Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sun May 03, 2026 11:32 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
Tom Thumb wrote:
Whilst your example is clearly common sense Mr Sussex, and probably happens many times a day as you say, I feel it is illegal in the eyes of the law. A private hire driver can only accept bookings from an operator licensed in the same district as themselves. As a PH driver you should not be allowed to accept a booking direct from a customer, no matter what actions you take to makeit look lawful.

But I, and Uber drivers, are not accepting any bookings, we are merely saying yes we are available should the operator accept.

The WAV scenario must happen the length and breath of the country. Customer rings up and inquirers, operator puts a call out, drivers say yes or no, operator acts accordingly.

Other than the time between inquiry and booking, what is the difference between the two types of bookings? In terms of the law.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
Lawbreaker.

Must have taken ages to submit that assessment. Image

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
There is only one private hire operator license in law,applies to whether you operate one vehicle or numerous vehicles,Council attach conditions to license as applicable.

What do you think license conditions are if they are not law?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 7:56 pm
Posts: 2553
Sussex wrote:
Tom Thumb wrote:
Whilst your example is clearly common sense Mr Sussex, and probably happens many times a day as you say, I feel it is illegal in the eyes of the law. A private hire driver can only accept bookings from an operator licensed in the same district as themselves. As a PH driver you should not be allowed to accept a booking direct from a customer, no matter what actions you take to makeit look lawful.

But I, and Uber drivers, are not accepting any bookings, we are merely saying yes we are available should the operator accept.

The WAV scenario must happen the length and breath of the country. Customer rings up and inquirers, operator puts a call out, drivers say yes or no, operator acts accordingly.

Other than the time between inquiry and booking, what is the difference between the two types of bookings? In terms of the law.


That is not what you said in previous post,you made the booking on behalf of passenger stating they wanted you to pick them up,that is admitting you were plying for hire,court cases confirm that view.Lawbreaker.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
That is not what you said in previous post,you made the booking on behalf of passenger stating they wanted you to pick them up,that is admitting you were plying for hire,court cases confirm that view.Lawbreaker.


Where did I say that?

But so do many other PH drivers, me included.

People ask me if I'm available for a job at a certain time, if I am they then book me via a licensed operator.

The Uber way is also similar to what happens when someone wants a WAV.

Customer rings up asks if their is one available for a certain time, the operator then asks WAV drivers if any will be out at that time.

If yes the booking is taken, if no the customer is told they cannot take that booking. Same with 8 seaters or low saloon cars for old dears.

The above happens 1000s of times each day throughout the country.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:19 am
Posts: 233
All Uber bookings are actually Illegal since they are accepted by the ''driver'' first and then recorded on the uber system.

this is a huge headache for all licensing authorities across the UK with the exception of a few who have refused to grant uber a licence to operate in their area.

The first point of contact should be with the person who holds the operators licence and a request be made for a ph vehicle.

The operator then despatches a vehicle as appropriate.

That is the guidance received from a leading barrister in the case againsy uber in london.

Incidentally, uber can continue to operate in london until all appeal processes have been exhausted which will probably take some years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
cheshirebest wrote:
All Uber bookings are actually Illegal since they are accepted by the ''driver'' first and then recorded on the uber system.

Most in the trade take that view because they are in the trade and are slightly biased.

I'm more and more certain the courts wont take that view.

They will take the view that the driver is just telling Uber they are available for work.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
cheshirebest wrote:
The first point of contact should be with the person who holds the operators licence and a request be made for a ph vehicle.

But isn't that what happens?

The first contact is via the Uber app, not the individual driver.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 23, 2018 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
cheshirebest wrote:
Incidentally, uber can continue to operate in london until all appeal processes have been exhausted which will probably take some years.

Unless at the higher court stage they are refused permission to appeal.

The TfL letter is pretty damming.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:19 am
Posts: 233
Quote:
''But isn't that what happens?

The first contact is via the Uber app, not the individual driver.''

Yes, the first contact is via the app BUT that contact is directly with the driver...the app can no more accept a booking than a telephone line can !

The view is expressed by a leading barrister and has been accepted by tfl...look at their latest info on the matter and they have admitted that the uber licence was refused for this reason and not what tfl initially stated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
cheshirebest wrote:
The view is expressed by a leading barrister and has been accepted by tfl...look at their latest info on the matter and they have admitted that the uber licence was refused for this reason and not what tfl initially stated.

Look I don't want you to be wrong, I would be as happy as Larry if I'm wrong. Only time will tell.

But TfL didn't or haven't used the reason of illegal booking in their refusal letter. On the booking matter TfL got the hump with the fact that in their view Uber were telling them lies.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:19 am
Posts: 233
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -down.html


This was stated by Boris Johnson when he was London Mayor....but then he was told to stop by osborne and cameron...osborne now works with a co connected with uber earning £650,000 for a part time job....sleazy to say the least...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2012 11:17 pm
Posts: 2712
Tom Thumb wrote:
Sussex wrote:
heathcote wrote:

Uber driver accepts booking before operator according to their own admission.

But so do many other PH drivers, me included.

People ask me if I'm available for a job at a certain time, if I am they then book me via a licensed operator.

The Uber way is also similar to what happens when someone wants a WAV.

Customer rings up asks if their is one available for a certain time, the operator then asks WAV drivers if any will be out at that time.

If yes the booking is taken, if no the customer is told they cannot take that booking. Same with 8 seaters or low saloon cars for old dears.

The above happens 1000s of times each day throughout the country.
I had my own operator licence for a number of years as well as my own PH plate and PH driving licence. If people approached me on the road I'd tell them to ring the office who would then ring me and give me the job.

Whilst your example is clearly common sense Mr Sussex, and probably happens many times a day as you say, I feel it is illegal in the eyes of the law. A private hire driver can only accept bookings from an operator licensed in the same district as themselves. As a PH driver you should not be allowed to accept a booking direct from a customer, no matter what actions you take to makeit look lawful.

I seem to remember court cases about a driver ringing his office and handing the phone to the customer to request a booking.

For many years I have felt that there needs to be another 'operator licence' for a single operator, this would help the 'self-employed' debate for sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18539
cheshirebest wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3260239/Uber-drivers-breaking-law-says-Boris-London-Mayor-claims-taxis-hailed-app-ILLEGAL-rules-state-black-cabs-flagged-down.html


This was stated by Boris Johnson when he was London Mayor....but then he was told to stop by osborne and cameron...osborne now works with a co connected with uber earning £650,000 for a part time job....sleazy to say the least...


I don't think Boris questioned the booking process as such - I think he suggested that because the vehicle was visible on the app then that amounted to plying for hire.

But if you look at the case law it's surely stretching things to think that a car physically invisible to the punter could be regarded as plying for hire because it's on the app - it could be round the corner, yet it could be miles away.

Haven't read TfL's letter, but was there any mention of this in it? I suspect not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57358
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
I don't think Boris questioned the booking process as such - I think he suggested that because the vehicle was visible on the app then that amounted to plying for hire.

I think that's similar to the ongoing court cases in Reading.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 760 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group