# "Service dog" damage



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip. 

Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding. 

They get in snd this dog is jumping all over the place sticking its head in my field of vision and im half afraid its going to take a chunk out of the side of my face. Dude says dogs inn training yeah right! 

I start the trip and the destinstion is the same as the pick up. I ask where we are going and it is an urgent care 0.79 miles away! 

We get there dude says glad we didnt walk it i did not know it was this far! Really! 

He jumps out with a sorry about the hair and i reply yeah me too! 

I pulled off 1*, jumped out and snaped some pics of the hair sent them in for a cleanimg fee. Went to sweep out the car and noticed there are claw marks on my door. 

So i snap more pics and sent a pax damaged my car request. 

Have not heard back on either yet its been about an hour.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


UBER verifies with the rider that the damage is legit. Sometimes, it takes a little while for a response. While the "official guidelines" indicate that animal hair in not considered a valid reason for the damage fee, reporting it has netted me $15 each time. Hope the scratch marks are easily removed.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

So Uber now wants a recept or estimate for the repairs for the scratches. 

Has anyone had to do this before?


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> So Uber now wants a recept or estimate for the repairs for the scratches.
> 
> Has anyone had to do this before?


Yes, because that is not a simple cleaning fee. You can do some online research to figure out the process of removing the scratches. If it involves purchasing supplies, simply look up the cost on-line and provide screenshots. If it involves professional repair, get an estimate and provide that to UBER. I know it is a hassle, but it will result in you getting some money from UBER (via the original Pax).


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

Thanks Ribak for tour help! 

Went to the dealer got an estimate of 379.00 for replacment door panel. 

Sending it to Uber now.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Thanks Ribak for tour help!
> 
> Went to the dealer got an estimate of 379.00 for replacment door panel.
> 
> Sending it to Uber now.


Good luck to you.


----------



## Mole (Mar 9, 2017)

If the price is over $300 they say call the insurance.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Mole said:


> If the price is over $300 they say call the insurance.


Which means you get nothing because of deductible


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> Which means you get nothing because of deductible


Not necessarily. Since this is internal damage, the rider may get stuck for the entire bill. The OP also has the option of going thru an attorney. That will most likely result in a $3-$5k settlement (vehicle damage, loss of wages, pain & suffering, etc...). Of course, the attorney will keep a large share. However, the Pax will be out five grand.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

379.00 is just the part that does not include labor which is fine since i can install myself. 

How much is this based on pax ability to pay since i would think most pax would not be able to cover things like this? 

Also do I have to stay off the app for the rest of the day now?


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> 379.00 is just the part that does not include labor which is fine since i can install myself.
> 
> How much is this based on pax ability to pay since i would think most pax would not be able to cover things like this?
> 
> Also do I have to stay off the app for the rest of the day now?


Keep working as usual. Don't worry about how pax will pay.


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Kcope316 said:


> 379.00 is just the part that does not include labor which is fine since i can install myself.
> 
> How much is this based on pax ability to pay since i would think most pax would not be able to cover things like this?
> 
> Also do I have to stay off the app for the rest of the day now?


If it's bad enough to report and collect, it's bad enough to stay offline.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash! 

Any next steps?


----------



## Beur (Apr 14, 2015)

Kcope316 said:


> Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash!
> 
> Any next steps?


That is hardly normal wear and tear, I'd call in.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Kcope316 said:


> Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash!
> 
> Any next steps?


Hate to say this but wadda ya expect?
You have your car in taxi service.
For taxi service it IS normal wear and tear.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> Hate to say this but wadda ya expect?
> You have your car in taxi service.
> For taxi service it IS normal wear and tear.


Anyone that starts a statement with "I hate to say this" clearly does not!

You are incorrect, I do not drive for a taxi service. If I did I would not be driving my own car and therefore would not care.

Update: got 20 bucks for cleaning but after 3 calls to "Support" (yeah right) I still am getting the bums rush on the damages.

I think they thought they would throw that at me and I will go away.

Still working on it.


----------



## Ribak (Jun 30, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Anyone that starts a statement with "I hate to say this" clearly does not!
> 
> You are incorrect, I do not drive for a taxi service. If I did I would not be driving my own car and therefore would not care.
> 
> ...


It is a frustrating and time consuming route. Unfortunately (based on past experience) UBER support will resolve the issue 20% of the time (if lucky). Therefore, I would recommend the attorney option. You could try on your own in small claims court. However, an attorney usually knows the path to getting info that is not readily available to us drivers (specific rider contact info)


----------



## Zebonkey (Feb 2, 2016)

Mole said:


> If the price is over $300 they say call the insurance.


Since the damage happened during the Uber ride, your insurance will deny the claim, and you'll have to go through Uber insuracce James River, which is worse to deal with, than with Uber support.
I am dealing with them right now after I got hit by UberX driver, and it's been over a month of pure crap. I am considering filing a law suit against Uber for the damages, because my dealing with their insurance got me nowhere so far.
Afterthought: make your claim under 300.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

You probably should have gotten an estimate of the part from a third party site rather than from dealership. Then it probably would have been under 300. Post the pics, I want to see how bad it is.


----------



## ShinyAndChrome (Aug 18, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Not necessarily. Since this is internal damage, the rider may get stuck for the entire bill. The OP also has the option of going thru an attorney. That will most likely result in a $3-$5k settlement (vehicle damage, loss of wages, pain & suffering, etc...). Of course, the attorney will keep a large share. However, the Pax will be out five grand.


You must be taking the piss. No judge on the planet is awarding this guy $5k because he says the scratches on the inside of his car were caused by this dog. I am not disbelieving him at all, but in court they will need some burden of proof. And even if he has it none of this comes up to $5k.



Kcope316 said:


> Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash!
> 
> Any next steps?


As I would have predicted. uber is like a battered domestic abuse victim when it comes to standing up against service dog stuff. They won't find against a service dog owner unless you have video of the owner specifically commanding the dog to attack you. And even then, "normal wear and tear".


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

ShinyAndChrome said:


> You must be taking the piss. No judge on the planet is awarding this guy $5k because he says the scratches on the inside of his car were caused by this dog. I am not disbelieving him at all, but in court they will need some burden of proof. And even if he has it none of this comes up to $5k.


To expand on Shiny's point... Assuming for a moment, that the dog completely trashed that panel and it really does have to be replaced (I'm not saying that's true or not, I'm just saying for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume it's true for the moment).

At most, in small claims, you could get the cost of the panel (apparently 379 bucks), the cost of someone swapping them out (let's say an minimum labor charge of about 70 bucks) which brings us up to 450. The court costs (cost to file, for copies, etc, which varies by state but usually around 100 bucks, let's say 150 for easy math), which brings us to about 600. Lost income (time you were down, which has to be "reasonable", you have to take actions to minimize your losses and can't just stay shut down until the case is heard), maybe it takes a day to actually swap out the panels, and let's assume it was so badly messed up that you couldn't take pax for the rest of that night either.. in fact, let's just call it 2 days, for sake of argument. I don't know what you make a day, but I'm going to call it 250 just to give a good benefit of doubt (you'd obviously have to prove an average, and they'd give you that). So 2 days @ 250 is another 500.

We're up to 1,100 at this point. There might be something here or there you could add (it would have to be directly related to the damage), maybe we can argue like 150 for cleanup of the plastic shavings that got into the cracks of your seat or something, have a full detail done. Whatever.. At most you're still looking at about 1,250 (and that's being really, really generous with some of my assumptions, which the court won't be).



ShinyAndChrome said:


> As I would have predicted. uber is like a battered domestic abuse victim when it comes to standing up against service dog stuff. They won't find against a service dog owner unless you have video of the owner specifically commanding the dog to attack you. And even then, "normal wear and tear".


I'd like to see the panel that he's talking about. Are we talking scratches that just wipe away and/or barely show up? are we talking actual gouges? If the dog actually damaged his car, he should be compensated. If it's really more of something that a pax could have done just opening the door and buffs right out, maybe that is wear and tear. He should post the pics and then we can all weigh in on it. Uber's seen them, he's seen them, it's hard for us to make fair comments on them when we haven't seen them.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

Don't really know how to post pics. 

No, the panel is not destroyed but there is damage that was not there before the dog scratched at it. 

Does it effect the operation of the vehicle? No
Can I live with it? If I must. 

The way I see it, someone needs to be responsible for the damage and since Uber insists we take dogs whether they are actual service dogs or not, I don't feel I should have to just deal with it.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Don't really know how to post pics.
> 
> No, the panel is not destroyed but there is damage that was not there before the dog scratched at it.
> 
> ...


Probably the simplest way is to take a screen grab with something like Gyazo, and drop the link in here (we'll have to click link to see 'em but works).

If they are actually damaged more than wear and tear, then I'd agree with you, that you should be compensated for it somehow. One man's wear and tear is another man's damage, which is why I'd like to see them. I'm curious if I'd consider it damage or not (as I'm torn on which way to lean on this).


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Kcope316 said:


> Don't really know how to post pics.
> 
> No, the panel is not destroyed but there is damage that was not there before the dog scratched at it.
> 
> ...


Please show where "Uber insists we take dogs whether they are actual service dogs or not".


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Don't really know how to post pics.
> 
> No, the panel is not destroyed but there is damage that was not there before the dog scratched at it.
> 
> ...


Absolutely don't let this slide - Uber will do everything in their power to make things as difficult as possible for you, but stay on them and keep at it. Sometimes you have to bombard them and include small but legitimate threats in your messages to them. Make sure they know you aren't going away and and you won't fall for their silent treatment.

They're SO frustrating, I'm sorry you have to deal with their bullshit. It's infuriating!

