Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Uber -v- Brighton
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33589		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:40 am ]
Post subject:  Uber -v- Brighton
Mr Colvin in currently telling the court that Uber are a safe and most upstanding company, that find it most unfair that the council won’t renew their ops license.

He also mentioned a number of times Uber’s drivers or our drivers. And there was me thinking Uber had no drivers.
Author:  heathcote [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Sussex wrote:
Mr Colvin in currently telling the court that Uber are a safe and most upstanding company, that find it most unfair that the council won’t renew their ops license.

He also mentioned a number of times Uber’s drivers or our drivers. And there was me thinking Uber had no drivers.


Your not alone with that train of thought.
Not only Uber cannot tell the truth but it would appear Mr. Colvin falls into that category.
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Not sure this will matter but this fine does come at an interesting time.

https://news.sky.com/story/uber-fined-3 ... s-11564880
Author:  Nidge2 [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Sussex wrote:
Mr Colvin in currently telling the court that Uber are a safe and most upstanding company, that find it most unfair that the council won’t renew their ops license.

He also mentioned a number of times Uber’s drivers or our drivers. And there was me thinking Uber had no drivers.


Are they using out of town drivers?
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Nidge2 wrote:
Are they using out of town drivers?

In court Uber said they have 96 B&H vehicles/drivers, and 117 Lewes vehicles/drivers.

Add the numerous Chichester, Havant and Fareham vehicles, it seems that less than a third of all the cars working the Uber App in B&H are licensed by B&H. :sad: :sad: :sad:
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Nov 27, 2018 7:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
And if anyone would like a recommendation as to which licensing Barrister they should avoid, should they require the services of one, I can say I know one that I would avoid like the f***ing plague.

:sad:
Author:  heathcote [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Wonder why it will take until December 11 for the decision to be announced in regard to this appeal.
Author:  Sussex [ Thu Nov 29, 2018 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
heathcote wrote:
Wonder why it will take until December 11 for the decision to be announced in regard to this appeal.

Lots of legal argument and case law that needs to be read and re-read.
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Uber wins court battle with Brighton and Hove City Council

A RIDE-HAILING company has won a court battle against the city council after its licence was revoked.

Brighton and Hove City Council ruled at a meeting in May that Uber was not a “fit and proper entity” to hold a licence. It was concerned the tech-giant was not using Brighton and Hove licensed drivers - something they had previously agreed to.

Concerns were also raised about a 2016 data breach which put user’s information at risk. Uber then launched an appeal and it was announced today (December 11) that it had won.

Chairwoman of the licensing panel Councillor Jackie O’Quinn said: “We’re very disappointed in the court ruling against our decision not to renew Uber’s private hire operator licence. “When making licensing decisions, our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and that’s why we set a high level of conditions.”

All Brighton and Hove licensed drivers in the city have to abide by the rules and regulations set out in the “Blue Book”. These regulations, which are some of the most stringent in the country, include CCTV and disability awareness training. Uber has been using drivers licensed in other areas, and as such, they do not meet the same guidelines.

Cllr O’Quinn added: “Part of our decision not to renew was because we didn’t feel UBL had kept to the spirit of the commitment it made to keep to our standards and only use Brighton & Hove licensed drivers. “UBL’s operating model is a challenge to local licensing conditions and the current licensing regulations, and I feel this needs to be addressed at a national level.”

A spokesman for Uber said: “We are pleased to see the District Judge in Brighton come to the same conclusion as the thirty other councils that have granted or renewed Uber’s licence since September 2017, namely that Uber is a fit and proper operator. “We are proud of the progress we have made and we want to continue to be a partner to the cities we serve.”

At the time the original decision was made, the council said in a statement: “The unanimous decision was taken as the members of the panel were not satisfied that Uber Brittania Limited are a ‘fit and proper person’ to hold an operator’s licence under the terms of Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the council’s licensing objectives.

“The panel considered all circumstances relating to the application and the factors operating in Brighton & Hove. “This included a number of issues raised by those objecting to the application, which they found to carry very little or no evidential weight. “However, the panel did have significant concerns about the company’s data breach and UBL’s lack of commitment to use only Brighton and Hove licensed drivers in the city. These formed the basis of the decision to not renew the licence.”

At the time, Cllr O’Quinn said: “When making Hackney Carriage and Private Hire operator licensing decisions, our priority is the safety of residents and visitors and, due to the data breach and the lack of commitment to using drivers licensed here, we were not satisfied that UBL are a fit and proper person to hold an operator’s licence in the city.

