Taxi Driver Online

Surely Uber should be paying VAT already on the 25% they take from drivers?

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Indeed.

However in my view they should be paying VAT on 100% of the money they take from punters.

_________________
IDFIMH

The contract is with Uber not the driver

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

I wouldn't read anything into the judgement as regards the cross-border thing.

Elsewhere in the judgement it says:



So by 'territory' I think they're referring to Uber's territories, ie it's geozones, or whatever, and nothing to do with the licensing aspect.

And, of course, the 'territory' covered by a private hire licence isn't confined to the relevant council area.

but are they paying UK VAT or Dutch VAT ?

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

Join the campaign to get April fools jokes banned for 364 days a year !

The VAT will be UK VAT.

_________________
IDFIMH

SUSSEX THE EORY SCUM ARE ALREADY PLANNING MAJOR ASSAULTS ON WORKERS RIGHTS BO JO CANT WAIT

_________________
All posts by this contributor are made in a strictly personal capacity

I AM PROUD TO BE A CITIZEN NOBODY'S SUBJECT http://www.republic.org.u

F88K EM ALL WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND

BOOZE BOOZE BOOZE

Having read the full text it's clear to me that the Justices found their judgement to be quite an easy one to make.

Apart from one bit, in my opinion.

I do sense they had issues with the final part of the judgement, the bit concerning when a driver can claim for the minimum wage i.e. when exactly are drivers working for the operator. If they also do work for other operators.

135. The point that - like the majority of the Court of Appeal and Judge Eady QC in the Employment Appeal Tribunal - I have found more difficult is whether a driver logged onto the Uber app in the area in which he is licensed to work can be said to be “working, at his employer’s disposal and carrying out his activity or duties” if during such times the driver is equally ready and willing to accept a trip request received from another PHV operator. It was argued with force by counsel for Uber that a driver cannot reasonably be said to be working for and at the disposal of Uber London if, while logged onto the Uber app, he is also at the same time logged onto another app provided by a competitor of Uber which operates a similar service.

136. I have concluded that this question cannot be answered in the abstract. I agree with Judge Eady QC when she said in her judgment dismissing Uber’s appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (at para 126) that it is a matter of fact and degree. Like the majority of the Court of Appeal, I also agree with her that:

“If the reality is that Uber’s market share in London is such that its drivers are, in practical terms, unable to hold themselves out as available to any other PHV operator, then, as a matter of fact, [when they have the Uber app switched on] they are working at [Uber London’s] disposal as part of the pool of drivers it requires to be available within the territory at any one time. … if, however, it is genuinely the case that drivers are able to also hold themselves out as at the disposal of other PHV operators when waiting for a trip, the same analysis would not apply"

What 135 and 136 do on one hand make it easier for drivers to make a claim, but if the operator wants to contest the claim then it will have to be decided by an Employment Tribunal.

_________________
IDFIMH

And the moon is made out of cheese.

So called Uber driver objects to gaining 'worker' status.

_________________
IDFIMH

based on the judgement that seems to say that UBER drivers will only be entitled to minimum wage whilst they are exclusively available to UBER then it seems to me that those drivers would choose to only be on the one platform and not multi platforms.

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

Possibly, but I take the view that an Employment Tribunal could make a decision based on fact that a drivers works 70% for one operator and 30% for another.

That could be based on print outs from the operators and tax returns.

_________________
IDFIMH

But what I am saying is that until all businesses have been forced to pay minimum wage that if UBER are going to be paying minimum wage then as a driver I would only log on to UBER and be guaranteed to get the minimum wage instead of getting 70% of my time at minimum wage and 30% as a lucky dip. There will always be operators who don't play ball and there will always be drivers who don't want to be "on the books". I can think of a couple of them round here, they business owner owns say 2 cars and has a self employed driver earning peanuts but claiming benefits and declaring nothing. Now I can't see the owner registering as an employer and I doubt that the driver would want to be "on the books" and visible to the authorities.

_________________
Grandad,
To support my charity text MAYORWALK to 70085 to donate £5

I think you're right - a 'question of fact and degree' is just legal-speak for judging each case on its merits, or treating each scenario on its individual facts, or whatever. You could call it a cop-out by the courts, or that it's reasonable for them to leave individual cases to individual circumstances.

But not sure I really understand this from Judge Eady QC in the Employment Tribunal, which the Supreme Court agreed with:


Not sure if the stuff about 'market share' and the like is really relevant, and just confuses things.

I think all she's actually saying is that if a driver is using Uber exclusively then that's different to if a driver is using Uber and other apps, or working for other firms. But the courts haven't said *how* it would differ, just that it *would* be different, but how it would be different would depend on each individual case.

Which of course in turn is why it's all potentially so messy, particularly when you consider the trade as a whole, and the thousands of different firms

On the other hand, I don't necessarily think all the thousands of firms are as different as the court may think they are, but of course that's not how the legal system works, and for individual drivers it would entail making a claim and the individual firm being assessed. Which, of course, won't automatically happen, which is why the jury's out on whether and to what extent it will impact the wider trade.

Which in turn also relates to Grandad's point and individual drivers and individual firms. Drivers may work for and claim from apps or firms they think are the best bet, depending on the circumstances.

On the other hand, and at the other extreme, drivers are unlikely to claim if they think they're risking a kneecapping

Can't see me reading the whole lot

I find Ctrl-F very hand for documents like this, though

What she was saying is that in 2016 when this all started Uber had a virtual monopoly over app booking work, thus drivers could claim with justification that the min wage was all down to Uber to cover.

_________________
IDFIMH