You shouldn't have to pay a penny towards what the dog did to the door panel. The dog was clearly NOT TRAINED hence not a legitimate service animal, despite the lying pax putting a service animal vest on it. Why did they need to bring the dog with them to urgent care for the woman? WTF is wrong with these idiots? Are people just getting dumber by the day? So annoying.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Julescase said:


> Absolutely don't let this slide - Uber will do everything in their power to make things as difficult as possible for you, but stay on them and keep at it. Sometimes you have to bombard them and include small but legitimate threats in your messages to them. Make sure they know you aren't going away and and you won't fall for their silent treatment.
> 
> They're SO frustrating, I'm sorry you have to deal with their bullshit. It's infuriating!
> 
> You shouldn't have to pay a penny towards what the dog did to the door panel. The dog was clearly NOT TRAINED hence not a legitimate service animal, despite the lying pax putting a service animal vest on it. Why did they need to bring the dog with them to urgent care for the woman? WTF is wrong with these idiots? Are people just getting dumber by the day? So annoying.


I definitely agree with Jules that it does clearly seem that dog was not properly trained (and thus not a service dog). Even a service dog in training, has to reach a certain level (usually the passing of a public access test) before they should be taken out in public. Definitely not legit. So if there actually is damage, she's right, don't let it go.

Maybe look at the panel from another site and see if you can submit a lower estimate (under 300, dealers always overcharge, but make sure you get enough to cover purchasing it). Or you can always see if you can get them to give you "just 300" (and still go find the part cheaper). I do wish you luck with it.

BTW, for future reference, even with a legit service dog, if it's jumping around all over the car, you can ask them to keep it restrained, and if they can't/won't, then you can ask them to leave as it's now a danger to you (while you're driving). This is one of those case by case things, you can't say it's a danger just because it's there, but if it's actively out of control, you can then boot even a legit one (although a legit one should never be out of control like that).


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Kcope316 said:


> Anyone that starts a statement with "I hate to say this" clearly does not!
> 
> You are incorrect, I do not drive for a taxi service. If I did I would not be driving my own car and therefore would not care.
> 
> ...


No, I really do hate to break bad news to someone. And, the first step to get through is "Denial". I understand. I was once there.
So, whatta ya gunna do when Uber deactivates you?


----------



## jrich6234 (Mar 27, 2017)

To be a legitimate service animal, the animal must be trained to keep all of it's feet on the floor at all times. Check the regulations for a phrase called "four on the floor" which clearly explains what the animal must do to be a qualified service animal. 

Any damage caused by a passenger is the passenger's responsibility. James River (Uber's insurance company) has a driver friendly escape clause. If the passenger or party causing damage is uninsured for the damage, there is no deductible.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

jrich6234 said:


> To be a legitimate service animal, the animal must be trained to keep all of it's feet on the floor at all times. Check the regulations for a phrase called "four on the floor" which clearly explains what the animal must do to be a qualified service animal.
> 
> Any damage caused by a passenger is the passenger's responsibility. James River (Uber's insurance company) has a driver friendly escape clause. If the passenger or party causing damage is uninsured for the damage, there is no deductible.


Huh, I'll have to go review that again. If that's there, that's awesome. I mean you're still going to have to go through the motions with them, but that just might be the light at the end of this particular tunnel.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Please show where "Uber insists we take dogs whether they are actual service dogs or not".


While Uber does not state in the TOS that we are take all dogs. They create an atmosphere that if you refuse to take one and the pax decides to "claim" there dog is a service dog, they will take the pax word for it and deactivate you without any appeal for you.

This site is rittled with such stories.

So I guess you can say there are two sets of TOS, the written ones and the implied ones and we all know actions speak louder than words.


----------



## nickd8775 (Jul 12, 2015)

It was clearly a fake service dog. A real service dog would not act like that. Faking a service dog is like parking in a handicapped spot. It should be fined as such. They are abusing laws to let their pet ride with them and to stay in the hotel. 
Should have used fake dog poop to get $150 to appropriately punish the liars. It's like parking in a handicapped spot. Also you could have reported them to the front desk of the hotel so that they could get kicked out for having a fake service dog


----------



## Driver2448 (Mar 8, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


Two way dash cam and YouTube shame.


----------



## Ride Nights & Weekends (Jan 5, 2018)

Kcope316 said:


> Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash!
> 
> Any next steps?


Decline all animals. Eat this one. They wont help.

Yeah....i know....you must take service animals.

I can tell you, that I am never putting any animal in my nice car, and I will No Show or underage cancel every time, or even just drive by Cancel


----------



## jgiun1 (Oct 16, 2017)

I drove two sets of big service dogs and as soon as owner gets in and sits down, they climb in and roll up into a ball by owners feet, never even touching a seat. They lay their heads on the owners knee looking up the whole time. I got to pet the older one from a blind husband and wife that had one a piece in one trip alone. Even the one that was in training laying on back floor mat did the same as one on front, mellow and rolled into a ball and fit without touching a seat cushion.


----------



## Ride Nights & Weekends (Jan 5, 2018)

jgiun1 said:


> I drove two sets of big service dogs and as soon as owner gets in and sits down, they climb in and roll up into a ball by owners feet, never even touching a seat. They lay their heads on their knee looking up. I got to pet an older one from a blind husband and wife that had one a piece in one trip alone. Even the one that was in training laying on back floor mat did the same as one on front, mellow and rolled into a ball and fit without touching a seat cushion.


I think id be ok w that


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> Decline all animals. Eat this one. They wont help.
> 
> Yeah....i know....you must take service animals.
> 
> I can tell you, that I am never putting any animal in my nice car, and I will No Show or underage cancel every time, or even just drive by Cancel





jgiun1 said:


> I drove two sets of big service dogs and as soon as owner gets in and sits down, they climb in and roll up into a ball by owners feet, never even touching a seat. They lay their heads on their knee looking up. I got to pet an older one from a blind husband and wife that had one a piece in one trip alone. Even the one that was in training laying on back floor mat did the same as one on front, mellow and rolled into a ball and fit without touching a seat cushion.





Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> I think id be ok w that


That's what real service dogs do. I'm sorry this guy had a fake (real service dog handlers hate fakes more than even the rest of you do, because they are a direct threat to our highly trained real ones), but to make blanket statements like you just won't take any at all makes you look like a real idiot.

Think it through, it's like saying "well the last Hispanic I took threw up in my car so I'm just not going to take any Hispanics at all." Actually, it's worse than that. It's more like saying "Well, I read on a website that someone else took an Hispanic and they threw up in their car, so I'm just not going to take any Hispanics at all, I'll just drive by them and cancel." See how idiotic that sounds? Even you would be cheering for an idiot who said something like that to be deactivated, and you just made such a statement.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

Ribak said:


> Not necessarily. Since this is internal damage, the rider may get stuck for the entire bill. The OP also has the option of going thru an attorney. That will most likely result in a $3-$5k settlement (vehicle damage, loss of wages, pain & suffering, etc...). Of course, the attorney will keep a large share. However, the Pax will be out five grand.


Picked up an obvious poor couple after their "domestic" dispute going to an urgent care...
You really think a lawyer on contingency (driver would be out of his mind stupid to pay out of pocket) would be able to squeeze blood from these turnips?


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Have a PAX complain about damaged vehicle, get deactivated since your door is damaged, send them the normal wear and tear reply, and see what happens?


----------



## Ride Nights & Weekends (Jan 5, 2018)

Pawtism said:


> That's what real service dogs do. I'm sorry this guy had a fake (real service dog handlers hate fakes more than even the rest of you do, because they are a direct threat to our highly trained real ones), but to make blanket statements like you just won't take any at all makes you look like a real idiot.
> 
> Think it through, it's like saying "well the last Hispanic I took threw up in my car so I'm just not going to take any Hispanics at all." Actually, it's worse than that. It's more like saying "Well, I read on a website that someone else took an Hispanic and they threw up in their car, so I'm just not going to take any Hispanics at all, I'll just drive by them and cancel." See how idiotic that sounds? Even you would be cheering for an idiot who said something like that to be deactivated, and you just made such a statement.


A Hispanic is a person, not a dog. What you said does sound idiotic. I'm glad that isn't what I said. I would roll the dice because this is a side gig to me and I work hard to have a nice car. Your service amimal is probably a fantastic companion. I can appreciate that, but you wouldn't be riding with me. I would not cheer for him to be deactivated btw


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> A Hispanic is a person, not a dog. What you said does sound idiotic. I'm glad that isn't what I said. I would roll the dice because this is a side gig to me and I work hard to have a nice car. Your service amimal is probably a fantastic companion. I can appreciate that, but you wouldn't be riding with me. I would not cheer for him to be deactivated btw


Discrimination is discrimination. Just because someone had a bad experience with a fake doesn't mean people with real service dogs should be punished for it.

If you do actually discriminate against a disabled person, you can rest assured I'll be cheering over your deactivation (and I doubt I'd be alone). I'll cheer even more if you overcome your prejudices and do the right thing by taking them though. Here's hoping that if you ever do find yourself in that situation, that you do the right thing.


----------



## Ride Nights & Weekends (Jan 5, 2018)

I like you. Itd be nice to have these conversations in person. Perhaps you could help me be be more empathetic to someone in this situation.


----------



## Kcope316 (Nov 7, 2017)

Last reply I received was forward it to James Rivers! 

I'm done with this at this point not wasting any more effort on it. 

The thing that got me is these dirt balls knew what they where doing since he had her hidden behind the building. 

Oh well llive and learn!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Last reply I received was forward it to James Rivers!
> 
> I'm done with this at this point not wasting any more effort on it.
> 
> ...


Sorry you had to go through that man.


