Sussex wrote:
StuartW wrote:
Sounds a bit contrived, that one. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable for a firm to advertise in and accept bookings from one area but operate via another area as long as the three licences match? And that's always been the case, even before the Deregulation Act?
So if the app regarded simply as a form of advertising then I can't see the problem.
I'm not sure it is advertising in the truest sense, more an invitation to book.
However it's defined, I can't really see a whole lot of difference between booking via the app or using a laptop at home to look on a website for a phone number. Or, midway between those two scenarios, to use a smartphone on the street to search for a phone number then get the phone to dial it automatically. So if the contact is being handled by an operator in a different area then to me it just looks like a more automated and efficient way of conducting the booking. So if the three licences still match...
Sussex wrote:
StuartW wrote:
For what it's worth, can't see how a car invisible to potential hirers could be deemed plying for hire. And even pre-Uber, it's always been acceptable to phone an office and book a PHV that's visible to the passenger? And what about walk up fares to offices with cars sitting outside?
Think this 'virtual plying' is a bit far fetched as well. The app is just a hyper-efficient way of processing a booking. Of course, that's not to say that Uber cars can't be deemed plying for hire, but that's surely down to age old criteria like visibility and context, and nothing to do with the app
I'm not sure the cars can be deemed to be invisible, their location is clear to all.
To clarify, what I'm getting at is that if a punter can't even see a vehicle then I can't see how it can be deemed plying for hire, and I can't see how what's visible to the punter on an app changes that scenario - the car could be miles away, or it could be directly in front of the punter.
Of course, depending on the circumstances if the car is close to the punter then it could be deemed plying for hire in certain circumstances, but on legal principles established years ago, and nothing to do with the app. But I'm pretty sure the vehicle would need to be physically visible to the punter before the plying for hire question could even become an issue.
By the same token, when the prostitute made her solicitation "projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street" the fact that she was in a window rather than actually on the street was irrelevant. But if she'd been hidden from view behind the window then there wouldn't have been a problem.
But the
virtual plying for hire argument is effectively saying that if you can find a prostitute on an app then even though she's invisible but nearby then she's soliciting by projecting and addressing to the person nearby with the smartphone. Can't really see that if she's still invisible to the punter, and by the same token I can't really see a vehicle physically invisible to the punter being deemed plying for hire to that punter, and the app changes nothing.
Sussex wrote:
I also think PH vehicles parked up outside their office could also be viewed as ranking, depending on the situation.
Indeed, and it all depends on the scenario, but again I can't see how an app on a smartphone could impact on that.
Sussex wrote:
However your general thrust is correct, it all looks a bit woolly.
Yes, of course a major problem is that the law is based on more traditional methods of booking, and no one can dispute that the app blurs some of the lines that were more clear cut when the technology was less advanced.
Of course, to the extent that it's all less clear cut then a degree of interpretation and "judicial activism" might be expected when any cases reach the courts, so who knows what the outcome might be.
Didn't pay much attention to the whole Law Commission thing, but seems to me they body swerved the difficult questions, or simply botched them?
Login
Register
FAQ
