Taxi Driver Online

Just listening to a discussion on this on the Jeremy Vine Show, it seems Uber are cherry-picking which bits of the ruling to accept, saying that drivers are only "working" when they have a passenger on board. That is not what the judgement said.

In my view VAT will have to be charged to the passenger at 20% on every journey, so yes, fares will have to rise. Uber won't have to pay the tax, the passenger will. Uber are just acting as the collector of taxes on behalf of HMRC as indeed is every other VAT registered business in the country. They may actually find the amount they pay to HMRC may reduce as they reclaim VAT on their purchases.

I suppose some of the spin-off benefits will be less Uber cars on the roads. whenever I drive in London I see loads of PCO cars around, few of which set to know where they're going as they all rely on satnav to get anywhere, and a lack of black cabs. At least with black cabs when I'm bus driving I KNOW they are likely to do a U turn in front of my bus and allow for it. with the PCO car, there's no knowing what they're doing or where they're going.

Maybe it'll give the back cab trade a boost with less uber cars on the road and if the fares go up by 20% to include VAT on the whole fare they may lose the advantage of lower prices. I can't see the shareholders of Uber stomaching a 20% fall in their income.

Quite why drivers should want to work for such a pittance is beyond me. To have to work 3 days just to pay for the rent for the car doesn't seem right, but then someone I know told me that a few years ago when he worked for Addison Lee. But then he got the better paying jobs with them but still had to work long hours 6 days a week to earn what he called good Money. In fact he used to earn more driving night buses 4 nights a week and only had to give that up after his wife had a stroke.

Didn't listen to it as I can't stand the fella. I actually like Uber more than Jeremy Vine.

However the judgement was quite clear, when logged on, in an area you can take work from, you are working.

Uber might think otherwise, but I suspect the unions would get an easy win at every employment tribunal.

_________________
IDFIMH

Everyone, even Uber I suspect, expects Uber will have to pay VAT on 100% of the fare. It just needs HMRC to get their act together.

_________________
IDFIMH

My thinking of this if taken as fact means enforcement for plying for hire when a vehicle is logged on, outside an area where it can take work from, must be a criminal offence.
Councils must get their act together and carry out enforcement 24/7 otherwise they are failing in their duties to protect the general public.

Be careful what you wish for. If you do a single journey to the airport, have your radio or whatever turned on or logged in and base offers you a fare back from the airport, are you plying for hire? Surely plying for hire means hanging around waiting for a punter like a lot of ph do, in London where they group round certain cafes where they can park easily and await a call from base. but then the same could be said for the airport if you can afford to park there.

We all do, that's the PH profession.

Not sure what else we could do.

_________________
IDFIMH

You can only be prosecuted for plying on, or adjacent to, public land.

Not in an airport car park.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not sure I agree with the understanding of plying for hire in the above discussion, which makes it sound like that's what PHVs do, and it's only illegal under certain circumstances.

But isn't it the case that PHVs can never legally ply for hire (which is what HCs do), but can be deemed plying for hire under certain circumstances, thus acting illegally?

Maybe PHVs could be considered to be plying for trade, which is a less strict definition, and simply means looking for business.

So maybe the word 'plying' is causing some confusion, but I'm pretty sure PHVs can never legally ply for hire.

The law is basically only a hackney can ply on a public road, or in near sight of that public road.

So a PH in a car park can't get prosecuted for an offence that doesn't exist.

However a PH picking up without a booking is uninsured no matter where they pick up from.

_________________
IDFIMH

Indeed, but earlier discussion made it sound like PHVs could 'ply for hire' in some circumstances, but not others. My point was that a PHV can *never* ply for hire.

Maybe it just seems like a semantic point, but given the importance of the plying for hire question I think it's important semantics.



Roy's point was in response to Heathcote:

How many times do I hear this. The vehicle is still insured for 3rd party liabilities.

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart

To be fair, it's usually Sussex making the point you're now making

Ok then a PHD.

_________________
IDFIMH

Nothing in the article below will be a surprise to folks on here, but it shows that even in London the roads aren't lined with gold.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/zone-1-n ... k-20257520

_________________
IDFIMH