----------



## Eric75G (Jan 18, 2018)

Ribak said:


> Good luck to you.


They are going to send it to James River who will then contact you and ask for pictures etc. Then James River will tell you there is a $1,000 dollar deductible and in the end you will get nothing. It happened to me when a passenger damaged my door lock and Uber put it in as a claim. I got nothing and had to have to door lock fixed and paid for it out of pocket.


----------



## Bently'sDad (Jan 31, 2018)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


If that happens again, the destination is the same as the pick up, insist that they update through the app. The reason! The insurance covers the entire trip, if they do not enter the correct destination, you are not covered if you are outside of that area. If the dog had bitten you and you were not on route according to the app, you would be SOL .


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Bently'sDad said:


> If that happens again, the destination is the same as the pick up, insist that they update through the app. The reason! The insurance covers the entire trip, if they do not enter the correct destination, you are not covered if you are outside of that area. If the dog had bitten you and you were not on route according to the app, you would be SOL .


I don't believe that.
So, the owner of the dog gets to sic the dog on you to chew you up, and you'd have no recourse? Just because you didn't swipe an ap?
I don't believe it's that simple.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

UberBastid said:


> I don't believe that.
> So, the owner of the dog gets to sic the dog on you to chew you up, and you'd have no recourse? Just because you didn't swipe an ap?
> I don't believe it's that simple.


You'd always have a recourse against the owner of the dog. I think Bently's Dad meant insurance protection. In theory he's right (about the insurance), but in practice, once you have started ride and haven't yet ended ride (doesn't matter if the ride is only 3 feet), it would likely be considered in force. You might have to battle it a bit, but you'd probably be covered. At any rate, you'd definitely always have a recourse against the owner of the dog, I think that was where the disconnect was.


----------



## Delilah5 (Mar 20, 2017)

Mole said:


> If the price is over $300 they say call the insurance.


James River Insurance is their handler and their deductible is $2000 what a joke


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

A 'Service Dog' vest does not a _service dog _make. The only identifier of a true _Service Dog _is answering correctly to the two questions we are allowed to ask. 

Is this a service dog?
What task is it trained to perform?
Anyone can buy a fake 'Service Dog' vest online.










You was had...


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

My favorite (to laugh at) is the idiots that get a "badge" for their fakes. "Badges?!? We don't need no stinkin badges!"  For those not sure, if anyone shows you one of these for their "service dog", the odds of that being an actual service dog are about the same as you winning the lotto jackpot.


----------



## UberEatsDriverWA (Feb 26, 2018)

If you have problems with Insurance companies just report them with evidence in writing to the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners). You could also write them a professional letter with amount they owe and just tell them the date they have to pay you by or you will report them to NAIC and handle this through legal action especially if you have a claim already open but they are sitting there fighting you on every step. Most insurance companies do not want to be reported because they could lose their license to do work in that state. NEVER TALK TO INSURANCE COMPANIES OVER THE PHONE. ALWAYS DO IT THROUGH EMAILS.... THIS WILL HELP OUT IF YOU NEED TO HIRE A LAWYER. The NAIC has a section for fraudulent claims and non fraudulent claim section. They can take away the licenses of the agency if they are found guilty. Hope this helps


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Ribak said:


> I know it is a hassle, but it will result in you getting some money from UBER *(via the original Pax)*.


Exactly, which is why this process is important, because if the pax keeps getting hit in their pocket book with these damage fees, they'll give up being a future nightmare to the rest of the drivers out there.


----------



## HotUberMess (Feb 25, 2018)

I bet this was one of those fake service dogs.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


Touchy situation.

Poor woman.

It seems to me
If the Dog is " IN TRAINING"
He is not YET. A service dog.

Not every policeman " in training"
Graduates

In that situation, hair i would have overlooked.
But CLAW DAMAGE TO YOUR CAR INTERRIOR WILL AFFECT RATINGS !

Ratings affect your livelyhood.

NOT GOOD.

I cant help but wonder.
If they had called an Ambulance . . .
As they PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE

WOULD AN AMBULANCE TRANSPORT A SERVICE DOG ?



Kcope316 said:


> Just got a normal wear and tear reply so no repair cash!
> 
> Any next steps?


Claw Marks are NOT NORMAL !



Kcope316 said:


> Anyone that starts a statement with "I hate to say this" clearly does not!
> 
> You are incorrect, I do not drive for a taxi service. If I did I would not be driving my own car and therefore would not care.
> 
> ...


Just based on this incident alone

SELF DRIVING CARS WILL BE ROLLING GARBAGE HEAPS WITHIN A YEAR.

UBER WILL LOSE 5 TIMES AS MUCH WITHOUT US !



njn said:


> Have a PAX complain about damaged vehicle, get deactivated since your door is damaged, send them the normal wear and tear reply, and see what happens?


EXACTLY !

Union !!

This is EXACTLY WHY WE MUST HAVE UNION REPRESENTATION !


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

Bently'sDad said:


> If that happens again, the destination is the same as the pick up, insist that they update through the app. The reason! The insurance covers the entire trip, if they do not enter the correct destination, you are not covered if you are outside of that area. If the dog had bitten you and you were not on route according to the app, you would be SOL .


You're making that up.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Touchy situation.
> 
> Poor woman.
> 
> ...


This part depends on the state. The ADA (the federal part of it) says that service dogs in training are NOT covered (and as such, we wouldn't have to take them. However, just over half the states have a state law allowing service dogs in training to be covered (within their state). It's also important to note that almost all the states that do allow service dogs in training added it to their law along with a law that makes it a state level crime (usually a misdemeanor) to fake a service dog as well.

The OP appears to be in Ohio, so I checked their law (as I've actually never had to assist anyone from Ohio before, thus was unfamiliar with their specific law). Ohio seems to be one of the states that I refer to (casually) as "unenlightened". They seem to be trying, but they need to elect some J.D.s there. The current law makers don't quite understand the Federal Law. They do have a state registration, but of course, they can't force anyone to register (although I'll admit, if my state had a voluntary registration, I'd register). The problem with voluntary state registrations is, what about people visiting from out of state?

Ohio is one of only two states that I'm currently aware of (Georgia being the second, but Ohio is worse) that directly contradicts Federal Law, making their State Law (on Service Dogs) effectively void for many people. Ohio has said that a service dog can be in training and still count. However, they then say that only guide (an antiquated term for service dogs for the blind), hearing dogs ( an antiqued term for service dogs for the deaf), and mobility assistance dog (a term used for service dogs for the physically handicap) are protected (under the State Law).

I've gone over the supremacy clause in at least one other post here in detail. So, if you haven't already read that post either find it, or Google it. I explained that there is less restrictive and more restrictive which is kind of the opposite of less protections and more protections (again, either find that post, or you'll just have to take my word for it). No State Law can take away protections given by Federal Law. Since all service dogs (task trained) are protected for all disabilities. A State Law can not restrict that down to only some disabilities.

So the honest answer to if service dogs in training are covered in Ohio really comes down to... It depends what their disability is. All service dogs would be covered in Ohio (under Federal Law), but in training would only be covered for blind people, deaf people, and physical disabilities (they do include Autism in physical disabilities). Without going through case law, it would be hard for me to say if they include things like epilepsy, diabetes, etc. What is pretty clear is that things like PTSD would not be covered (for the in training ones). Now, that law is one discrimination lawsuit (on the state level) from being amended. It's amazing how having to pay out a big settlement gets the lawmakers arses in gear.

However, that's how it stands right now. It's also important to note (for the OP for future reference, they do include the following conditions in State Law (the first two are standard practice really, the third only applies to in training, which isn't protected federally, but if they wanted protection under the state law, they'd have to have it).

(1) The dog shall not occupy a seat in any public conveyance.

(2) The dog shall be upon a leash while using the facilities of a common carrier.

(3) Any dog in training to become an assistance dog shall be covered by a liability insurance policy provided by the nonprofit special agency engaged in such work protecting members of the public against personal injury or property damage caused by the dog.

Also, note that while they do have a penalty (only an "infraction", basically akin to a ticket) for faking a service dog in housing, they do not extend that to public accommodations. So, faking a service dog in Ohio (outside of housing), while a jerk move, is not illegal. Again, "unenlightened" state. Time to elect some new lawmakers, I think.



tohunt4me said:


> I cant help but wonder.
> If they had called an Ambulance . . .
> As they PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE
> 
> WOULD AN AMBULANCE TRANSPORT A SERVICE DOG ?


Yes, an ambulance has to take (a legit) service dog as well. The only exceptions to that would be crowding (covered below) or where the service dog dander could actually threaten the health of the patient (the handler). For example, I was in a massive car accident (and somehow my dog is fine) but I got split open from my sternum to my belly button and you can actually look inside me and see my heart beating. That would be akin to being in an operating room, and dog hair getting inside me like that could actually threaten my health.

They'd be taking "extraordinary measures" to save my life at that point, and one of those would be excluding anyone/anything that didn't have to be in the back with me (to prevent contamination / infection), including family members and my service dog (besides, odds are I'd be unconscious at that point anyway). I use such an extreme example because it really would have to be almost that extreme for them to deny her.

Also if it was a case of "too crowded". For example, let's say I didn't get split open in that car crash, but I keep coding (heart stops) on the gurney, some drunk hit me, of course they're fine, so they have a team from the second ambulance who responded jump in the back of my ambulance to assist in keeping me alive until we got to the hospital. That would be a reason to exclude any family members and my service dog as well.

I guess that's a good way to look at it, actually. If someone is so messed up that they won't even let a spouse ride back there with them (for whatever reason), they probably wouldn't allow my service dog either. It's very rare, but has happened, and if they can really justify it (medically), it's actually legal (for them to deny, based on the legitimate justification).

