toots wrote:
Sussex wrote:
What is new is the way the likes of Uber and City Sprint are trying to bypasss their responsibilities and legal requirements.
It's as clear as night follows day that Uber have no chance of repaying their investors if they have the same outgoings and responsibilities as normal organisations.
I agree they are trying to bypass these things but lets be honest here what responsibilities do regular operators have towards drivers?
Well it appears the Tribunal is saying they have significant responsibilities, and should Uber lose their appeals (which I believe they will lose) then it will be down to everyone to ensure operator's do do what the law says they should.
If not then councils should review their 'fit and proper' status.