Taxi Driver Online

No mention of the rapists, the very real decreased earnings, the saturation of poober vehicles, the repossessions or how Travis and aunty Jo are taking them for a real ride...

Of course there'll be none of that.

Allegedly Boris is considering making all PH pay the congestion charge, if he did the black cabs would have level playing field

I wonder if Ven read the article.

_________________
Grandad,

Don't see how it would do anything else than raise revenue whilst making drivers who already work excessive hours work more.

i was going to , got as far as the " the long read" that was it


on a serious note, those cabbies in London /brum etc where uber are establishing themselves must be just sitting there watching there takings go down & down on a daily basis, must have to work longer hours etc, i suppose uber is just moving with the times technology , it was always going to happen after all, just no idea where this will end tbh, seen a few flying around Newcastle now & even on my school run there is a uber bus picking up

That's how these big companies work, they don't give a feck about those lackeys they use, are they Self employed or employees?, if they are self employed as I think they are and that their lackeys have to pay for and run their own vehicle to use on the companies behalf then it is the driver that takes all the financial risk in a market place where they will find ever increasing competition from more and more of their drivers trying the same.

It's iffy at best, It's like these Direct sales companies where you get the right to an area which is seldom big enough to support you financially because the company have crammed to many others like yourself into to small an area to maximise their profits at your expense.

The Drivers will get no paid leave or any of the other benefits an employee would get. about the only way being such a driver might work in the long term is if your main driving income comes from work other than theirs...you really would need something else to fall back on for if not you'll just fall flat and the mega company won't give a shite as your no more than a disposable driver to them..you become a means to their end.

"I am not a Number..I am a free man" ..."the Prisoner"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlFiHhN8aew

What did you do about Fleet street.....oh that's right you lost your jobs - what did you do re the miners situation....oh that's right the Unions let them down - what are London doing about Uber....oh that's right, they are taking over. The Unions up and down the country look on at their brothers and sisters demise - and do f%ck all - you truly are an idiot.

_________________
Common sense........is just not that Common.

The Unions are there to ensure that their Union leaders get High wages, Lots of Expenses and nice Big Free houses...what else can they want of them?

Taxi note - Operators and Apps.
Mr j has raised an issue regarding the operation of “Apps”. He has commented that a company who is advertising/running an App that handles a request from a customer which gets passed through to an operator constitutes acting as an operator and is therefore a licensable activity.

The Facts

1. Delta

Delta has 5 divisions, but in reality and for the purposes of this review we are only concerned with 3

(i) Delta Sefton – a Sefton MBC licensed private hire operation utilising Sefton Licensed drivers in Sefton Licensed vehicles

(ii) Delta Liverpool – a Liverpool CC licensed private hire operation utilising Liverpool licensed drivers in Liverpool licensed cars only

(iii) Delta Intermediary – provides the App – a web application that does not provide any services beyond communicating with a licensed operator (i.e. either (i) or (ii) above

I have assumed that when PM refers to both (DS and DL) being licensed private hire operations he means that both have operators licences in the respective council areas.

2. Uber

Uber B.V. licenses the Uber App. Uber B.V. is not a licensed operator. Uber B.V. does not make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings nor does it accept bookings

Uber Britannia Ltd is a licensed by Sefton MBC as a private hire operator. Uber Britannia Ltd makes provision for the invitation and acceptance of bookings for Sefton licensed PHV’s and accepts such bookings. Uber Britannia Ltd performs all the functions of a licensed operator. Uber Britannia Ltd manages how the App works and operates in respect of Sefton licensed drivers and vehicles.

The Legislation

S.46(1)(d) Local Gov (MP) Act 1976 – no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under S.55 of this Act

S. 55 Local Government (MP) Act 1976 – deals with the licensing of operators and states that a district shall grant an operators licence, on application, providing the applicant is fit and proper.

S.55A (1) of the Act sets out that any person licensed under S.55 who has in a controlled district accepted a booking for a PHV may arrange for another person to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking if

* The other person is licensed under S.55 in respect of the same controlled district and the subcontracted booking is accepted in that district or

* The other person is licensed under S.55 in respect of another controlled district and the sub contracted booking is accepted in that district

It is immaterial whether or not subcontracting is permitted by the contract between the person licensed under S.55 who accepted the booking and the person who made the booking

Where a person is licensed under S.55 in respect of one controlled district is also licensed in another controlled district subsection 1 applies as if each licence were held by a separate person.

S.55B the first operator means a person licensed under S.55 who has in a controlled district accepted a booking for a PHV and then made arrangements for another person to provide a vehicle to carry out the booking in accordance with S.55A.