Now, if they did have a legit, legal reason to deny her, they still have to make other arrangements to get her to the hospital to me. In the overcrowding situation I just described, they'd probably just put her in the back of the second ambulance (since their team is now in my ambulance) and take her that way. They might have a cop bring her, have a supervisor go pick her up, etc. Call an Uber for her...  Kidding on that last one. 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

*Q16. Must a service animal be allowed to ride in an ambulance with its handler?
A*. Generally, yes. However, if the space in the ambulance is crowded and the dog's presence would interfere with the emergency medical staff's ability to treat the patient, staff should make other arrangements to have the dog transported to the hospital.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Touchy situation.
> 
> Claw Marks are NOT NORMAL !


They are in a taxi ... and we have these cars in taxi service.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> They are in a taxi ... and we have these cars in taxi service.


Taxis DO NOT HAVE RATINGS !


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Discrimination is discrimination. Just because someone had a bad experience with a fake doesn't mean people with real service dogs should be punished for it.
> 
> If you do actually discriminate against a disabled person, you can rest assured I'll be cheering over your deactivation (and I doubt I'd be alone). I'll cheer even more if you overcome your prejudices and do the right thing by taking them though. Here's hoping that if you ever do find yourself in that situation, that you do the right thing.


I discriminate on drunks all the time... I provide ride-share if the car will be in same condition as it was before the ride. So if there is any hint that it will not, I will not a take a risk. Look at the poor OP trying to get this issue resolved to restore his vehicle to the state before he took that ride. So if that impacts all you pet lovers in one way or another, then so be it. Don't take it out on Ride Nights... take it out on the fakers. I just don't see the reason to take that kind of risk. OP is now out of $300 and the time & frustration to get things restored, and for what? $3.99 ride?. No thank you.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

We MUST HAVE A UNION !


Pawtism said:


> This part depends on the state. The ADA (the federal part of it) says that service dogs in training are NOT covered (and as such, we wouldn't have to take them. However, just over have the states have a state law allowing service dogs in training to be covered (within their state). It's also important to note that almost all the states that do allow service dogs in training added it to their law along with a law that makes it a state level crime (usually a misdemeanor) to fake a service dog as well.
> 
> The OP appears to be in Ohio, so I checked their law (as I've actually never had to assist anyone from Ohio before, thus was unfamiliar with their specific law). Ohio seems to be one of the states that I refer to (casually) as "unenlightened". They seem to be trying, but they need to elect some J.D.s there. The current law makers don't quite understand the Federal Law. They do have a state registration, but of course, they can't force anyone to register (although I'll admit, if my state had a voluntary registration, I'd register). The problem with voluntary state registrations is, what about people visiting from out of state?
> 
> ...


Put the dog in an Ooober !
Its only $3.00 !


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

tohunt4me said:


> Taxis DO NOT HAVE RATINGS !


Yea? So?
We put our family cars in taxi service.
Normal wear and tear for a family car is different that a taxi.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

jgiun1 said:


> I drove two sets of big service dogs and as soon as owner gets in and sits down, they climb in and roll up into a ball by owners feet, never even touching a seat. They lay their heads on the owners knee looking up the whole time. I got to pet the older one from a blind husband and wife that had one a piece in one trip alone. Even the one that was in training laying on back floor mat did the same as one on front, mellow and rolled into a ball and fit without touching a seat cushion.





Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> I think id be ok w that


Yep, but how do you test that it will happen when you see person with pet? .... can you ask for a test prior to boarding?


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

dmoney155 said:


> I discriminate on drunks all the time... I provide ride-share if the car will be in same condition as it was before the ride. So if there is any hint that it will not, I will not a take a risk. Look at the poor OP trying to get this issue resolved to restore his vehicle to the state before he took that ride. So if that impacts all you pet lovers in one way or another, then so be it. Don't take it out on Ride Nights... take it out on the fakers. I just don't see the reason to take that kind of risk. OP is now out of $300 and the time & frustration to get things restored, and for what? $3.99 ride?. No thank you.


ROBOT CARS WILL BE THE BOWELS OF HELL
ONLY ON WHEELS.
UBER HAS NO IDEA WHAT THEY THINK THEY ARE GETTING INTO !

" THE COLLAPSE HEARD ' ROUND THE WORLD " !



UberBastid said:


> Yea? So?
> We put our family cars in taxi service.
> Normal wear and tear for a family car is different that a taxi.


Well
Uber, which SOLD itself as " Being Different Than a Taxi"
Is NOTHING BUT A LIE !

Transportation Company

Technology Company

Lower Rates Mean Higher Earning !

LIE

FALSE ADVERTISING !

To Consumers !
To Customers !

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS FOR BOTH !

( "FLYING LAWSUITS "!)


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

dmoney155 said:


> I discriminate on drunks all the time... I provide ride-share if the car will be in same condition as it was before the ride. So if there is any hint that it will not, I will not a take a risk. Look at the poor OP trying to get this issue resolved to restore his vehicle to the state before he took that ride. So if that impacts all you pet lovers in one way or another, then so be it. Don't take it out on Ride Nights... take it out on the fakers. I just don't see the reason to take that kind of risk. OP is now out of $300 and the time & frustration to get things restored, and for what? $3.99 ride?. No thank you.


Drunks are not a protected class, you can discriminate against them all day long (legally). Smokers are not a protected class and I discriminate against them occasionally (if they stink of smoke too much). The disabled are a protected class, so discriminating against them would be a mistake. However, I happen to agree that this dog was almost certainly a fake (bouncing around the car like that).

Even if the handler actually is disabled, and even if this dog really was training to be his/her service dog, there is still a certain level of training they need to be at (usually called a public access test) before they go out in public. Clearly, this dog had not reached that point yet. Therefore, the pax was in the wrong, no matter how you slice it (in this case).

What my point was (and evidently you missed it as well), was that you can't take what one paxhole did, and equate it to ALL disabled people with a service dog (even in training). That's akin to saying "well the last black guy robbed me, so I'm not going to pick up any more black pax". Ok, one pax, who happened to be black, was a complete paxhole (and should probably be shot frankly, I hate criminals). That does not, by any means, mean that the next black pax is going to rob you. That's a discriminatory (and down right bigoted) attitude to have. It's even worse when you weren't the one robbed but, you read about it on a forum, and thus decided you weren't going to take any black pax as a result. The level of discrimination there goes into the stratosphere. The same holds true that because the last disabled person had a fake service dog, doesn't mean that every disabled person is going to have a fake service dog. THAT was my point.

The OPs pax was a paxhole, no doubt. But driver who reads about it, then says they aren't going to pick up anyone with a service dog (legit or not) as a result of reading it are, themselves, the "paxhole". As for the drunks, a pregnant lady might throw up in your car just as easily as a drunk might. Drunks aren't a protected class, but pregnant women are. Just something to think about.


----------



## dmoney155 (Jun 12, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> Drunks are not a protected class, you can discriminate against them all day long (legally). Smokers are not a protected class and I discriminate against them occasionally (if they stink of smoke too much). The disabled are a protected class, so discriminating against them would be a mistake. However, I happen to agree that this dog was almost certainly a fake (bouncing around the car like that).
> 
> Even if the handler actually is disabled, and even if this dog really was training to be his/her service dog, there is still a certain level of training they need to be at (usually called a public access test) before they go out in public. Clearly, this dog had not reached that point yet. Therefore, the pax was in the wrong, no matter how you slice it (in this case).
> 
> ...


I got your point. All I'm saying one is paid 3.99, be cautious who you let into the car. Don't discriminate, but protect your investment. I'd accept elephants if rider would put down a deposit on the car I drive. Protected or not..... I'm also protecting my property... to which I'm sure I have a constitutional right to. I do let drunks in the car.... disabled, blacks from hoods, etc... but I make an effort to asses the risk.... never had a dog yet, but I will scrutinize it a lot before letting it on board, just like I would anything/anyone else. 
Your arguments are plain wrong simply because if you go to the extreme like that you might as well sayI will not give ride to anyone because I heard a story that perfectly normal looking Caucasian stabbed a driver. Things can happen. At the end of the day it's your property and your life, so is your choice to decide how much risk you willing to assume for the reward given.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

dmoney155 said:


> Your arguments are plain wrong simply because if you go to the extreme like that you might as well sayI will not give ride to anyone because I heard a story that perfectly normal looking Caucasian stabbed a driver. Things can happen. At the end of the day it's your property and your life, so is your choice to decide how much risk you willing to assume for the reward given.


Except, that's exactly what he said. He read the story of this fake, and said...



Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> Decline all animals. Eat this one. They wont help.
> 
> Yeah....i know....you must take service animals.
> 
> I can tell you, that I am never putting any animal in my nice car, and I will No Show or underage cancel every time, or even just drive by Cancel


Then...



Ride Nights & Weekends said:


> I would roll the dice because this is a side gig to me and I work hard to have a nice car. Your service amimal is probably a fantastic companion. I can appreciate that, but you wouldn't be riding with me.


So not only would he discriminate against some random pax with a legitimate service animal, but he'd discriminate against me personally. No "risk assessment", no "well I wouldn't take most, but since I know yours is legit I'd take you" (which would still be discriminatory, but might flow more with your point about it's a risk thing), none of that. Simple, I will blatantly discriminate against all disabled people with a service animal.

Someone that blatantly discriminatory does need to be deactivated (and I'd be quite proud to be the one to get someone like that deactivated). It's no different than the extreme (and I admit it was extreme, but so is this kind of attitude) example I gave.

