The BC Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed a dispute initiated by a man against Uber Eats, but the details of the saga are wild to say the least.
In the tribunal decision, the applicant accused Uber of credit card fraud, stealing, conspiracy, illegally withholding contact info and engaging in illegal practices. He claimed $5,000 in damages.
In response, Uber said there was no merit to the applicant’s claims.
It all started on Jan. 19, 2024, when the applicant placed an order for groceries through Uber Eats.
The applicant gave a list of times for certain events, which the tribunal determined were inconsistent with the information he provided.
He said that at 8:02 p.m., the Uber Eats app informed him that his groceries were collected and on their way to him. At 8:07 p.m., he said the tracking stopped and the order wasn’t delivered. He then claimed that while he was waiting outside for the delivery, he was physically attacked and injured by an unknown person. He reported the attack and missing order to Uber.
The applicant told Uber he didn’t know if the attacker was his delivery driver.
He told the tribunal he reported the attack at 8:42 p.m., which led to Uber restricting the driver’s access but didn’t offer a refund. The applicant wasn’t able to provide any evidence to support that he was attacked.
According to Uber’s version of events, the delivery driver attended the delivery location, notifying the applicant that the driver was waiting outside. Uber said its driver waited for 12 minutes, and also provided a recording of a call that the driver made to Uber. The driver told Uber that the customer wasn’t there, and in response, Uber told the driver to leave the order outside, notifying the customer.
This is when things get really weird.
Uber gave the tribunal a transcript and recording of a call that was made on March 23, 2024, months after the delivery incident.
The caller, who identified himself as a police officer, shared the same last name as the applicant in the tribunal case. He told Uber he was investigating a report that Uber’s customers weren’t receiving their orders, and accused Uber of committing various crimes.
Uber said the call originated from the applicant’s phone number. Uber also confirmed with the Victoria Police Department that no officer by that name existed.
The tribunal determined the call was made by the applicant. The tribunal added that the call, along with other inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, “negatively affects his credibility.”
After sifting through other evidence, the tribunal also determined that the applicant wasn’t physically attacked.
As an act of goodwill, Uber refunded the applicant $124.54 and even gave him an additional $75 credit.
Ultimately, the tribunal found no merit to the applicant’s claims and dismissed them.