Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Mar 04, 2021 4:21 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 37016
Location: Wayneistan
edders23 wrote:
trotskys twin wrote:
Rest Assured the Tory Government are already considering changes to legislation that will enable Uber to carry on as normal.....................no doubt supported by that c88t Starmer :evil:



I read it as changes to VAT rules so that they can clobber Uber et al for VAT

I think this crisis has made the penny drop that the Gig economy is becoming a massive tax avoidance scheme and that is not going to pay for the NHS, Teachers and Military! VAT on all of the gig economy would improve the tax take considerably

I may be wrong but since Cameron and Osborne left the government Uber does NOT have so many friends in high places


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Surely Uber should be paying VAT already on the 25% they take from drivers?

Indeed.

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

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:25 pm
Posts: 37016
Location: Wayneistan
Sussex wrote:
Indeed.

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


The contract is with Uber not the driver :shock:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
cheshirebest wrote:
Sussex, does it actually state that in the judgement ?....That If driver is logged on in his licensing area with or without a punter he qualifies for the minimum wage.
What if the driver is working across borders like most of them do ?

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

Elsewhere in the judgement it says:

The Supreme Court wrote:
Drivers can also choose where within the territory covered by their private hire vehicle licence they make themselves available for work.

The Supreme Court wrote:
As mentioned earlier, the employment tribunal found that a driver was “working” under such a contract during any period when he (a) had the Uber app switched on, (b) was within the territory in which he was authorised to use the app, Page 38 and (c) was ready and willing to accept trips.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 15223
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
captain cab wrote:
edders23 wrote:
trotskys twin wrote:
Rest Assured the Tory Government are already considering changes to legislation that will enable Uber to carry on as normal.....................no doubt supported by that c88t Starmer :evil:



I read it as changes to VAT rules so that they can clobber Uber et al for VAT

I think this crisis has made the penny drop that the Gig economy is becoming a massive tax avoidance scheme and that is not going to pay for the NHS, Teachers and Military! VAT on all of the gig economy would improve the tax take considerably

I may be wrong but since Cameron and Osborne left the government Uber does NOT have so many friends in high places


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



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 !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
but are they paying UK VAT or Dutch VAT ?

The VAT will be UK VAT.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:34 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 6758
Sussex wrote:
captain cab wrote:
Sussex wrote:
In the US, California voters passed a measure called Proposition 22 that will see freelance workers continue to be classified as independent contractors in November, overturning a landmark labour law passed in 2019.


The public voted for cheaper fares rather than better driver conditions and rights :sad:

Thankfully we don't have such a rule as Prop 22 in this country, and the only people who can change the Supreme Court's view is the UK government, and that's not going to happen.

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

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
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. :shock:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
And the moon is made out of cheese.

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

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:18 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 18607
Sussex wrote:
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. :shock:

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.

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,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:41 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 18607
Sussex wrote:
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.

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,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
Sussex wrote:
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.

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:

Judge Eady QC wrote:
“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"

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 :-o

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 8-[


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
After an exhausting weekend, Sussex wrote:
Having read the full text...

Can't see me reading the whole lot :-o

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
Not sure if the stuff about 'market share' and the like is really relevant, and just confuses things.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 53 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