Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Mar 04, 2021 3:33 pm

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
grandad wrote:
So if a customer books me to take them to a hotel in York on a Friday and to bring them back on the Sunday, can I do that?
Indeed, that's the crux of the question.

Suspect North Yorks Police would have to concede that that's allowed because it's not a local job.

But how would they then reconcile that with their interpretation of the Misc Pro Act?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:56 pm
Posts: 2161
grandad wrote:
So if a customer books me to take them to a hotel in York on a Friday and to bring them back on the Sunday, can I do that?



Yes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:27 pm
Posts: 18607
heathcote wrote:
grandad wrote:
So if a customer books me to take them to a hotel in York on a Friday and to bring them back on the Sunday, can I do that?



Yes

I know the answer is yes but do the York police?

_________________
Grandad,
old fart with no heart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:45 am
Posts: 9945
Location: Maldon, Essex.
grandad wrote:
Nidge2 wrote:


When we were in York a few years ago it was full of Uber from out of town. Me being me I went to the local Taxi Rank for a cab back to the hotel.

Don't tell me, you had to walk past the hotel to get to the rank but it was the principle.



I was drunk #-o #-o #-o #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:47 pm
Posts: 15223
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
grandad wrote:
heathcote wrote:
grandad wrote:
So if a customer books me to take them to a hotel in York on a Friday and to bring them back on the Sunday, can I do that?



Yes

I know the answer is yes but do the York police?



I think the police response is to the 1976 act without taking into account other legislation


SO Yorks police vs Uber for the next court case anyone ?

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
Oh, well, this is interesting, and it seems it's all been a waste of time. Which was kind of what I was thinking last night - if you read the actual quote from North Yorks Police, it's the kind of 'comms' spiel that doesn't actually directly address the point in hand, and maybe just tries to deflect attention from whatever's in issue:

Quote:
A North Yorkshire Police spokesman said: “North Yorkshire Police is working with City of York Council on this matter, as taxi licensing and licensing enforcement sits with local authorities rather than the police.

“As part of our work to support City of York Council and our local communities, our officers will engage with Uber drivers if they are seen in the city. Any breaches will then be dealt with appropriately.”

Anyway, by some happy coincidence it seems York's licensing commitee met last night (online, obviously), and the issue was discussed. And the outcome, basically, is that nothing's changed.

But, in summary, the licensing manager confirms the existing position, and basically says the police view has been misreported. So whether Wendy Loveday has maybe gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, or maybe police have realised their own legal advice is totally at odds with the council's, and have U-turned and are basically trying to cover their tracks, isn't clear.

The licensing manager says that police have stated that it's up to the council to enforce these things, but the council simply thinks there's nothing to enforce.

And apparently police are going to write things down and get in touch with Wendy Loveday to clarify things :idea:

But otherwise, in essence, the licensing manager says police will engage with Uber drivers, and if they're working then it's fine, but if they're just hanging about then they'll send them home under the Covid regulations :lol:

Um, I doubt they'll be hanging around for the fun of it, so if they are hanging around they'll be waiting for work, so essentially it looks like police will be doing nothing.

Or, at most, will be doing what Merseyside Police were doing, which looked distinctly dodgy to me [-(

Anyway, there's a link to the council meeting on YouTube below. I've linked it to where Wendy Loveday starts to speak to save you sitting through the minutes etc :roll:

Wendy Loveday speaks for around three minutes, then basically the licensing manager says in effect nothing has changed.

The trade stuff ends at about 19.00 minutes, but before that there's a question about the York Cars appeal, and apparently the preliminary hearing takes place next month.

So all in all the trade stuff goes on for about a quarter of an hour, but part of that is problems like the licensing chair being on mute while he's talking, the licensing manager's voice distorting so much he has to repeat it all, and half way through all this someone asks how precisely they approve the minutes during an online meeting :-s

And one councillor suggest an emergeny meeting on Monday to discuss it all, and the 'democracy officer' is summoned from nowhere to say that there's not enough time to publish the agenda etc ](*,)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=330&v=Z ... e=youtu.be

If you've heard Wendy Loveday on the radio then maybe just as well jumping in at the point below, because in essence she just says the same to the licensing committee, but I think it's a bit easier to work out what she's saying on the radio version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=540&v=Z ... e=youtu.be


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
heathcote wrote:
Sussex wrote:
Quote:
Making themselves available for hire as they have to be logged onto the app, otherwise they would get no work, simple explanation of what is wrong with the Chief Magistrates decision which the Supreme Court has corrected in their findings.

Just because you have said that twice doesn't mean it has any resemblance of truth.


Have a look at the last paragraph of the case summary.

Well I've put it up here.

When are the drivers “working” for Uber?

The Supreme Court also holds that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that time spent by the claimants working for Uber was not limited (as Uber argued) to periods when they were actually driving passengers to their destinations, but included any period when the driver was logged into the Uber app within the territory in which the driver was licensed to operate and was ready and willing to accept trips.


What the Justices are saying is Uber drivers are entitled to 'worker' status when they are logged on in their licensing area.

