithie was not often among the typical intolerant, mindless whack-0s of Norhampton. Many of them were really snotty to me when they learned that I was attending UMass. Only when they learned: A) that I was a graduate student and B) where I did my undergraduate work,, did they permit me to rise above the level of sub-human. The Amherst College boys (and girls) were similar. There is one place in the Happy Valley that is even more whack-0 than Northampton: Camp Hamp.



Alloverthemap said:


> ........... Northampton.................It is here that I almost met my Uber demise, courtesy of the Americans with Disabilities Act.


That would be _precisely_ one of the places where I would expect such a thing to happen. Further, it must be a Lyft paradise, there, since the politically correct left wing whack-0s there not only expect you to agree with them, they expect you to like it.......just as Gr*yft* expects you to like hauling these fake service animals and like it when they shed all over your car.....................

,


Alloverthemap said:


> I assume the ticked-off personality.


I would assume that about anyone in Northampton. Rarely have I been "disappointed".



Alloverthemap said:


> Guess what? Turns out she's not one of the *"*lovingly warm*"* inhabitants of Northampton.


(quotes added)

.........NOW, she is................



Alloverthemap said:


> In short order, I'm read a riot act which sounds as practiced in its volatility as it is indignant.


This is _precisely_ what I would expect from one of Northampton's many "lovingly warm" residents.



Alloverthemap said:


> During her spiel she accused me, among other insulting characterizations, of being a @@@@ing ablist. Being called a @@@@ing anything disqualifies a rider from getting to first gear with me. The fact that I had no clue what an ablist was didn't mitigate my determination to boot her and her very well-mannered pup to the curb.


Concocted politically derogatory terms are _precisely_ what I would expect from one of Northampton's many "lovingly warm" residents. The only reason that I did not have to learn a totally new language when I was in the Happy Valley, was that among being aware of the lunatic fringe already, being mostly to the left myself, plus a good dose of using the _ol' noodle_, I did manage to decipher that of which I was not aware. Despite all of that, I was totally appalled at the number and the magnitude of the intolerance, mindlessness and hate that I encountered in the Happy Valley. It was there, though, that I became totally disillusioned with said left. NEVER had I encountered so large a group of such intolerant, disrespectful, closed-minded, doctrinaire, hateful and mindless politically correct automatons as I did in the Happy Valley.

I might have been drama queening a bit, but I told her that being in such an agitated state as she is concerns me that her dog might create a danger to me while I'm driving. And with that, I cancel the trip and tell her to leave.

She exits and leaves the door open. A seemingly insignificant detail to our story, but one which might have saved my bacon in the end.



Alloverthemap said:


> refusing service to people with service animals is the third rail you don't want to come within a stone's throw of as an Uber driver.


Lyft is even worse: Gr*yft* expects you to _like_ it; "your mere compliance is not sufficient, we want your willing obedience"( or however that goes). Gr*yft* would be right at home in the Happy Valley.



Alloverthemap said:


> I focused on this "@@@@ing ablist" business. Rolled the word over in my head and soon understood it is probably spelled "able-ist" and implies an insensitivity to disabled people.


.......precisely something that I would expect one of Northampton's many "lovingly warm" politically correct, obnoxious looney lephtie, doctrinaire, intolerant automatons to parrot...............................

I am glad that you made it back. Still, given my experience in the Happy Valley, I am not surprised that this occurred.


----------



## iamthenewguy123 (Aug 24, 2019)

RideshareUSA said:


> This is why I take all dogs/cats etc.
> Now here's the kicker, always and I mean ALWAYS, request a cleaning fee for pet hair, dirt, mud...whatever. This strategy prevents the rider from possibly filing a false report as the cleaning fee request itself is verification of providing a ride to the rider and animal.
> Additionally, you just might get a cleaning fee on top of it. Learn to the game the system, or you just might be gamed someday yourself!


Uber will also can you for filing too many cleaning fee claims. They will consider it abusing the system and begin requiring everyone to submit a receipt for any cleaning.


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

iamthenewguy123 said:


> Uber will also can you for filing too many cleaning fee claims. They will consider it abusing the system and begin requiring everyone to submit a receipt for any cleaning.


Forget it. You do not even understand the strategy I have mentioned.


----------



## iamthenewguy123 (Aug 24, 2019)

Yes I do, it's a very simple strategy... But they will flag you and eventually can you claiming that you are "abusing the system".


----------



## RideshareUSA (Feb 7, 2019)

iamthenewguy123 said:


> Yes I do, it's a very simple strategy... But they will flag you and eventually can you claiming that you are "abusing the system".


As I said, forget it. &#128528;


----------