As for risk assessments, do be careful, sometimes you get it wrong (both ways). You could assume that something is a threat that isn't and wind up discriminating (and being deactivated for it), or you could wind up deciding that something is safe, when it isn't (as seems to be the case here). That's the risk you take with risk assessments (pardon the pun). This is exactly why the 2 questions were included and are the best way to establish if it's a real service dog or not (it's the only reasonably safe and legal way to do so). Everything else is simply your best guess (and possible personal biases).

Is this a service dog required for a disability? (anyone can easily lie to this one)

What tasks is it trained to perform? (THIS is where you will identify your fakers) If they say "you can't ask me that", "emotional support" or anything that isn't a specific task that would mitigate a disability (they don't have to tell you their disability), make sure you got it on dash cam and cancel away (it's a fake). I don't want to list all the possible tasks here, as I don't want someone finding this post who is wanting to fake it. Do some research if you aren't sure (or ask me privately). That is the only legal way (and really the only safe way) to be sure.


----------



## BillC (Mar 5, 2017)

Pawtism : Can an Uber driver demand to see a service animal's registration/certification papers? Are service animal handlers required to keep documentation on them to prove the animal is a legit service animal? That could solve a lot of problems right there. "Show me the service animal certification. No Cert? Cancelled."


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

BillC said:


> Pawtism : Can an Uber driver demand to see a service animal's registration/certification papers? Are service animal handlers required to keep documentation on them to prove the animal is a legit service animal? That could solve a lot of problems right there. "Show me the service animal certification. No Cert? Cancelled."


No, and no. Let me explain the reason though. Most people assume "oh it's that they are lazy and don't want to have to carry papers". That's not the case. There ARE no papers. Seriously.

In the US, because of the extreme shortage of trainers and programs that train the service dogs, you're allowed to train your own dog, or go through any trainer to do it (not just the programs). Prior to 1990, waiting lists were up to 8 years long at some programs, which is the approximate "useful life" (think "working" life) of a service dog. So you'd get one, and have to get your name on the list again right away so that by the time you had to retire this one, you'd be able to get another. As you can imagine, this left no room for new people to get on the list. And is a big part of the reason they made it so you could train your own (or pay a non-program private trainer).

As such, how do you certify them? The program trained ones would be relatively easy, a certified trainer confirms that they spent 200 hours working with this dog and shows the log. What about owner trained ones? If you're willing to lie and say you have a disability and have a service dog (when it's really a fake), you'd be willing to falsify a log and claim that you spent 200 hours training it. Therefore they got rid of all "certifications" all together and went with the two questions instead. I'm not sure, at the time, that they realized how many people would actually lie. If they had realized that, they may have done it differently.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html (see Q17 especially for the certification question, although it's not that long and worth reading them all)

There are, unfortunately, some unscrupulous companies and individuals that do sell "certifications" (which certify almost nothing). https://www.servicedogcertifications.org/ Do not buy anything there, it's all a scam! Looks convincing right? I included it only so you could see an example of what I'm talking about, there are tons of companies that sell a similar product. As such, not only can you not ask for a certification (because there is no legit certification), anyone who does show you one like that, is almost certainly a fake themselves (hoping you don't know any better and will believe their fake certification). There are a small number of actual service dog handlers who get something like that, just so they can have something to hand the idiots who don't know the law (and don't try to find out the answer as you did, thank you for that btw, I'd much rather people actually ask and find out than assume incorrectly) and demand it. The grand majority of anyone who hands you something like that is probably a faker though.

Real service dog handlers know the law, they know the two questions you can ask (and some of us actually appreciate it when you ask, as it tells us that you are keeping the place clear of fakes, which are a threat to our highly trained dogs). They would be much more likely to hand you an ADA law card (something like this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006OLNBKU/?tag=ubne0c-20) and try to educate you. If you catch us in a really bad mood (or a person who is just grumpy in general), they'll simply tell you that you can't ask for documentation (I personally have a version of the ADA law card on my smart phone I just pull up, I'll try to educate, once at least).

So be weary of anyone who tries to hand you a certification, it's a big red flag. Ask the two questions (Q7 on that ADA FAQ site), and that's really your best way to weed out the fakers.


----------



## UberLaLa (Sep 6, 2015)

BillC said:


> Pawtism : Can an Uber driver demand to see a service animal's registration/certification papers? Are service animal handlers required to keep documentation on them to prove the animal is a legit service animal? That could solve a lot of problems right there. "Show me the service animal certification. No Cert? Cancelled."


There is no certification, nor can provider request such. All service provider can do is ask these two questions:

1. Is this a Service Dog?
2. What service is it trained to perform?



Pawtism said:


> No, and no. Let me explain the reason though. Most people assume "oh it's that they are lazy and don't want to have to carry papers". That's not the case. There ARE no papers. Seriously.
> 
> In the US, because of the extreme shortage of trainers and programs that train the service dogs, you're allowed to train your own dog, or go through any trainer to do it (not just the programs). Prior to 1990, waiting lists were up to 8 years long at some programs, which is the approximate "useful life" (think "working" life) of a service dog. So you'd get one, and have to get your name on the list again right away so that by the time you had to retire this one, you'd be able to get another. As you can imagine, this left no room for new people to get on the list. And is a big part of the reason they made it so you could train your own (or pay a non-program private trainer).
> 
> ...


And I think this is best, too:










It's a good system. If passenger with an 'emotional support' dog replies as such, driver does not have to take them.

Personally, I like dogs and take any and all.


----------



## Cary Grant (Jul 14, 2015)

Anyone shows a badge, permit, license, or service animal ID card, deny them. They are 100% scofflaws. It's a violation of the law to even attempt to hold an animal out as a "service animal" when it fact it is not (check your state!). I've sworn out one criminal complaint already, and she begged me to rescind, because it would cost her job. Tough luck, female canine, you pay the fine, I say.

In my jurisdiction, it's a misdemeanor criminal offense to "hold out" a fake service animal. That means they cops come and arrest you, even at work. You get booked, and have to appear before a magistrate. Even for petite offenses like this, that might be a long weekend in the pokey with the rest of the stinky regulars!

Ask the two questions, VIDEO THE ENTIRE SEQUENCE for your protection, and if their answers sound like Ralph Kramden, or "You can't ask me that!" then curb kick 'em. Just make sure you have it on video. I keep a copy of the ADA guide in my log book. It get submitted with every written report, just in case.

I've denied access to over a dozen fake service animals this way, and Uber says "thank you" when they see the video. While they won't give us specifics, former CSRs tell me that if anyone provides video, the pax will be banned, especially for second offenses if they've been given a previous pass. Make sure you document that what the pax did is a criminal act in your jurisdiction, if that is the case. If you swear out a criminal complaint, Uber will give up the pax details to the prosecutor faster than Travis can yell "Don't tip!"

Being disabled, having a service animal, or being a member of any "protected class" does not give a scofflaw jerk permission to behave like a barnyard beast. If anyone misbehaves prior to the beginning of a trip, or even during a trip, a driver can curb kick 'em. If you don't know how, then pay attention, because we ALL have legitimate reasons (i.e., personal safety, property protection, legal ramifications) to deny sub-humans and the behaviorally impaired our services and access to our private property. Your personal safety always, always, always trumps any law, any community guideline, or term of service. You just need to know how to make your case, so that you always win. If you don't know how, then you need to ask your attorney. Get some professional guidance.


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

Uber says various things about animals, at various times.
And it doesn't matter WHAT the law says, it's what Uber says,
that determines whether you will be summarily deactivated.

Things that Uber says (at least sometimes when it comes up):

1. Uber allows both legally defined SERVICE ANIMALS but also companion / stress animals.
2. It is against Uber policy to ask the pax the Questions (service animal? trained task?)
3. Refusing an animal (or cancelling when you see it coming).
or asking the legal Questions will result in driver deactivation.

And you can't sue Uber (well, most drivers can't - check your contract.)
So even if Uber is arbitrary and inconsistent, tough luck.

You like to do legal analysis, although you are not a lawyer.
It's entertainment for you, and I'm sure you're trying to help.
Go get a copy of Blacks and look up this term of art: "MOOT".


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> Uber says various things about animals, at various times.
> And it doesn't matter WHAT the law says, it's what Uber says,
> that determines whether you will be summarily deactivated.
> 
> ...


You need to reread the policy then. Clearly you didn't pay much attention to it the first time around.

https://accessibility.uber.com/service-animal-policy/
_
*"What is a Service Animal?*
A service animal is an animal that is trained to work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability.

The law provides that there are only two questions that a driver-partner may ask to confirm that a rider's animal is a service animal: (1) Is the animal required because of a disability? And, (2) What work or task has the animal been trained to perform? The driver-partner may not request that the rider present documentation proving that the rider's animal is a service animal.

There is no requirement that a service animal wear a tag, be registered, or display any kind of proof that it is a service animal."_

Not only do they not say you have to take an ESA, they specifically define a service animal as task trained. They also specifically mention that you can ask (confirm) the two questions. If you want to take any animal you wish, that is certainly your right, but to say Uber is making you, is your shortsightedness.

The policy matches up with ADA (which is no surprise because the lawsuit they got over the ADA in Cali is the reason they had to make this policy).


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> You need to reread the policy then. Clearly you didn't pay much attention to it the first time around.


You need to re-read my post again. Clearly you didn't comprehend one thing I said.
Allow me to try again.

It does not matter what Uber has written in policy documents or anything else.
Uber can (and does) make arbitrary decisions on a case-by-case basis
about any and all issues, specifically including the policy transportation of animals.
Uber can penalize or deactivate you for any reason (or no reason at all).
Uber has issued statements (conflicting with the policy document that you cite)
saying that both service animals, and also comfort/companion animals, 
are to be accommodated. They have also stated that drivers can be deactivated
for merely asking the legal ADA questions. Because it is not about the law.
(Jesus Christ, when did you ever think Uber was about following laws?)
It is about Uber's arbitrary service policies, and the customer comes first.
Not taking someone's animal represents poor service; you will be terminated for that.

