Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:21 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Interesting that the Reading case used the words 'plying for hire', which would suggest that it has nothing to do with PHVs doing pre-booked jobs? So if Uber drivers simply accepting jobs via the app then they can effectively use any licensed PHVs anywhere?

My (limited) understanding of the Reading issue is that by being seen on the app, they are in fact advertising themselves for hire. As they don't have a license to operate in Reading then they could be viewed as operating (i.e. the 1976 definition making provisions for the invitation or acceptance of bookings) without a license for that area.

An alternative view is that by advertising a car for hire they are in fact plying for hire as they don't have a license to do anything in Reading, akin to the prostitute scenario in the Eastbourne case.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
StuartW wrote:
Are the Reading prosecutions being appealed?

That's the interesting bit.

A number of drivers got charged, some pleaded guilty, and the others have pleaded not guilty thus it is going to trial.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
Can you point me in the right direction to where Uber have admitted that when an Uber driver accepts a fare off the app they are plying for hire. Please.

Not sure Uber have admitted that, but it appears that some of their drivers have.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 40
Sussex wrote:
My (limited) understanding of the Reading issue is that by being seen on the app, they are in fact advertising themselves for hire. As they don't have a license to operate in Reading then they could be viewed as operating (i.e. the 1976 definition making provisions for the invitation or acceptance of bookings) without a license for that area.


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.

Quote:
An alternative view is that by advertising a car for hire they are in fact plying for hire as they don't have a license to do anything in Reading, akin to the prostitute scenario in the Eastbourne case


Ah, yes, the 'virtual' plying for hire thing.

Remember Boris Johnson writing an article about it a couple of years ago:

"You only have to consider the habits of many Uber minicabs – not all, but many – to see that this law is systematically broken; and that is because technology makes it so easy for it to be broken.

"You no longer need to see a vehicle to hail it. Your phone will see it for you. It will see round corners; it will see in the dark. You no longer need to hail a taxi by sticking your arm out or shouting; you just press a button and within minutes – seconds – the car will be at your side. The car can be parked up at a petrol station, or down a side street, or just dawdling in traffic, and – ping – it will be there. In other words the app is allowing private hire vehicles to behave like black taxis: to be hailed, to ply for hire in the streets, to do exactly what the law says they are not supposed to do. You have the instant (or virtually instant) accessibility of the black cab, with none of the extra costs entailed by the vehicle regulations or the Knowledge, and the growth of the business is huge."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/u ... rules.html

Which begs the question, if the law is being broken so obviously and systematically, why didn't TfL prosecute drivers?

Suspect the reason is that it's not quite as clear cut as Boris tried to make it sound.

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.

Maybe Reading Council just trying to be a bit creative to ward off Uber? For example, one of the reasons they knocked back Uber's operating license was because of "insufficient evidence as to the demand for the service in Reading"? Eh? Might work for HCs, but doubt if it would withstand a legal challenge regarding PH operation...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:44 pm
Posts: 10323
Location: Scotland
I wonder if anyone has managed to hack into the app and cause mayhem

_________________
Always discount to get more fares


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 16812
That is a lot of questions to answer. I'm not sure I even understand some of them let alone answer them. I am not 100% what is being questioned in the last question because as far as I am aware that a hackney carrying out a job that is not in their own area can charge more that the metered rate.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1018
grandad wrote:
That is a lot of questions to answer. I'm not sure I even understand some of them let alone answer them. I am not 100% what is being questioned in the last question because as far as I am aware that a hackney carrying out a job that is not in their own area can charge more that the metered rate.



Do not think you are correct,once a license is granted it is governed by the By -laws of the licensing authority who granted the license regardless of where the vehicle is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1018
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
Can you point me in the right direction to where Uber have admitted that when an Uber driver accepts a fare off the app they are plying for hire. Please.

Not sure Uber have admitted that, but it appears that some of their drivers have.


Employment Tribunal Appeal (Wednesday 27/09/2017)

Dinah Rose lawyer for Uber informed the Judge that the driver accepts booking first and then Uber accepts.

That is an admission that these vehicles and their drivers are plying for hire,operating a private hire operator business without the appropriate license,incorrect vehicle insurance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7756
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
MR T wrote:
Can you point me in the right direction to where Uber have admitted that when an Uber driver accepts a fare off the app they are plying for hire. Please.

Not sure Uber have admitted that, but it appears that some of their drivers have.


Employment Tribunal Appeal (Wednesday 27/09/2017)

Dinah Rose lawyer for Uber informed the Judge that the driver accepts booking first and then Uber accepts.

That is an admission that these vehicles and their drivers are plying for hire,operating a private hire operator business without the appropriate license,incorrect vehicle insurance.

Can you put a link up to this.... :D :D

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
The only confirmation of that comment I can find is via someone’s twitter feed, who may or may not have been at the hearing.

Let’s hope those words are accurate.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
Also of note is that Uber’s lawyer, Dinah Rose QC specialisms are Human Rights and Civil Liberties.

Clearly she takes the view that holiday and sickness pay, alongside working sensible hours, don’t meet the criteria for those specialisms.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 1018
Sussex wrote:
The only confirmation of that comment I can find is via someone’s twitter feed, who may or may not have been at the hearing.

Let’s hope those words are accurate.


It was also admitted in the Canadian case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
The only confirmation of that comment I can find is via someone’s twitter feed, who may or may not have been at the hearing.

Let’s hope those words are accurate.


It was also admitted in the Canadian case.

I agree, but it would help out no end if their top lawyer said so to a High Court Judge.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:26 pm
Posts: 7756
Sussex wrote:
The only confirmation of that comment I can find is via someone’s twitter feed, who may or may not have been at the hearing.

Let’s hope those words are accurate.

So it's not accurate ......or is it??

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 39273
Location: 1066 Country
MR T wrote:
Sussex wrote:
The only confirmation of that comment I can find is via someone’s twitter feed, who may or may not have been at the hearing.

Let’s hope those words are accurate.

So it's not accurate ......or is it??

It's an accurate report of what someone said.

As of yet we don't know if the Human Rights lawyer said it, although someone twittered she did.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cabby John 1 and 25 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