What the Justices are not saying is they shouldn't ever work elsewhere, else they would have said that. Having first been addressed by counsel on that matter.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 6:30 pm
Posts: 47216
Location: 1066 Country
However looking at the article in Wired, and reflecting on parts of the judgement, maybe Uber are acting outside of the London Act according to the Justices.

This paragraph in Wired summarises the situation.

The Supreme Court judges were not convinced that Uber’s business model complies with the laws that govern private hire bookings in London. In the judgment, they argued that the only way that Uber could comply with the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 was to also provide the actual transportation and that providing it through a platform, as Uber does, would be illegal.

I wonder if the London trade and TfL will dig a little deeper. :-$

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
Sussex wrote:
However looking at the article in Wired, and reflecting on parts of the judgement, maybe Uber are acting outside of the London Act according to the Justices.

Not sure if Wire has maybe gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Had a quick look last night, and noticed this in particular:

Superme Court wrote:
49. It is unnecessary, however, to express any concluded view on whether an agency model of operation would be compatible with the PHV licensing regime because there appears to be no factual basis for Uber’s contention that Uber London acts as an agent for drivers when accepting private hire bookings.

I'm thinking maybe Uber was using the contractual situation (all that principal/agent stuff etc from contract law) to argue its case, but the court said if Uber was correct then that wouldn't comply with the London legislation, but Uber was incorrect so the point about the legislation isn't really an issue?

Either way, isn't this just as relevant to mainstream minicab operators, or in fact maybe it's relevant to them now and not to Uber? :shock:

But the judgement is heavy going, and really needs to be read as a whole to even begin to formulate an opinion on it. But maybe that's why I never read 40-page court judgements :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2021 2:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 7082
Not sure if there's been any clarification from North Yorks Police yet, but did anyone notice the comments below the YouTube video from Wendy Loveday of the York PHA?

Looks like she's not best pleased with the council, and its licensing manager in particular. When someone suggested she'd misinterpreted what the police superintendent had said to her, she replied:

Wendy Loveday, York PHA wrote:
Why would you assume that I was the one that misinterpreted my meetings with the Superintendent?

Why not assume Mr Boxall misinterpreted his meeting with the Superintendent?

Why not assume that Mr Boxall said all that purposely to discredit me?

Mr Boxall mentions Covid in his ramblings after my speech. The Superintendent and I dismissed Covid regulations with regards to Uber within the first 15 minutes of our first meeting, and never spoke of them again.

David Dunning reported this accurately and if you check his report it has not been altered. That means that he has not been asked to retract any of it by the police, which is a sure sign that what he has reported is factually accurate.

You could always just talk to me rather than assume that I’m the one in the wrong.

And you are absolutely right. It’s not going to reflect well on someone, but I can guarantee you that that someone will NOT be me.


Wendy Loveday, York PHA wrote:
We have approached this in a million different ways. I have learnt over the years to approach York Council with kindness and honesty. I do the same with Uber drivers. I try to talk them in to getting a York badge and work for a York company. They don’t need to work for a company that pays no regards to its drivers, nor cares for public safety.

However this latest instalment actually started out as a query to the Chief Constable on allowing Uber into York during Tier Restrictions when we were in a lower tier.

I did not expect the Police to seek their own legal opinion on Uber in York. That was not my intention.

But they did and it was reported to me by the Superintendent that their Barrister found that under section 46 of the ‘76 Act that Uber (in her words) “technically are committing an offence” and she then explained what the Police would do which is approach Uber drivers, explains the law and ask them to leave York. Before I went to YorkMix we discussed what could be said, and I followed her guidance.

My intention was not to get into a big fight with Mr Boxall, nor be discredited by him in such a manner that even you as an analyst believed that I was reporting fake news due to Mr Boxall’s words at that meeting. I found that whole situation unnecessarily nasty. There are politer ways of being.

I believe that in general Mr Boxall and I have found a way to accommodate each other and work positively for the trade and for the Council.

But I wasn’t going to be told what the Superintendent told me and not even make at least one attempt to see if the Police’s legal opinion held any water with York Council.

This is all taking up far too much of my time and energy to be fair, so if you want to talk further on it, please feel free to contact me on messenger and I’ll be happy to discuss rather than type.


Of course, it may be that North Yorks Police *did* tell Wendy Loveday that they considered Uber to be operating illegally, but subsequently changed their mind, maybe when they found out that York City Council's own legal advice was the complete opposite.

So maybe North Yorks Police have U-turned, but of course acknowledging that sort of thing can be awkward and embarassing from a PR/comms perspective, so instead they say nothing, and pretend nothing's happened, and hope no one will notice. But this makes Wendy Loveday look a bit silly, not necessarily through any fault of her own, and everyone's a bit confused and at loggerheads. And, obviously, there's the Covid dimension just to confuse things further.

But a 'reverse ferret', I think they call it in the press - "...a phrase used predominantly within the British media to describe a sudden reversal in an organisation's editorial or political line on a certain issue. Generally, this will involve no acknowledgement of the previous position."

(If anyone's interested, click on the blue text for the full Wikipedia article on the origins of the phrase.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 1 hour [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 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