(By the way, another similar area where Uber can be seen to be inconsistent is 
heir policy on transporting minors. Uber relies heavily on business from minors.)


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> You like to do legal analysis, although you are not a lawyer.
> It's entertainment for you, and I'm sure you're trying to help.
> Go get a copy of Blacks and look up this term of art: "MOOT".


I'm well familiar with the term moot, and if it applied, I wouldn't bother pointing out the policy. Know what isn't moot? A published policy that all drivers are held to (especially one that is a result of a previous lawsuit and actually has some case law behind it)

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that your point is that if they have a ESA, and you deny it (twice especially), you're going to be perma deactivated.

The problem is you're wrong. You're proceeding from a false premise. Several drivers (one even posted the video) have refused the ESAs, more than twice even, and are still driving. Why? Because they were wise enough to record the pax answers to the two questions and they pointed to the policy. As soon as they say their animal is "emotional support", they're done.

Sure, Uber likes to make it's own little rules as it sees fit, but when a driver can point to a published policy, and there is no other published policy contradicting it, they know that if it ever goes to arbitration, they're going to lose that. They can deactivate us at any time, for any non protected reason anyway, so why have the fight over it? They remove it from your record (if they ever really want to get rid of you, they'll do it because *insert just about any reason that won't bite them in the arse at an arbitration here* at a later date anyway. The only way that's ever going to get you is if you refuse an actual service dog (like your suggestion of canceling as soon as you see the animal.. that's a good way to get legitimately deactivated).

What's moot is my legal education. You have no idea how far I've progressed in my legal education, and while I'm very open about most things, including my Autism, I choose to keep that information to myself (I have my own reasons, some based in the law, for doing this). I'll confirm that I have a legal education (I actually have 6 total degrees and am working on a 7th) and leave it at that. Is it really that surprising that an Aspie might be passionate about only a few topics and wind up excelling in them? It shouldn't be, that's par for the course for us.



RiderOnTheStorm said:


> You need to re-read my post again. Clearly you didn't comprehend one thing I said.
> Allow me to try again.
> 
> It does not matter what Uber has written in policy documents or anything else.
> ...


Yes, drivers have complained about that, and then replied back pointing to the policy and asking Uber to point to a policy that supports what they are saying. When they can't, published policy wins. Sure, you have to submit a few extra emails, but if you're in the right, you're in the right.

As for unaccompanied minors, I regularly cancel those too. Because I have a published policy I can point to.


----------



## Mars Troll Number 4 (Oct 30, 2015)

tohunt4me said:


> Taxis DO NOT HAVE RATINGS !


The taxi app the company I drive for has a rating system

One time I asked what my rating was and the response I got...

"Don't worry about it, the only complaints you get are 100% BS. Keep doing what you are doing..." they said

"Umm that doesn't awnser my question.."

"Complaints mean more than ratings and you don't get any complaints that have merit. Obviously you know what your doing and aren't screwing over customers"

And this is how a company who has been around for over 80 years handles it.

Safe driver? No complaints?

No need to micro manage them or stress them out over trivial things like ratings.

Lots of complaints or tickets and at fault accidents.. you get fired.

However they are very firm on service animals.

Take them or get fired...

Pretty easy policy... every once in s while someone does put a non service animal through the system and cars do get damaged by customers.

But the company eats the cost of the damage. Cause that's how adults run businesses in this industry.


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I'm well familiar with the term moot, and if it applied, I wouldn't bother pointing out the policy. Know what isn't moot? A published policy that all drivers are held to (especially one that is a result of a previous lawsuit and actually has some case law behind it).


Perhaps this does not apply personally to you, but almost all Uber drivers signed away all their legal rights to sue Uber. You know as well as anyone how forced arbitration goes. (And meanwhile -- not to mention afterwards -- you're out of a job, which is the bottom line.) You will not prevail in Uber's own court, and good luck with unconscionability. Uber drivers are totally ****ed and at the whims of Uber. That's the reality.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

dmoney155 said:


> Yep, but how do you test that it will happen when you see person with pet? .... can you ask for a test prior to boarding?


Yes. The two allowed questions.


Is this a service animal for a disability?
What two tasks is it trained to do?

"Sit" and "Shake Hands" do not count.



Pawtism said:


> Drunks are not a protected class, you can discriminate against them all day long (legally). Smokers are not a protected class and I discriminate against them occasionally (if they stink of smoke too much). The disabled are a protected class, so discriminating against them would be a mistake. However, I happen to agree that this dog was almost certainly a fake (bouncing around the car like that).
> 
> Even if the handler actually is disabled, and even if this dog really was training to be his/her service dog, there is still a certain level of training they need to be at (usually called a public access test) before they go out in public. Clearly, this dog had not reached that point yet. Therefore, the pax was in the wrong, no matter how you slice it (in this case).
> 
> ...


Pregnant women are not a protected class, actually. Pregnancy is not a disease, injury, or disability (although it may cause one or more of those on either a temporary or permanent basis).


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> Perhaps this does not apply personally to you, but almost all Uber drivers signed away all their legal rights to sue Uber. You know as well as anyone how forced arbitration goes. (And meanwhile -- not to mention afterwards -- you're out of a job, which is the bottom line.) You will not prevail in Uber's own court, and good luck with unconscionability. Uber drivers are totally &%[email protected]!*ed and at the whims of Uber. That's the reality.


I'm also bound by the arbitration (I don't like it, but it's like most end user agreements, either deal with it or don't use the service, so I had to accept it). A lot of people think that attorneys know some magic way around them. However, in general, wthey don't. Unless something is just really poorly written (like some little startup app or something), they have the same choice to make everyone else does. Can I live with these terms?

I think you'll find that arbitration isn't biased as everyone assumes it is. For the really big things (fair rates for example), yeah, it probably will be. But for something like this (driver follows the published policy and Uber makes one up on the spot that the driver couldn't have possibly followed as it's just made up), it's very likely to go your way (assuming you were acting in good faith, actually followed said policy, etc). In fact, I'd be very surprised if Uber let it get to arbitration. They don't want the bad publicity anymore than any other company. A story like "we drivers just have to start refusing all service animals because they won't let us ask the legally allowed questions, even violating their own policy" is not going to sit well with the board (or investors for that matter).

The inconsistent "policies" are just CSRs who don't have a clue what they are actually doing trying to figure it all out themselves. When it comes down to it, your email will eventually get to someone who actually knows the policies and what's going on and you'll be ok. The bottom line is that if you are acting in good faith, have a policy you can point to, all will be ok. Are you going to have to have the fight? Yeah. But then think on how things have gone historically. For example, Rosa Parks could have avoided a whole lot of issues by simply going to the back of the bus (in her case she didn't even have the protection of a policy or law backing her up). She didn't though, and we're all better off as a result. So, if you have to have the fight with Uber, have the fight (I certainly would). You'll be making things better for all drivers (and even pax) in the end. Yes, you might wind up temporarily deactivated, but that's how they try to control you. Stand and fight.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> Perhaps this does not apply personally to you, but almost all Uber drivers signed away all their legal rights to sue Uber. You know as well as anyone how forced arbitration goes. (And meanwhile -- not to mention afterwards -- you're out of a job, which is the bottom line.) You will not prevail in Uber's own court, and good luck with unconscionability. Uber drivers are totally &%[email protected]!*ed and at the whims of Uber. That's the reality.


Depends on the situation and the state you're in. I've been told by an attorney that so long as the case has a strong legal standing, an arbitration clause can be thwarted fairly easily in NJ. Not all states are equal in this.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Yes. The two allowed questions.
> 
> 
> Is this a service animal for a disability?
> ...


I know you and I usually agree Suze, so I'm sorry to have to contradict you. Pregnancy is a protected class under the PDA (Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which ultimately gets it's power under "gender" discrimination). Pregnancy can be considered a temporary disability (also under the PDA), but that isn't even where I was going with it. I just meant in it's own right (as gender discrimination).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act

So, if anyone is thinking about refusing the pregnant woman because she might throw up (or have her baby) on the way... think that decision through very carefully. 



SuzeCB said:


> Depends on the situation and the state you're in. I've been told by an attorney that so long as the case has a strong legal standing, an arbitration clause can be thwarted fairly easily in NJ. Not all states are equal in this.


And if all else fails, you go through the arbitration, go through it's appeal, and you're still not satisfied with the final result, you can then sue (having met your burden of going through the arbitration process). The strength of your case will ultimately decide if it goes anywhere in the courts or not.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> I know you and I usually agree Suze, so I'm sorry to have to contradict you. Pregnancy is a protected class under the PDA (Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which ultimately gets it's power under "gender" discrimination). Pregnancy can be considered a temporary disability (also under the PDA), but that isn't even where I was going with it. I just meant in it's own right (as gender discrimination).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_Discrimination_Act
> 
> ...


Thank you. I wasn't aware of this.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Thank you. I wasn't aware of this.


You're most welcome. I'm glad you're not upset with me.


----------



## RiderOnTheStorm (Mar 17, 2017)

Pawtism said:


> I think you'll find that arbitration isn't biased as everyone assumes it is.


Driver must pay to attend the arbitration (travel across the country, for an indeterminate amount of time, planes, hotels, food, and of course Ubers to get around out there), will never be recompensed for that expense, has to pay for the Arbitration (lawyer's fees), oh by the way, Uber selects and hires and controls the Arbitration service who they employ all the time. Uber will come armed with infinite legal resources. Driver will not. It all sounds totally fair and on the up and up. I'm sure the driver will win. (And just what do you think they will win, anyway? The driver will wind up paying $20,000 for the privilege of keeping his job with Uber. Who will deactivate him again a month later for no reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. In fact, during the arbitration process they will simply deny that they deactivated the driver for any particular reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. And after all this is finished, the driver -- again -- has no recourse whatsoever.

