Uber drivers offered basic workplace rights in new deal

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

wannabeeahack wrote:

heathcote wrote:

wannabeeahack wrote:

Can you post a link or info on this "Com cabs" case please?

DPPs v Computer Cabs

This case has been listed on this site for over 4 years.
Why it has not been acted on in all probability is lack of bottle by enforcement officers and obviously persuasion by operators only interested in collecting rents from out of town vehicles for using their radio circuits.

the fine print, and the ONLY caveat is that the "visiting" plated vehicles should operate in thier own LA for "the majority" of thier working time/week/etc, this is almost totally unenforceable, how do you check? has it ever been tested in court? Thursday/Friday/Saturday nights arent a majority of a 7 day week....... and then.... if bases in areas with multiple borders get calls/bookings and pass jobs "back" to cars in thier own areas theres no issue is theres?

Time it was just dropped (as the AOP almost did) and we let technology get on with it

Your assertions are not mentioned in the Comcab case

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Mon May 08, 2017 10:38 am

heathcote wrote:

Your assertions are not mentioned in the Comcab case

Which has been superceded by the new act

Only by inserting an "Intended useage" requirment in the licensing regs (per LA) can it be controlled and even then only if reported to the cars LA and even THEN if theres proof for a case (and the will to pursue it)

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Mon May 08, 2017 10:43 am

The ComCab hearing date.... "HEARING-DATES: 7 November 1994"

Methinks its out of date

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

wannabeeahack wrote:

heathcote wrote:

Your assertions are not mentioned in the Comcab case

Which has been superceded by the new act

Only by inserting an "Intended useage" requirment in the licensing regs (per LA) can it be controlled and even then only if reported to the cars LA and even THEN if theres proof for a case (and the will to pursue it)

There is not a new Act involving Hackney Carriages,the 1847 Act still governs Hackney Carriages and consequently the ComCab decision is still applicable.

That is one of the reasons insurance companies are adding the new exclusion clause.

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Mon May 08, 2017 5:03 pm

So your saying while a PH can work anywhere now (as a PH thru a PH base not in thier LA) or take a job subbed from any base, a hackney cannot?

and even that a hack out of area shouldnt accept a booking at any time from any source, even thier own base?

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

wannabeeahack wrote:

So your saying while a PH can work anywhere now (as a PH thru a PH base not in thier LA) or take a job subbed from any base, a hackney cannot?

and even that a hack out of area shouldnt accept a booking at any time from any source, even thier own base?

Private hire rules are that any booking fulfilled has to be done by the 3 license rule,operator ,vehicle license and driver license must be issued by the same licensing authority.

Hackney Carriages must be in their own licensing district to accept a booking which can be from any where.

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Mon May 08, 2017 8:06 pm

grandad wrote:

heathcote wrote:

wannabeeahack wrote:

a HC out of area can work as a PH as we already know

Which law states that?(Com Cabs case says not)

If that is the case why are there not hundreds of cases every week where this is happening?

there must be surely

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Mon May 08, 2017 8:07 pm

heathcote wrote:

.

Hackney Carriages must be in their own licensing district to accept a booking which can be from any where.

Have to switch my phone/PDA off then

MR T · **Joined:** Thu Sep 07, 2006 8:26 pm **Posts:** 8529

Quote:

Which law states that?(Com Cabs case says not)
If that is the case why are there not hundreds of cases every week where this is happening?
there must be surely

Unenforceable as you have said..

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Tue May 09, 2017 11:14 am

It would amount to a RTB policy for hacks but not for PH?

heathcote · **Joined:** Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm **Posts:** 2553

wannabeeahack wrote:

It would amount to a RTB policy for hacks but not for PH?

A Taxi is licensed under a different Act to the private hire trade,different laws to abide by,Taxi cannot be a private hire vehicle as it is a Taxi and only a Taxi for the duration of its license.

Taxi proprietors/drivers are the trades worst enemy as is proven on this site,most do not want to abide by the rules applicable.

Sussex · **Posted:** Wed May 10, 2017 6:36 am

It's worth noting this is a London based act judgement.

I have never put much, if any, weight on it.

I put all my weight on the Gladen case, and our good friend JD posted it up a long time back.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4629

Taxis don't need operator licenses, thus they can't breach them.

wannabeeahack · **Posted:** Wed May 10, 2017 11:13 am

heathcote wrote:

wannabeeahack wrote:

It would amount to a RTB policy for hacks but not for PH?

A Taxi is licensed under a different Act to the private hire trade,different laws to abide by,Taxi cannot be a private hire vehicle as it is a Taxi and only a Taxi for the duration of its license.

Taxi proprietors/drivers are the trades worst enemy as is proven on this site,most do not want to abide by the rules applicable.

It would be a LA requirment to RTB surely?

but its irrelevent... as we know

Taxi Driver Online

Uber drivers offered basic workplace rights in new deal

Who is online