“All Brighton and Hove private hire and Hackney Carriage drivers in the city operate under the same licences and guidelines contained in the Blue Book and undergo the same background checks, whichever company they drive for.”
Author:  edders23 [ Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
bet your over the moon with that result M
Author:  Sussex [ Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
edders23 wrote:
bet your over the moon with that result M

Not surprised, but when the local trade have done all they can, and local councillors have done all they can, TBH it's not worth getting the hump over.

Other than the p*** poor legal representation that I have alluded to before.

However I'm quite confident the Tory government will address the cross border issue (once Brexit isn't taking over everything), and absolutely certain a Labour government will.
Author:  edders23 [ Tue Dec 11, 2018 5:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Sussex wrote:
edders23 wrote:
bet your over the moon with that result M

Not surprised, but when the local trade have done all they can, and local councillors have done all they can, TBH it's not worth getting the hump over.

Other than the p*** poor legal representation that I have alluded to before.

However I'm quite confident the Tory government will address the cross border issue (once Brexit isn't taking over everything), and absolutely certain a Labour government will.



it depends who offers the biggest DONATION :wink:
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
For those interested here is the DJ's (Magistrates Court) decision.

https://cornerstonebarristers.com/cmsAd ... gement.pdf
Author:  Sussex [ Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
Summary written by Mr Kolvin

Cross-border hiring: appeal judgment

12.12.2018

Uber Britannia Limited has won an appeal against a refusal of their operator's licence in Brighton. The decision of District Judge Szagun contains analysis on the question of cross-border hiring, as well as principles regarding the scope of licensing authorities' powers to impose licence conditions.

Brighton and Hove City Council ("BHCC") had refused to renew Uber's operator's licence on the main ground that Uber permitted drivers using its App to drive in Brighton while being licensed elsewhere. It considered that this eroded local control and so Uber was not fit to hold the licence.

On appeal BHCC additionally stated that it would be content with a condition preventing Uber allowing drivers to come into Brighton from certain other authority areas.

In a lengthy judgment, District Judge Szagun rejected the contention that Uber's conduct was relevant to its fitness and propriety as an operator. She said:

"The case law on the question of fit and properness is unequivocal. The test relates to the personal characteristics and qualifications reasonably required of a person doing whatever it is that the applicant seeks permission to do. The recent decision in Delta Merseyside Ltd and UBL v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 2018 is on a very similar point and clearly rejects the argument that previous authorities justify a proposition that a policy restricting statutory rights is lawful. It follows that a refusal on the basis of the argument put forward by BHCC that UBL are fit and proper as long as they agree to a condition restricting their right to roam but otherwise are not is, therefore, clearly not lawful."

Having heard extended argument on the use of conditions in licensing cases, the District Judge also rejected the contention that she should impose a condition restricting cross-bordering. She said:

"The law is equally clear in respect of the exercise of discretion in attaching conditions to licences. Stewart v Perth and Kinross DC 2004 in which it was held to be unlawful to impose conditions on a car dealer to regulate the terms of their trade: [...] discretion is not unlimited. The authority is not at liberty to use it for an ulterior object, however desirable that object may seem to be in the public interest".

The District Judge also considered the wider question of Uber's fitness and propriety on the facts. She stated:

"For the avoidance of any doubt, on the facts and evidence in this case, I am satisfied that UBL have taken a responsible and collaborative approach in meeting the concerns around localism and difficulties presented by the nature and size of their operation.

I found Mr Jones' evidence to be measured and reflective. The information provided demonstrated a responsible attitude towards the safety of all users of the service as well as an attitude of proactive and positive engagement and responsiveness to real concerns posed by BHCC."

As a result, District Judge Szagun granted the licence for the full five-year term. There were agreed conditions to resolve another issue, regarding a data breach in 2016. BHCC and Uber agreed on a partial contribution to Uber's costs.

Philip Kolvin QC, who is Head of Chambers at Cornerstone Barristers, acted for Uber Britannia Limited, instructed by Charles Brasted, Head of Public Law and Policy at Hogan Lovells International LLP.
Author:  edders23 [ Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Uber -v- Brighton
The recent decision in Delta Merseyside Ltd and UBL v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council 2018 is on a very similar point and clearly rejects the argument that previous authorities justify a proposition that a policy restricting statutory rights is lawful. It follows that a refusal on the basis of the argument put forward by BHCC that UBL are fit and proper as long as they agree to a condition restricting their right to roam but otherwise are not is, therefore, clearly not lawful."

so BHCC hadn't got a cat in hulls chance of winning what a lovely waste of rate payers money.

I think Uber are fast becoming the favourite of the legal industry as they are probably the biggest clients in the UK in terms of spending
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/