There is a reason that Uber does forced arbitration.
Uber is many things, but STUPID is not one of them.
Their entire business model however totally relies on drivers being stupid.



> The inconsistent "policies" are just CSRs who don't have a clue what they are actually doing trying to figure it all out themselves.


The contract that you signed with Uber (as you must obviously know) gives Uber the right to terminate the agreement at their discretion at any time. They do not have to give any reason, and you have no legal recourse to challenge it in any way. (You could spend all your time and money trying to work it out with the forced Arbitration lawyers that are by the way on Uber's payroll, but all they will say is, "Contract says Uber can **** you any way they want and you clearly agreed to it, so that's binding, have a nice day." They will use a lot of legal terms when they say it, but it's all pretty straightforward.

As for press: the entire thing will be controlled by a non-disclosure agreement. Uber will not see any bad press, and if you squeal, Uber will take away your house. If you still had one after the first gentle reaming.

How many times an hour does Uber **** over a driver in some unconscionable manner? And how many stories are in the press about that each day? Right.

PS. I know we're not going to agree on this, and I've run out things to say about it. So that's my last post on the subject. Feel free to have the last word.


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> You're most welcome. I'm glad you're not upset with me.


Why would I be upset? Takes more than disagreeing with me, especially if you're right, to upset me.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> Driver must pay to attend the arbitration (travel across the country, for an indeterminate amount of time, planes, hotels, food, and of course Ubers to get around out there), will never be recompensed for that expense, has to pay for the Arbitration (lawyer's fees), oh by the way, Uber selects and hires and controls the Arbitration service who they employ all the time. Uber will come armed with infinite legal resources. Driver will not. It all sounds totally fair and on the up and up. I'm sure the driver will win. (And just what do you think they will win, anyway? The driver will wind up paying $20,000 for the privilege of keeping his job with Uber. Who will deactivate him again a month later for no reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. In fact, during the arbitration process they will simply deny that they deactivated the driver for any particular reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. And after all this is finished, the driver -- again -- has no recourse whatsoever.
> 
> There is a reason that Uber does forced arbitration.
> Uber is many things, but STUPID is not one of them.
> ...


" RESOLVED "!


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

RiderOnTheStorm said:


> Driver must pay to attend the arbitration (travel across the country, for an indeterminate amount of time, planes, hotels, food, and of course Ubers to get around out there), will never be recompensed for that expense, has to pay for the Arbitration (lawyer's fees), oh by the way, Uber selects and hires and controls the Arbitration service who they employ all the time. Uber will come armed with infinite legal resources. Driver will not. It all sounds totally fair and on the up and up. I'm sure the driver will win. (And just what do you think they will win, anyway? The driver will wind up paying $20,000 for the privilege of keeping his job with Uber. Who will deactivate him again a month later for no reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. In fact, during the arbitration process they will simply deny that they deactivated the driver for any particular reason. Uber does not have to give a reason. And after all this is finished, the driver -- again -- has no recourse whatsoever.
> 
> There is a reason that Uber does forced arbitration.
> Uber is many things, but STUPID is not one of them.
> ...


They can terminate us at any time (in fact, in another post, I quoted "Uber may immediately terminate these Terms or any Services with respect to you, or generally cease offering or deny access to the Services or any portion thereof, at any time for any reason."). Isn't it interesting that with the ability to deactivate any of us, at a moments notice, that they don't tend to do that without cause. People (drivers usually) don't always like the cause that is given, but they always have cause. The guy in the other post I quoted the termination clause in, had 3 complaints against him with Uber (and since he said Lyft canned him too, presumably 3 with them as well) in 7 months. I'd have terminated him at 2 within 6 months. Uber was actually more lenient than I would have been. Part of the reason they do this, is so that there will be no cause for an arbitration.

Have you actually read your arbitration agreement? You don't have to travel anywhere. "Unless you and Uber otherwise agree, the arbitration will be conducted in the county where you reside." I mean, I suppose you could agree with Uber to hold it somewhere else, but why the hell would you? So many drivers hear things on the news, or some from some uneducated person spewing them, and take them as fact. That is the main reason I am setting the record straight here. I have nothing against you personally, but you're spreading incorrect information and expecting people to take it as fact. Some poor moron is going to believe you, and not learn the truth for themselves.

Sure, they have the upper hand there in terms of council (which they already have on hand), but your assertion that even if you win you don't get your fees covered and such, again, are completely false. "An Arbitrator's decision and judgment thereon shall have no precedential or collateral estoppel effect. If you prevail in arbitration you will be entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, to the extent provided under applicable law. Uber will not seek, and hereby waives all rights Uber may have under applicable law to recover, attorneys' fees and expenses if Uber prevails in arbitration." Think that through. If you win, they will pay your attorney fees, but if you lose, they aren't going to charge you theirs. I mean that would have been a great deterrent to arbitration.

Take the time to actually read the terms. Granted, if we want to use the service we have no choice but to accept the terms, but that doesn't mean we have to remain ignorant of them. Bottom line, Uber has not (and likely will not) let things go to arbitration that are indefensible. As you said, they are not stupid. If they decide to get rid of you, they don't need to wait until you refuse an ESA, or ask the questions. They can literally deactivate you because your car is too bright orange, or a make/model they don't like, or because you said "hello" in a way that wasn't perky and friendly to them. Yet, having that power, they don't unless they have a cause. Sure, drivers don't like that when a pax makes a false accusation they get deactivated (usually temporarily), but that's the way it is. If they didn't deactivate for a drunk driving complaint, and someone on the next ride died, they're going to have a much bigger problem than a simple arbitration on their hands. They practically HAVE to deactivate for things like that. That's why you sue the person who made the false accusation for the free ride, not Uber.

The press follows stories that are interesting. I've seen more stories about Uber drivers who violate traffic laws than I have about how Uber raises pax rates but doesn't pass that on to drivers. If you weren't an Uber driver (and maybe not even a pax) which of those two do you think John/Jane Q Public finds more interesting? We hear about how drivers take children without car seats. But, a service dog scandal, that's always interesting (I have used the media / social media for the people I help many times actually).

As for the last word, there is a reason the party with the burden of proof always wants the last word. I'll happily take the last word (and thank you for it). I have nothing against you personally. I have a problem with the spread of misinformation (especially blatantly untrue misinformation). Take the time to read the terms (you've made some very, very incorrect arguments, based on that, so I know you haven't), know your rights (and responsibilities), and don't let a company like Uber push you around. As long as you are doing the right thing, for the right reasons, you'll probably be ok. As much as people want to bash Uber, they aren't just deactivating people for no reason at all (even though they could).


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> Thank you. I wasn't aware of this.


I know, it's silly of me to be concerned. It's just that people tend to get upset with me when I prove them wrong quite often. Most the time I really don't care, but you and I seem to see pretty close to eye to eye most the time.


----------



## melusine3 (Jun 20, 2016)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


German Shepherds shed like shit.



Mole said:


> If the price is over $300 they say call the insurance.


Whoa. Then it's under the deductible and NO MONEY. Insist the pax pay.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

melusine3 said:


> German Shepherds shed like shit.
> 
> Whoa. Then it's under the deductible and NO MONEY. Insist the pax pay.


German shepherds do tend to shed quite a bit, this is true. I'm not sure it's relevant, but it is true. 

The OP can absolutely go after the pax for the damages. Especially if they believe (and even I believe) that it was a fake being passed off a service dog. Just because it's not illegal in Ohio, doesn't mean they aren't still liable for any damages that happen (same as if it were a pet). I'm not sure how often the OP takes pictures of their car (btw, everyone should take detailed pictures of their car at minimum, once a week, you'll see why in a second), but the only real challenge the OP would have is proving that this dog caused the damage. If they have detailed pictures of the inside of their car from say, 4 days ago, showing no damage, and then after this ride, showing damage. They might be able to prove that.

Small claims cases (like most civil cases) work on a "preponderance of the evidence" (as opposed to "beyond a reasonable doubt"). What that basically means is that it has to be more likely (than not) that what you're claiming happened. If it's 50/50, that won't cut it. Evidence rules are different too, so you don't have to take pictures after each and every rider to prove that it was this one. You also don't have to have dash cam footage of the dog actually jumping around right beside the door, as you might have to in a criminal case. That would certainly help (the dog jumping around in the car at all actually would help), but if you can show that 4 days ago you had no damage, this dog was the only dog you took, and now you have claw gouges on your door. That would probably be enough.

If you didn't have fairly recent pictures, then they could just say, it was like that when we got it, maybe it's been like that for years. And we could be back to 50/50. The OP does certainly have the right to go after them civilly though.


----------



## steveK2016 (Jul 31, 2016)

jrich6234 said:


> To be a legitimate service animal, the animal must be trained to keep all of it's feet on the floor at all times. Check the regulations for a phrase called "four on the floor" which clearly explains what the animal must do to be a qualified service animal.
> 
> Any damage caused by a passenger is the passenger's responsibility. James River (Uber's insurance company) has a driver friendly escape clause. If the passenger or party causing damage is uninsured for the damage, there is no deductible.


Just as an FYI james river is no longer the default Uber insurance in all markets anymore. Georgia and Texas is covered by Progressive.



RiderOnTheStorm said:


> You need to re-read my post again. Clearly you didn't comprehend one thing I said.
> Allow me to try again.
> 
> It does not matter what Uber has written in policy documents or anything else.
> ...