The second operator means the person with whom the first operator made the arrangements i.e the person who accepted the subcontracted booking.

The first operator is not to be treated for the purposes of S.46(e) – operating a vehicle without a vehicle licence or with driving not having a licence- by virtue of having invited or accepted the original booking.

The first operator is guilty of an offence if second operator contravenes S.46( e) and the first operator knew the second operator would contravene S.46( e)

S.56 Every contract for the hire of a PHV shall be deemed to be made with the operator who accepted the booking whether or not he himself provided the vehicle

Every operator shall keep a record of every booking of a PHV invited or accepted by him whether accepting the same from the hirer or by undertaking it at the request of another operator.

S.80 contains Interpretation of Part II of the Act (the taxi Licensing part) and sets out that:-

“operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle

“operators licence” means a licence under S.55 of the 1976 Act.

Interpretation of Case Law

Britain v ABC Cabs (Camberley) Ltd [1981] R.T.R 395

Held that since the only material act which the defendants did in the adjoining district was to pick up the passenger at the station, they could not be said to be making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings within the definition of “operate” in section 80(1) of the Act

Section 80(1) defines the word “operate” in these terms

“operate” means in the course of business to make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle.

When the defendants’ vehicle picked up the passenger……they were not “making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings” at all.

“operate” in this statute is limited to the business of making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for private hire. That distinguishes the process of “operating” from the normal way in which a vehicle is picked up by a passenger or a passenger is picked up by a driver.

Adur District Council v Fry [1997] R.T.R 257

The decision of the Magistrates was that “operate” had a strict meaning and included only the office booking procedure.

Case referred to the Appeal court to determine whether the word “operate” in S.46(1)(e) of the LG(MP) Act 1976 only included that part of the whole transaction taking place in the operators premises.

Held - the term “operate” should be given the narrow interpretation provided in S. 80(1) of the Act.

Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Khan [1994] R.T.R 87

Held that for the purpose of determining whether the defendant was “making provision” in the controlled district “for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle” (for the purposes of S.46(1)(d) and S.80(1) of the LG (MP) Act 1976, it was immaterial whether any particular contract of private hire, whether made by telephone or any other way, was made in one place rather than another; that the determining factor was not whether any individual booking was accepted, let alone where it was accepted, but whether the defendant had in the area in question made the provision for the acceptance of bookings in general; that in its definition of “operate” in s.80(1) Parliament was not referring to places which invitations might reach but to places where provision was made for the invitation of bookings; that the defendant made the provision for the invitation of bookings at his offices and what he did by way of advertising in directories circulated in the area where he conducted his business and in adjacent areas, was to inform the public that he had made such provision.

The defendant made provision for the acceptance of bookings for his private hire vehicles. He did so by maintaining an office in which, it is to be presumed he kept a book in which orders were entered and by reference to which orders were executed. ….. in it’s definition of the word “operate”, Parliament was not referring to places which invitations might reach but to places where provision is made for the invitation of bookings.

Conclusion

It appears to me that the “Apps” provided by Uber and Delta are merely a conduit to their respective operators. From the information before me I do not accept that the function of the Apps is to make provision for the acceptance of bookings (as per S.80 (1) LG(MP) Act 1976) and they should not

therefore be considered as being Operators that require a licence. From the information provided by Mr McLaughlin, the Delta App (Delta Intermediary) merely communicates with the respective Delta licensed operators (Delta Sefton and/or Delta Liverpool) it does not make any provision for bookings.

As regard the Uber App, my understanding is that Uber B.V. licenses the App, but it is Uber Britannia Ltd that makes the provision for the acceptance of bookings. I have not been presented with any evidence that either Delta Intermediary or Uber B.V. makes provision for the acceptance of bookings.

I have taken into consideration that in Adur at first instance the Magistrates held that “operate” has a strict meaning and included only the office booking procedure. On appeal it was held that the term “operate” should be given the narrow interpretation provided in S. 80(1) of the Act.

In reliance upon the decision in Windsor and Maidenhead I do not accept that Apps concerned fall within the definition of operate. It appears to me that the operators concerned make provision for the acceptance of bookings in their respective offices which is where, it is presumed, records of all bookings are retained. Again I have not been presented with any information or evidence that the respective Apps retain any information as to the bookings made they merely pass the booking to the respective licensed operators.

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

Nice work there Mr T admins perhaps this post should be pinned to the top of the section as a reference or maybe it's about time we had a separate UFAIL sub section there seems to be so many threads about them

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

now now, they don't like getting advice

Not my work.....just something for the little grey sells to take in

_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!

No mention either of when the money will run out.

_________________
IDFIMH