Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Sat Dec 04, 2021 3:42 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2021 9:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 49130
Location: 1066 Country
App Drivers & Couriers Union accused Uber of trying to undermine a landmark ruling on workers’ rights

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article ... ers-rights

THE App Drivers & Couriers Union (ADCU) accused Uber of trying to undermine a landmark ruling on workers’ rights and avoid a £5 billion VAT bill in the High Court today.

The union acted as a defendant against the app-based private taxi giant’s bid to overturn previous rulings by securing a “statement of declaratory relief” that its contract model is not in violation of Transport for London (TfL) regulations.

Uber launched its latest action after comments made by Lord Leggatt during a historic Supreme Court ruling in February that dealt a major blow to exploitative gig economy bosses when six justices found the firm’s drivers should be classed as workers with access to the minimum wage and paid holidays.

The dispute concerns Uber’s business model, whereby drivers and passengers contract directly together while the firm purports only to be a booking agent.

ADCU charges that this system was designed to help the firm avoid its employment and VAT obligations by misclassifying itself as a tech firm rather than a licensed TfL transport operator.

During February’s ruling, Lord Leggatt questioned whether this could be against the law, so Uber is now seeking clarification that such an arrangement is legal.

The ADCU is asking the court to make the opposite declaration so that passengers must contract directly with the company rather than drivers.

Its president Yaseen Aslam said: “Uber told the world [in February] it had turned over a new leaf, but this case proves that, despite the PR hype, Uber is still unwilling and unable to change its ways.”

In a statement, the firm claimed it was committed to the changes mandated by the Supreme Court and that its latest court action is merely “seeking to clarify a different and narrow point of law.”

A ruling is expected at a later date.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2021 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 49130
Location: 1066 Country
A little bit more info from TaxiPoint website.

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/who-a ... high-court

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 16399
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
I wouldn't be surprised if uber isn't making a lot of effort in the background to ensure they get the right result after all a hefty vat bill won't help them massage their figures

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 49130
Location: 1066 Country
Does anyone think a High Court judge is going to say a Supreme Court judge got it wrong?

[-(

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:27 pm
Posts: 18968
Sussex wrote:
Does anyone think a High Court judge is going to say a Supreme Court judge got it wrong?

[-(
I doubt it but are they asking for it to be overruled or just clarification of what the judgement means they can do. I doubt that the high court would issue clarification anyway. Isn't it usual for you to make your own mind up as to what a judgement means and then if the courts think you have got it wrong they will get some more work.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 16399
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
of course if the government had overhauled the taxi laws instead of burying the proposals much of this would be unnecessary :roll:

_________________
Taxis Are Public Transport too

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 49130
Location: 1066 Country
The reason this is/has been discussed at the High Court is that the Supreme Court didn't really go into the legalities of Uber's London operation, thus all sides didn't get the chance to put detailed legal arguments on the issue.

For Uber it's a lose-lose situation. They are either acting outside of licensing laws, or they get a huge VAT bill.

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 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