Capify on the law regulating application services: “It is a positive step, but we believe that the registration is symbolic.” | Interview | Carlos Mendoza | Taxi via app | Applications | Transportation | Economy

Mira: Costeño and Varone are the two rice brands most preferred by the Peruvian consumer: why and what plans do they have?

-Is the opinion adopted in line with what the mobility industry requires?

As Cabify, we think it is very positive that this standard has been approved. The sector has needed regulation for a long time and this is the first step in building that regulation. At Cabify we have operated on a home-based basis since our inception over 12 years ago. We believe the industry needs this operating model. Now, unfortunately, the approved standard does not require companies or platforms to work this way. The only thing it does is create a register of technology mobility intermediation platforms at the Ministry of Transport. But this does not in any way require that the company or platform be based in Peru, but only that it be registered in the aforementioned registry with the Ministry.

Isn’t registering them a means of registering them and aligning them with standard standards?

It is a positive step, but we believe that the registration is symbolic, because in the end it does not oblige us to anything at all. Just register and approach the ministry. There is still a stage of regulating this standard, which is the stage in which the executive authority will later detail the requirements and procedures in greater detail – always within the scope of the approved law. We believe that this is the Ministry’s best opportunity to create sufficient clarity, formality and, above all, security mechanisms for users of the service, both passengers and drivers.

– The standard already specifies maximum requirements, what other requirements should be added?

The standard already defines some basic security requirements that platforms providing this service mediation must meet. For example, in the driver’s inlet filters or some technological functions such as the famous panic button. At Cabify we’ve always had a more aggressive approach to security. Since we have always exceeded basic safety standards, we hope that the Ministry will take advantage of the regulations to set standards a little higher.

“What does Cabify do that the industry does not? We have very strict admission filters that do not rely solely on the submission of documents by the driver applicant. Because documents can be easily forged.”

– I repeat my question, what will they be?

What does Cabify do that the industry doesn’t? We have very strict admission filters that do not rely solely on the submission of documents by the applicant to the driver. Because you know that documents can be easily forged. In the end, we don’t even ask them to bring us a background certificate, we look for it directly in public institutions. We have technological functions that go beyond the emergency button, which is the last resource to be used: we can share the ride with someone else, and block the phone number of the driver and passenger when they call each other to agree on a meeting point. In other applications, this does not exist and hence we see cases of harassment of users. These are the types of things we would like to see reflected in the regulations.

– The opinion also clarifies the responsibilities that the mediation platform has within an administrative or judicial process. In your opinion, to what extent does this responsibility extend?

It is very important to clarify something. There are two misconceptions that have been widely reported in the media recently regarding this rule. The first is the one I mentioned. The rule does not state that platforms will be liable for the criminal acts of driver users. In fact, in the national legal framework, criminal responsibility is very personal, and I cannot be held responsible for a crime I committed. What the standard specifies is the responsibility that platforms have to provide their own brokerage service. This is completely normal and completely healthy. All companies have a field of work and we have to bear responsibility for the damages that this type of work may generate. In the case of mediation platforms, the field of action is precisely technological mediation. The rule does not—and cannot—require platforms to be held liable for a criminal act.

– In a specific case of violation or crime committed by the driver, what is that responsibility?

If the platform – unlike Cabify – is not diligent in accepting its driver users and has a driver with a record, if it is activated and provides the service nonetheless, there is liability. It is one thing to enable a user who is a driver who has no record or evidence of inappropriate behavior, but it is another for the platform to have reliable and official information about the driver’s background and continue to enable it. These are things that should be evaluated differently.

About taxi service and regulations

Following publication of the rule, it was reported that the rule repealed the ATU regulation relating to taxi registration, meaning that mobility services would no longer require a permit to provide the service. In Mendoza’s view, the rule does not mean that and does not mean that taxis do not have to meet the requirements.

“One of the provisions of this rule has been misunderstood. What has been done is to eliminate the application of a provision of the current ATU regulation to digital platforms. The ATU rule states that any paid transfer from point A to point B is a taxi and must meet the requirements Taxi. So, if you want to take me to my office because we live or work nearby and then give me an S/5 for gasoline, you are already illegal and in violation of the taxi requirements. This bill recognizes that taxi regulations and requirements cannot be applied to any vehicle Moving from point A to point B and what it does is that this definition does not apply to technology brokerage platforms and the drivers that work with them..

From Mendoza’s point of view, the rule does not imply that the road ahead for collective taxis is clear. “This does not mean that a taxi should not meet its requirements or that a group taxi is allowed. It is prohibited and should remain that way.”He confirmed. despite this, The Director believes that it is necessary for the regulation to be more specific about the scope of the standard.

“It is necessary to better define this in the regulations so that the taxi continues to maintain all the permitted regulations. What is done is to differentiate person-to-person transportation from taxis so that they can have their own rules, regulations and requirements. And if not To achieve this difference, it would be impossible to impose requirements that match the technological nature of the model.”, He said.