Taxi Driver Online

Another one found on TaxiPoint.

It's just a Tweet posted by the United Private Hire Drivers union about an apparently 'huge' announcement they're due to make tomorrow with regard to TfL's responsibility towards the protection of workers' rights.

https://twitter.com/United_PHD/status/1 ... 4259166209



Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

In a similar vein, anyone have any news about the class action the London HC trade were to be taking against TfL with regard to claiming damagers for the latter's failure to regulate Uber?

Was personally very cynical about their chances of success at the time, but was awaiting the precedent so that I could then instruct my own lawyers in relation to my council

I think the 'workers rights case' is before the Supreme Court early 2019.

Think the 'vat case' is a similar timescale.

Not sure about the others.

_________________
IDFIMH

they are obviously desperate for a bit of publicity

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

Maybe, but they are going to look right daft is their huge announcement is a damp squib.

_________________
IDFIMH

The old saying is still true,all publicity is good publicity.

The employment status thing? (Early in 2020, I assume you meant)

That's the funny thing - I would have assumed that that's the biggie as far as the UPHD's workers' rights thing is concerned.

Of course, their tweet seems to suggest they've found some sort of legal angle against TfL in that regard, but I have my doubts. Don't really think workers' rights are within the regulator's remit, somehow.

But if the UPHD have found some sort of smoking gun, then like the London HC's class action it would open up a huge can of worms right across the country.

Which is why I suspect that in reality it's a non-starter.

I still think this lot need to be careful what they wish for because they're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The way Uber operate is the same way drivers work for PH fims up and down the country, do we really see those firms with 300+ self employed drivers taking them all on the books?

Yes,why not?

swiftly followed by mass bankruptcies The whole system is based on the drivers taking the financial risks so the owners can have too many cars on their books.

PAYE would only work with a smaller number of drivers on the books and 100 percent honesty with the drivers not dipping into the takings

to move from the current model to one where there is VAT on the whole takings and the takings have to cover all wages, plus national insurance employers surcharge, pensions,insurance, expenses etc. would be a disaster for many firms as fares would have to go up considerably to make it pay

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

Followed by a whole bunch of [edited by admin] off punters and councils because there aren't enough cars available on a Saturday night to get all of the drunks home.

_________________
IDFIMH

Taxipoint website have a little bit more info.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/top-q ... conditions

I've always held the view that being a 'fit and proper' operator does include indirect stuff like how you treat your employees and adherence to laws other than licensing laws.

I wish the UPHD well with their legal challenges.

_________________
IDFIMH

Haven't had time to read any of this, but this is the piece on the UPHD's website, and the link below is to the legal opinion - it's quite long

http://www.uphd.org/top-qc-representing ... his-month/

http://www.uphd.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... rights.pdf

Might have to look at that in the morning.

_________________
IDFIMH

Kind of see what you mean here, but in this case that would require TfL to decide the law in relation to employment status rather than the courts and HMRC.

I mean, it's disputed law, currently being appealed through the courts. It's not as if the process has been concluded and Uber have failed to adhere to the law, or whatever.

And if TfL decided not to renew Uber's licence before the employment status thing was concluded, then they would in effect be deciding the employment status question instead of the relevant courts?

And if TfL made such a decision then what would that say about HMRC's historic role in all of this?

In essence, I just can't see Uber's actions as amounting to a sufficiently flagrant breach of the law for TfL to decide its fit and proper status on.

If they'd not complied with HMRC on the issue, and continued to do so in breach of enforcement or court action/order, or whatever, then I could see where this legal opinion is coming from.

And even that's ignoring the can of worms it would open throughout the country, on a multitude of other issues on top of the employment status thing.

But as things stand I just can't see much mileage in this, just like the London HC class action thing