Uber is not making arbitrary decisons on this policy. They get a report from a pax that says their service dog was rejected, theys uspend driver pending investigation. Many drivers have stated they were reinstated once they pleaded their case. Having dash cam to back you up would be prudent as without it, the pax can lie.

What uber is guilty of is taking the pax aide immediately but that doesnt change the actual policy.


----------



## BLBorgia (Nov 28, 2015)

Kcope316 said:


> Got a ping to a hotel, 5* pax im thinking airport trip.
> 
> Nope, dude standing outside at the side on the biulding. I roll up to this dude crack window anf varify he is my pax. He says one minute she's in the back. He walks around the corner and around comes this woman with s big german sheperd. Its wearing a service dog harness. The woman has a huge gash on her forehead but it is not bleeding.
> 
> ...


A dog in training for service isn't a service dog (FYI for next time). A real service dog would sit nice, and not invade your space. Sorry that happened to you.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

BLBorgia said:


> A dog in training for service isn't a service dog (FYI for next time). A real service dog would sit nice, and not invade your space. Sorry that happened to you.


While I definitely agree that this dog wasn't a service dog (not even in training), it's important to note that in many states ("most" now as I believe we're up to 27 now, thus more than half) a service dog in training is considered a service dog under the state laws (even though ADA excludes them). In those states (too many to list them all, check your local state, or if you really can't find it and need to know, I'll check for you), a service dog in training has to be treated the same as any other service dog.

In the OP's state of Ohio, service dogs in training do have to be treated the same as any service dog. Ohio actually breaks it down into the very old school 3 categories (hence my "unenlightened state" classification of them earlier). Note that all 3 include dogs in training though. Had it actually been a service dog in training (this one clearly wasn't), he would have had to take it anyway. Just so there is no confusion or misinformation out there. 

"Guide dog" means a dog that has been trained or is in training to assist a blind person.

"Hearing dog" means a dog that has been trained or is in training to assist a deaf or hearing-impaired person.

"Service dog" means a dog that has been trained or is in training to assist a mobility impaired person.


----------



## Julescase (Mar 29, 2017)

Kcope316 said:


> Last reply I received was forward it to James Rivers!
> 
> I'm done with this at this point not wasting any more effort on it.
> 
> ...


I personally don't think you should give up yet. I've done 20 rounds of emails (LITERALLY 20, maybe more) for a cancellation fee they didn't want to pay me. Each time they'd respond with "Resolved - do you have any other issues? (Choose from "This Issue" or not), I'd respond and say "With all due respect, this matter is NOT resolved and won't be until I receive the $3.75 I earned based on the details listed in Uber's TOS"

They can't force you to close out a problem that isn't resolved. I'd be at the gl hub requesting information on how to get a rider's phone number and address if there was $20 worth of damage to my car and they were refusing to deal with it.

Please don't give up- seriously, this is not excusable. PM me and I'll type everything out- I will help you as much as possible, with anything you need help on. This is a BIG DEAL.

There are so many problems with this, first of all she broke the law and shouldn't be able to use rideshare services, EVER. Turn this around on the pax, who is 100% at fault AND who broke the law. Uber needs to realize this.

In all seriousness, please let me help you.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Julescase said:


> I personally don't think you should give up yet. I've done 20 rounds of emails (LITERALLY 20, maybe more) for a cancellation fee they didn't want to pay me. Each time they'd respond with "Resolved - do you have any other issues? (Choose from "This Issue" or not), I'd respond and say "With all due respect, this matter is NOT resolved and won't be until I receive the $3.75 I earned based on the details listed in Uber's TOS"
> 
> They can't force you to close out a problem that isn't resolved. I'd be at the gl hub requesting information on how to get a rider's phone number and address if there was $20 worth of damage to my car and they were refusing to deal with it.
> 
> ...


If you can get the part at a place like rock auto or something (dealership always overcharge), you might be able to get it to under 300. Between that, and Jules advice about continuing to hammer at them, you might even be able to get paid directly.


----------



## Self-Inflicted (Mar 16, 2018)

Evil genius posts to be funny aside, what i do...

Carry a couple old blankets in trunk. I spread them out back there so i can put bags ontop if needed. Most service dog owners wont mind if you lay a back seat blanket down for the pooch to sit on.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

Self-Inflicted said:


> Evil genius posts to be funny aside, what i do...
> 
> Carry a couple old blankets in trunk. I spread them out back there so i can put bags ontop if needed. Most service dog owners wont mind if you lay a back seat blanket down for the pooch to sit on.


Blankets / Towels are always a good plan, and most handlers will not only not mind but actually appreciate it (we don't want our dogs on dirty floors any more than you want our dogs hair on your floor). 

Also, most legit service dogs, have been trained to ride on the floorboards (some bigger ones, if in the back, may have to go on the seat). For example, with mine, we did training to sit in the front with her on the floorboard as our primary plan, in a bigger car (like my Sonata), in the back she'll fit on the floorboard, and in a smaller one (like my dad's Kia Rio), in the back she'd probably have to go on the seat. We always try to sit in the front (for longer rides, I'll get sick in the back actually) though (and even in a smaller car, in the front she'll go at my feet on the floorboard).


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> While I definitely agree that this dog wasn't a service dog (not even in training), it's important to note that in many states ("most" now as I believe we're up to 27 now, thus more than half) a service dog in training is considered a service dog under the state laws (even though ADA excludes them). In those states (too many to list them all, check your local state, or if you really can't find it and need to know, I'll check for you), a service dog in training has to be treated the same as any other service dog.
> 
> In the OP's state of Ohio, service dogs in training do have to be treated the same as any service dog. Ohio actually breaks it down into the very old school 3 categories (hence my "unenlightened state" classification of them earlier). Note that all 3 include dogs in training though. Had it actually been a service dog in training (this one clearly wasn't), he would have had to take it anyway. Just so there is no confusion or misinformation out there.
> 
> ...


But the dog has to be born with the predisposition necessary l extraordinarily docile/passive, and for it to be considered a service dog in training, behavioral training appropriate for a service dog has to already have been in place. The dog should already know that if it gets into a car it has to lay down at its owner's feet. This is behavioral training, not task training. If the dog is not up to speed on behavioral training, and cannot be considered a service dog in training.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

SuzeCB said:


> But the dog has to be born with the predisposition necessary l extraordinarily docile/passive, and for it to be considered a service dog in training, behavioral training appropriate for a service dog has to already have been in place. The dog should already know that if it gets into a car it has to lay down at its owner's feet. This is behavioral training, not task training. If the dog is not up to speed on behavioral training, and cannot be considered a service dog in training.


True, to even go out in public a service dog in training usually has to pass something called a "public access test" (the behavior tests and steps are usually done prior to task training). If they haven't completed at least this far, they usually aren't even a Service Dog in Training yet, they are still a "candidate". Many, many dogs wash out before even this point (one of my two dogs is a service dog wash out that I've kept as a pet (she has no access rights at all), the other is my actual service dog).

An example of a public access test:


----------



## SuzeCB (Oct 30, 2016)

Pawtism said:


> True, to even go out in public a service dog in training usually has to pass something called a "public access test" (the behavior tests and steps are usually done prior to task training). If they haven't completed at least this far, they usually aren't even a Service Dog in Training yet, they are still a "candidate". Many, many dogs wash out before even this point (one of my two dogs is a service dog wash out that I've kept as a pet (she has no access rights at all), the other is my actual service dog).
> 
> An example of a public access test:


I love that you were able to keep her.


----------



## BLBorgia (Nov 28, 2015)

Pawtism said:


> While I definitely agree that this dog wasn't a service dog (not even in training), it's important to note that in many states ("most" now as I believe we're up to 27 now, thus more than half) a service dog in training is considered a service dog under the state laws (even though ADA excludes them). In those states (too many to list them all, check your local state, or if you really can't find it and need to know, I'll check for you), a service dog in training has to be treated the same as any other service dog.
> 
> In the OP's state of Ohio, service dogs in training do have to be treated the same as any service dog. Ohio actually breaks it down into the very old school 3 categories (hence my "unenlightened state" classification of them earlier). Note that all 3 include dogs in training though. Had it actually been a service dog in training (this one clearly wasn't), he would have had to take it anyway. Just so there is no confusion or misinformation out there.
> 
> ...


 I'm in Ohio. I also have a service dog. From now on I will ask for documentation. Dogs in training for service are graduated from basic obedience training, so I agree the dog referenced here was simply an untrained dog wearing a vest ordered on eBay. My service dog has a badge I can take with us. Shame on those pretending to have a real service dog - in training or not.


----------



## Pawtism (Aug 22, 2017)

BLBorgia said:


> I'm in Ohio. I also have a service dog. From now on I will ask for documentation. Dogs in training for service are graduated from basic obedience training, so I agree the dog referenced here was simply an untrained dog wearing a vest ordered on eBay. My service dog has a badge I can take with us. Shame on those pretending to have a real service dog - in training or not.


Well, remember, while some program dogs might get an ID or a badge or something, most don't have any kind of documentation. Because of the rash of fake documents, anyone who does produce "documentation" is usually looked upon with suspicion anyway. So it's best not to even do that. It's actually specifically illegal to ask for it (https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html Q7). "Staff are not allowed to request any documentation for the dog, require that the dog demonstrate its task, or inquire about the nature of the person's disability." So I'd be careful about that. Ask the two questions (also Q7 on that ADA link). That's your best test for if they are legit or not (and legally the only questions that can be asked).

Otherwise, I totally agree with you, it's downright despicable to fake a service dog. And yes, they go through basic behavioral training first, usually pass a "public access test" before they are supposed to go out into public (I posted an example video above).


----------

